Harry Lime
Practitioner
I think one of the biggest problems is that Leica probably has an archaic production pipeline that is very inefficient. They should be able to modernize their production methods without cutting into the quality of their products.
I also suspect that as sales have declined, prices have been increased beyond the rate of inflation etc. to prop up profit margins (yet they still are in the red).
My big worry is that the M8 will be a financial success for them and everyone will say: "Problems? What problems? We just made a ton of cash! Everything is just ducky!" and none of these issues will be addressed.
They need to be more effcient and tier their products. And get off the 4/3rds bandwagon, which in many people's opinion is a dead end. It's got the DOF of a digital Elph and the sensor is so small that as the megapixel count rises, they will never be able to control the noise. Leica should have gone with APS (x1.5) for their entry level cameras.
I also suspect that as sales have declined, prices have been increased beyond the rate of inflation etc. to prop up profit margins (yet they still are in the red).
My big worry is that the M8 will be a financial success for them and everyone will say: "Problems? What problems? We just made a ton of cash! Everything is just ducky!" and none of these issues will be addressed.
They need to be more effcient and tier their products. And get off the 4/3rds bandwagon, which in many people's opinion is a dead end. It's got the DOF of a digital Elph and the sensor is so small that as the megapixel count rises, they will never be able to control the noise. Leica should have gone with APS (x1.5) for their entry level cameras.
Last edited:
newyorkone
Established
Harry Lime said:
I really hope Leica sticks around and perhaps they need to change how they do things to accomplish that but I can't help feeling that perhaps that's an irreconcilable contradiction.
Attention to detail and hand made are inherently slow processes. If Leica changes how they manufacture then will they still really be Leica or will they end being like a Japanese manufacturer that has retained a legacy German name plate.
I do agree about 4/3 though. DEAD END. Small noisy sensors and no DOF. I'm no Physics professor but you don't need to be one to realize that you're already up against some pretty high physical walls from the start. APS would have been better but since they already paid for the development of the 1.33X sensor for the M8, they should have reused that!
Well, at least the M8 appears to be a step in the right direction. However, the future of Leica is still very uncertain.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's the wrong argument. The customer clearly does have a profit from buying $50 no-name made-in-China shoes as opposed to $200 brandname made-in-China shoes. If a company decides to keep windfall profits from cheap labour for themselves, of course the consumer doesn't get to see it.georgl said:
Actually if you want to talk about why Germany is exporting more than any other nation, the camera industry is a very bad example for obvious reasons.georgl said:
Leica mainly cares about survival.georgl said:
I think you're not doing Japanese stuff justice here. You sound a lot like those late-1950s camera engineers sitting on the high horse and deriding their Japanese competition, when in fact the Japanese products were on par with their own qualitywise and in many areas more innovative. The West German camera industry died for a reason.georgl said:
At least in the ZM lineup, only the 15mm and 85mm lenses are made there, the others are made in Japan. I guess if it's good enough for Zeiss, it's good enough for everybody.georgl said:
Oh well, but that's a completely misleading question. I wasn't really making a comparison between the quality of West German vs. East German Zeiss products (even though there were some areas such as telescopes where the East German products actually were superior). In my answer to Jaap, I was stating that there are other places besides Wetzlar and Solms where you have a skilled workforce for high-end optical engineering. This was clearly the case in Jena, where an excellently skilled workforce existed, thanks to the East German education system which was one of the big assets of the GDR. Carl Zeiss Oberkochen realized this and quickly took over their Eastern counterpart to get the staff before someone else did. Building on this skilled workforce, Jena is now again one of the main centres of the German optical industry (and Dresden of the electronics industry). It's not the product that mattered - in general, VEB Carl Zeiss and VEB Robotron products were inferior. It's the heads and hands that mattered.georgl said:
In that context, I think it makes little sense to ask whether the Eastern or Western Zeiss-labeled products were superior, and even less which company was superior, because (a) that was not at all what I was talking about and (b) there is really no metric to compare the "quality" of companies across competely different economic systems.
Philipp
rsh
Member
In the past, I have never had problems with any of the Canadian lenses. The only two I currently own are the 50 Noctilux and the 180 Apo Telyt. That said, Midland was owned by Leitz and under the direction of the Germans. I wish the company still owned the factory.
I too feel 4/3 is a mistake. I do not agree with APS. Kodak /Leica Sensor is better because of lower crop factor. If they produce an R10, it should be full frame. I am less concerned about a full frame M.
I too feel 4/3 is a mistake. I do not agree with APS. Kodak /Leica Sensor is better because of lower crop factor. If they produce an R10, it should be full frame. I am less concerned about a full frame M.
Nemo
Established
The 28/2 ASPH and 28/2.8 ASPH are quite similar.
The 28/2 ASPH is somewhat better al all apertures. The only remarkable difference is the performance at the borders and corners of the 35mm frame. The M8 sensor has a diagonal of about 32mm, so the center to corner distance is 16mm. Therefore, that difference between these lenses will not be noticiable in practice.
The new 28/2.8 ASPH is similar to one of the best M lenses in Leica catalogue: the 28/2 ASPH, perhaps the best lens with the 50/1,4 ASPH. The new Elmarit 28/2,8 ASPH, looking at the MTF graphs, is better than the 35/2 ASPH and 35/1,4 ASPH at the same apertures. These 35mm lenses are twins, and they are the older ASPH lenses:
50/1,4 ASPH (2004) 75/2 ASPH (2005) 28/2,8 ASPH (2006) Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 ASPH (2006)
35/1,4 "aspherical" (1988) 50/2 ASPH (1989) -Study by Peter Karbe- 35/1,4 ASPH (1994) 21/2,8 ASPH (1997) 35/2 ASPH (1997) Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 ASPH (1998) 24/2,8 ASPH (1998) 90/2 ASPH (1998) 28/2 ASPH (2000) Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 ASPH (2000)
50/1 (1976) 50/2 (1979) 75/1,4 (1980)
Therefore the trend is towards smaller and better performer lenses. The next lens to be revised will be the Summicron 50mm, I guess. The actual technology would allow a much better performer Noctilux keeping the same size.
The 28/2 ASPH is somewhat better al all apertures. The only remarkable difference is the performance at the borders and corners of the 35mm frame. The M8 sensor has a diagonal of about 32mm, so the center to corner distance is 16mm. Therefore, that difference between these lenses will not be noticiable in practice.
The new 28/2.8 ASPH is similar to one of the best M lenses in Leica catalogue: the 28/2 ASPH, perhaps the best lens with the 50/1,4 ASPH. The new Elmarit 28/2,8 ASPH, looking at the MTF graphs, is better than the 35/2 ASPH and 35/1,4 ASPH at the same apertures. These 35mm lenses are twins, and they are the older ASPH lenses:
50/1,4 ASPH (2004) 75/2 ASPH (2005) 28/2,8 ASPH (2006) Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 ASPH (2006)
35/1,4 "aspherical" (1988) 50/2 ASPH (1989) -Study by Peter Karbe- 35/1,4 ASPH (1994) 21/2,8 ASPH (1997) 35/2 ASPH (1997) Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 ASPH (1998) 24/2,8 ASPH (1998) 90/2 ASPH (1998) 28/2 ASPH (2000) Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 ASPH (2000)
50/1 (1976) 50/2 (1979) 75/1,4 (1980)
Therefore the trend is towards smaller and better performer lenses. The next lens to be revised will be the Summicron 50mm, I guess. The actual technology would allow a much better performer Noctilux keeping the same size.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Harry Lime said:
Archaic or traditional? Not that clearcut. The are a considerable number of customers that prefer inefficiently made, handbuilt high-end products over massproduced products that my be of sufficient or even good quality as well, but lack the character. Price is not the first consideration of most leica M buyers, heritage is. So should they really drop this uniqueness and start competing with the big molochs of the camera-industry? I fear that would mean a swift demise. I agree with your assesment of the Digilux3 up to a point,certainly if seen as an entry level camera, but on the other hand, there may be a small market as supplementary long focal length and macro camera's to complement the equipment of M8 owners.
georgl
Member
"I think you're not doing Japanese stuff justice here. You sound a lot like those late-1950s camera engineers sitting on the high horse and deriding their Japanese competition, when in fact the Japanese products were on par with their own qualitywise and in many areas more innovative. The West German camera industry died for a reason."
Actually you're right, I'm a technician, a perfectionist, I don't care how much profit I can make, how much I can sell - I want the best possible product!
Engineers are often missunderstood ("sitting on the high horse") - they know better than the customer what's good for the product, what technological solutions are necessary. But the customer (lawyers, dentists...) decide - and there's the problem: they buy what marketing/press/society tells them. They're happy, they got what they wanted, more chrome, smaller lenses, more megapixels, more functions, lower prices... But after years or decades they understand why engineers wanted it differently, they notice that their 10MPixel-camera has a worse quality than the 5MP one, that their TV only holds 5 years, that they can't buy sharp lenses anymore... But then it's too late, there are only different brands left (with the same problems) - that's a huge problem - for technological progress, value for money, jobs...
One Example:
Everybody wanted a save car. That's all that customers knew. Engineers knew one huge step in passive safety: the Airbag. Mercedes-Benz invested hundreds of millions into this thing, you cannot see it under normal circumstances, but you have to pay for it! It's explosive, it can be dangerous. No controller, manager... would have ever developed such a thing. Customers didn't want it. But Mercedes listened to what the engineers said and now everybody knows that an airbag is a good thing, that it save thousands of lives every year - just because of engineers "sitting in the high horse" and not listening to cost-controllers, sell-studies, customers... But in the end it was all for the customer.
But mostly innovation is not about improving the product, it's about selling it. Are japanese camera-makers really that innovative? What's about the lenses, they invented all that stylish names, got a bigger zoom-range - but who actually improved lens-quality itself? The same with other products. A friend of mine worked at Telefunken (he now makes electronic for an american company which is producing in Germany because of quality) he showed me a 70s compact-stereo, years before the japanese "invented" and introduced it with huge marketing campaigns... In 1994 they made a HDTV-TV, customers didn't want it. Today most people think that Telefunken, Braun and all the others weren't innovative enough - no, they just were too... reserved. Today many Hifi-Freaks want an old Braun, the quality was great, the product was great, but the customer was dumb...
It's not that much a "Made in Japan" vs. "Made in Germany"-thing, there are also japanese companies with the product in focus (e.g. small knive-makers), it's more about "big shareholder global player" vs. "smaller specialist" and in the camera industry that's basically Japan vs. Germany/Switzerland
Why did a TV-company produce TVs in the past?
Because they can.
Why now?
Because they want to make money.
I know, it sounds hilarious, but think about it. Leica is making lenses and cameras because they can. Leica would never make TVs, even if it would be the fastest growing market on this planet - they first think "can we actually do this"?
Leica is listening to the engineers, trust me, I've talked to them, I saw production, I know about their power. The firmware of the DMR had some issues, many companies wouldn't care, but even when the company got into heavy financial trouble, the engineers said: "Wait! It doesn't meet our quality standards yet!"
In the first moment you could think: That's stupid, they kill Leica.
But in fact, that is what makes Leica, Miele, Hülsta, Patek Philippe, Arri... so valueable!
You get what you pay for, they don't trick you. When they say the lens is good, then it is good! One lens of the new 1,4/50Asph costs as much as all lenses of the predecessor together! They increased the efficience with new machines - but in the first place they wanted to create a great lens - and they did! And it's unique!
They're dozens of different 1,4/50-lenses around, all from different brands but all with the same philosophy "do as much as necessary" and they're all mediocre in comparison to the Leica.
I don't know how you're thinking about this - but we all buy a lot of crap - my computer brakes down again and again, my Eizo-LCD (I only buy those because they're "Made in Japan") is cheaper build than it's predecessor, my shoes are falling apart after a few months, my Siemens-hoover doesn't meet my expectations and then I'm reading about cost cutting at Siemens - that it isn't anymore what it once was.
Then I go to my Leica-dealer, buy a new lens and can rely on it. I'm paying one month hard work for a little piece of metal and glass! But I actually get something for it! Something I can enjoy for decades. They don't trick the customer, the little nappa-leather-bag, the engraved scales, the chrome - they could cut costs so many ways, but they don't (I've compared parts of the lenses - no cost-cutting). And even when there should be a problem (it can ALWAYS happen) they take care of it (they even change the electronics of a 10 years old R8 for free!) - that's value!!!
When I want something cheap, fast, fun - I go to a big-store and buy a 500€-ittsy-bittsy-Canon, have fun with it a few years and then throw it away - we don't need Leica for that.
That's why we have to honor Leica - when Nikon, Pentax, Cosina... disappears, someone else will take it's place - not with Leica!
We don't need Leica for everyone, we need Leica the way it is - with it's unique strengths and weaknesses (they always work on them anyway, but don't want to compromise their strengths)!
Actually you're right, I'm a technician, a perfectionist, I don't care how much profit I can make, how much I can sell - I want the best possible product!
Engineers are often missunderstood ("sitting on the high horse") - they know better than the customer what's good for the product, what technological solutions are necessary. But the customer (lawyers, dentists...) decide - and there's the problem: they buy what marketing/press/society tells them. They're happy, they got what they wanted, more chrome, smaller lenses, more megapixels, more functions, lower prices... But after years or decades they understand why engineers wanted it differently, they notice that their 10MPixel-camera has a worse quality than the 5MP one, that their TV only holds 5 years, that they can't buy sharp lenses anymore... But then it's too late, there are only different brands left (with the same problems) - that's a huge problem - for technological progress, value for money, jobs...
One Example:
Everybody wanted a save car. That's all that customers knew. Engineers knew one huge step in passive safety: the Airbag. Mercedes-Benz invested hundreds of millions into this thing, you cannot see it under normal circumstances, but you have to pay for it! It's explosive, it can be dangerous. No controller, manager... would have ever developed such a thing. Customers didn't want it. But Mercedes listened to what the engineers said and now everybody knows that an airbag is a good thing, that it save thousands of lives every year - just because of engineers "sitting in the high horse" and not listening to cost-controllers, sell-studies, customers... But in the end it was all for the customer.
But mostly innovation is not about improving the product, it's about selling it. Are japanese camera-makers really that innovative? What's about the lenses, they invented all that stylish names, got a bigger zoom-range - but who actually improved lens-quality itself? The same with other products. A friend of mine worked at Telefunken (he now makes electronic for an american company which is producing in Germany because of quality) he showed me a 70s compact-stereo, years before the japanese "invented" and introduced it with huge marketing campaigns... In 1994 they made a HDTV-TV, customers didn't want it. Today most people think that Telefunken, Braun and all the others weren't innovative enough - no, they just were too... reserved. Today many Hifi-Freaks want an old Braun, the quality was great, the product was great, but the customer was dumb...
It's not that much a "Made in Japan" vs. "Made in Germany"-thing, there are also japanese companies with the product in focus (e.g. small knive-makers), it's more about "big shareholder global player" vs. "smaller specialist" and in the camera industry that's basically Japan vs. Germany/Switzerland
Why did a TV-company produce TVs in the past?
Because they can.
Why now?
Because they want to make money.
I know, it sounds hilarious, but think about it. Leica is making lenses and cameras because they can. Leica would never make TVs, even if it would be the fastest growing market on this planet - they first think "can we actually do this"?
Leica is listening to the engineers, trust me, I've talked to them, I saw production, I know about their power. The firmware of the DMR had some issues, many companies wouldn't care, but even when the company got into heavy financial trouble, the engineers said: "Wait! It doesn't meet our quality standards yet!"
In the first moment you could think: That's stupid, they kill Leica.
But in fact, that is what makes Leica, Miele, Hülsta, Patek Philippe, Arri... so valueable!
You get what you pay for, they don't trick you. When they say the lens is good, then it is good! One lens of the new 1,4/50Asph costs as much as all lenses of the predecessor together! They increased the efficience with new machines - but in the first place they wanted to create a great lens - and they did! And it's unique!
They're dozens of different 1,4/50-lenses around, all from different brands but all with the same philosophy "do as much as necessary" and they're all mediocre in comparison to the Leica.
I don't know how you're thinking about this - but we all buy a lot of crap - my computer brakes down again and again, my Eizo-LCD (I only buy those because they're "Made in Japan") is cheaper build than it's predecessor, my shoes are falling apart after a few months, my Siemens-hoover doesn't meet my expectations and then I'm reading about cost cutting at Siemens - that it isn't anymore what it once was.
Then I go to my Leica-dealer, buy a new lens and can rely on it. I'm paying one month hard work for a little piece of metal and glass! But I actually get something for it! Something I can enjoy for decades. They don't trick the customer, the little nappa-leather-bag, the engraved scales, the chrome - they could cut costs so many ways, but they don't (I've compared parts of the lenses - no cost-cutting). And even when there should be a problem (it can ALWAYS happen) they take care of it (they even change the electronics of a 10 years old R8 for free!) - that's value!!!
When I want something cheap, fast, fun - I go to a big-store and buy a 500€-ittsy-bittsy-Canon, have fun with it a few years and then throw it away - we don't need Leica for that.
That's why we have to honor Leica - when Nikon, Pentax, Cosina... disappears, someone else will take it's place - not with Leica!
We don't need Leica for everyone, we need Leica the way it is - with it's unique strengths and weaknesses (they always work on them anyway, but don't want to compromise their strengths)!
Last edited:
CDT
Chris
rsh said:
Unless they start selling a lot more lenses, Leica is probably better off keeping production in Germany. The cost saving involved in moving production to Japan would probably be offset by the cost of making the move and the increased management costs.
Also, a fair number of Leica customers do like the idea of buying a German product.
In case anyone is curious the "DOL Chartbook of International Labor Comparisons" lists the 2004 German hourly wage at $32.52 compared to $21.90 in Japan.
newyorkone
Established
CDT said:
A fair number...try nearly 100%, I'm guessing.
peter_n
Veteran
I think one of the issues is that the "Made in Germany" modern Leica lens is not what it used to be. OTOH some of the Japanese lenses (not all) continue at a very high standard. Konica for example: Back in the 60s/70s Konica Hexanon lenses were so good that they were benchmarked by the Japanese Ministry of Industry as the standard to which other optics manufacturers should strive. Fast forward to 2000 and take a look at the Hexanon-M lenses. Optically superb and build quality that the modern Leica company could learn a lot from. As a person who worked for a Japanese company for three years, I can tell you that an obsession with quality was a thread that ran through the entire organization. I'm not sure that the modern Leica is like that any more.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
georgl said:
Necessary for whom? The thing or the customer? Without a customer, there is no product, just a device.
Your airbag comparison doesn't hold for the camera. Firstly, airbags had been in development since the 1960s, a lot of companies were experimenting with them, and it was evident that this was a feature that would be present in the next generation of high-class cars, so it was not a case of engineers pushing what they thought was right against the express wishes of marketing but a case of marketing adopting what R&D had produced to get a competitive advantage. Secondly Mercedes' introduction of the airbag was an innovation, and they were and are positioning themselves as an innovative company open to change. Leica, on the other hand, tried to avoid change wherever possible.
No, that's not it. It used to be Japan vs. Germany, and the Germans managed to kill their "global player" camera industry largely because of bad product decisions, overengineering in the wrong places and ignoring what their customers actually needed. Leica and Rollei are about the only survivors because they occupied a niche that nobody else cared about. So there is no reason to tread the moral high ground of engineering. With respect to cameras, Germany isn't the country that stands for small specialist companies run by engineers, it's the country where everything that's left is small specialist shops on the verge of bankruptcy.georgl said:
And I don't see that Japanese camera makers, such as Pentax and especially Nikon, aren't committed to their products from an engineering point of view.
I think you have a pretty strange attitude towards customers. Customers have a right to buy what they want. A respectable engineer should listen to what people want and provide the best possible product that suits their wishes, not produce a device that he likes and then tell customers that this is is best for them. That is the difference between a product and a mere device. I have no problem calling the latter attitude "sitting on the high horse".georgl said:
And this is why companies shouldn't be run by engineers alone. The German camera industry is rife with examples of companies being run into the ground because engineers confused products with devices. Thus they produced leaf shutter SLRs and overly complex, heavy, expensive monster Contarexes, but what customers wanted and needed was something else. Engineers were the problem, not customers. As an engineer, if your product doesn't address people's problems and needs, you can't sit on the high horse and tell customers that what's "good for the product" is A while you happily ignore that what they need is B. That's where engineer's pride changes into hubris, and that the Japanese did right, and the Germans did wrong.
Philipp
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
geargl said:
I don't know about lawyers, but I do know about dentists, as I am one, and if you are looking for a class of opinionated, non-marketable perfectionists, you've found them.....
LCT
ex-newbie
Well i don't know about engineers and dentists but i know a bit about lawyers, as i'm one, and if you are looking for.... (ditto).jaapv said:
__--
Well-known
rsh said:
This sounds like a time-warp in that seem to be at least 40 years behind the times: Japan is a high-wage country and companies such as Canon and Nikon produce most of their products in China. Toyato produces it's 1600cc engine, the one that powers many of it's small cars and trucks, in a every efficient plant in Indonesia. Japan has been moving production overeseas for at least twenty years: unlike the US which protects the local industry through quotas, the textile industry (spinning and weaving) has moved overseas about twenty years ago — only high-end ready to wear clothing is produced in Japan, the rest is imported.
—Mitch/Paris
rsh
Member
Thanks everyone. You have all made some wonderful and valid comments. The passion all of you exhibit for photography and well made tools is amazing. I still like to think of my Leicas as instruments.
I have used Leica snce 1970 when I was lucky enough to get an M4. I cannot say that I have ever been a great photographer, but I know that when I am lucky enough to get a great shot, I have the right tool with me. What is right for me, however, may not be right for someone else.
Thanks again for all of your responses.
I have used Leica snce 1970 when I was lucky enough to get an M4. I cannot say that I have ever been a great photographer, but I know that when I am lucky enough to get a great shot, I have the right tool with me. What is right for me, however, may not be right for someone else.
Thanks again for all of your responses.