YYV_146
Well-known
Just my two cents as a economist by training and decade-long interest in the tech industry:
In all industries, those who have their own supply chain and know-how usually wins in the end. Comparing Apple and Samsung, the common onlooker may think that Apple is the more promising company. But Samsung has its own chip fabs and substantial investment (and revenue) in a lot of tech sectors. Samsung can afford to fight Apple in the consumer portable market (phones, tablets) by throwing stuff at the wall and figuring out what sticks. Apple, on the other hand, has to be careful. Two or three very bad moves and they'll be fighting to cling onto whatever territory they have left. Failing the supply chain control, it is ultimately better to be very good at doing one or two things than to be mediocre in a dozen markets.
Extending the analogy to the photo equipment business. Is Leica more like Apple or Samsung? I think they have a lead (albeit a reducing one) in optics, especially 135/medium format photography lenses. As my experience goes, Modern M optics are superb at almost all focal lengths, better than what Canon and Nikon offer as premium glass, and S lenses are among the very best medium format options. However, as a body maker they seem to be struggling with development, espicially sensor design. Supply is always an issue for small-scale electronics production, and Leica does not seem to do too well in this regard as well (frequent part shortages, year-long wait period for the M). What does this mean from a business standpoint? They should rely on their might in lens design and try to stand out as a third-party lens maker, and pay someone else to take care of the body part.
In practice, this could possibly translate into developing manual focus lens lines for Canon, Nikon and Sony. (I would imagine it fairly easy to dust off some R designs and swapping out the mount) No compromise in tolerance would be needed, and Leica would be free to tap into the prestige associated with the brand. Maybe also teaming up with a dedicated electronics maker for the next digital M. Sony or Panasonic comes to mind.
Of course, it might be difficult to pursuade either to join such a niche market...
Personally I'd like to see Leica be what it is right now...though. But this is perhaps not a sustainable option.
In all industries, those who have their own supply chain and know-how usually wins in the end. Comparing Apple and Samsung, the common onlooker may think that Apple is the more promising company. But Samsung has its own chip fabs and substantial investment (and revenue) in a lot of tech sectors. Samsung can afford to fight Apple in the consumer portable market (phones, tablets) by throwing stuff at the wall and figuring out what sticks. Apple, on the other hand, has to be careful. Two or three very bad moves and they'll be fighting to cling onto whatever territory they have left. Failing the supply chain control, it is ultimately better to be very good at doing one or two things than to be mediocre in a dozen markets.
Extending the analogy to the photo equipment business. Is Leica more like Apple or Samsung? I think they have a lead (albeit a reducing one) in optics, especially 135/medium format photography lenses. As my experience goes, Modern M optics are superb at almost all focal lengths, better than what Canon and Nikon offer as premium glass, and S lenses are among the very best medium format options. However, as a body maker they seem to be struggling with development, espicially sensor design. Supply is always an issue for small-scale electronics production, and Leica does not seem to do too well in this regard as well (frequent part shortages, year-long wait period for the M). What does this mean from a business standpoint? They should rely on their might in lens design and try to stand out as a third-party lens maker, and pay someone else to take care of the body part.
In practice, this could possibly translate into developing manual focus lens lines for Canon, Nikon and Sony. (I would imagine it fairly easy to dust off some R designs and swapping out the mount) No compromise in tolerance would be needed, and Leica would be free to tap into the prestige associated with the brand. Maybe also teaming up with a dedicated electronics maker for the next digital M. Sony or Panasonic comes to mind.
Of course, it might be difficult to pursuade either to join such a niche market...
Personally I'd like to see Leica be what it is right now...though. But this is perhaps not a sustainable option.
cosmonaut
Well-known
With all that Leica is lacking something I see to many digital Ms that fail. As many cameras I have owned, more than I care to admit, I have only had one that failed. It was a Kodak Easy share and I dropped it. It had maybe 20000 clicks on it.
Leica owners dismiss it as all things break and fail. My biggest fear in owning a digital M isn't the up front cost but with that much money invested in a system what to do if a year out of warranty it quits? Yes I think about that. I see many Ms going through the classifieds here with new shutters and sensors with only a couple of thousand clicks.
I would like to see Leica put something out there reliable and affordable. Like I stated they can still stay true the the M if they want. But their pricing even on their P&S cameras is just to costly to justify owning one.
Leica owners dismiss it as all things break and fail. My biggest fear in owning a digital M isn't the up front cost but with that much money invested in a system what to do if a year out of warranty it quits? Yes I think about that. I see many Ms going through the classifieds here with new shutters and sensors with only a couple of thousand clicks.
I would like to see Leica put something out there reliable and affordable. Like I stated they can still stay true the the M if they want. But their pricing even on their P&S cameras is just to costly to justify owning one.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Your point being that Apple is a particularly risky maker when it comes to longevity? Maybe - they have a uniquely bad track record regarding changes to their processor and bus architecture. But in general, I would not consider six years particularly long, even less so today, where processor speed increases are mostly happening somewhere to the far side of irrelevant unless you do 3D graphics or corporate scale serving. I (and all of my family) do not own a computer younger than 2006, if we exclude smartphones, tablets and the kids Nintendo DSi. My notebook even dates back to 2002.
______
Well-known
Faster processor speeds come in quite handy if you are using Lightroom.
Stuart John
Well-known
I don't know how many of you here have taken the time to look at Jukka's images. If you haven't then you really should take a look. It's a great collection of work from the 60's to present day.
willie_901
Veteran
I think Leica's Predicament actually has to to do with their inability to obtain replacement M sensors (and maybe even new CMOS M sensors) in sufficient numbers to sustain customer loyalty and respect.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Actually, in the M line, Leica has no competition. There are no other optical viewfinder/coupled mechanical rangefinder digital bodies being manufactured. The only reason, IMO, to buy an M camera is for the rangefinder/viewfinder system. If that's not a factor for a user, then I think it's really foolish to spend the money on a Leica M as there are any number of mirrorless cameras out there that can perform similarly for pennies on the dollar of the cost of a digi-M. I bought back into Leica for the rangefinder/viewfinder and, honestly, for its lack of automation.
Automation has come a long way, and I have the impression that photographers who started in the 'digital age' and have little time behind a manual film camera have a somewhat different perspective from those of us who started with 4x5 sheet film in a Speed Graphic.
The automation is fine as long as you're ok with the results it gives you. If your vision is different from what the programmers think you should be doing, though, then automation becomes a mill stone. Not only do you have to use the 'off' button, but more and more, there are a half-dozen 'off' buttons that you need to find. Sometimes they can't be set to "off" by default, and as with the XPro-1, the camera can't be focused and controlled manually without electronics, period. That's not necessarily bad, it's just that the cameras don't 'see' or 'think' like I do when I shoot, so it becomes an exercise in frustration to try to get the automated camera to do what I want it to do rather than what its programming or hardware wants to force me to do.
Don't misunderstand... IS is great, and I miss it. There are times when autofocus/AE is convenient and works great. But there are times when there should be a single "off" switch for all of the automation, and mainstream manufacturers in general seem to have abandoned that.
I think that's the difference in mindset between those who are happy with EVFs, focus-by-wire, and deep menu selections and those of us who just want to pick the camera up, set the basic controls, and shoot. It took me about ten years to realize that I was fighting the automation in my gear at every turn. Once I realized what my dissatisfaction was, it was an easy fix... but there are fewer and fewer systems left that offer a solution for quick and easy manual control... and controls that actually 'feel' like manual controls.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I can see you don`t know these guys (Alfred Schopf-CEO of Leica and Dr A kaufmann) at all. the reason A Kaufmann invested his family`s EXTRA resources to save Leica was, it was an EUROPEAN BRAND, a luxury brand and a brand "his kind of guys" wanted to be associated with. I think it will NEVER happen again that leica produces items for either of these far east companies. Even the sensor manufacturer is now European (Belgian).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's back to the old argument, "It's like religion. If you have to ask the questions, you won't understand the answers."
I feel much the same way about asking, "Which affordable DSLR is the best?"
Cheers,
R.
I feel much the same way about asking, "Which affordable DSLR is the best?"
Cheers,
R.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Is this how Kodak did it?
NazgulKing
Established
Hey. Zeiss has survived thus far, and changed and evolved far more successfully than Leica did. And they produce lenses for far east companies. I don't see any problem with expanding the market base, and quite frankly, it was this pig headed conservatism that nearly did Leica in.
Leica's problems dates back to the post war era where it failed to expand its optical engineering expertise to other fields beyond the commercial camera unit the way Zeiss did. Now, any of those non-commercial assets are hived off to Leica Geosystems. Leica will now live and die by its commercial camera business, which is far more fast evolving than what it is used to.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I guess it is: far east companies produce lenses for Zeiss.. Can you name any lens Zeiss makes for Nikon, canon that are branded with those names? I guess Zeiss dropped Hasselblad for the very reason Hassys were going with Fuji...Of couse you can mount a leica lens to Sony, panasonic etc, Leica even has adapters that mount middle format hassy H and hassy V lenses and most of the others as well, to their S body. And same with Zeiss to Nikon/canon/pentax...
YYV_146
Well-known
I'm not sure...I am younger than this, but people speak of Leica in the 70s and 60s as very much a photojournalist's brand. Working, durable and lightweight cameras for professionals. Maybe the luxury came into the picture somewhere, but definitely not part of the original Leica philosophy or brand image. Leica has always been a "premium" brand, but "premium" is not the same as "luxury".
Also, Leica as of now has plenty of partnerships with Japanese companies. Sony manufactures the sensor used in the X1, X2 and X Vario, as well as most of the electronics involved. Panasonic has a long-standing cooperation with Leica in lower-end bodies, but Leica also sells their brand name for lenses for the M43 system. Not to mention their historic relationship with Minolta. Is a Leica-Sony partnership really that implausible?
How much I understand of Leica's heritage is in itself irrelevant, though. Companies change, once mediocre brands become associated with luxury, and once luxurious brands expand their vision into the consumer sphere. The Leica 40 years from now will be very different from the Leica today, and the Leica today is certainly nothing like the one in 1973.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I agree that the the standards have changed for ease of use for long teles and macro in the past 30 years. That doesn't render an M body any less competent in those arenas though, just less convenient.
It seems to me that much of what's hyped today as necessary in a camera body are conveniences... not really necessities. That said, of course, if you're doing a majority of work with 500mm teles and longer, there are in fact choices that make that work easier... and the same with macro. But as I said above, that doesn't render the M incompetent to do that work if you need to occasionally.
NazgulKing
Established
You seem to be forgetting even Leica has branded some Panasonic lenses right? Or Zeiss branded Sony lenses?
YYV_146
Well-known
Zeiss is different and disadvantaged in this regard...They have almost shifted their entire 135 format lens production to Cosina, quoting high labor cost in Germany as a main reason. Leica at least still seems to make enough to keep optical production in Solmes, a sign that they are not doing too badly. The brand premium is simply not there for Zeiss, nor is the group of rich idiots who hoard gear and buy everything they see (pardon my language).
Imagine if Leica made a German 50mm Summilux-R ASPH Canon mount and sold it at $3,500...I'm pretty sure it'll sell better than the APO-distagon, even if performance is slightly worse. As good a way to generate revenue as any.
YYV_146
Well-known
Kodak had the film side covered very well. On the digital front, however, they made quite a few costly mistakes.
There is a lot of literature on Kodak's history...as I see it they REALLY underestimated the popularity of digital cameras and invested their funds accordingly. Once Kodak realized the mistake Canon and Nikon have already pulled ahead with better systems and sensors, and their revenue was falling double digits every quarter.
NazgulKing
Established
Zeiss' idea of a premium lens is a water lithographic lens use for semiconductor lithography. Just to give perspective as to where the company's main focus lies. Zeiss Semiconductor generated 1 billion Euro in revenue in 2011.
The core focus of Zeiss lies in high end products, not for purchase by mere mortals. The consumer camera division is something of a side hobby for them, probably for branding purposes. They could design just about any lens they wanted, but probably few can buy them.
Addy101
Well-known
I really wonder who told you this "wisdom". Somebody already mentioned Kodak, I would like to add the consumer electronics department of Philips, Nokia and the American automotive industry. Autarky isn't good for a company - it could be beneficial to have some of the supply chain, but when the industry changes, you will have the wrong supply chain making you incapable to compete with companies without the burden of a useless supply chain.
In all industries and markets, the company that is capable of reacting to changing markets the best will flourish.
rso
Newbie
Back to OP:
Just an idiot yapping his mouth...
this smart phone camera business will be a 90% of the market in a few years...DSLR maybe for the remaining 9%, and digital range finders be the other 1%.
Look at the sales of compacts now...there isn't a lot of reason to buy a $100 compact digital when you can get a smart phone that takes decent pictures for $0 (with a contract).
In the 5 years prior, DSLR gives a big jump in IQ when compared to compact digitals so there is a reason to own them. Nowdays a Nokia cameraphone can shoot RAW! So unless you need 10 + frame / second, there isn't a whole lot of value for the bulk.
The only value of a mirror less is less bulk than a DSLR, which is still much bigger than a camera phone. It is my opinion that this market will be created (and destroyed) faster than DSLR
For digital range diners, my concern is that this new factory makes Leica too ambitious (which is what i think happens with a PE) in trying to fill this technology created "temporary" market place and take on debt, they should be reasonably ok.
In the next 5 - 15 years I think you will see everyone coming out with sensors of all size that can shoot ISO 100,000 and that I believe will be the end of technological progress (like film development in the 80s) or be replaced by something else entirely
Just an idiot yapping his mouth...
this smart phone camera business will be a 90% of the market in a few years...DSLR maybe for the remaining 9%, and digital range finders be the other 1%.
Look at the sales of compacts now...there isn't a lot of reason to buy a $100 compact digital when you can get a smart phone that takes decent pictures for $0 (with a contract).
In the 5 years prior, DSLR gives a big jump in IQ when compared to compact digitals so there is a reason to own them. Nowdays a Nokia cameraphone can shoot RAW! So unless you need 10 + frame / second, there isn't a whole lot of value for the bulk.
The only value of a mirror less is less bulk than a DSLR, which is still much bigger than a camera phone. It is my opinion that this market will be created (and destroyed) faster than DSLR
For digital range diners, my concern is that this new factory makes Leica too ambitious (which is what i think happens with a PE) in trying to fill this technology created "temporary" market place and take on debt, they should be reasonably ok.
In the next 5 - 15 years I think you will see everyone coming out with sensors of all size that can shoot ISO 100,000 and that I believe will be the end of technological progress (like film development in the 80s) or be replaced by something else entirely