hteasley
Pupil
That's bad MBA advice, and would kill Leica off, while sounding reasonable all the while. It's Amelio-era Apple thinking, not Jobs-era Apple thinking. Long after computers became commoditized, Jobs took a floundering Apple and made a massive hit with the iMac, which wasn't really much different from other computers, functionally. But the user experience was different.
Leica can't become a commodity camera company and survive. They clearly don't want to be a commodity camera company. Their reputation is such that people don't want Leica lenses made in Canada as compared to Germany: these are lenses from the same company! People want Leica products made in Germany, and they're willing to pay top dollar. That's a sort of brand identity that I'm not sure is matched by anything else.
Leica is about user experience that no one else provides, and the best consumer lenses in the world. They should keep providing both of those, and that can't happen on Canon or Nikon bodies.
Aristophanes
Well-known
By going digital, Leica made their products available to everyone with a home PC, not just those with access to top-flight processing and printing. Makes it much easier to justify the cost of Leica products and taps into a vastly larger market.
And with billion's of $$$'s not going to Kodak or labs or processing, that's all money in the hobby now going to equipment. Leica wanted and got a piece of that.
Going back to film or even subsidizing it as a consumer choice is probably poor business, if sweet sentiment.
And with billion's of $$$'s not going to Kodak or labs or processing, that's all money in the hobby now going to equipment. Leica wanted and got a piece of that.
Going back to film or even subsidizing it as a consumer choice is probably poor business, if sweet sentiment.
NickTrop
Veteran
Leica has been fighting for its life, if not in critical condition, certainly in "serious" condition - seems to me, since the end of the rangefinder heyday in the early-70's. Big and obvious problem with your Apple/Leica analogy. Apple innovates, continuously. Leica's innovation days were the middle of the last century - looong time ago... and they've been playing catch-up ever since, first with SLRs then in the digital era.
But imagine the market that Leica would have making high-priced luxury lenses in native Canon mount? Or Nikon mount? No barrier to entry of needing an M9 to use Leica glass. No kluge adapters. A real, genuine Canon mount 'Cron for you Canon or Nikon DSLR.
Leica is creating its own barrier to entry for its lens line due to their extremely high-priced cameras. Their camera bodies offer no benefit to lower-priced pro full-frame offerings of Nikon and Canon. They cater only to people married to a particular form factor and companies like Fuji are eating into this turf with excellent substitutes. Further, no way can they compete with Nikon or Canon in R&D.
Concede the "body wars" to Nikon and Canon. They won. Let them beat the crap out of each other in the body market. (If they want to stay in the "body business" - design the camera and let Panasonic crank them out in a factory in Japan and have them slap that all-important red dot on them.)
No pros shoot Leica M9s. But make a native Canon or Nikon Summicron? Or zoom? Or whatever? Watch the sales flood gates open.
Well, the only camera that you had from fuji that you can even begin to compare to the M9 is the X100 and it still isn't a fair fight at base ISO. Not sure what happened that you think the X100 is so horrible compared to the GXR. The only truly bad part of the X100 are the flimsy buttons on the back. Outside of that it's a set it and forget it camera.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I can't compare the X100 to the M9. Nor can I compare it to the E-1, which is one of the best designed professional SLR cameras ever made. That would be like comparing a Daihatsu with a BMW, the Fujis haven't got a chance. ;-)
I do compare it to the Ricoh GXR, and the Ricoh is simply a far better camera with more versatility, better control ergonomics, better menus, more customizability, and better image quality. Likewise the Leica X2 - I plan to buy one of them soon - which has the best fixed-lens camera ergonomics and image quality of any I've tried, bar none.
The control layout on all of the Fujis just does not work well for my fingers. Even the XPro1, a larger camera, feels cramped, tight, and difficult to make adjustments fluidly. Believe me this was surprising because on the surface of it, they LOOK like they should be great.
But it was the image quality issues I found in processing the Fuji EXR sensor's raw files that convinced me I didn't want to deal with them. I can usually adapt to minor oddities in ergonomic design and I can endure crappy menus, but having to fuss and fiddle to get the results I want in my photos I will not put up with.
YMMV, vote with your wallet for your favorite as I have done. I just don't get all the hype and hoopla.
And how Fuji's future relates to Leica's future ... it doesn't.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I think we are getting to the stage that no matter what system you buy into the image quality will be enough to last one a life time. It really boils down to ergonomics, features and lens choice.
I think Leica is doing very good but to me since they have jumped into the digital market they have become a rich mans toy. The M9 has been out for quiet some time and most are still playing catch up to the image quality. It will be hard for Leica to top the D800 though.
I have two Sony a850s and want for nothing else.
I think Leica is doing very good but to me since they have jumped into the digital market they have become a rich mans toy. The M9 has been out for quiet some time and most are still playing catch up to the image quality. It will be hard for Leica to top the D800 though.
I have two Sony a850s and want for nothing else.
The story for Fujifilm is not any better with respect to film than the Leica story. If you read the interview with Mr. Komori, it is clear that film has little place in Fujifilm's future. As last man standing in the movie film business, Fujifilm will milk their investment, expertise, and manufacturing capability until it is no longer profitable, but they have no more fundamental committment to film than that."Japan’s large film producer is reorganizing its core businesses. The classic film business has become irrelevant, says Komori. The company’s future rests on cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Only 1% of annual turnover comes from its traditional film business."Fujifilm has diversified itself to survive without its film division. It can probably survive even without its digital camera business. The reorganization of its core businesses is already in progress. Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals have far greater profit potential than either film manufacturing or sales of digital cameras.
I believe a few companies will continue to coat an ever-shrinking variety of emulsions and formats for some years to come, but the big players are all either now gone or going soon.
I'll shoot film as long as I can. When that is no longer possible, I'll coat my own glass plates, I suppose.
Given that there is a translation of the actual interview transcript--as it has been reported to us, at least--I looked for that comment (in bold, above). I didn't see Komori say that. As I read it, the interviewer said that. Reading the interview, Komori actually said the opposite.
Komori did say:
"The movie business is our root, and this will remain so. But we redefined the business. In times of massive digital photography the classic film almost disappeared from the market. Just look what happened to our former competitors."
Interesting combination of the present tense and the past tense in that comment, isn't it. He also said:
The result is today we have six business areas in which we can grow strongly: Medical Systems, Graphic Systems, Optical Devices, Office Communications, Digital Imaging and Functional Materials. All these areas are in one way or the other connected with film technology.
And:
Our core competence lies in research, development and technology. We come from the film business, and we are a film company.
My interpretation of the interview is that film sales do indeed make up a very small percentage of the companys sales, but film remains integrated into their business model and underpins other business areas. I'm not able to connect the statement "We come from the film business, and we are a film company." as being lacking in a "fundamental committment to film".
Regards,
Brett
loquax ludens
Well-known
You might be right, Brett. The interview is difficult to parse.
The following is a quote from the article, and it seems clear upon rereading it that the interviewer is effectively giving his own summary and conclusions before presenting the interview itself.
The interviewer claims that Komori says that the classic film business has become irrelevant, but I cannot find where Komori actually says that either. Hence, the interview is not complete or it is the interviewer's interpretation only. Does Komori imply that film is irrelevant? Maybe, depending on how you filter Komori's answers through your own biases.
But I am in agreement with you. Komori said the opposite. He said that film technology is critical.
I don't think we can project from that, however, for how long Fuji will continue producing photographic films.
The following is a quote from the article, and it seems clear upon rereading it that the interviewer is effectively giving his own summary and conclusions before presenting the interview itself.
The interviewer claims that Komori says that the classic film business has become irrelevant, but I cannot find where Komori actually says that either. Hence, the interview is not complete or it is the interviewer's interpretation only. Does Komori imply that film is irrelevant? Maybe, depending on how you filter Komori's answers through your own biases.
But I am in agreement with you. Komori said the opposite. He said that film technology is critical.
I don't think we can project from that, however, for how long Fuji will continue producing photographic films.
I just cannot agree about the GXR, but I can about the X2...and I've used them all (GXR when it came out and own the X100, X-Pro1, and X2 currently). Good thing we have choices.
Aristophanes
Well-known
"Film" in this context appears to be more relevant technically to emulsions and layered synthetic applications, and not emulsions on a substrate for photography. Fuji released some details about their new cosmetics focus where they are looking to re-purpose their "film" towards skin-based application rather than what we think of as film. Sunscreen, not ISO.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
+1
The GXR is quite a bit different from what it was in 2009 with the addition of a couple of firmware updates, which greatly improve operation of the A12 50 and 28 mm camera units, and then the A12 Camera Mount. I use it mostly with the A12 Camera Mount and a couple of my favorite Voigtländer RF lenses.
ChrisN
Striving
Perhaps we are seeing a tentative move along these lines, but sidetepping full frame and moving into the future - the micro four thirds format. Just as rangefinders have effectively "had their day", so will we soon see the full-frame digital SLRs abandoned by the vast majority of professionals as the quality of output from smaller formats becomes "good enough".
No pros shoot Leica M9s ... That's a very bold statement - I suspect there might be just a few who do!
Aristophanes
Well-known
The market trend shows that mirrorless and smaller than APS-C sensors are becoming closer in price and function to P&S along a whole range of bodies and styles, fixed lens or interchangeable mounts.
FF will drop in price and body size and replace the high-end APS-C market. APS-C DSLR's will barely scrape up to $1,500 bodies and within 5 years all will be below $1,000. Pros will be able to get FF at $1,500 body with enough pixels to edit freely and large pixels to grab low-light, and "get the shot". m43 doesn't have the pixels and low-light to quite make it. FF does, APS-C hits the commodity middle ground.
BobYIL
Well-known
The processor circuitry is getting more and more complex with each year, a multitude of new features are added, processor speeds increasing yet the Milbaut imaging processors, co-processors and motherboards are getting smaller and smaller. Batteries are getting smaller.. Good signs.. FF in near future will need no low-pass filter as they will reach 70-80MP (technology is already on the P&S cameras). For the critical applications DSLR will continue to live; contrast detect AF can not satisfy pro requirements (at least with today's technology).
Also we must bear in mind: The FF and conventional lens designs can not go together without complications.. Even a 50mm lens of state of art RF design on a FF-sensor shows more resolution drop toward edges than an ordinary retrofocal 50mm.. (Yep, not nice but true..)
Aristophanes
Well-known
Batteries aren't really getting smaller. If you want smaller, less time in the on position is now the trend, and video has become an issue for all cameras.
My understanding of the optical physics (challenges my mathematics, but I get it) is that resolution on FF would see minimal gains above 50, maybe 60 MPs, making it not economical to push higher. APS-C would be about 32 MP's.
And for most FF DSLR shooters, we're talking zooms (gasp!). So if you're assuming complications, that's a market reality for lens design. Basing anything off the 'normal' 50 isn't the dominant factor market revenues use as a starting point. My colleague bought the D800 to get the 14-24. In DSLR-land, primes are accompaniments to the main kit for most sales. I see few PJ's or paparazzi or sports shooters using primes.
My understanding of the optical physics (challenges my mathematics, but I get it) is that resolution on FF would see minimal gains above 50, maybe 60 MPs, making it not economical to push higher. APS-C would be about 32 MP's.
And for most FF DSLR shooters, we're talking zooms (gasp!). So if you're assuming complications, that's a market reality for lens design. Basing anything off the 'normal' 50 isn't the dominant factor market revenues use as a starting point. My colleague bought the D800 to get the 14-24. In DSLR-land, primes are accompaniments to the main kit for most sales. I see few PJ's or paparazzi or sports shooters using primes.
loquax ludens
Well-known
Yes, that was precisely my point. Film technology is critical to Fuji, but not necessarily the continued manufacture of photographic film.