Hektor
Leicapile
Well,...... Come onto RFF Sebastiao, we'd all like to hear from you .........
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Really?
Really?
This is funny stuff as Jaguar's quality wa always "bottom of the heap."
Robert
Really?
ZeissFan said:
This is funny stuff as Jaguar's quality wa always "bottom of the heap."
Robert
VinceC
Veteran
>>Which Leica do you use ?
.... and the test question, When was the last time you bought a new one ?<<
I confess that I don't own a Leica and have never used one except to peer through their finders at FotoKina. When I built my rangefinder system in 1989-91, Nikon RFs were compellingly cheaper than Leica equivalents, plus their controls were much more similar to my Nikon SLRs. However, I have a strong interest in the history of photography and photojournalism and have a number of equipment-based magazines and photo books from the 1930s and 1950s. Interestingly, nothing from the 1950s talks about mystical qualities of Leica glass. It's all about the system and its ability to capture a wide range of photographs.
>>Smith was fired from one job becaused he used a miniature 2 1/4x2 1/4. Some of his most notable work was with a Leica M.<<
I can believe that. He was also cantankerous as all get out and had a reputation for being really moody and tough to work with. Much of his World War II Life magazine work was with a Contax. And many of his strongest photo essays predate the M, such as the Spanish Village from the late 1940s. He was also from that generation where the print was as important as the negative, and he reportedly spent 24 hours on one print from the Schweizer essay. This would be the equivalent of heavy PhotoShop work today. (He infamously inserted the silohuette of a hand and saw in one of the lead Scweitzer photos). Like a lot of people from his era, he didn't seem all that wed to a particular camera and changed his equipment to suit his tastes and/or new technolgies. Seems to me I read somewhere he really liked SLRs in the 1960s.Somebody on this forum some months ago mentioned he shot the intensly emotional Japanese mercury poisoning photos of the 1970s with Canon or Minolta SLRs.
It's also worth remembering that when the rise of SLRs took place in the early 1960s, Leica actually sponsored some time-motion studies with the intent to prove that there was an inherent lag in the technology to demonstrate that SLRs were inferior to capturing the precise instant the photographer intended. The studies showed that human reflex factors are much slower than the miniscule delay -- in the thousdandths of a second -- that takes place while the mirror slaps up. Even then, Leica was doggedly trying to rebut a changing marketplace. That's also when the company started making the lenses with really incredible reputations and began marketing itself as a top-quality alternative to "inferior" SLRs.
.... and the test question, When was the last time you bought a new one ?<<
I confess that I don't own a Leica and have never used one except to peer through their finders at FotoKina. When I built my rangefinder system in 1989-91, Nikon RFs were compellingly cheaper than Leica equivalents, plus their controls were much more similar to my Nikon SLRs. However, I have a strong interest in the history of photography and photojournalism and have a number of equipment-based magazines and photo books from the 1930s and 1950s. Interestingly, nothing from the 1950s talks about mystical qualities of Leica glass. It's all about the system and its ability to capture a wide range of photographs.
>>Smith was fired from one job becaused he used a miniature 2 1/4x2 1/4. Some of his most notable work was with a Leica M.<<
I can believe that. He was also cantankerous as all get out and had a reputation for being really moody and tough to work with. Much of his World War II Life magazine work was with a Contax. And many of his strongest photo essays predate the M, such as the Spanish Village from the late 1940s. He was also from that generation where the print was as important as the negative, and he reportedly spent 24 hours on one print from the Schweizer essay. This would be the equivalent of heavy PhotoShop work today. (He infamously inserted the silohuette of a hand and saw in one of the lead Scweitzer photos). Like a lot of people from his era, he didn't seem all that wed to a particular camera and changed his equipment to suit his tastes and/or new technolgies. Seems to me I read somewhere he really liked SLRs in the 1960s.Somebody on this forum some months ago mentioned he shot the intensly emotional Japanese mercury poisoning photos of the 1970s with Canon or Minolta SLRs.
It's also worth remembering that when the rise of SLRs took place in the early 1960s, Leica actually sponsored some time-motion studies with the intent to prove that there was an inherent lag in the technology to demonstrate that SLRs were inferior to capturing the precise instant the photographer intended. The studies showed that human reflex factors are much slower than the miniscule delay -- in the thousdandths of a second -- that takes place while the mirror slaps up. Even then, Leica was doggedly trying to rebut a changing marketplace. That's also when the company started making the lenses with really incredible reputations and began marketing itself as a top-quality alternative to "inferior" SLRs.
sgy1962
Well-known
I anticipate any digital M is going to be a very good seller, at least for the short term, because there is a bunch of loyal Leica users who will not have qualms to dump $5-7K into a high quality digital body so that they can keep using their investment in Leica M lenses. The question seems to me whether any digital M will draw any current non-Leica users. And I guess that depends on the benefits of a digital rangefinder and the quality of the product.
For me, using a M has always been both a matter of the heart and brain in equal parts. There are just really fun to use. And their available light capapability coupled with Leica's great optics is very attractive. But I don't know if a rangefinder makes sense in a digital world. Maybe the R-D1 users can comment on this.
I have one of Leica's new lenses -- a 50mm Summilux ASPH -- and it is simply outstanding. Maybe Leica's future is with their optics.
Leica will have to adress the cost problem. Other then the afore mentioned lens, which I purchased in a moment of weakness after thinking about it for a year, the only other new Leica equipment I have purchased have been from vendors who were liquidating their Leica stock at dealer cost or less. But this tells you something -- I believe Leicas have essentially priced themselves out fo the market.
For me, using a M has always been both a matter of the heart and brain in equal parts. There are just really fun to use. And their available light capapability coupled with Leica's great optics is very attractive. But I don't know if a rangefinder makes sense in a digital world. Maybe the R-D1 users can comment on this.
I have one of Leica's new lenses -- a 50mm Summilux ASPH -- and it is simply outstanding. Maybe Leica's future is with their optics.
Leica will have to adress the cost problem. Other then the afore mentioned lens, which I purchased in a moment of weakness after thinking about it for a year, the only other new Leica equipment I have purchased have been from vendors who were liquidating their Leica stock at dealer cost or less. But this tells you something -- I believe Leicas have essentially priced themselves out fo the market.
VinceC
Veteran
Price is a very important consideration. A camera costing much more than $2,500 simply will never find widespread consumer acceptance. I'm sure any digital M will find strong initial sales because of pent-up demand. But other makers are discovering that there just isn't a huge market for RFs or digital RFs without some unique capabilties.
The very high-end digital SLRs entered the market as photojournalism and professional tools and justified their costs by eliminating wet darkrooms. Doing newspaper work in the mid-1990s, I shot a $15,000 NC2000 (umm, using an incident meter because I found the automated body counter-intuitive, and with a big RF-like rectangle in the viewfinder to indicate the crop-factor of the smaller sensor ... and with no preview LCD). You can't ignore that fact that there are tens of thousands of people in the world making a living taking pictures for newspapers and magazines and that their positions give them high visibility. Up through the mid-1990s, a lot of them aspired to carrying a personal Leica along with their two work-related SLRs. With the switch to digital, the Leicas aren't compatible and aren't as widely sought after a symbol of "arrival" for top-tier photographers. The last two trips I took with White House-level news photographers, their personal "toy"was Hasselblad's XPan. Significantly, the price point for this thing isn't much more than $2,000.
If I were Leica, I'd be working overtime coming up with a small, fast 10 or 12mm f/2 or 2.8 lens for my crop-sensored Digital M. I'd even think about ways to build a zoom viewfinder that doesn't need as many accessory shoes. Nikon was aiming in the zoom viewfinder direction when the bottom suddenly fell out of the RF market ... the SPX would have used one, and there were two or three prototypes made. And that was the early 1960s.
The very high-end digital SLRs entered the market as photojournalism and professional tools and justified their costs by eliminating wet darkrooms. Doing newspaper work in the mid-1990s, I shot a $15,000 NC2000 (umm, using an incident meter because I found the automated body counter-intuitive, and with a big RF-like rectangle in the viewfinder to indicate the crop-factor of the smaller sensor ... and with no preview LCD). You can't ignore that fact that there are tens of thousands of people in the world making a living taking pictures for newspapers and magazines and that their positions give them high visibility. Up through the mid-1990s, a lot of them aspired to carrying a personal Leica along with their two work-related SLRs. With the switch to digital, the Leicas aren't compatible and aren't as widely sought after a symbol of "arrival" for top-tier photographers. The last two trips I took with White House-level news photographers, their personal "toy"was Hasselblad's XPan. Significantly, the price point for this thing isn't much more than $2,000.
If I were Leica, I'd be working overtime coming up with a small, fast 10 or 12mm f/2 or 2.8 lens for my crop-sensored Digital M. I'd even think about ways to build a zoom viewfinder that doesn't need as many accessory shoes. Nikon was aiming in the zoom viewfinder direction when the bottom suddenly fell out of the RF market ... the SPX would have used one, and there were two or three prototypes made. And that was the early 1960s.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Vince,
Thank you for pointing out that Smith used a Minolta for the Minamata pictures (Nakamura says an SRT-101). I have to eat my words about Smith using a Leica because I thought he used a Leica for that story.
Thank you for pointing out that Smith used a Minolta for the Minamata pictures (Nakamura says an SRT-101). I have to eat my words about Smith using a Leica because I thought he used a Leica for that story.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
Ok, I am following this string and having a background in sales and marketing as well as a passion for photography I have a few questions. Just who is dropping the equivelant of the book value of my 3 year old VW Golf on a NEW Leica M body and a kit of lenses. Two we all know a digital M is the future of the company at least the Zeiss-Cosina joint venture is communicating with its customers present and future. I am going to be honest here, I can only afford used Lieca gear unless heaven forbid a relative drops and there is a sizable inheritance. Having already lost a family member this year I don't want any more family members passing on any time soon.
So what I see is Leica has a really bad marketing communications problem with its customer base that being rangefinder camera enthusiats regardless if they particiapte in this forum or not. At the moment Leica is run like a fashion house/luxury goods company not a camera/optics company, it sells a niche product because 99.9% of photojournalists today are using top drawer Canon and Nikon DSLR's. If the M is a photojournalists camera, its too expensive for photojournalists. At this stage considering I love my Leica M3, if I get my dream job tomorrow, I am going to wait for the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder or just go out and get a Bessa R2a. We all love Leica but the present business model just does not make sense to me, once more its silence on its products is bewildering to this budding public relations practitioner (still in school).
Bill
So what I see is Leica has a really bad marketing communications problem with its customer base that being rangefinder camera enthusiats regardless if they particiapte in this forum or not. At the moment Leica is run like a fashion house/luxury goods company not a camera/optics company, it sells a niche product because 99.9% of photojournalists today are using top drawer Canon and Nikon DSLR's. If the M is a photojournalists camera, its too expensive for photojournalists. At this stage considering I love my Leica M3, if I get my dream job tomorrow, I am going to wait for the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder or just go out and get a Bessa R2a. We all love Leica but the present business model just does not make sense to me, once more its silence on its products is bewildering to this budding public relations practitioner (still in school).
Bill
jdos2
Well-known
It seems to me that Leica has backed themselves into a corner of devious design, just like every other film camera manufacturer seems to have- there is only so large a market, so large a demand, and used cameras are just as good as the old, unless the manufacturer makes deep changes to the lens mount (as Canon did in the 80's) and the market is (grumpily, as I remember) renewed.
I bought a new MP, and a 35mm Summilux ASPH and 90mm AA at the same time. I have since bought a 28mm Elmarit ("current" (in stock) version, but not new), current Noctilux (again, used) and 135mm Elmarit.
My next camera is probably going to be the ZI, as I want to have another mount and I don't want to spend as much money for something that'll give me as good results.
I question Leica's ability to change at all, and because of that, I'm going to guess that they are going to have to reorg at least another, or few more times, as they just aren't terribly responsive to their customer needs. The MP did surprise me, though, in that they so well resurrected their flagship so well...
Ah, I'm sure that there are lots more things going on in the market that any of us can well comprehend, unless we swim in that market. I mean, Nikon themselves risked the new SP, and have by all accounts done well in spite of their new S3 still not selling so well.
Anyway. Yes, it's more of a puddle of consciousness, "I have trouble moving water." (thanks, Martin Mull)
JD
I bought a new MP, and a 35mm Summilux ASPH and 90mm AA at the same time. I have since bought a 28mm Elmarit ("current" (in stock) version, but not new), current Noctilux (again, used) and 135mm Elmarit.
My next camera is probably going to be the ZI, as I want to have another mount and I don't want to spend as much money for something that'll give me as good results.
I question Leica's ability to change at all, and because of that, I'm going to guess that they are going to have to reorg at least another, or few more times, as they just aren't terribly responsive to their customer needs. The MP did surprise me, though, in that they so well resurrected their flagship so well...
Ah, I'm sure that there are lots more things going on in the market that any of us can well comprehend, unless we swim in that market. I mean, Nikon themselves risked the new SP, and have by all accounts done well in spite of their new S3 still not selling so well.
Anyway. Yes, it's more of a puddle of consciousness, "I have trouble moving water." (thanks, Martin Mull)
JD
ywenz
Veteran
Photojournalists who are currently using Leicas today, such as NG photographers will have no need for a digital M and nor would they want it. As sure as I am that white is on rice, this digital M will have image quality no better than the current top of the line DSLRs. Which means it will still be generations away from the quality of film.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
As much as I'm sure using a word processor saves you a lot of paper and Liquid Paper(tm) than using a pen or perhaps a pencil, I'm pretty sure I've still seen pens and pencils being used as writing utensils.
I believe that substituting something completely with the latest and greatest is nothing but the result of conditioning of the marketing powerhouses behind the makers of new products.
Leica has had a problem since the 50's. All companies have a problem all the time at some point. Putting a brand up in a pedestal (read: Porsche, Jaguar, Alpha Romeo, Energizer) will always bring about those who will try to stone it down.
It's always a fun read...
I believe that substituting something completely with the latest and greatest is nothing but the result of conditioning of the marketing powerhouses behind the makers of new products.
Leica has had a problem since the 50's. All companies have a problem all the time at some point. Putting a brand up in a pedestal (read: Porsche, Jaguar, Alpha Romeo, Energizer) will always bring about those who will try to stone it down.
It's always a fun read...
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Uncle Bill said:
Exactly , Bill that's it . But what else can you expect ? Sometimes I have doubts you guys over there in US do know at all what kind of company Hermes actually is ?
If you look at their portfolio and their business concept you will see that since the takeover Leica camera is only partly something which has to do with cameras and photography, There is NO LEICA MARKETING, as we all can easily recognize.
Best case there is a limited BUDGET for "Innovations" to play with for the Leica folks.
Bu that's not marketing, or strategy.
I've been in sales and marketing for 15 years and I have a bright and clear vision of what's going on inside of Leica camera. It's a real and true WONDER that it lasted so long. :bang:
Bertram
sgy1962
Well-known
VinceC said:
Unless Leica can convince consumers that their digital camera has a long useful life. Sort of the "buy one and your set for life" idea.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
gabrielma said:
How very true. Their first mistake was that they got too late into the SLR market and did not manage to build up a stable position in the SLR pro market, on par with Nikon.
Later then they missed the SLR evolution and continued to be a niche product with their SLRs as they had been already with the Ms at the beginning f the 60s.
They got more and more elitist, more and more noble and more and more expensive.
Necessarily. And the more expensive they got the smaller they got too. Until they were DEAD ! And then Hermes came and thought such a tiny little noble-company
with still having survived on their tiny market with such insane prices would be a perfect part of their portfolio. And they began to cultivate exactly this wrong strategy which had led Leica into the sh*t !
The worst and most dramatic aspect of this all is that meanwhile there was a RF revival happening and they could not suck profit from it . No, not a bit, they LOST market share, and still worse : Cosina built it's success on their weakness, they could not do anything, how bitter THAT must feel.
Bertram
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
sgy1962 said:
A vertual impossibility to buy one digital anything and be set for life in today's obsolete in minutes digital world. Today's consumer is not oriented to that way of thinking.
Bob
ywenz
Veteran
Nikon Bob said:
...especially true considering how much room there is left for digital sensors to improve upon... a Circa 2006 digital M will no doubtly pale in comparison to a Circa 2012 Canon P&S.
VinceC
Veteran
>>Unless Leica can convince consumers that their digital camera has a long useful life. Sort of the "buy one and your set for life" idea.<<
Cosina has found a small but healthy market in building entry-level Leicas. I can imagine a world a few years from now with a digital Bessa variant in the sub-$1,000 price range (todays dollars) and Zeiss in the $2,000-$2,500 professional/serious hobbyist range with Leica taking in a much smaller bunch of premium customers at $3,500-$4,500. Many companies try to build a family of products that range from entry-level through premium.
The idea of charging more upfront in exchange for lower lifetime ownership costs gets into an area that economists call the "personal discount rate." Essentially, people place a higher value on money they possess today and lesser value on a larger amount of money they would possess at a later time. Actuaries use this concept when calculating lump-sums for early pension buyouts, etc. The typical person is going to be more inclined to buy a $2,000 product with a five-to-seven year life-span than a $4,000- $5,000 product with a 20- to 30-year lifespan. In the United States we see this everywhere -- a slate or tile roof on a home has a 100 to 150-year lifespan, but nearly everyone roofs with asphalt shingles -- cheaper but with a 15-year lifespan -- knowing full well that over the lifetime of the home, the slate or tile is much more cost-effective. Europeans tend to be more conscious of the multigenerational aspects of home ownership, and nearly all their roofs are slate and tile. Europeans also build Leicas. They've created this quandary by building a camera with a multigenerational lifespan then discovered that, with a finite number of buyers, eventually everyone who wants one will have one. Evidently, they never saw the "Man in the White Suit," an Alec Guiness movie from the 1950s which offers a wonderful crash course in free markets and planned obsolescence (a scientist invents a fabric that won't wear out and never needs cleaning -- with unforseen disastrous results).
Cosina has found a small but healthy market in building entry-level Leicas. I can imagine a world a few years from now with a digital Bessa variant in the sub-$1,000 price range (todays dollars) and Zeiss in the $2,000-$2,500 professional/serious hobbyist range with Leica taking in a much smaller bunch of premium customers at $3,500-$4,500. Many companies try to build a family of products that range from entry-level through premium.
The idea of charging more upfront in exchange for lower lifetime ownership costs gets into an area that economists call the "personal discount rate." Essentially, people place a higher value on money they possess today and lesser value on a larger amount of money they would possess at a later time. Actuaries use this concept when calculating lump-sums for early pension buyouts, etc. The typical person is going to be more inclined to buy a $2,000 product with a five-to-seven year life-span than a $4,000- $5,000 product with a 20- to 30-year lifespan. In the United States we see this everywhere -- a slate or tile roof on a home has a 100 to 150-year lifespan, but nearly everyone roofs with asphalt shingles -- cheaper but with a 15-year lifespan -- knowing full well that over the lifetime of the home, the slate or tile is much more cost-effective. Europeans tend to be more conscious of the multigenerational aspects of home ownership, and nearly all their roofs are slate and tile. Europeans also build Leicas. They've created this quandary by building a camera with a multigenerational lifespan then discovered that, with a finite number of buyers, eventually everyone who wants one will have one. Evidently, they never saw the "Man in the White Suit," an Alec Guiness movie from the 1950s which offers a wonderful crash course in free markets and planned obsolescence (a scientist invents a fabric that won't wear out and never needs cleaning -- with unforseen disastrous results).
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Slate versus tar shingle is nice analogy, but with digital cameras and computer gear I sometimes feel like I'm in a revolving door. This years standard of quality get superceded in two to three years time by the next round of improvements.
VinceC
Veteran
>> but with digital cameras and computer gear I sometimes feel like I'm in a revolving door. This years standard of quality get superceded in two to three years time by the next round of improvements.<<
This whole forum exists to a large part because of the extraordinary quality and longevity of cameras built from the mid-1930s to mid-1970s -- mainly the 1950s and '60s. They just nearly all still work. And we just love to keep using them, obsolescence be hanged!
This whole forum exists to a large part because of the extraordinary quality and longevity of cameras built from the mid-1930s to mid-1970s -- mainly the 1950s and '60s. They just nearly all still work. And we just love to keep using them, obsolescence be hanged!
Sonnar2
Well-known
The problem of LEICA are the outdated bodies. I cannot see an advantage why to prefer a M7 or MP except the fact that the antique shutter without faster speeds than 1/1000s is a bit more quiet. Having some of the best lenses ever made they should offer a body to use them with open aperture even atr bright light.
In the moment my RF-cameras are screwmounts. I plan to buy a "M" bayonet camera within the next 2 years. Probably my first lens will be a 2/35 (pre-asph. Summicron or Biogon)
As far as bodies are concerned, the M7-MP are no alternative to the Zeiss-Ikon or Bessa R2A/R3A. The alternative is a 15-20 years old M6. Why pay 4x this money for a new camera?
With the lenses, there is a choice, and a reason to put aside money for new glass, like the new (asph./APO) 2/35, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.4/75 or 2/90. They are expensive, but among the best. For the best, there is no "too expensive". Maybe they costs to much for me, but there are always appliances who only asks for the best.
So probably solution for LEICA is: Do a much better M8 with fast shutter, with rubber-sealed outer controls and other "unique selling points", in the same price league than M7 or MP. Make a digital M as well. If one or both isn't possible, shoutdown or sell camera production and concentrate on lenses - both film (more mounts, for Nikon, Zeiss, Canon...) and digitally. Reskill the body-mounting workers to mount lenses. Kick out the camera engineers. The future of optics maybe in the short focal length design. Maybe a full format sensor will never come, or be better than the smaller ones we will see.
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras
In the moment my RF-cameras are screwmounts. I plan to buy a "M" bayonet camera within the next 2 years. Probably my first lens will be a 2/35 (pre-asph. Summicron or Biogon)
As far as bodies are concerned, the M7-MP are no alternative to the Zeiss-Ikon or Bessa R2A/R3A. The alternative is a 15-20 years old M6. Why pay 4x this money for a new camera?
With the lenses, there is a choice, and a reason to put aside money for new glass, like the new (asph./APO) 2/35, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.4/75 or 2/90. They are expensive, but among the best. For the best, there is no "too expensive". Maybe they costs to much for me, but there are always appliances who only asks for the best.
So probably solution for LEICA is: Do a much better M8 with fast shutter, with rubber-sealed outer controls and other "unique selling points", in the same price league than M7 or MP. Make a digital M as well. If one or both isn't possible, shoutdown or sell camera production and concentrate on lenses - both film (more mounts, for Nikon, Zeiss, Canon...) and digitally. Reskill the body-mounting workers to mount lenses. Kick out the camera engineers. The future of optics maybe in the short focal length design. Maybe a full format sensor will never come, or be better than the smaller ones we will see.
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras
ywenz
Veteran
Sonnar2 said:
So slap on the ND filter to your lens and that solves the problem...