Leica's Future - possibilities

[micromontenegro]

It is a reasonable question; but consider Rolls-Royce and Cadillac. Rolls produces no vehicles the average Joe can afford, nor do they care to. Their business plan is not to sell as many cars as they can to all comers, but to sell as many cars as they can whilst maintaining the concept of Rolls as the ultimate in luxury vehicles. They cannot do this by lowering their prices, which would require building cars to a lower standard.

Cadillac, on the other hand, has experimented with dolling up basic GM-chassis cars with Cadillac nameplates and accoutrement, and they ended up with a laughable monstrosity - neither fish nor fowl, it was not luxurious enough for the average Cadillac buyer nor 'Cadillac' enough for the average GM-body car (Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile) wishing for a tad more luxury. It damaged the brand for some time.

An 'everyman' Leica would likely suffer the same fate. It would have to be built without the legendary Leica build quality to be cheap enough to afford, and it would appeal neither to the traditional lovers of Leica cameras nor to the average Joe, who is happy with a good plastic dSLR or, if they prefer a rangefinder, the excellent Cosina-made Voigtlander offerings.

That's my thought on it, anyway.

Very good reasoning, and very true, IMHO. But (there's always a but) when Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, it was far from Rolls category. I was a good, relatively expensive piece of equipement within the relatively effortless means of upper-middle class person, or the small town reporter. It was more like a Honda Accord. Here in the third world, many people in the '40s and '50s had Leicas- and they weren't in the high rollers club- witness Korda. Only close to the Hermes years Leica became Rolls Royce... Was it a change for better, speaking in money? I don't think so.

 

[bmattock]

Very good reasoning, and very true, IMHO. But (there's always a but) when Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, it was far from Rolls category. I was a good, relatively expensive piece of equipement within the relatively effortless means of upper-middle class person, or the small town reporter. It was more like a Honda Accord. Here in the third world, many people in the '40s and '50s had Leicas- and they weren't in the high rollers club- witness Korda. Only close to the Hermes years Leica became Rolls Royce... Was it a change for better, speaking in money? I don't think so.

Well, part of that move from middle-tier to upper-tier was probably involuntary, as the price of highly-skilled labor went up. And Germany has been saddled with some of the more restrictive labor laws (in favor of the worker) for some decades. If Rolls-Royce is not a good comparison, consider the various Swiss mechanical watch makers, such as Omega, Rolex, Vacheron-Constantin, et al. Some brands found at every price point, but as prices for skilled labor went up, they ALL became upper-tier players in comparison to inexpensive and well-made Japanese Seiko and later, Casio, etc, watches.

Each ended up choosing a price point and a market focus - not unlike Leica, although Lieca (and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Rolleiflex) have not much company in the strata they inhabit. One can choose an Omega Seamaster for a lot of money or a Rolex Oyster Day/Date for a bunch of money. If one really has money to burn, the Blancpain, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC and so on await one's inspection. Consider that they are all relatively high-quality, well-made, mechanical watches, but they strive to find a unique niche that they can call their own (the 'Reverso' would be a case in point) and each tries to appeal to a different type of well-heeled consumer. None of them could truly compete with a $30 Casio in terms of keeping accurate time, but that's hardly the point. They don't want to compete with Casio, and trying to do so would be disastrous for them.

 

[funkaoshi]

Found this googling around for historical prices of Leicas:

A 1937 Leica f was $195 equals $2,173 in today's dollars.
A 1946 IIIc was $250 equals $2,057 in today's dollars.
A 1959 M3 w/ 1.5 Summarit was $470 equals $2,592 in today's dollars.

I actually thing the adjusted prices are on the conservative side.

 

[climbing_vine]

For a very, very rough estimate.... that $195 in 1937, if viewed against the median income of a white male in the US (white only, excluding Hispanic etc), is more or less equal to $6500 today. Now, what you'd really want to compare is as a proportion of median disposable income, not raw income.... but those numbers are a lot less handy.

 

[tedwhite]

In 1937 my dad was making something like $35 per week, so clearly that Leica cost more than he made in a month. The actual camera he had at the time was a Kodak box camera that might have cost $5.00, still a significant chunk out of a $35 weekly paycheck.

I see what you folks are saying. Leica serves a rather narrow slice of the consumer pie. Its price point, as they see it, is just right, and I now consider myself rather fortunate to have picked up recently a flawless M6 for $1250.

 

[Fred Burton]

Of course, that big money in 1937 bought you a state of the art camera on the cutting edge. $1250 for an M6 today bought a relic from the past, an M3 with a meter.

And I'm not putting down the Leica M's - I own Leicas. But the equivalent dollars today for a Leica should buy a state of the art camera.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

But the equivalent dollars today for a Leica should buy a state of the art camera.

Many people seem to think that, like "Art", a "state of the art camera" is in the beholder (forget the eye): it has to play MP3s, shoot video, and cost only $9.99 Because g@wd forbid you have to pay for something that costs money to make.

 

[photogdave]

Of course, that big money in 1937 bought you a state of the art camera on the cutting edge. $1250 for an M6 today bought a relic from the past, an M3 with a meter.

And I'm not putting down the Leica M's - I own Leicas. But the equivalent dollars today for a Leica should buy a state of the art camera.

Leicas are state-of-the-art...rangefinders.

 

[Frankie]

Leica is a religion...believers don't need reason, just faith. Preachers don't need logic...dogma works.

Converts imagining themselves poets of photography that they are not...fantasy motivates.

Leica is not used by photo journalists...a in-your-face Nikon is more the norm.

No sports photographer can make a living using a Leica...motor drive rules.

Leica M is useless in telephoto lenses...so tout wide-angles.

Leica M is hopeless in close-ups...so promote street photography, whatever that is.

Leica makes collectors' market, which has nothing to do with photography.

Talk is cheap...show me pictures.

 

[funkaoshi]

Leicas are state-of-the-art...rangefinders.

Are they though? State of the Art for Rangefinders is a camera design from the 50s? I find that hard to believe. I like my Leica very much, but there are certainly more advanced cameras out there. I mean, the Zeis Ikon is probably more 'state of the art' than an M7.

 

[photogdave]

Leicas are state-of-the-art...rangefinders.

Are they though? State of the Art for Rangefinders is a camera design from the 50s? I find that hard to believe. I like my Leica very much, but there are certainly more advanced cameras out there. I mean, the Zeis Ikon is probably more 'state of the art' than an M7.

I think the Ikon is a better deal than the M7 but not necessarily more advanced. I would also say the Konica Hexar is more advanced but one could argue that lack of TTL flash makes it otherwise.

 

[funkaoshi]

Personally I think there is only so much you can do with an MP or an M7 in terms of tech. They are basically manual cameras for people that want manual cameras.

 

[aizan]

they could modernize the leica by using the same engineering approach as zeiss.

i'm visualizing an mp with the following changes: swing back film loading, an extra tug on the rewind knob opens the back, mechanical version of the m8 shutter, battery compartment moved to the bottom, centered tripod socket, magnesium body shell, bipack paint from the m8.2, frameline preview lever and lens release button from the m8, and redesigned iso dial so it's just like the flatter classic dial, only with the new lettering.

that makes for a seamless, modern camera that doesn't look like a half-baked attempt to keep up with the times.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Leica is a religion...believers don't need reason, just faith. Preachers don't need logic...dogma works.

Converts imagining themselves poets of photography that they are not...fantasy motivates.

Leica is not used by photo journalists...a in-your-face Nikon is more the norm.

No sports photographer can make a living using a Leica...motor drive rules.

Leica M is useless in telephoto lenses...so tout wide-angles.

Leica M is hopeless in close-ups...so promote street photography, whatever that is.

Leica makes collectors' market, which has nothing to do with photography.

Talk is cheap...show me pictures.

Wow. I didn't know all the photos I've taken with my Leicas have not been taken with my Leicas.

Confucius say talk is expensive...take pictures.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Think about this.
1. Leica do not see themselves as being in competition with any other manufacturer.
2. They have identified a small but available demographic of people who will buy their cameras as a high price point. With the advent of digital most of these are not professionals but well heeled amateurs.
3. If they set about producing more units and selling at a lower price they devalue the product in the eyes of their chosen demographic and would probably not make any more money. They would need to increase manufacturing capacity, which costs, and likely as not the added volume would be marginally profitable at best.
4. What have they got to gain? (And that's not the same as what you might want to have!)

 

[drec]

What's the matter with continuing to produce the M6 at a price that most amateurs can actually afford? (to say nothing of pro's who would no doubt buy the camera also).

I know this is an old thread, but I just discovered it (mainly since I bought an M6 a couple of weeks ago - my first).

There are so many used Ms on Ebay, KEH, craigslist, etc., that I could never see the need to buy new. There is no way that I could ever come close to owning anything Leica new now.

I'm not saying that Leica shouldn't make an affordable M (pardon the double negative), but just that I don't see it as necessary. The rich guys can get their MPs; people in my financial shoes can get a used M6... or in my case, a worn M4-P for $400!

 

[jaapv]

Interesting to reread this discussion in the light of the highly profitable digital turnaround leica has made over the last four years - it seems Leica's management knows more about the market than forum members...

 

[jsrockit]

Talk about diluting the name and reputation. In marketing parlance, one wouldn not want the "Leica" and "Panasonic" names in the "front-of-mind" for your intended demographic.

Well a good deal of Leicas are sold to Japan and from what I understand Panasonic is a respected name in Japan. Maybe not such a bad thing really.

 

[kemal_mumcu]

The rumor is that Leica sold all 500 of their "Titans" within a couple hours. If that is true, Leica will be fine. There is obviously a market for high priced boutique items.

In '07 they were saying Leica prices were astronomical and couldn't go higher...

 

[Cyriljay]

Leica is a religion...believers don't need reason, just faith. Preachers don't need logic...dogma works.

Converts imagining themselves poets of photography that they are not...fantasy motivates.

Leica is not used by photo journalists...a in-your-face Nikon is more the norm.

No sports photographer can make a living using a Leica...motor drive rules.

Leica M is useless in telephoto lenses...so tout wide-angles.

Leica M is hopeless in close-ups...so promote street photography, whatever that is.

Leica makes collectors' market, which has nothing to do with photography.

Talk is cheap...show me pictures.

😀 😀 😀 😀