Bill Pierce
Well-known
Looking at threads on the RF forum, one gets the idea that the M film cameras are universally applauded, but the digital M8 falls prey to a fair amount of intelligent criticism. Indeed, it seems the earlier in the M line up, the more universal the praise.
Like it or not, film photography will diminish. Digital will grow. Any thoughts about what Leitz can do to survive? Or can they survive producing a conspicuous consumption item?
My answer would be to produce a camera whose image quality matched that of the leading DSLR's, including their abilities at high ISO's, to fully take advantage of the RF's advantages in viewing and focusing high-speed wide and normal lenses in low contrast available darkness. I would try to keep the sound of the camera minimal - and keep its size to a minimum, too. Of course these are the advantages that the film RF has over the SLR. It doesn't make it a better camera; indeed, it's a less versatile camera than an SLR. But it's a better camera for many specific shooting situations.
Oh - and I'd try to keep the price competitive with those DSLR's, too.
Anybody else have an impossible dream? Share your fantasies.
Like it or not, film photography will diminish. Digital will grow. Any thoughts about what Leitz can do to survive? Or can they survive producing a conspicuous consumption item?
My answer would be to produce a camera whose image quality matched that of the leading DSLR's, including their abilities at high ISO's, to fully take advantage of the RF's advantages in viewing and focusing high-speed wide and normal lenses in low contrast available darkness. I would try to keep the sound of the camera minimal - and keep its size to a minimum, too. Of course these are the advantages that the film RF has over the SLR. It doesn't make it a better camera; indeed, it's a less versatile camera than an SLR. But it's a better camera for many specific shooting situations.
Oh - and I'd try to keep the price competitive with those DSLR's, too.
Anybody else have an impossible dream? Share your fantasies.
pesphoto
Veteran
I dont like it and there are plenty of film cameras outside the "Leica" family. I really dont care if Leitz survives, especially if they continue to concentrate on digital cameras.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Leica needs a "reasonably" priced, high quality digital camera that would get people fired up about the brand.
My prescription is for a Leica micro4/3rds body with special accomadations for the rangefinder style of shooting. The m4/3rds sensor is different enough from the M8.* sensor to avoid canabilizing sales.
Here is my spec for the Leica micro4/3rds camera body:
1) All metal construction.
2) Small rangefinder form factor. (Rangefinder base length is immaterial since there is no optical finder.)
3) Accepts all micro4/3rds lenses utilizing their auto-focus capabilities.
4) In-body image stabilization.
5) In body auto-sensor cleaning
6) Same or better EVF used in the Lumix G1.
7) Same or better articulating screen used in G1. (Please forget the conspicuous consumption diamond glass cover!)
8) Special adapter that automatically shifts the EVF into magnification mode when a manual M lens is focused. (This would be a killer feature!).
9) Price target: $2k.
I think this would go a long way toward reviving Leica's fallen star.
/T
10) Obviously, a line of Leica quality lenses designed for the 2x crop factor of the m4/3rds body.
My prescription is for a Leica micro4/3rds body with special accomadations for the rangefinder style of shooting. The m4/3rds sensor is different enough from the M8.* sensor to avoid canabilizing sales.
Here is my spec for the Leica micro4/3rds camera body:
1) All metal construction.
2) Small rangefinder form factor. (Rangefinder base length is immaterial since there is no optical finder.)
3) Accepts all micro4/3rds lenses utilizing their auto-focus capabilities.
4) In-body image stabilization.
5) In body auto-sensor cleaning
6) Same or better EVF used in the Lumix G1.
7) Same or better articulating screen used in G1. (Please forget the conspicuous consumption diamond glass cover!)
8) Special adapter that automatically shifts the EVF into magnification mode when a manual M lens is focused. (This would be a killer feature!).
9) Price target: $2k.
I think this would go a long way toward reviving Leica's fallen star.
/T
10) Obviously, a line of Leica quality lenses designed for the 2x crop factor of the m4/3rds body.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
I think Leica can survive, but not in the way that anyone here would care for.
Leica, as we know, is three companies. Leica Camera, Leica Microsystems, and Leica Geosystems. For the sake of this discussion, though, let's say we are talking about Leica Camera AG only. So when I say 'Leica,' I mean Leica Camera AG.
What sort of company is Leica? It is a company that produces a number of expensive products that are exquisitely well made and limited in number - primarily. It also licenses the use of its name and technology to carefully-selected partners, Panasonic being the most well-known.
If we look carefully at Leica's product line, we see that the expensive products that sell the best are those which appeal to a particular market segment - primarily that of the collector.
I'm sorry, I know it causes massive gnashing of teeth, but not that many photojournalists are carrying M-body Leica cameras as their primary instrument these days - there aren't even that many photojournalists around, really. So the days of Leica as a producer of a working tool of the trade are more or less over.
We see that many of the other Leica products do not sell in the same numbers as the famous M system rangefinders. The R system has met with some success, it may well be profitable, but it does not sell in the numbers that the M system does. The upcoming S system medium-format is hoped to become a category-killer, but the fact is, they're trying to horn in on a market that a) has well-established players whose customers exhibit brand loyalty just like Leica users do, and b) isn't really a monster segment anyway.
For many other companies, the choices would be simpler - dilute the brand name and sell cheaper products that have excellent margins - either by licensing more products to more companies, or by investing in those markets oneself.
Leica, however, cannot really do that. No more than Rolls-Royce can produce a Ford Fiesta without damaging itself. Other companies in a similar situation as Leica have tried and generally failed to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. Cadillac with the Catera; Harley-Davidson with the dirt bikes.
It is a no-win situation for Leica, unfortunately. They cannot go forward because their traditional customer base does not want anything but an M system camera (and if digital, wants it to be significantly better than it currently is - and cost less, too). But if they dilute their name brand, then they damage the value of the brand going forward.
My suggestions would include very minor changes. If the R system is profitable, keep it, but invest no more in it. Give the S system time to take off, but if it does not, kill it with malice aforethought and bury it as quickly as possible.
Continue the current relationship with companies like Panasonic, and consider expanding upon it, although with extreme caution where the word "Leica" or the red dot are to appear.
One thing that might be useful would be some advertising of the sort that educates the public, along with some low cost but relatively high-margin Leica-branded digital cameras.
People know the brand name. But people don't think of that when they go to Best Buy, nor do they see Leica there. The main reason for that is that Leica cannot compete on price sitting on a shelf next to the Panasonics and the Kodaks and the Casios (might also be part of the licensing with Panasonic; if so, change that). So create a model that can compete, but which is still not a "Cadillac Catera," in the sense of being a dog-in-Leica's clothes. Advertise that people who care about their photographs and their loved ones memories can get a Real Leica (tm) even in these Tough Times (tm), and once you're a member of the Leica family, you are a special (better, smarter, higher-class) person. Make sure the product line contains stepping stones to get those who make a buck or two more than the average Joe sold up to the next level, and maybe someday to the M system.
Keep putting money into the M system. It really is the only trump in Leica's hand at the moment, but Leica has to create a new sales channel that leads into the M system from lower-cost Leica models - and convince the public that they want to do that.
Anyway, just a couple thoughts.
bmattock
Veteran
The future is going to really suck from your point of view, huh?
pesphoto
Veteran
hehe, well not really. I Have what I need and I really dont care about "progress". IT bores me to be honest, its just how I am. I know what i need to know to make me happy. Digital cameras for my personal photography isnt in the cards...not going to happen. Thats not to say I dont know about digital, photoshop, etc. I use that stuff for work but I dont buy that it is the only way forward. For commercial work, yes. BUt for my own work it has no place my friend. I know about digital(not as much as you do Bill) because I HAVE to to survive and pay my bills. I have my negs in binders, I can access them any time I want to and make a print in my darkroom. What could me better and easier than that? Honestly. That is MY future.
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
well personally i think leica should be looking in a different direction completely. it seems to me that sigma has an idea (dp1 and dp2) that needs to be furthered.
perhaps a dp1'ish compact, perhaps a 3 stage variable focal length lens ala tri-elmar and relative hot shoe finder. aps-c (or whatever) size sensor that has competitive high iso performance up to about 1600. decent buffer and a real workable manual/zone focus interface. keep the user interface as "analog" as possible.
it doesn't need to compete with a d3 tech wise if the form and function are in a league of their own. make sure it is tough as nails and sink some money into a reliable, punctual support system.
it doesn't need to be a technological marvel... it needs to be reliable, produce competitive sensor performance up to say 1600, be silent, compact and intuitive.
for the love of all things holy, build it and price it with some sense of reality. documentary/photojournalist folks don't need a safari green anything. function, function, function.
perhaps a dp1'ish compact, perhaps a 3 stage variable focal length lens ala tri-elmar and relative hot shoe finder. aps-c (or whatever) size sensor that has competitive high iso performance up to about 1600. decent buffer and a real workable manual/zone focus interface. keep the user interface as "analog" as possible.
it doesn't need to compete with a d3 tech wise if the form and function are in a league of their own. make sure it is tough as nails and sink some money into a reliable, punctual support system.
it doesn't need to be a technological marvel... it needs to be reliable, produce competitive sensor performance up to say 1600, be silent, compact and intuitive.
for the love of all things holy, build it and price it with some sense of reality. documentary/photojournalist folks don't need a safari green anything. function, function, function.
bmattock
Veteran
Your future is your choice, but it sounds like a lonely one to me.
Just for fun sometime, you should read the "Letters to the Editor" section of various camera and photography magazines back when photography was going though some revolutionary changes - from dry glass plates to flexible film, for example; or from medium format cameras to 'micro' cameras (35mm). It was amazingly similar to today. People wrote in full of bile and indignation, claiming that (name of the newest menace) was destroying photography, and it was horrible, and they were not going to stand for it by golly, and if it came to that, they'd hold their breaths until they turned blue and sit in a corner and sulk along with their precious (glass plates, medium format TLR, etc). Nothing really changes. With every new generation of technology, a small percentage of its devotees decide they're had all they can stands and they can't stands anymore.
The world, however, continues to turn, and progress, for good or for ill, keeps on doing what it do.
Whatever!
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Leica needs to take heed that it is being overrun on every front.
Top notch cameras are mfg with the professional in mind. This individual needs robust, capable, sealed cameras for the field. And, there has to be a reasonable cost factor (you know this already).
The Leica RF digital camera may never be the pros go-to camera, but it can fulfill a backup position. If I were a photojournalist I can see myself working with a Canon MK or Nikon D3, with an M full frame digital as a backup or as primary camera for shooting under certain conditions.
Top notch cameras are mfg with the professional in mind. This individual needs robust, capable, sealed cameras for the field. And, there has to be a reasonable cost factor (you know this already).
The Leica RF digital camera may never be the pros go-to camera, but it can fulfill a backup position. If I were a photojournalist I can see myself working with a Canon MK or Nikon D3, with an M full frame digital as a backup or as primary camera for shooting under certain conditions.
pesphoto
Veteran
Your future is your choice, but it sounds like a lonely one to me.
Just for fun sometime, you should read the "Letters to the Editor" section of various camera and photography magazines back when photography was going though some revolutionary changes - from dry glass plates to flexible film, for example; or from medium format cameras to 'micro' cameras (35mm). It was amazingly similar to today. People wrote in full of bile and indignation, claiming that (name of the newest menace) was destroying photography, and it was horrible, and they were not going to stand for it by golly, and if it came to that, they'd hold their breaths until they turned blue and sit in a corner and sulk along with their precious (glass plates, medium format TLR, etc). Nothing really changes. With every new generation of technology, a small percentage of its devotees decide they're had all they can stands and they can't stands anymore.
The world, however, continues to turn, and progress, for good or for ill, keeps on doing what it do.
Whatever!
I'm not lonely ...my wife loves me.
bmattock
Veteran
I'm not lonely ...my wife loves me.
Then you indeed a fortunate man. Congratulations, mozal tov! I am likewise blessed with the love of a very fine woman. Very important, much more so than cameras.
Bassism
Well-known
I think that Leica is really in between a rock and a hard place.
The film M body is pretty much at it's peak as far as I can see. The M7 could be updated with some more advanced metering and small things like that, but I don't think that the majority of people using Leicas really care about that, as can be evidenced by the popularity of the MP. The MP itself is pretty hard to update, since the idea is that it is a return to the basics.
There could be a place for a lower cost M body. Something like the M7, without all the fancy electronics and things. But they've already done that, with the MP. They could try to produce something more in line with the Bessas, but that would hurt their brand image as producers of top-quality products.
The M8 is a good idea in principle. Were it a lower priced camera, it would probably do well, but at the price, people expect the image quality to equal the best there is. The natural evolution for the M8 is a full sized sensor, but the techical challenges there are well known. The other problem Leica faces in the digital arena is that they cannot keep up with the time frames of the other big names. They don't have enough money to release a new camera every year to keep up. The only thing they can do is capitalize on the things that the M8 does well, and stay out of the IQ arms race.
The idea of producing a micro 4/3rds camera is a good one. But I have to wonder if Leica would be able to be competitive in that arena as well. Leica survives by selling low volume products with a large margin. I don't think they could make enough money if they made something truly price-competitive with the G1. At the same time, if they take away the M system lenses and rangefinder, one has to ask if they'd be able to create a camera that is twice the quality of the G1 to justify coming in at twice the price.
I think the S system is a good direction. Granted, it's a huge gamble. If they can't get pros using it, it'll be a huge flop. And it's definitely going to be a hard market to break into. But if I had a full Hassy system with a digital back to use in the studio, and a 5D system to use everywhere else, the idea of consolidating into one system would be attractive to me. If it goes over well, it could really help the company.
The main reason I think the S system is the right direction for Leica is that they're really doing something new with it. Historically, they've always succeeded in doing new things and creating new markets (see 35mm photography.) They simply don't have the size to compete with the big companies at their own game. To succeed, they need to play on their own turf.
Addition: As far as my own personal fantasy, I would really just like an M7 at a rather more affordable price. The niceties of the M7 are things that I would like, but there's no way I could possibly justify dropping 4k on a camera that doesn't really do much more than my M2. Consider an M6 at a grand, and the benefits grow even smaller.
The film M body is pretty much at it's peak as far as I can see. The M7 could be updated with some more advanced metering and small things like that, but I don't think that the majority of people using Leicas really care about that, as can be evidenced by the popularity of the MP. The MP itself is pretty hard to update, since the idea is that it is a return to the basics.
There could be a place for a lower cost M body. Something like the M7, without all the fancy electronics and things. But they've already done that, with the MP. They could try to produce something more in line with the Bessas, but that would hurt their brand image as producers of top-quality products.
The M8 is a good idea in principle. Were it a lower priced camera, it would probably do well, but at the price, people expect the image quality to equal the best there is. The natural evolution for the M8 is a full sized sensor, but the techical challenges there are well known. The other problem Leica faces in the digital arena is that they cannot keep up with the time frames of the other big names. They don't have enough money to release a new camera every year to keep up. The only thing they can do is capitalize on the things that the M8 does well, and stay out of the IQ arms race.
The idea of producing a micro 4/3rds camera is a good one. But I have to wonder if Leica would be able to be competitive in that arena as well. Leica survives by selling low volume products with a large margin. I don't think they could make enough money if they made something truly price-competitive with the G1. At the same time, if they take away the M system lenses and rangefinder, one has to ask if they'd be able to create a camera that is twice the quality of the G1 to justify coming in at twice the price.
I think the S system is a good direction. Granted, it's a huge gamble. If they can't get pros using it, it'll be a huge flop. And it's definitely going to be a hard market to break into. But if I had a full Hassy system with a digital back to use in the studio, and a 5D system to use everywhere else, the idea of consolidating into one system would be attractive to me. If it goes over well, it could really help the company.
The main reason I think the S system is the right direction for Leica is that they're really doing something new with it. Historically, they've always succeeded in doing new things and creating new markets (see 35mm photography.) They simply don't have the size to compete with the big companies at their own game. To succeed, they need to play on their own turf.
Addition: As far as my own personal fantasy, I would really just like an M7 at a rather more affordable price. The niceties of the M7 are things that I would like, but there's no way I could possibly justify dropping 4k on a camera that doesn't really do much more than my M2. Consider an M6 at a grand, and the benefits grow even smaller.
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
This is a rambling mix of thoughts.
For small companies like Leitz, today's conditions must be very challenging. It is characterized by high levels of technical innovation and the strategy of the bigger makers seems to be to keep churning out as many new innovations as they can as quickly as they can. This takes huge resources in finances to support the R and D effort and besides, its anathema to Leitz's traditional strategy of developing a top class product and then sticking to it.
I can't help but think that the market for digital is not yet what the management gurus call "mature." It is still going through a high growth phase characterized by the things I mentioned above. The constant relentless movement towards larger sensor size for example is similar to the strategy that computers went through for the first 10 -15 years of their development as market demand and technology "push' drove changes in PC computing power. That seems to have slowed a little recently in the PC world and eventually should in the camera world.
But these early market conditions create problems for smaller manufacturers and buyers. Camera manufacturers could possibly have designed a camera with interchangeable sensor an software to minimize the cost to end users so they do not have to constantly upgrade their whole kit. But of course there is no incentive to do this as it reduces revenue and profits. But eventually it my happen. The first camera manufacturer to do it successfully will create new market / competition conditions that others will probably have to follow. However this cannot be expected to happen till they have miked every penny out of this rapid growth phase. What will make it happen is when consumers start resisting buying the latest and best every 18 months. It is hard to predict future markets more than a year or two out in this period of rapid change. Conditions like the current ones though might help Leitz as they could then rely more on their traditional strategies. At the end of the day though it is still going to be a niche market for them. SLRs lack in some things but they offer so much that its hard to see rangefinder digital cameras competing except for the relatively small number of people who find they offer what they want.
I cant help feel that on historical precedent the current rapid growth phase in technology will eventually low (not stop though) to a more steady level. Things that were once must have selling points (the full size sensor being a case in point) will just be the thing that everyone has and never thinks to question. They will find new technologies to exploit of course (camera manufacturers have production lines and have to keep products rolling through them to stay in business) but the market growth / innovation adoption curve that management consultants so love (a relatively slow start, then take up by innovators and early adopters, followed by a period of extended rapid technological change and market growth, maturity matched by slowing demand etc .) seems to hold true.
Until then if it ever occurs, Leitz will continue to struggle with its camera market but one would have to think that no matter what is has so much expertise in its lens division that this would have to survive come what may.
For small companies like Leitz, today's conditions must be very challenging. It is characterized by high levels of technical innovation and the strategy of the bigger makers seems to be to keep churning out as many new innovations as they can as quickly as they can. This takes huge resources in finances to support the R and D effort and besides, its anathema to Leitz's traditional strategy of developing a top class product and then sticking to it.
I can't help but think that the market for digital is not yet what the management gurus call "mature." It is still going through a high growth phase characterized by the things I mentioned above. The constant relentless movement towards larger sensor size for example is similar to the strategy that computers went through for the first 10 -15 years of their development as market demand and technology "push' drove changes in PC computing power. That seems to have slowed a little recently in the PC world and eventually should in the camera world.
But these early market conditions create problems for smaller manufacturers and buyers. Camera manufacturers could possibly have designed a camera with interchangeable sensor an software to minimize the cost to end users so they do not have to constantly upgrade their whole kit. But of course there is no incentive to do this as it reduces revenue and profits. But eventually it my happen. The first camera manufacturer to do it successfully will create new market / competition conditions that others will probably have to follow. However this cannot be expected to happen till they have miked every penny out of this rapid growth phase. What will make it happen is when consumers start resisting buying the latest and best every 18 months. It is hard to predict future markets more than a year or two out in this period of rapid change. Conditions like the current ones though might help Leitz as they could then rely more on their traditional strategies. At the end of the day though it is still going to be a niche market for them. SLRs lack in some things but they offer so much that its hard to see rangefinder digital cameras competing except for the relatively small number of people who find they offer what they want.
I cant help feel that on historical precedent the current rapid growth phase in technology will eventually low (not stop though) to a more steady level. Things that were once must have selling points (the full size sensor being a case in point) will just be the thing that everyone has and never thinks to question. They will find new technologies to exploit of course (camera manufacturers have production lines and have to keep products rolling through them to stay in business) but the market growth / innovation adoption curve that management consultants so love (a relatively slow start, then take up by innovators and early adopters, followed by a period of extended rapid technological change and market growth, maturity matched by slowing demand etc .) seems to hold true.
Until then if it ever occurs, Leitz will continue to struggle with its camera market but one would have to think that no matter what is has so much expertise in its lens division that this would have to survive come what may.
photogdave
Shops local
No need to feel lonely; I feel pretty much the same.
Oh, and Bill, it's nothing to do with being stubborn or refusing to acknowledge the new medium. I just plan-and-simple don't really care for digital cameras. Nothing more, nothing less.
pesphoto
Veteran
On that we agree. You have my respect Bill, and I enjoy your posts.
Sorry Bill if we hijacked a little.
willie_901
Veteran
I will sail into the wind and break with the tradition by actually answering Mr. Pierce's question.
My fantasy is to use the time and energy I spend thinking about what cameras and lenses I don't have to do more work with the equipment I do have.
My fantasy is to use the time and energy I spend thinking about what cameras and lenses I don't have to do more work with the equipment I do have.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Bill, I've reached that point in life where I don't give a good goddamn what the clients want. If they want my photography they have a choice of B&W or they can scan from color negs or transparencies. I often refer them to people who do shoot digital and just LOVE using Photoshop. Everybody is happy.
I never did like shooting SLR's although I always had a couple for long lenses and macro, and I had a 4x5 with several lenses and a Hasselblad 500CM with several lenses and a couple of Rollieflexes, etc. and knew how to use them, because at one time I needed them, not because I enjoyed using them. I'm not about to learn a whole new way of doing things, plus make the financial investment, because at this point it makes no financial sense to me.
Leica's biggest survival problem, as I see it, is the competition it has right now from all of the used Leicas out there. Not the stuff that a collector might want but the M2's and M3's that that look like crap but have that Leica ability to still function just fine no matter how beat up they may look, together with the less beat up ones coming out of Grandpa's closets all over the country. The Bessas aren't so much competition as a way to get new photographers interested in using film rangefinders.
I think that a stripped down M2 with no self timer, perhaps not quite as impecable a chrome finish, maybe even a 1/500th second top speed, along with the new series of Hektor lenses would be a step in the right direction. Offer a meterless version that would come with a Weston Euromaster and incident light dome. Make the college profs happy with that one.
Bring out new must-have accessories for older M's, like a coupled meter, an upgraded Leicameter MR with modern cell, electronics, and taking an available battery. Come out with a second less expensive line of lens hoods (plastic?) that people can more readily afford. Make a deal with a film maker to market a line of Leica brand B&W film. Fuji does it with Walgreens and color film. Hell, cut Walgreens in on the deal too. Buy your Leica 400 C-41 B&W film exclusively at Walgreens.
There are lots of possibilities to knock around. The marketing people will have a tough sell keeping a carriage trade image while also catering to Joe Sixpack, but that's what they get paid to do.
Work with the photography departments of the colleges, send a rep around to lecture the students, offer a student discount are all things worth trying.
What I should be doing is spending more time in the darkroom, going through my negative files, making prints on gelatin silver paper while they still make the stuff.
I never did like shooting SLR's although I always had a couple for long lenses and macro, and I had a 4x5 with several lenses and a Hasselblad 500CM with several lenses and a couple of Rollieflexes, etc. and knew how to use them, because at one time I needed them, not because I enjoyed using them. I'm not about to learn a whole new way of doing things, plus make the financial investment, because at this point it makes no financial sense to me.
Leica's biggest survival problem, as I see it, is the competition it has right now from all of the used Leicas out there. Not the stuff that a collector might want but the M2's and M3's that that look like crap but have that Leica ability to still function just fine no matter how beat up they may look, together with the less beat up ones coming out of Grandpa's closets all over the country. The Bessas aren't so much competition as a way to get new photographers interested in using film rangefinders.
I think that a stripped down M2 with no self timer, perhaps not quite as impecable a chrome finish, maybe even a 1/500th second top speed, along with the new series of Hektor lenses would be a step in the right direction. Offer a meterless version that would come with a Weston Euromaster and incident light dome. Make the college profs happy with that one.
Bring out new must-have accessories for older M's, like a coupled meter, an upgraded Leicameter MR with modern cell, electronics, and taking an available battery. Come out with a second less expensive line of lens hoods (plastic?) that people can more readily afford. Make a deal with a film maker to market a line of Leica brand B&W film. Fuji does it with Walgreens and color film. Hell, cut Walgreens in on the deal too. Buy your Leica 400 C-41 B&W film exclusively at Walgreens.
There are lots of possibilities to knock around. The marketing people will have a tough sell keeping a carriage trade image while also catering to Joe Sixpack, but that's what they get paid to do.
Work with the photography departments of the colleges, send a rep around to lecture the students, offer a student discount are all things worth trying.
What I should be doing is spending more time in the darkroom, going through my negative files, making prints on gelatin silver paper while they still make the stuff.
photogdave
Shops local
I think these are the smartest and most original concepts I've heard with regards to the oft-asked "how will Leica survive?" question.
Good thinking Al.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Leica needs to consider how Harley Davidson turned itself around. HD has many of the same market characteristics as Leica; expensive, traditional design, fierce brand loyalty by a core group of afficionados, outperformed by any standard you may care to use when compared to the modern sport bike (the dSLR of the motorcycle world.)
Yet HD manages to attract new customers, often middle-aged with a fat wallet, because of the mystique of the "Harley lifestyle." This is what Leica needs to market to connect with a wider market base, an equivalent "Leica lifestyle."
~Joe
Yet HD manages to attract new customers, often middle-aged with a fat wallet, because of the mystique of the "Harley lifestyle." This is what Leica needs to market to connect with a wider market base, an equivalent "Leica lifestyle."
~Joe
Bassism
Well-known
I think Leica also needs to advertise, full stop. Spreading the "Leica lifestyle" is a great thing for them to do. That Wim Wenders advertisement is great stuff. If I saw that ad on tv, never having heard of Leica, I would be mesmerized by it. I could see a lot of the guys that go out and buy a 5D to have the best buying an M8 instead if they really knew it was an option.
I don't read any photography magazines, so I don't know what kind of presence they have there, but I'm sure it's not enough. The difference between Leica and Harley is that everybody knows what a Harley is and knows they can go down to a dealer and buy one. But I think that for many people Leica is nothing but a mystical word, the stuff of Bresson and photojournalists in the sixties.
If Leica could get into a position where the average guy with deep pockets looking to buy a nice camera saw them as a realistic option, I think they could have a bigger marketshare.
I don't read any photography magazines, so I don't know what kind of presence they have there, but I'm sure it's not enough. The difference between Leica and Harley is that everybody knows what a Harley is and knows they can go down to a dealer and buy one. But I think that for many people Leica is nothing but a mystical word, the stuff of Bresson and photojournalists in the sixties.
If Leica could get into a position where the average guy with deep pockets looking to buy a nice camera saw them as a realistic option, I think they could have a bigger marketshare.