Sean Reid and digital M

Why does Leica still have to make everything in Germany?

Why does Leica still have to make everything in Germany?

It seems absurd that Leica freaks continue to contrive the aura around "Made in Germany", which surely keeps the prices at insane levels. My Canadian-made lenses are no different than the German ones, just half the price when I bought them.
"Made in Japan" is now more prestigious (and expensive) than it once was, so why don't they just have the digital M made there to reduce costs? They could then focus all of their efforts on design. If Cosina can do it so can they. A digital M really does not need to be that much more rugged than an Canon or Nikon anyway.
 
>>"Made in Japan" is now more prestigious (and expensive) than it once was, so why don't they just have the digital M made there to reduce costs<<

Well, it is a German company with a German workforce that they'd like to keep employed. I'm not sure there'd be much cost savings these days in outsourcing high-end manufacturing from Germany to Japan. Both countries have expensive skilled labor forces with an expectation of outstanding lifetime employee benefits. Also, with low monthly production, you probably lose some of the economic advantages of outsourcing. These aren't cars or consumer electronics. Its a handmade niche product.
 
Cosina is a Japanese company, thus it is not hard for them to make things in Japan. What would be cheaper, to build a several hundred million dollar state of the art manufacturing facility in Japan, hire an entirely new workforce and lay off your entire current manufacturing staff in Germany, or pay a living wage to your current workers and sell the items at a rate that is comparable to what it costs to make them. it is not like leica is making the lenses for 15 dollars and selling them for 2000. They are costly to produce, maintain and repair. It's a fact of life. Why can Zeiss do it? It's not like Leica can ask Cosina to make the lenses for them...they would certainly refuse since they are a competitor.
 
zeos 386sx said:
The R-D1 is a perfect example of this principle. Since it was introduced there has not been a drop in its selling price. It is not becoming obsolete because it is a - high quality tool - for taking pictures.
Click to expand...

R-D1 has not dropped in price because it is a CURRENT model! This is obvious...

jaapv said:
You have to look at professional equipement. The 1Ds is still selling at 5000$ used, despite the mkII
Click to expand...

$5K or $3K, for a camera that was once $8K this is a fairly significant drop in price just within a few years. With the 5D coming out on the market, the price will drop even FASTER. The DM wil see this as well and we can all rejoyce..
 
Last edited:
Well that skilled workforce will be out on the streets if they don't make products that are economically viable.

I think they should have two Leica divisions: one making hand-made, artisan toys for rich folk, the other making well-made tools (in Asia) that people would actually use.
 
Phil_Hawkes said:
I seem to remember someone somewhere on the 'net discussing the idea of having a permanent body + rangefinder mechanism, but with upgrade-able digital innards... so in a few years we can upgrade the sensor or the processor (or both) without paying for new rangefinder and new body. I think it is a cool idea.
My thought was that the replaceable innards idea would almost certainly result in a non-depreciating product. That would be the ultimate in solutions (IMHO). I guess I'll want a few more pixels and better crop factor when/if I upgrade, but I'll be more interested in higher ISO, bigger buffers, faster transfer to smart cards and maybe better onboard processing.
Click to expand...
Phil,

I read that too. I hope that is exactly how Leica handles the digital M.

Over the decades, there were incremental improvements in film. There are certain to be incremental improvements in sensors. Modularity would provide a painless way for digital M owners to take advantage of those improvements.
 
flamingo said:
Leica may as well flush themselves down the toilet now.
For that kind of geesh, it really should have been a full frame sensor Hopefully iit will be CMOS sensor as opposed to CCD, can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...


CMOS sensors are the main cause of the "dead look" of digital pictures. There a hordes out there that prefer CCD, a proven by for instance Nikon.
 
jaapv said:
CMOS sensors are the main cause of the "dead look" of digital pictures. There a hordes out there that prefer CCD, a proven by for instance Nikon.
Click to expand...

LOL, I'd say this is much more of a subjective observation than anything else.

Given the limitation we have today with both CMOS and CCD, the digi-look has more to do with difference between image processor rather than differences between the sensor designs.
 
zeos 386sx said:
Phil,

I read that too. I hope that is exactly how Leica handles the digital M.

Over the decades, there were incremental improvements in film. There are certain to be incremental improvements in sensors. Modularity would provide a painless way for digital M owners to take advantage of those improvements.
Click to expand...

It would not be a surprise. Kodak ( the Leica sensor manufacturer) has already done this once, albeit not with any noticeable commercial succes, and Leica is well known for updating old equipment with cams, roms, etc.
 
Phil_Hawkes said:
I seem to remember someone somewhere on the 'net discussing the idea of having a permanent body + rangefinder mechanism, but with upgrade-able digital innards... so in a few years we can upgrade the sensor or the processor (or both) without paying for new rangefinder and new body. I think it is a cool idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but think about it via this analogy: It also would be cool to have a car with a permanent body and suspension but a user-upgradable engine and transmission. But at what cost?

Sure, you can upgrade an engine/transmission NOW, if you've got a big toolbox, a shop crane, and a lot of other bulky stuff that's currently cluttering up my garage. To make this project into something that the average consumer could do, the manufacturer would have to figure out a way design the vehicle so the switching could be done without needing all those tools, equipment, and expertise.

The necessary "automatic engine swapper" might well make the car so complicated and expensive as to more than offset any consumer advantage it would offer... assuming it could be done at all.
 
Stephan said:
The 1ds mk2 wont get shoved off the shelf by the 5D, for those who need the functionalities of the mk2 its the only choice, and worth the money.


Although I'd be happy with 2 5D's instead please :D
Click to expand...

Stephan, I did not say the 1ds mk2 would get shoved off the shelf by the 5d. I said the 1d mk2.
 
On the ability to upgrade a digital-M sensor, I don't think it would have to be user-upgradeable. The more important aspect would be that factory technicians could handle the hardware and software upgrades on a consistent and cost-effective basis. It's my understanding that Leica has been offering factory upgrades of its film cameras for something like half a century. As one example, electronic flash sync was once a common upgrade. And viewfinder upgrades are not uncommon.
 
the modular system would not lead to the dramatically lower ownership cost as you would think.. Whenever a new digital camera comes out, what with it's flashy new sensor and what not, the price is usually high... So if you've spent top dollar on a 1st gen digital M and then after 3 years you want to upgrade to that new flashy sensor, expect to pay top dollars again just for that sensor... unless you want us to believe the body shell makes up THAT much of the camera's total cost...

Sure, you'd be saving money by not having to purchase an entire new camera but I think we all know that the the price will not be set so clear-cut and you will probably fare better to sell the old camera and buy a new one.
 
Last edited:
VinceC said:
On the ability to upgrade a digital-M sensor, I don't think it would have to be user-upgradeable. The more important aspect would be that factory technicians could handle the hardware and software upgrades on a consistent and cost-effective basis. It's my understanding that Leica has been offering factory upgrades of its film cameras for something like half a century. As one example, electronic flash sync was once a common upgrade. And viewfinder upgrades are not uncommon.
Click to expand...
Camera service/repair is one part of Leica that has been making money. If the digital M's were modular it would make sense for Leica to offer the upgrade service through its own service departments.
 
jlw said:
I like everything about my R-D 1 except that I sometimes wish it had a longer rangefinder base.
Click to expand...
Do you really like the 1.5x crop factor? As far as I'm concerned the main appeal of rangefinder cameras over SLRs is the compactness-to-performance ratio of wide-angle to normal lenses; therefore, having to use designed-for-full-frame lenses on a smaller-than-full-frame sensor (and paying a premium for it) is not a worthwhile compromise in my opinion.
 
vincentbenoit said:
Do you really like the 1.5x crop factor? As far as I'm concerned the main appeal of rangefinder cameras over SLRs is the compactness-to-performance ratio of wide-angle to normal lenses; therefore, having to use designed-for-full-frame lenses on a smaller-than-full-frame sensor (and paying a premium for it) is not a worthwhile compromise in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do like it. I'm more of a "long" shooter than a "wide" shooter (the vast majority of my favorite 35mm shots have been with 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm lenses) so it's actually an advantage for me.

My 50mm f/1.4 Canon LTM turns into a very compact "75mm" f/1.4 lens on the R-D 1; that makes a really nice combination for me. A 28 and a 50 cover the vast majority of shooting situations I encounter.

I understand what you're saying about paying for format coverage you don't use, but it doesn't bother me; I see the 35mm format coverage as a bonus, rather than seeing the extra area on digital as a liability.

Also: I hardly ever do this, but if you ever shoot digital and 35mm at the same time, it's kind of an advantage NOT to need the same lens on both cameras at the same time. A 35mm lens on the R-D covers about the same shot as a 50 on the 35mm; a 50 on the R-D matches up with a 75mm on the film camera; etc. If you tried to pull this trick with a full-frame digital camera, you'd need two of every lens, or else you'd have to keep switching them back and forth.
 
jaapv said:
I bought a 10D once and never felt any inclination to buy an " upgrade" because I didn't feel the need.I'm pretty immune, I guess. And I think that goes for a considerable number of Leica users. Look at the (for digital) long production run of the Digiluxes for instance, and the small number of used ones on the market.
Click to expand...
I would be tempted to believe that people who are happy with the Canon 10D in the dSLR world should be more than happy with the Epson R-D1 in the RF world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom