Leica's Future - possibilities
- Thread starter CameraQuest
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 15K
Ajax
Jonathan Eastland
In my recent review of the M-Monochrom published in the current (April) issue of the BJP, I commented briefly on the finance/cost issues of digital Leica-Ms, in effect, stating that I thought the Monochrom was probably the first digital M to come out of Solms which will not need upgrading in the forseeable future. There are a basket full of arguments about what Leica should have come to market with first that really worked, but all a little pointless in my view. The new M (which I am also reviewing for the BJP.), is well ahead of its CFA'd predecessors and priced accordingly. Do I want one? Yes. Do I need it? No. I'd rather have the M-M; it would see me out. That said, I'm still cranking film and enjoying it; so much so, I recently added an S3 Y2003K special edition to the wardrobe, to replace the one I sold more than 20 years back, an act that has been bugging me ever since.
JE🙂
www.ajaxnetphoto.com
JE🙂
www.ajaxnetphoto.com
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Wow - there's a lot of Leica hate there...
S
squareshooter
Guest
Hummm...who said big companies are smart? Henry Ford was a billionaire who never wanted to stop making the Model T. You know the bankrupt company that invented the digital camera and got eaten up by it. Polaroid could not understand a different type of instant photo and went down the tubes. Very few people and companies can peer into the future and know what it is they should do. I wonder how many billions of dollars went down the bathroom thing when "real" camera stores died.
I knew a guy who bought $80,000 worth of Polariod stock at $2 bucks each (early on). His neighbor who owned the biggest camera store in downtown Los Angeles told him not to buy the stock because the instant photo thing was nothing like a fad. The guy sold his stock at over $200 each.
I knew a guy who bought $80,000 worth of Polariod stock at $2 bucks each (early on). His neighbor who owned the biggest camera store in downtown Los Angeles told him not to buy the stock because the instant photo thing was nothing like a fad. The guy sold his stock at over $200 each.
larmarv916
Well-known
There is larger cultural-technology shift by the mass of people who are capturing images on a daily basis. This ever expanding segment of society do not need or care about an rangefinder focusing method. The new cameras do not even focus, they capture an image and then the focus point can be selected anywhere in the composition...in multiple saved versions.
Also the desire of society to not worry about a print as a form of saving the final image also died a long time ago also. So that now all that matters is direct uploading or sharing to a group of friends. A storage in the cloud or many a digital flash drive.
To see the image is on a display screen is all that is important to these operators of image capture equipment. Video also has displaced still images as now so much is video capture and then the still is chose from the stream.
Leica has made the rangefinder concept and Leica "it's self" irrelevant. As auto focus technology keeps moving forward and image stabilization methods almost replace tripods.
Now we see a now phone where the lens looks like a normal camera lens but the sensor is built into the lens body....it just snaps on the back of a smart phone and the image transfers to the phone with not direct connection....then uploads wireless. Take the lens off and put back into your pocket and your done.
Lecia as a method of photography...now only become over priced jewelry as proof of visible status consumption. A sad but self created demise.
Also the desire of society to not worry about a print as a form of saving the final image also died a long time ago also. So that now all that matters is direct uploading or sharing to a group of friends. A storage in the cloud or many a digital flash drive.
To see the image is on a display screen is all that is important to these operators of image capture equipment. Video also has displaced still images as now so much is video capture and then the still is chose from the stream.
Leica has made the rangefinder concept and Leica "it's self" irrelevant. As auto focus technology keeps moving forward and image stabilization methods almost replace tripods.
Now we see a now phone where the lens looks like a normal camera lens but the sensor is built into the lens body....it just snaps on the back of a smart phone and the image transfers to the phone with not direct connection....then uploads wireless. Take the lens off and put back into your pocket and your done.
Lecia as a method of photography...now only become over priced jewelry as proof of visible status consumption. A sad but self created demise.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
It seems to me that our modern culture causes the masses to settle for the lowest common denominator. This is true in the world of photography as it is in every other facet of modern life.
Today there is no grasp of or concern for the concept of quality; convenience, quickness and cheap prices are all that matter to the masses.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Two Things:
1) Leica should make a digital CL with a wind shutter advance like the Epson RD-1 to bring more people into the rangefinder world. Price it equivalent to the upcoming Sony FF mirrorless camera. (They likely do not have the production capability to do this.
2) The X series cameras are a good start. Simply make them more affordable and people will be interested. The X Vario was destroyed in the public's eye not just by the slow lens but by the price associated with that lens.
CL brings people in and X is an alternative option. The S series is a great idea, but again priced like a MF body and that is market is dead. Not so sure the S makes sense with D4's and D800E's around.
Its a bleak future unless the innovate, and they are not innovating.
1) Leica should make a digital CL with a wind shutter advance like the Epson RD-1 to bring more people into the rangefinder world. Price it equivalent to the upcoming Sony FF mirrorless camera. (They likely do not have the production capability to do this.
2) The X series cameras are a good start. Simply make them more affordable and people will be interested. The X Vario was destroyed in the public's eye not just by the slow lens but by the price associated with that lens.
CL brings people in and X is an alternative option. The S series is a great idea, but again priced like a MF body and that is market is dead. Not so sure the S makes sense with D4's and D800E's around.
Its a bleak future unless the innovate, and they are not innovating.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I would hate to see a digital CL. An updated version of the X2 with interchangeable lenses makes more sense.
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
S
squareshooter
Guest
I am so old that I remember when the Packard Motor Car was the top dog. In those long ago days Americans did not buy foreign cars much. Packard "Ask The Man Who Owns One" was the Alpha Dog and Cadillac was an also-ran. You can look it up. Then Packard a great idea -- why not make a lower-priced model to sell to a lot of other folks would would or could not pay for a full-blown Packard. So they came out with the Clipper model. All of a sudden bank presidents and other big shots around the country were horrified -- their vice presidents and other vermin could afford to buy a Packard. Sales for regular Packards -- not the cheapie model -- took a nosedive and never recovered. When did you see a Packard Motor Car on the streets lately? The whole company folded up like a paper airplane and the shambles that are the former Packard motor works in Detroit is high on the list of horrors of that bankrupt city.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Back to honorable OP question, which was posted few years ago.
Here is the web-site.
http://www.leica.com/
Three optical-mechanical manufacturing companies. None of them makes cheap product, but very high quality instruments. Seems to be balanced well, in terms of positioning at the market.
Plus, here are some Leica P&S lenses in use by other manufacturers.
Looks like (and it has been for a while now) Leica has not just top of the line, but low price product range.
They just placed it where it should be. On huge and massive P&S market, not on crepuscular RF or shrinking DSRL market.
Here is the web-site.
http://www.leica.com/
Three optical-mechanical manufacturing companies. None of them makes cheap product, but very high quality instruments. Seems to be balanced well, in terms of positioning at the market.
Plus, here are some Leica P&S lenses in use by other manufacturers.
Looks like (and it has been for a while now) Leica has not just top of the line, but low price product range.
They just placed it where it should be. On huge and massive P&S market, not on crepuscular RF or shrinking DSRL market.
jsrockit
Moderator
N.delaRua
Well-known
Why would you hate to see a CL? I guess its not very innovative, but if one could make a smaller digital rangefinder and make it more affordable I would say that would be very innovative! (Contradictory I know). Wasn't that the reason for existence of the CL?
farlymac
PF McFarland
I believe the true death knell for Packard was when they started using them for taxi's in NYC.
Leica is walking a fine line between making a camera that is a standard marque, and appealing to the masses so they can sell more of them. It had to cost them a bundle to source a new supplier for the imaging sensor. If they were to expand their assembly lines for more production, and the product falls flat because the perceptions of their owner base are deflated, then where are they? Joining Kodak, Polaroid, and other companies lost to history.
PF
Leica is walking a fine line between making a camera that is a standard marque, and appealing to the masses so they can sell more of them. It had to cost them a bundle to source a new supplier for the imaging sensor. If they were to expand their assembly lines for more production, and the product falls flat because the perceptions of their owner base are deflated, then where are they? Joining Kodak, Polaroid, and other companies lost to history.
PF
N.delaRua
Well-known
Modern interpretation of a Leica CL might be something more like a Nikon 1 series or XE-1.
M-Mount Full Frame, dedicated high resolution EVF with the best implementation of Focus peaking. With a stopped down wide lens, this would be the equivalent of scale focusing and shooting street would be a dream and very easy as you would see your subject sparkle into focus. Imagine an XE-1 without all the fluff, an M mount, FF. Sounds like a winner to me.
They have to dilute their brand if that want to succeed. Apple does it and so does everyone else who is successful. You need to build the brand by making money not jewelry.
I think there are many people that lust over Leicas, but discount them quickly because of price. If you lose some of your customer base who like the status symbol appeal but bring in more entry level users you win.
It seems to me that nearly every Fuji X series camera owner (there are a lot of them) is a Leica "luster" in disguise, and they are willing to pay for an approximation of the real thing because its close enough and produces while being functional and moderately affordable. Its not rocket science.
M-Mount Full Frame, dedicated high resolution EVF with the best implementation of Focus peaking. With a stopped down wide lens, this would be the equivalent of scale focusing and shooting street would be a dream and very easy as you would see your subject sparkle into focus. Imagine an XE-1 without all the fluff, an M mount, FF. Sounds like a winner to me.
They have to dilute their brand if that want to succeed. Apple does it and so does everyone else who is successful. You need to build the brand by making money not jewelry.
I think there are many people that lust over Leicas, but discount them quickly because of price. If you lose some of your customer base who like the status symbol appeal but bring in more entry level users you win.
It seems to me that nearly every Fuji X series camera owner (there are a lot of them) is a Leica "luster" in disguise, and they are willing to pay for an approximation of the real thing because its close enough and produces while being functional and moderately affordable. Its not rocket science.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
