Ben Z
Veteran
A watch is also just a tool. Any other perception is the result of clever marketing over the course of many decades. For most people a 3MP cell-phone camera is all they need, just like a $10 plastic watch is all the watch they need. Other people want something more, and are willing to pay for it, both in increasing degrees.
Again, those perceptions are the result of marketing. My 2GHz Pentium IV running Win-XP which I bought 3 years ago works flawlessly and does everything I need it to. If it were still manufactured I'd buy it again for what I paid, in a heartbeat, vs some overfeatured, buggy Vista box. So too my Canon 20D, the M8, and the 5D (Mk-I) I just bought. I just sent a high-end touchscreen cellphone back and went back to my 4 yr old flipphone because it does what I expect a phone to do without bugs, freezeups or excess complication. Manufacturers and dealers (and people on internet forums who get seduced by marketing
) can try all they want to shame me into declaring those items obsolete, but I'm not buying into it.Ben Z
Veteran
For some people that's undoubtedly true. But to those who understand the art and science of fine watchmaking, the work that goes into eg. an in-house Patek calibre sets it far apart from a generic off-the-shelf ETA. There are a lot of brands that sell for thousands that do in fact house just a generic movement, but those don't appeal to true watch afficionados, many of whom are far from well-heeled and will save and scrimp to one day buy a single used example of a truly high-end watch.
Uh, aren't they doing that now with Panasonic?
dfoo
Well-known
I care alot, despite owning more SLRs than Rangefinders. The lack of mirror slap, to me, is a big advantage. I can never get sharpish images hand held with low shutter speeds with my SLRs. It doesn't seem to be much of an issue with my Leica.
DougFord
on the good foot
If Leica/Kodak are the first ones to solve the short flange/sensor distance issues then I would think that they would want to exploit that technical break through by releasing a product that could have a wider appeal then the classic RF form factor. A small FF hybrid camera with an EVF and a few small autofocus primes could have much wider appeal then an FFM9. By all means, release a FFM9 for the traditionalists, but a FF hybrid could redefine the 'photojournalist' camera for the 21st century.
TomN
Established
so the Leica equivelant of a Patek Philippe Calatrava would be a Leica MP, not a disposable digital. That you would compare with a Tag Heuer.
aniMal
Well-known
For me it is very simple - Leica M is what I am used to, and what really makes me focus on the picture and nothing else.
It is the philosophy of design that is so radically different, other than that I would not feel too much attracted to an expensive M9 FF.
What really would liven up things would be a rock solid FM2-D with the sensor of a D700... Even though I never get the right feel or work-flow with SLRs, I would buy one for sure!
It is the philosophy of design that is so radically different, other than that I would not feel too much attracted to an expensive M9 FF.
What really would liven up things would be a rock solid FM2-D with the sensor of a D700... Even though I never get the right feel or work-flow with SLRs, I would buy one for sure!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I guess it's because I've used Canon EOS cameras since they replaced the manual focus cameras, but my 5D is as dead simple to use for me as my M3. Ignore all the buttons and menus. The only thing that matters with any camera is aperture, shutter speed and film (or sensor) ISO. That's all you MUST worry about whether the camera is a 1DSMkIII or a Leica IIIc. When I'm shooting, those are the only things that concern me with either camera.
I know that just the existance of the technology is distracting to a lot of people whether they use it fully or not. It has just never bothered me.
I know that just the existance of the technology is distracting to a lot of people whether they use it fully or not. It has just never bothered me.
robklurfield
eclipse
Ben, you have good point here in one sense: the economics of this. Having been in the watch business for a number of years, specializing in high-end vintage goods (no, guys and gals, I'm not in the biz anymore and I can't get anyone a special deal), I can tell you with certainty that brands like Patek thrive in good part due to reputation AND value of their goods on the secondary market. It has far less to do with usable functionality and intrinsic value (ie, subtract the value-added labor, engineering, R&D... reduce a Patek to its raw materials alone and even a megabucks platinum perpetual calendar chronograph aint' worth much), than it does the knowledge that you can resell one at anytime and recover a good part of your investment (or, if you bought the right piece and sold at the right time, you could make a tidy profit). I think the healthy market for almost all used Leica goods is part of why Leica is able to charge what they do. While they have to deal with business realities (ie, COGS on high labor/high R&D costs and low volume), they also know that there are some of us out there who will spend to buy their stuff.
In the 1970's and early 80's, Rolex had very little demand for its Daytona Chronographs. Retailers had trouble getting rid of them. They retailed for a few hundred dollars. This was a time prior to a strong collector (read: second-hand) market for wristwatches generally. Now a Daytona from that same period in steel sells for $20 to 50, 60K or more. Reason: a very healthy secondary market. This has helped Rolex to keep the retail on current Daytonas ridiculously high. In fact, the darn things continue to sell above retail brand new in most markets. Now, of course, the funny thing about Rolex is that they actually make a ton of watches every year, unlike Patek.
I don't mean to suggest that the prices of current Leica gear are driven SOLELY by us (consumers), but our continued willingness to snap up most of what they make (and have ever made) does contribute. Especially when we consider that Leica has never been a particularly high-volume maker.
As to Dr. Kaufmann, I think he gets it so far as the health and passion of the consumer base for all things Leica. He and the board certainly know that there is a cachet, an aura, surrounding Leica that makes the value of what it produces tied inextricably to our perceptions and hunger as users and consumers.
Put more simply, yesterday I spent two hours looking at a 100+ page thread on RFF, show us your M. We are all gaga over Leica and Leica knows it. A Casio watch or camera might be more accurate (the watch) or more feature-laden (the camera) than a Patek or a Leica, but the Casio won't hold its value, won't last as long and won't develop the same dedicated following as the Patek or the Leica.
Even in this crummy economy, I haven't noticed falling prices on used, any generation Noctiluxes (certainly not the most broadly useable product among Leica goods... if you could only use on lens for everything, it probably wouldn't be a Noctilust, right?) or for 1940's and 50's Pateks (how about an Hourglass? still $25-40K; or a Rolex ref. 6541 Milgauss? $60 to $100K).
), I can tell you with certainty that brands like Patek thrive in good part due to reputation AND value of their goods on the secondary market. It has far less to do with usable functionality and intrinsic value (ie, subtract the value-added labor, engineering, R&D... reduce a Patek to its raw materials alone and even a megabucks platinum perpetual calendar chronograph aint' worth much), than it does the knowledge that you can resell one at anytime and recover a good part of your investment (or, if you bought the right piece and sold at the right time, you could make a tidy profit). I think the healthy market for almost all used Leica goods is part of why Leica is able to charge what they do. While they have to deal with business realities (ie, COGS on high labor/high R&D costs and low volume), they also know that there are some of us out there who will spend to buy their stuff.In the 1970's and early 80's, Rolex had very little demand for its Daytona Chronographs. Retailers had trouble getting rid of them. They retailed for a few hundred dollars. This was a time prior to a strong collector (read: second-hand) market for wristwatches generally. Now a Daytona from that same period in steel sells for $20 to 50, 60K or more. Reason: a very healthy secondary market. This has helped Rolex to keep the retail on current Daytonas ridiculously high. In fact, the darn things continue to sell above retail brand new in most markets. Now, of course, the funny thing about Rolex is that they actually make a ton of watches every year, unlike Patek.
I don't mean to suggest that the prices of current Leica gear are driven SOLELY by us (consumers), but our continued willingness to snap up most of what they make (and have ever made) does contribute. Especially when we consider that Leica has never been a particularly high-volume maker.
As to Dr. Kaufmann, I think he gets it so far as the health and passion of the consumer base for all things Leica. He and the board certainly know that there is a cachet, an aura, surrounding Leica that makes the value of what it produces tied inextricably to our perceptions and hunger as users and consumers.
Put more simply, yesterday I spent two hours looking at a 100+ page thread on RFF, show us your M. We are all gaga over Leica and Leica knows it. A Casio watch or camera might be more accurate (the watch) or more feature-laden (the camera) than a Patek or a Leica, but the Casio won't hold its value, won't last as long and won't develop the same dedicated following as the Patek or the Leica.
Even in this crummy economy, I haven't noticed falling prices on used, any generation Noctiluxes (certainly not the most broadly useable product among Leica goods... if you could only use on lens for everything, it probably wouldn't be a Noctilust, right?) or for 1940's and 50's Pateks (how about an Hourglass? still $25-40K; or a Rolex ref. 6541 Milgauss? $60 to $100K).
aniMal
Well-known
I can see that I need to clarify my point... What I mean, is that I prefer the simple but really good ergonomics of the shutter wheel and aperture ring of the M8. I also like not having AF, and I never really need it either.
I have a Nikon D90 which I use sometimes, with Nikon MF lenses. But it is not the same - I really do not like the controls of it. Also the menus and stuff are nested in ways that does really make it complicated if some setting is changed by mistake. More than once, I have had to leaf through menus when I really should get on with using it, never has that happened with the M8!
I am not opposed to technology as such, but when I go for the pictures I want for myself the menus and layout of a dSLR is just annoying.
I have a Nikon D90 which I use sometimes, with Nikon MF lenses. But it is not the same - I really do not like the controls of it. Also the menus and stuff are nested in ways that does really make it complicated if some setting is changed by mistake. More than once, I have had to leaf through menus when I really should get on with using it, never has that happened with the M8!
I am not opposed to technology as such, but when I go for the pictures I want for myself the menus and layout of a dSLR is just annoying.
Ben Z
Veteran
Very good point about the secondhand market. What's interesting is that not only are the existing companies continuing to produce and develop new mechanical watches, there are a lot of small-entrepreneur startups (Kobold, Bathys, Ocean7 to mention just 3). Yet people cite the supply of secondhand film cameras as the reason nobody wants to produce new film cameras. To me it's purely a lack of good marketing. Nobody is creating a market, creating demand. That's what marketing is all about.
For some people cameras, cars, clothes, watches, furniture and everything else may just be utilitarian items. Maybe they truly believe it, perhaps some just say it because they can't afford what they drool after, and perhaps some even use the viewpoint as a device for argument. But manufacturers have known for eons that the vast majority of people are influenced by a variety of factors beyond the utilitarianism of an item, when making buying choices. The entire field of marketing exists for just that reason. The reason I suggested the high-end watch industry as a good place for Leica to study is because that industry has been particularly successful in keeping its foothold in the face of the onslaught of technology and low-cost mass-production.
For some people cameras, cars, clothes, watches, furniture and everything else may just be utilitarian items. Maybe they truly believe it, perhaps some just say it because they can't afford what they drool after, and perhaps some even use the viewpoint as a device for argument. But manufacturers have known for eons that the vast majority of people are influenced by a variety of factors beyond the utilitarianism of an item, when making buying choices. The entire field of marketing exists for just that reason. The reason I suggested the high-end watch industry as a good place for Leica to study is because that industry has been particularly successful in keeping its foothold in the face of the onslaught of technology and low-cost mass-production.
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
The luxury watch market is a very good analogy - i.e. something which sells based on luxury rather than utility value. In many ways they are similar products, aimed at a similar market. I'm a Casio man myself, so I don't know much about watches but I do know that they are often more expensive than very expensive Leicas and they must be at least a fairly profitable industry based on the amount of glossy advertising they can afford, whereas Leica seem to be struggling to ok as far as it is possible to tell.
The only thing which seems to explain this difference to me is that the market for watches is larger than that for cameras, and thus 1) the size of the luxury end of this market is larger 2) an expensive watch is a more easily recognised status symbol than a camera 3) an luxury watch is no more difficult to operate than a cheap one wheras a Leica M is considerably harder to use than cheaper cameras and thus is less likely to be a casual purchase by someone who is simply rich.
I'd be interested to hear other possible explanations for the differences and similarities between Leicas and other luxury goods.
The only thing which seems to explain this difference to me is that the market for watches is larger than that for cameras, and thus 1) the size of the luxury end of this market is larger 2) an expensive watch is a more easily recognised status symbol than a camera 3) an luxury watch is no more difficult to operate than a cheap one wheras a Leica M is considerably harder to use than cheaper cameras and thus is less likely to be a casual purchase by someone who is simply rich.
I'd be interested to hear other possible explanations for the differences and similarities between Leicas and other luxury goods.
Ben Z
Veteran
Almost everyone in the civilized world knows a Rolex or a Mercedes on sight, and if they don't know it's exact cost, they at least know it's expensive. That adds status to the list of positive attributes of owning one. Very few people know a Leica on sight, and most who do, think it's a relic of the past (I often have guys in their fifties and sixties come up to me and go "Oh, my grandfather had one when I was a kid"). Even among professionals and photo enthusiasts, a Leica only has status/panache to fellow Leicaphiles.
Again, ineffective marketing can be blamed.
Spoks
Well-known
This pritty much confirms the price info Olsen had got from both Cathay Photo, Singapore and the Norwegian Leica importer. 15000 AUD $ equals about 8,300 Euros.
historicist
Well-known
I'm guessing apart from marketing the market for Leicas is limited by the relative difficulty in using a M. In other words, to buy an expensive watch you just have to be rich wheras to buy a M Leica you have to be rich and have a certain degree of enthusiasm for photography. Not only that but if someone is an enthusiast in sports or macro photography etc. it isn't very well suited. A camera like a D3x doesn't really have this problem (apart from maybe size) because on full auto a monkey could take a good picture with it.
I would suggest that maybe the period where Leicas were most comparable to watches was in the 1920s/30s. A Leica cost 275 M in 1927, at a time when the average wage was 41,25 M a week. The median weekly wage in the UK now is £475, so it cost over £2500 in real terms. This is obviously a rough (and flawed) comparison, but the point is that the early Leica was very expensive yet still very successful.
A few years ago I did some reading in old photography books from the early 30s, especially those written by Leica owners, and noticed a few things. Firstly, the owners often mention that in photo clubs Leicas were regarded poorly due to the small film size, from which we can perhaps infer that they didn't appeal so strongly to 'serious enthusiasts'. Secondly, the owners (who were usually very enthusiastic about the Leica) always mention the small size as the particular advantage of the camera - indeed, much of the published amateur photography was on travel themes.
My guess is that as a small and easy to use (for the time) but high quality camera the Leica was successful precisely because it appealed to a broad market of wealthy people who weren't enthusiastic enough to carry around a 10x8 but too proud to use a vest pocket Kodak. Judging by how many M3s they sold they must have kept this market (along with Rollei etc.) until the point at which SLRs with light meters, AE, then AF started to much more convenient for casual shooters to use. It's hard to see them recapturing this kind of casual luxury purchase now outside of cameras like the D lux.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
And what if Leica does 'exploit it market niche'?
Question: What will you any of you be buying once you have that full frame, digital, transport lever, ultra-silent, high-ISO, 21Mp, perfect frameline camera?
Answer: NOTHING. Because there is nothing more to wish for.
When Philips launched the Video 2000 system (back in the eighties), it was far superior to VCR. It had better image quality, tapes that could be used on both sides, providing over 10 hours on a single tape, machines were more durable, etc.
They stopped producing it since no other company was willing to pay for the license fees after they found out that Philips' targeted market rapidly became saturated. People never bought a second machine, it almost was the death of Philips' television and video branch.
So, be careful what you wish for, building the perfect camera will stop people from ever buying anything again and will essentially be the death of the company.
aizan
Veteran
well, it didn't exactly kill leica before digital.
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
First of all, the M8.2 does not fit into the prey pattern of many photographers, mainly due to its outdated sensor. An M9 will fit hopefully much better, and many more people will buy it. But it will still leave some room for improvement.
After that, progress will not stop.
- I expect sensors with a much higher dynamic range and less noise at high ISO in the future. Maybe Leica steals the nifty zoom finder from the Canon VT, it is so long ago that they can call it their own idea and improve it up to modern standards:
http://www.cameraquest.com/crfvt.htm
- Sooner or later there will be no shutters anymore - even my M6 is still pretty loud.
- And if Leica really wants to integrate Liveview, why not call it a "digital AUFSU", and avoid stupid design flaws of current DLSRs: a display that the user can pivot and tilt would make it at least as useful as a waist level finder. Who wants to hold and shake such a camera by holding it in a stupid way as a 50$ camera - at arms length?
And, of course, some people that would buy a new M9 would also buy some new lenses as they are in fact often better than used, old lenses (Leica collectors, forgive me...).
I said:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1057517&postcount=42
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
That's a lame comparison. My VHS VCR is 10 years old, never needed a repair and works fine. Why should I replace that? What else should I buy except cassettes? Did it kill the inventors of the VHS system? No, it's actually a completely new technology named DVD that has replaced the old but very successful VHS system.
Why did Phillips fail? Mainly because Video 2000 was introduced too late. Many decisions in the industry had already been made.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Maybe not, but it will hit a biological limit - there is only just so much the human eye can do. So unless you interbreed with a vulture, or look at an evolutionary timespan of say a few million years, progress will indeed stop. In fact it is approaching this limit right now.
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
Let's face the flaws of current sensors and lenses built into cameras like the M8 and future possibilities.... the "biological limit" is still far away:
- A 21 MP camera like a Canon 5D2 shows a LOT more details in an image than an M8.2 with the best APO lenses, simply because there is more in the image than a 10, 12 oder 16MP sensor can show. A digital medium format sensor shows even more.
- Beyond 1600 ISO things get nasty and noisy even with that Canon camera (not to speak of the results from an M8.2). This is not the last word, imagine to shoot handheld in a dark church, at f16 because you might need some DOF. I wouldn't mind being able to do that and get the same or better results as at 100 ISO today.
- All sensors available now have a maximum dynamic range of 10 f-stops or so. Reality has a lot more contrast and a "mild HDR" sensor that allows several more f-stops would allow a lot more "dynamic depth". That is important for post-processing and eliminates a lot of hassle with exposure, especially in a dark church with a lot of contrast.
- Did someone shout "the lenses must be able to keep up with that development"? Well, cheap consumer zooms will be sorted out and replaced with better lenses. Good news for Leica, even if nobody breeds with vultures.
- Today I own two Canon "L" lenses with image stabilization. This feature is great, I mean really, really great: looking through the finder you see a stable image, when you press the button you can take handheld images that would normally require a tripod. Some modern DSLRs (Sony alpha, for example) have the IS not in the lens but in the camera body. There is no reason to believe that Leica could not do that sooner or later. I hope they do, it's not only a wonderful feature for avaiable light photography.
- Talking about lightmeters... maybe, in the distant future, Leica will build a light meter into the cameras that is as sensitive and clever as the multi-zone-multi-pattern meters inside Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Plus simple center-weight or spot metering, of course.
So, I don't think that the "biological limit" will reached within the next 5-10 years even. There is enough work for an M9, M10, M11, M12...