zeos 386sx
Well-known
Posts in the Epson R-D1 forum report that the R-D1 has just entered a discount phase with prices as low as $2500 being seen on Ebay for new cameras. Leica's digital M is at least one year away with estimated MSRP’s starting at $4000 and going up. In one year the R-D1's price will probably be lower and the digital M's will be the same.
Flinor noted in the same Epson forum thread, "Stephen Gandy, who is generally not given to spreading rumors, posted to one of his groups several weeks ago that he's heard from an industry insider that there were Konica Minolta Digital rangefinders under test, including one with a full frame sensor."
Leica has a problem. It needs to hook prospective digital M customers before they get lured away. Leica has to start building “mind-share and interest" that is strong enough to keep prospective customers from spending their money before the digital M is even available.
I believe that Leica, whether it wants to or not, must open lines of communication with its customers. At this point Leica is enforcing a ban on information that is so tight that all one Leica USA employee could say about the digital M was, “At this time Germany has not told us exactly what the digital M product will be like so I cannot answer this. It will not be available until the Fall 2006”. That is not the way a company builds “mind-share and interest" for its products.
Flinor noted in the same Epson forum thread, "Stephen Gandy, who is generally not given to spreading rumors, posted to one of his groups several weeks ago that he's heard from an industry insider that there were Konica Minolta Digital rangefinders under test, including one with a full frame sensor."
Leica has a problem. It needs to hook prospective digital M customers before they get lured away. Leica has to start building “mind-share and interest" that is strong enough to keep prospective customers from spending their money before the digital M is even available.
I believe that Leica, whether it wants to or not, must open lines of communication with its customers. At this point Leica is enforcing a ban on information that is so tight that all one Leica USA employee could say about the digital M was, “At this time Germany has not told us exactly what the digital M product will be like so I cannot answer this. It will not be available until the Fall 2006”. That is not the way a company builds “mind-share and interest" for its products.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Leica has quite a challenge on its hands if it hopes to deliver a full-frame sensor and offer backward compatibility with older lenses and keep vignetting to a minimum with wide angle lenses while not affecting performance of normal and telephoto lenses.
A sensor that crops the photo probably might be a better choice for those lenses that have the rear element sitting very close to the shutter curtain. If they go with a sensor crop, there also is the whole thing with autoframe selection, which will bring up frames that may or may not confuse traditional, non-digital Leica owners.
For example, a user typically expecting to use a 50mm frame line instead will now use a 75mm frame line, if the sensor entails a 1.5x crop. A 135mm lens would require a 200mm frame line (202.5mm, to be exact). That could be smaller than the rangefinder patch.
Of course, they could magnify the viewfinder, which might impair the ability to see the frame lines for wider lenses.
And for those who use auxiliary finders in the hot shoe, now you need a different set. So you'll need to use the 50mm finder for a 35mm lens and a 40mm finder for a 28mm lens.
Of course, if they go full frame, this will eliminate this problem. But they still have to deal with the light falloff from older wide-angle lenses.
It might be better to start with the clean-paper approach and redesign all of their lenses (the Carl Zeiss AG route). Economically it might either prove to be the best decision they ever made or it will send them spiraling into a financial black hole, if the lenses and body don't sell well. At some point, you have to stop supporting outdated technology: DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME. Not that current technology is better, but as we know mass market drives business -- not the quality of a product.
However, given that many recent Leica buyers are bottom feeders (if you can glean anything from the comments on Internet photography discussion groups), it makes me wonder how many will be willing to spend up to $7,000 or more on new bodies and lenses.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see what happens. I hope that Leica is able to pull it off. And I hope that its digital back for the R proves to be financially successful.
A sensor that crops the photo probably might be a better choice for those lenses that have the rear element sitting very close to the shutter curtain. If they go with a sensor crop, there also is the whole thing with autoframe selection, which will bring up frames that may or may not confuse traditional, non-digital Leica owners.
For example, a user typically expecting to use a 50mm frame line instead will now use a 75mm frame line, if the sensor entails a 1.5x crop. A 135mm lens would require a 200mm frame line (202.5mm, to be exact). That could be smaller than the rangefinder patch.
Of course, they could magnify the viewfinder, which might impair the ability to see the frame lines for wider lenses.
And for those who use auxiliary finders in the hot shoe, now you need a different set. So you'll need to use the 50mm finder for a 35mm lens and a 40mm finder for a 28mm lens.
Of course, if they go full frame, this will eliminate this problem. But they still have to deal with the light falloff from older wide-angle lenses.
It might be better to start with the clean-paper approach and redesign all of their lenses (the Carl Zeiss AG route). Economically it might either prove to be the best decision they ever made or it will send them spiraling into a financial black hole, if the lenses and body don't sell well. At some point, you have to stop supporting outdated technology: DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME. Not that current technology is better, but as we know mass market drives business -- not the quality of a product.
However, given that many recent Leica buyers are bottom feeders (if you can glean anything from the comments on Internet photography discussion groups), it makes me wonder how many will be willing to spend up to $7,000 or more on new bodies and lenses.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see what happens. I hope that Leica is able to pull it off. And I hope that its digital back for the R proves to be financially successful.
Hektor
Leicapile
I suspect that judging by the recent board room changes and financial restructuring that Leica are only too well aware they have to get this digital-M situation very right.
I think they realised it a bit late, only when the finances department reported, belatedly, that they'd run out of cash, presumably due to a diminution of sales, not helped by the late DMR.
Leica are not a big company, and they have small resources, compared to more diverse outfits like Canon, Nikon, etc. However they are very experienced at making truly excellent cameras.
It is bound to take considerable time, from a late start, to get the Dig-M upto what we expect from Leica. I think users would prefer to wait rather than get a flawed camera. The purchase cost is not a critical factor in the Leica arena, but the usefullness is.
I reckon Leica have only one shot at getting this right, and they ought to make sure they do so.
With that in mind, keeping users informed of progress, rather than setting a blistering pace might be a very important strategy that they should consider immediately.
JC
I think they realised it a bit late, only when the finances department reported, belatedly, that they'd run out of cash, presumably due to a diminution of sales, not helped by the late DMR.
Leica are not a big company, and they have small resources, compared to more diverse outfits like Canon, Nikon, etc. However they are very experienced at making truly excellent cameras.
It is bound to take considerable time, from a late start, to get the Dig-M upto what we expect from Leica. I think users would prefer to wait rather than get a flawed camera. The purchase cost is not a critical factor in the Leica arena, but the usefullness is.
I reckon Leica have only one shot at getting this right, and they ought to make sure they do so.
With that in mind, keeping users informed of progress, rather than setting a blistering pace might be a very important strategy that they should consider immediately.
JC
RObert Budding
D'oh!
No worries - Leica can just launch a "Hermes Edition" for $17,500. They'll fly off of the shelves!
Robert
Robert
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Did you notice they extended their "Leica à la carte" deal to already purchased cameras? I saw it in Rich Pinto's Photovillage.com website. I guess that's another way to lure owners of used equipment to get in touch with the "source of it all" and help fill up the coffers a bit.
The problem they face is name-recognition. Not every body knows what Leica is. My camera drew a blank in my colleagues' face because nobody knows what it is. They should hit the consumer market with an entry level RF camera, in cooperation with Cosina. Heck, if Mrl Kobayashi can work with Zeiss, why not with Leica?
Just coffee-less musings.
The problem they face is name-recognition. Not every body knows what Leica is. My camera drew a blank in my colleagues' face because nobody knows what it is. They should hit the consumer market with an entry level RF camera, in cooperation with Cosina. Heck, if Mrl Kobayashi can work with Zeiss, why not with Leica?
Just coffee-less musings.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Francisco - The existing Leica client base is a problem. Have you seen the photo.net threads slamming zeiss for selling a "rebadged Cosina"? I suppose they could go that route - but they would be trying to draw new client to the brand. It might make sense, given that existing clients are not generating enough sales to sustain the brand. And it really is time for drastic action!
Robert
Robert
S
Socke
Guest
Robert, they bash Zeiss for selling a "rebadged" Cosina but they praise Leica for selling "rebadged" Panasonics 
Take the Ikon and put a red dot on it and in a year or two they will love it!
Take the Ikon and put a red dot on it and in a year or two they will love it!
Hektor
Leicapile
Hmmm..... I suppose that's why Zeiss Ikon went out of the camera business and Leica didn't then ?
Toby
On the alert
The big problem for Leica is that I can't see any press photographer / photojournalist using leica M as their primary camera system. Most would have Canon or Nikon and then have a leica as a supplimental camera. In this case how can a pro justify a camera as expensive as the digital M is bound to be? Leica need to cater for "2nd system" part of the market to have a future. The ship has sailed -they currently have no chance of being a major digital player, Leica should accept that and act accordingly
Hektor
Leicapile
Who says they don't..........
You never did have to be a "pro" to buy a Leica.....
In fact the "pros" laughed at them till the press stopped using Speedgraphics and Rollei TLR's....
Lots of folks buy Leicas for various reasons... most of which haven't changed.....
I wouldn't go so far as to say theyr'e incomparable... but nothing quite takes their place...
If they get the Dig-M right I think they'll sell a lot... if they're still around..... ?
You never did have to be a "pro" to buy a Leica.....
In fact the "pros" laughed at them till the press stopped using Speedgraphics and Rollei TLR's....
Lots of folks buy Leicas for various reasons... most of which haven't changed.....
I wouldn't go so far as to say theyr'e incomparable... but nothing quite takes their place...
If they get the Dig-M right I think they'll sell a lot... if they're still around..... ?
zeos 386sx
Well-known
I agree with this. I know a young, well educated, professional, wedding photographer who had never heard of Leica until I put an M into her hands.SolaresLarrave said:
The new "D-Lux 2" is Leica's first attempt to enter the lucrative mid-range camera market, but if they don't start doing a better PR job to get people excited about their products it may not matter.
Leica has exactly the same problem in the high end market. In the high end market Leica faces some of the most dedicated comparison shoppers on the planet. Those shoppers know about Leica but know nothing about Leica's digital M. If Leica doesn't start an immediate PR campaign for the digital M I think it risks losing those shoppers.
As a practical matter, the people in this forum (and forums like it) constitute, possibly, the best advertising mechanism available to Leica. However, without information about Leica's products we can't help.
Toby
On the alert
Hektor said:
To be honest I think their current financial state prohibits them from being a major player - the DMR proves this it's digital SLR on the cheap because they don't have the money to build one from scratch
S
Scarpia
Guest
All five of them, plus the gold one for the Sultan of Brunei.RObert Budding said:
Ben Z
Veteran
zeos 386sx said:
The RD-1 was a bold move at the outset but like the Nikon D100/D70 whose chip it uses, it has been eclipsed (fairly or not) by Canon having upped the megapixel bar first with the 8MP 20D and 350D and now with the 12MP FULL FRAME 5D. With word of a digital M coming, which one would assume will be at least 10MP, it isn't suprising that sales of the RD-1 have fallen off and a price reduction is in order by dealers wanting to reduce their stock.
I'll believe it when I see it. My guess is the digital M will be at least double the cost of an M7/MP.
Unless they come straight out and take a stand that it is designed to be compatible with Leica lenses it's doomed like the RF was.
You'd have thought the Hexar RF would've caused the M7 to be stillborn, but it didn't. Yes there was the back-focus fiasco, which Konica did nothing to dispel because they wanted to sell those Hexanon lenses. But people came up with some very creative "reasons" why the M7 was so much better than the RF. People who want a Leica, want a Leica. They'll wait for it and they'll pay for it and they'll praise it no matter how its specs compare.
IMO Leica knows its market better than they're given credit for, even though it's embarrassing to admit that those GI Joe/Barbie dress-up editions don't represent Leica's cluelessness.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Leica has more than one problem and bringing out a digital M will not solve it. As has been said before, the present Leica client base is a problem in several ways. It has to be shrinking as less and less people have pockets deep enough to buy new Leica gear and the young newly affluent are not likely to see Leica as a status symbol or useful tool in their modern electronic lifestyle. There are better known brands in the electronics field. Would it really make sense to buy a Leica digital M of the same build quality as current Leica products when they would house technology that is obsolete so quickly and requires a housing that need only last a few short years not decades. Reairing a 30 year old, or older, Leica is expensive but possible. In 30 years you would have a body but who would repair the electronic parts of the digital M? Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.
Bob
Bob
GeneW
Veteran
Adding to their woes is that many current digital photographers see their cameras as a one-, two-, or at max three-year investment. They *expect* to upgrade at that time to get the latest in sensors and technology. It's a computer race, and small players don't stand much chance. You might buy an M for a lifetime investment. Not so with anything digital. From a marketing point of view, they might be better breaking in with their lenses, in EOS and Nikon mounts.
Gene
Gene
ZeissFan
Veteran
The demise of Zeiss Ikon had little to do with the success of the Leica M. However, in some ways it parallels Leica's current situation.
Unlike Leica, Zeiss Ikon had entirely too many cameras on the market: medium format, several lines of 35mm SLRs with different lens mounts, the Voigtlander issue, simple box cameras, several simple 35mm fixed-lens cameras, TLRs, etc.
And they didn't respond quickly enough to a changing market that was buying up inexpensive Japanese cameras that were innovating at a much quicker pace than Germany camera makers.
Regardless of what you think of digital, the market shift toward that technology can't be ignored. It's very simple: adapt or join the scrapheap of history.
Gene's comment about the shelf life of digital is exactly right. It still boggles my mind how people are willing to shell out $500-$1,000 for poor quality P&S cameras and entry-level cameras with a marginal quality kit lens. But they won't spend that much money on a superior film camera that has a much better lens and much better quality of construction.
Let's go to the Canon 20D -- sold a boatload of them. And it's been a flawed camera from the start. Canon has patched the firmware so many times that it's ridiculous. Some patches were to correct problems with previous patches. Now, if Leica turns out a digital camera that has to be patched as many times as the 20D, people are going to come down hard on them -- very hard.
I suppose different expectations for different companies. Maybe we expect Leica to get it right the first time, while we're willing to accept substandard products from Canon.
Here's what I'm saying. It appears that Canon has released five firmware updates for the 20D, which is considered a success. If Leica has to patch the firmware five times, will it also be considered a success? Or will it be considered a flawed camera?
Unlike Leica, Zeiss Ikon had entirely too many cameras on the market: medium format, several lines of 35mm SLRs with different lens mounts, the Voigtlander issue, simple box cameras, several simple 35mm fixed-lens cameras, TLRs, etc.
And they didn't respond quickly enough to a changing market that was buying up inexpensive Japanese cameras that were innovating at a much quicker pace than Germany camera makers.
Regardless of what you think of digital, the market shift toward that technology can't be ignored. It's very simple: adapt or join the scrapheap of history.
Gene's comment about the shelf life of digital is exactly right. It still boggles my mind how people are willing to shell out $500-$1,000 for poor quality P&S cameras and entry-level cameras with a marginal quality kit lens. But they won't spend that much money on a superior film camera that has a much better lens and much better quality of construction.
Let's go to the Canon 20D -- sold a boatload of them. And it's been a flawed camera from the start. Canon has patched the firmware so many times that it's ridiculous. Some patches were to correct problems with previous patches. Now, if Leica turns out a digital camera that has to be patched as many times as the 20D, people are going to come down hard on them -- very hard.
I suppose different expectations for different companies. Maybe we expect Leica to get it right the first time, while we're willing to accept substandard products from Canon.
Here's what I'm saying. It appears that Canon has released five firmware updates for the 20D, which is considered a success. If Leica has to patch the firmware five times, will it also be considered a success? Or will it be considered a flawed camera?
Last edited:
ywenz
Veteran
GeneW said:
Spoken well... At the price we're anticipating for this digi-M, it simply is not a good deal. Maybe Leica should just focus on the film aspect and turn into a tiny, albeit still-existing camera comany
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
THAT's the decisive point indeed ! This company is A incredibly SMALL and and has B lost all it's financial resources already. It serves C a shrinking market, that they raised their prices proves it. The R line did never make really good money and the M line won't either in future.Nikon Bob said:
Making the M digital with an APS chip would not make sense as long as Epson is around with a RD-1 for (assumed) less than the half price, even if the RD has obviously a serious QM prob.
So it would be time for a complete new digital body AND (retrofocus) lens line as ZeissFan pointed out correctly.
But this leads them to A and B ............ and the question if at all they would have enuff clients in their base which were interested in a digital M and if they could gain enuff new and young folks as clients with this new digital M line.
At both points I have doubts.
I agree their communication IS bad ! To say " I can't tell you what "IT" will be but I can tell you won't get "IT" before spring 2006" is simply idiotic.
And it lets me assume "IT" won't be anything really exciting. If all runs well maybe it turns out to be a rebadged Konica-Minolta RF.
If at all this beast lives already in a secret Frankenstein laboratory in Japan the full frame version will not take the M lenses tho.
For full frame there is no way out with the old designs.
Bertram
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Leica is a company which, at the height of the digital revolution, decided its future lay in FILM cameras. When it comes to Leica knowing its market I think clueless might be the appropriate word.Ben Z said:
It's just too easy to criticize Leica with hindsight and I don't want to waste time doing that. However, it is important to note that isolation from its customer base and its customers wishes is what got Leica into its current mess. Leica's survival as a camera company depends upon people like us. If Leica will not communicate with us about its products how can it expect our support?