Takkun
Ian M.
I should clarify that my Apple comparison was meant more as a leica-in-the-70s versus Apple-in-the-90s analogy and as a possible alternative to the conventional wisdom that the M5 was too ugly/too radical a design for the customer base. Apple in the 90s was facing shrinking market share during the internet boom and had a bloated and unclear product line that didn't keep up with a changing market.
Obviously leica pared down to their core M4 model, got help from Minolta, and survived. I never meant to compare the two companies now, since I would say Ldica definitely has a clear product differentiation strategy --much more so than a lot of manufacturers.
But I digress; carry on.
Obviously leica pared down to their core M4 model, got help from Minolta, and survived. I never meant to compare the two companies now, since I would say Ldica definitely has a clear product differentiation strategy --much more so than a lot of manufacturers.
But I digress; carry on.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ian,
Sorry: didn't mean you in my reference to "feeble minded". You are of course absolutely right that there can be no one rule for all companies at all times.
Cheers,
R.
GaryLH
Veteran
GaryLH
Veteran
GaryLH
Veteran
TY Gary,
I have an A7: it's my M9 backup, and I also use it for close up and tele stuff. Very nice camera.
I think pretty soon we will see them used for around 1200, and they are well worth it.
The R needs native glass to really shine.
Anyway as I was testing the A7s I had some benchmark M9 shots--one by Carsten here was very useful---and I had to give in to "my lying eyes" LOL
DSC06189 by unoh7, on Flickr
Lol.. Enjoy....
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Well it will be interesting to see what this April announcement is about
Well it will be interesting to see what this April announcement is about
http://leicarumors.com/2014/03/06/r...ss-camera-to-be-announced-on-april-24th.aspx/
Whether u are a Leica traditionalist or one who wants Leica to do something different.. It will be interesting to c what this is all about.
Leica has already done something different when they created the monochrom, which is the only Leica drf that i ever really was interested in.. Never could afford it
. I really wish other makers would come out w/ a monochrom version...
For now, I still shoot occasionally 35mm b&w film and various bodies like the CL, Konica rf and m6.. Digital monochrom is mainly w/ sigma foveon sensor cameras.
Gary
Ps.. I almost forgot.. Then there was that great big Leica S2..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-s2-first.shtml
To me they are not just that Leica M digital. But on the other hand, their prices are more than I can afford and until they have total control go their digital components, once someone does an end of life on a critical component, there is no way to repair it w/o trying to cannibalize from another... But that is the same issue w/ every other manufacturer out there.. It is just that the up front cost of entry is sooo much more expensive.
Well it will be interesting to see what this April announcement is about
http://leicarumors.com/2014/03/06/r...ss-camera-to-be-announced-on-april-24th.aspx/
Whether u are a Leica traditionalist or one who wants Leica to do something different.. It will be interesting to c what this is all about.
Leica has already done something different when they created the monochrom, which is the only Leica drf that i ever really was interested in.. Never could afford it
. I really wish other makers would come out w/ a monochrom version...For now, I still shoot occasionally 35mm b&w film and various bodies like the CL, Konica rf and m6.. Digital monochrom is mainly w/ sigma foveon sensor cameras.
Gary
Ps.. I almost forgot.. Then there was that great big Leica S2..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-s2-first.shtml
To me they are not just that Leica M digital. But on the other hand, their prices are more than I can afford and until they have total control go their digital components, once someone does an end of life on a critical component, there is no way to repair it w/o trying to cannibalize from another..
. But that is the same issue w/ every other manufacturer out there.. It is just that the up front cost of entry is sooo much more expensive.
Last edited:
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Gary I think Leica can move forward without isolating it's traditionalists. They did a bold thing a couple of years ago by creating the MM. I think most that shoot rangefinders and love that experience don't want the bells and whistles and it's nice that they still offer a more traditional shooting experience. They have separated themselves form the rest because they are really the only digital FF rangefinder option and are the only native B&W rangefinder option. Nice to have choices and I hope that they keep it that way. If they do make a mostly manual FF camera, color, no video (maybe mew M-E?) with the new CMOSIS sensor I will be opening the wallet for sure. I can only hope but who would have thought that 4 years ago Leica would have made an all B&W digital FF rangefinder. Bravo to Leica for that bold move.
hausen
Well-known
I have gone the other way from a few here. I dropped my M9 in the Harbour a year or so ago and replaced it with a Sony Rx-1 and then moved into the A7r. The A7r while a superb camera annoyed me greatly with the adaptors required to use the lenses I liked. I also preferred the RX-1 with it's superb fixed 35mm Zeiss lens. So I sold the A7r and bought the camera I wanted all along the MM. A month on I am glad I did, think the MM is a camera that you hold onto until it dies. Just have to get used to cleaning the sensor of dust once a week
noimmunity
scratch my niche
After watching carefully for over a year, I conclude:
The greatest thing about the MM is that it promises immunity.
It's the one digi-cam that appears to be relatively immune from the viral rapid upgrade.
But appearances can be deceiving, especially when big bucks are involved.
My own eyes tell me that the Sigma Foveon Merrill sensor produces monochrome files that look better than the CCD in the MM. But it doesn't promise immunity.
The greatest thing about the MM is that it promises immunity.
It's the one digi-cam that appears to be relatively immune from the viral rapid upgrade.
But appearances can be deceiving, especially when big bucks are involved.
My own eyes tell me that the Sigma Foveon Merrill sensor produces monochrome files that look better than the CCD in the MM. But it doesn't promise immunity.
KansanTim
Established
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here, and certainly agree Leica has to differentiate its offerings, because it pretty clearly can't compete in also-ran products with bigger manufacturers, but even with a product differentiation strategy there are different shades and conditions, ranging from rampant innovation to ultra-conservative "classic" offerings (to a healthy mix of both), and I won't venture a guess as to what is best for Leica to do.
To try to illustrate how muddled the calculation can get all in one example market, I was at a conference once where a paper analyzing the netbook computer market (also called mini-notebook in some circles), representing an emerging market, was presented. It discussed the various computer manufacturers and how much of the netbook market they had managed to hold compared to the more established laptop market. The researcher had some very interesting analysis on the advantage of small-to-midsize manufacturers in innovating with netbooks, investing heavily in the new market and gaining early market share, because they had less to lose from cannibalizing the existing market [I'll add the analysis was presented as being applicable far beyond just netbooks, but my caution about simplifying the narrative too much stands]. Ultimately, their best strategy was to fully commit to the netbook market quickly, virtually abandoning their lower-performing laptop offerings, and gobbling up as much market share as they could and then defending that share against new entries. Meanwhile, the companies doing better with laptops had the motivation to stay in the laptop market and try to preserve it, and they had the more difficult question of deciding when (and if) to enter the netbook market, trying to time it early enough to be able to use their larger size to gain market share, but late enough that they are optimizing with their proven profits in laptops. [One might see some parallels here to camera markets, where smaller DSLR manufacturers like Olympus, Samsung, and Sony benefit from investing in the interchangeable lens mirrorless market more than the dominant DSLR players Nikon and Canon, but both Nikon and Canon eventually saw reasons to try the mirrorless market later on.]
But was the lesson from the researcher correct on netbooks? The paper was written right before the Apple iPad came out and tablets become the next big thing. The netbook market collapsed and has basically disappeared entirely, while laptops are still relatively strong (it's noteworthy that laptops got smaller post-netbooks, and "ultrabooks," the very expensive netbook alternative also appeared, so they did have influence on the other markets). The predicted future profits from major investments in netbooks didn't materialize, and netbook market share didn't translate into tablet market share. Meanwhile, Apple, as an established laptop maker that never entered the netbook market, managed to build a product that allowed them to continue with tiered non-cannibalistic selling--lots of people buy a tablet to use in parallel with their laptop. So, investing large amounts in innovating netbooks wasn't so great, but it appears doing the same in tablets was great. I think he might write a very different paper today. But how do you know which innovation is going to pay off and which hemorrhages money? Alternatively, not investing in either and focusing on core business in laptops could have been the second-best choice, worse than investing big in tablets, better than investing big in netbooks, because the laptop market still exists in stronger form today. Ultimately, a whole lot of details specific to the company and the market come into play.
KansanTim
Established
On 1: I'm glad I didn't make it up! It can happen when going from memory sometimes.
On 2: Agree completely.
willie_901
Veteran
KansasTim,
When the iPhone first came to market, Apple was critizied because the iPhone would erode sales of their very profitable iPod.
When Jobs was asked about this he said, "If you aren't willing to cannibalize your own products, somebody else will be happy to do it for you."
This probably doesn't apply to Leica though. They have a well established, ultra-loyal niche the other camera brands have abandoned.
When the iPhone first came to market, Apple was critizied because the iPhone would erode sales of their very profitable iPod.
When Jobs was asked about this he said, "If you aren't willing to cannibalize your own products, somebody else will be happy to do it for you."
This probably doesn't apply to Leica though. They have a well established, ultra-loyal niche the other camera brands have abandoned.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. But the internet is ALWAYS full of people who are convinced that they know far more about any subject than those who have made even a casual study, let alone more than those who have to put their money where their mouth is and run a company.
Then of course there's hindsight: "It turned out like this, therefore it HAD to turn out like this."
We all make wrong predictions. I guessed in writing that digi-cams woukd stop at about 6 MP, so "serious" photographers would stick with film. I was clearly wrong. But then, Steve Sasson, inventor of digital photography, remembers thinking, "Wow. One day perhaps we can get up to a megapixel."
And to quote someone from Ilford just after the crash that led to the management buyout a few years ago: "We bet the farm on inkjet, and we very nearly won."
Cheers,
R.
KansanTim
Established
I agree completely that in this case, cannibalizing the market was a good decision, and a prescient move on Jobs' part. My argument is simply that there aren't universal rules about it, in some cases it's certainly a good strategy, and in others not. For the ipod/iphone one, Apple was well-placed to dominate the new market, and probably foresaw that the development was rather inevitable, so they wanted to move on it. In another situation, a company might not have been ready with the new technology, so would be better served defending their established market share, or any number of other possibilities. I think we agree on this point, as you mention Leica may not be well served imitating Apple in its current situation. My example about the netbooks wasn't so much to say don't ever cannibalize your market, but instead to say that in that case it was a bad idea (and also how what seemed like a good idea at one point changed with new developments and seemed a bad idea later on).
KansanTim
Established
Yes, there is always a lot of armchair quarterbacking on the 'net [American football related expression for those who don't know]. I like to think I know if my team should have gone for it on fourth down, or if the next play should be a run or a pass, but the truth of it is my only qualifications are a bit of playing through video games and quite a bit of watching on TV. Who knew that coaches paid to study the game hours each day, usually with decades of experience as players and coaches, and who get fired if they don't perform, would end up knowing more than me? Even their "bad" decisions (once I see the results) were coming from a more informed position than mine.
Love the Ilford quote!
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I agree. I'd love to see my M9 keep on going the rest of my life. I can not imagine a more perfect tool. If Leica ever really looked shaky, I'd scoop up a second M9 body in a heartbeat. The M well, if I wanted a movie camera I'd have bought one. I did however pick up a nice lightly used S2 for studio work and am very impressed. Sure, it is very overpriced - even second hand but the files are wonderful.
KM-25
Well-known
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Truth be told is Leica had not gone digital they would no longer be in business. (camera division)
Dez.
Member
The internet is rife with horrible photographers shooting Leica, Canon, Nikon, Ricoh, Pentax, Fuji, etc. Flickr is just a big pool to pour all those horribly bland and poorly composed photographs in one place. The camera and film/sensor choice is perhaps 5% of the equation, at best.
The problem with Leica is that a large portion of their customers are wealthy hobbyists that think that if they buy a Leica, it will magically make them a better photographer, which is categorically untrue. In fact, it can make you a worse photographer if you're not able to wrap your creative mind around the constraints of shooting a rangefinder. Either way though, Leica is happy with the arrangement because professionals don't buy new cameras every year, or collect lenses, but hobbyists do.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm happy with the arrangements to as long as they keep making cameras and lenses.