I don't think Leica competes with Olympus. That said, the X2 could suffer.
braver
Well-known
The current trend is that anachronisms are cool, so they in fact stop being anachronisms. I don't think you can actually have anachronisms anymore these days
furcafe
Veteran
For the vast majority of photographers, I think Leica has been an anachronism for over 30 years.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I think we may be discussing two different matters. Yes, Leica has always made 'special editions.' To commemorate this or that, or to 'honor' some illustrious corporation or individual. And, those pieces or sets were priced highly and/or they were exclusive and made available only to a select group.
Now, though, the Summicron 50 is none of those things. It's a 'standard' lens. And, it's outrageously priced.
There has been a jump in Leica pricing. When i started with Leica, within the last ten years, there was no item of current manufacture that i couldn't/wouldn't afford. Some, like the Noctilux, were not 'out of my price range,' but simply beyond what i considered practical or necessary. But, now, Leica is producing gear at prices i would never pay. Ever. I could win the PowerBall, solo, and wouldn't pay $7500 for a 50/2 lens. I'd feel stupid, pretentious, pompous, ridiculous, what have you... sporting the thing around.
There has been a change in the targeted demographic, whether or not it's admitted or recognized by everyone. The business model probably does benefit Leica. I don't think it's disloyal or insincere to acknowledge that.
The "vitriol" stems, probably, from the fact that so many people feel abandoned. We're here for a reason. Leica seems to have said, "the history is nice, but from here on out, we're only interested in catering to the 'top' 10% of our former consumer base."
On one hand, we should admire a company that is so dedicated to the pursuit of excellence. On the other hand, they don't seem to be doing it for the most honorable of reasons. What they're producing won't benefit photographers or photography. It's a little beyond "bragging rights," but only a little.
Of course, they're going to demonstrate in LFI that the Summi is superb. Puts will trumpet it. And, the Leica reputation and mystique will grow. But, in terms of actual photography, this lens won't make a dent. Because all the 'wrong' people will own it. And, they'll either keep it environmentally controlled cabinets, or they'll walkabout with it, proudly upon their chests when they visit New York and Paris while they shoot TTS (typical tourist shots). Leica will say they've produced a "perfect lens." Until five years from now, when the next one is (more) perfect. The company is in the business of creating insecurities. Everyone now is wondering what is wrong with their 'old' summicrons, when just a week ago, they were proud of them.
ddutchison
Well-known
I'd say no.
While the "M" (digital or otherwise) already is, Rolex and Morgan have both done very well by selling anachronisms, and this is a market that Leica understands very well.
The Leica S2, however, is a contemporary professional digital medium-format camera that can be comfortably be used hand-held. So Leica is still offering something that no one else offers - meaningful to contemporary photographers who don't give a fig about Leica's legacy.
...and it's the "M" sales that make the S2 possible.
Peter^
Well-known
But back to the original question:
High-end tool or luxury goods?
I don't believe the Leica is a high end tool. That would imply that Leicas are used by professionals, who use them to make money. I don't believe any significant number of professionals use Leica. And the vast majority of people who do use Leica are not professionals.
The only two categories left are consumer and luxury. And the M Leicas are definitely not the former.
High-end tool or luxury goods?
I don't believe the Leica is a high end tool. That would imply that Leicas are used by professionals, who use them to make money. I don't believe any significant number of professionals use Leica. And the vast majority of people who do use Leica are not professionals.
The only two categories left are consumer and luxury. And the M Leicas are definitely not the former.
albygentle
Member
Obviously never heard of Vertu.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As a percentage of Leicas sold as against percentage of Nikons or Canons sold? Leica might come out ahead...
Cheers,
R.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Brilliant and very true.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
In that case you probably should either include all the Leica digital compacts (D-Lux, V-Lux and whatever, of which they sell a lot more), or restrict the Nikons and Canons to the single-digit models.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Thanks for the interesting post. I find that the distinction is pretty much blurred. It's true that Øresund Bridge and Sultan of Brunei M6s etc. were 'special editions' for small groups of people. But then Leica started selling a-la-carte MPs, which basically provided everyone with their own 'special edition' for the smallest group of people possible: every individual, as long as they could afford it. And while they marketed it as a high-end tool, it was a luxury item through and through.
But isn't "beyond what you consider practical or necessary" (the Noctilux) just a different, but essentially very similar way of saying that "you wouldn't afford it", just like "I'd feel stupid, pretentious, pompous, ridiculous" (the new Summicron)?
Yeah, but then, arguably, when compared to a vanilla M6, neither did the a-la-carte MPs.
I don't know what you consider a "honorable" reason. How cheap does a lens have to be to be "honorable"? Would it be honorable if the new Summicron cost $6000, $4000, $2000? Are the Summilux 21 or the wideangle Tri-Elmar dishonorably priced at $7000?
I think with the last sentence we are getting closer to home. IMHO the reason for the vitriolic reaction is something you learn in Sociology 101.
One of the reasons why people buy high-end goods is distinction. If you purchase and use a high-end good, this distinguishes you from the people who don't (be it because they can't afford it, wouldn't know how to use it, wouldn't appreciate it or whatever). It makes a small or large contribution to perceiving yourself as an individual, as opposed to the generic other people. This holds for purchasers of mechanical wristwatches over generic quartz watches, classic cars over generic new cars, iPhones over generic Android phones, Leicas (or rangefinders in general) over generic DSLRs, brandname clothing over generic clothing and so on; in other words, it's a pretty universal principle that is applicable to professionals and amateurs all alike.
With Leicas, it used to be that people choosing a $2500 or $6000 Leica over a generic $1000 Canikon DSLR would, with their purchase, also obtain a little bit of distinction, as purchasers and appreciators of a high-end classic precision German mechanical item. Leicas have this distinction built in (a hallmark of a luxury good, by the way). In other words, as purchaser of a Leica over a DSLR, you would find yourself on the "right" side of an imaginary divide, that of appreciators of classic camera-building and of photographers in a grand tradition.
With the advent of a $7000 50/f2 lens this has changed. Everybody who can't afford it (or who could, but thinks, rightly IMHO, that one shouldn't pay $7000 for a 50/f2 lens) now find that the point has come where they can no longer distinguish themselves; they suddenly find themselves on the low end of this imaginary divide, with, in your words, the "wrong" people on the other side - generic celebrities, generic lawyers, generic dentists, generic Wall Street sharks, what have you; in other words, not photographers, genuine appreciators and other individual personalities, but generic rich people taking typical tourist shots.
In other words, the advent of this lens is painful for a lot of people because it makes them feel like they lose some of the distinction that they used to get from being Leica users in the first place. Change is painful all by itself, and this kind of change in articular, and hence the vitriol and disappointment.
Araakii
Well-known
And this actually applies to an even greater scale globally. Although the US is still the most prosperous and powerful nation, the gap between this country and the rest of the world is narrowing each day. So while Leica charges ahead with ever higher prices, people should also ask the question why people who used to be able to afford these are lagging behind economically and haven't seen their wages going up by the same amount.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Re S2: perhaps. But at a price I think most photogs are unable or unwilling to pay (me included).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Depends how you define prosperity but by most measures, no. It's not.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Boy, if only that were true. In my experience,no one in the general public ever takes notice of a Leica. To them, it just looks like some goofy point-and-shoot. What I like about 'em. And even if you tell 'em what it is, it doesn't mean anything to 'em. Most of 'em have never heard of Leica. So it you really want to impress people with a "luxury good," I 'd suggest you buy a Ferrari instead of a Leica.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Very true. Leicas only impress people who know what Leicas are which is a very small amount of the population.
Phil Forrest
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think, like with distinction-related things in general, it's not so much about impressing others overall, than about impressing yourself and your peer group.
People never seem to notice my Leica when I'm riding my pet tiger through the neighborhood. Perhaps it's because I taped over my red dot?