Why Leica Matters

[KansanTim]

Hi,

Quote " if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers... "

I have wondered for a week or two how that applies to the CL when it first appeared and the M2 which was another cheaper one, or the model 1 (or standard) in the 30's.

In each case Leica or Leitz produced a cheaper version and they sold. Gaining more customers and starting them on the path to better or more complicated or dearer models: I'm guessing repeat orders were/are important to them and they were/are after them.

I think 'cheaper' is not the right word to use in this argument as it carries a lot of baggage that we don't need.

Regards, David

Reading your comment made me think that I may have misinterpreted the intent of the original poster who said "if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers..."

If the statement was meant about prices being lowered while the good itself is kept more or less the same, then my earlier comment applies--I have seen in the past claims that Leica would actually lose sales on an item by lowering that item's price (i.e. being a Veblen good), which I think is unfounded.

If the intent was the type of offering you are talking about, I think it's an open question. When a manufacturer known for a certain high quality offers a cheaper version, there is the possibility of diminishing the brand, and there is also the possibility of cannibalizing the market of the more expensive product, but often it works out just fine for the company (certainly the M2 is an example, not as sure about the CL--Was it very successful?). The M-E seems to have been a good way to offer a camera at a lower price, as most of the initial investment was the creation of the M9, so stripping it down and cutting prices wasn't a huge risk for Leica. The quality is still pretty much all there, so no damaging the brand, and they had a newer camera to offer at the same time to tempt any who could afford more.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think the real problem is that Leica cameras have become fetish objects, which is a pity. They used to be, and probably still are, darn good cameras. During the early to mid 'fifties, they were, in my opinion, the best 35mm reportage cameras available.

Now, however, there are so many really good cameras to choose from, the only way that Leica has found to differentiate its products is to pretend they are something they are not.

I don't know where to begin with this. With a camera like the MM they are a real departure from the bells and whistles of the modern DSLR. It is still a rangefinder which I prefer and it's a camera that just gets out of the way and as of my writing this it is the only B&W only FF rangefinder on the market today. There are more like me that agree. They have sold more than just mine. Everyone I know that has bought one are photographers and most are old film guys like me.. Thats a reality and not pretending.

You find posers with all kinds of different brands and some wear them like they are accessories. Big white lenses and all. I shoot with my MM because it fits the way I see and work and for no other reason.

I would love it if it were cheaper but it's what it is.

As long as they have the balls to be something different from the auto everything, FPS, one size fits all, cameras being produced most of the others, Leica will matter. It's nice to have choices in this one size fits all world.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Hi,

Quote " if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers... "

I have wondered for a week or two how that applies to the CL when it first appeared and the M2 which was another cheaper one, or the model 1 (or standard) in the 30's.

In each case Leica or Leitz produced a cheaper version and they sold. Gaining more customers and starting them on the path to better or more complicated or dearer models: I'm guessing repeat orders were/are important to them and they were/are after them.

I think 'cheaper' is not the right word to use in this argument as it carries a lot of baggage that we don't need.

Regards, David

They make an M-E right now.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think the real problem is that Leica cameras have become fetish objects, which is a pity. They used to be, and probably still are, darn good cameras. During the early to mid 'fifties, they were, in my opinion, the best 35mm reportage cameras available.

Now, however, there are so many really good cameras to choose from, the only way that Leica has found to differentiate its products is to pretend they are something they are not.

You mean they're NOT the only new manual focus rangefinder cameras you can buy? And they DON'T make really good lenses?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . It's nice to have choices in this one size fits all world.

Ah, but they're only PRETENDING to be different (see post above).

They seem to have fooled you as successfully as they have fooled me. I really thought they were different.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

LoL...

In our defense they are doing a very credible job of pretending.

 

[LazyHammock]

Leica matters to me because they are helping keep modern RF photography alive. I have never bought a new Leica camera or lens (so I'm probably not really helping!) but I own an M3 (albeit with ZM lenses) and have owned M4-P, M6 and MP. I'm impressed they would launch the MM to such a small market (although at an impressive price) so I give them kudos for persevering in a market they have dominated since the 1950s while most others moved into SLR and digital. Also, as others have mentioned, they know how to market their products, particularly to the fan base .

 

[gnarayan]

As long as they have the balls to be something different from the auto everything, FPS, one size fits all, cameras being produced most of the others, Leica will matter. It's nice to have choices in this one size fits all world.

I don't think anyone disagreed about Leica being different, but rather about if this differences mattered, and to who they ought to matter.

Even for a lot of people on RFF, they just don't. For B&W, you have plenty of people swearing by the Foveon sensors. For the bells and whistles, you have probably even more people who operate Leica's as second cameras to their main systems and find ways to earn a living with the bells and whistles, or can at least tolerate their existence in return for a lower price, larger support network, and often comparable or higher reliability. As for the rangefinder, well people learned to adapt to TTL even before AF let alone digital.

So we've gone from "Why Leica matters"

to

"Why Leica matters to old film guys like you, who want a FF digital to use with old lenses that are often outperformed my much cheaper modern options, haven't adapted to the lack of a rangefinder, cannot or will not put a DSLR or mirrorless in manual mode, are willing to shell out $7k and tolerate the occasional repair trips to NJ or Solms, and put up with fewer FPS, worse low high-ISO, lower dynamic range, crap video and live view, no AF, and more weight than most mirrorless cameras."

I'm really glad you get your choice in the one size fits all world, but the OP was arguing that Leica mattered and should "succeed in this new era of instant snap shots and social media" (so presumably he feels it ought to matter to the market, not just him) because of their simplicity. And Leica does matter to their market. It's just that their market is pretty darn small - so small that it matters to no one but Leica.

 

[thegman]

Leica matters to me because they are helping keep modern RF photography alive. I have never bought a new Leica camera or lens (so I'm probably not really helping!) but I own an M3 (albeit with ZM lenses) and have owned M4-P, M6 and MP. I'm impressed they would launch the MM to such a small market (although at an impressive price) so I give them kudos for persevering in a market they have dominated since the 1950s while most others moved into SLR and digital. Also, as others have mentioned, they know how to market their products, particularly to the fan base .

For me, Cosina are probably doing more for keeping modern range finder photography going. I say "for me", as I have no interest in digital Leicas, and therefore their efforts in that regard are of no more interest than the latest DSLR to me.

However, Leica do still make the M7 and MP, and for that, I applaud them.

Between them, Leica and Cosina make a very credible range of 35mm range finders, and for me, that is why Leica (and Cosina) matter. If they were to stop making film cameras, they'd cease to matter though, as far as I was concerned.

 

[cosmonaut]

I HATE to admit this but my iPhone is a wonderful tool. I am more impressed with it every time I use it. I push a button. How simple is that? The iPhones DXO marks are as good as my old Olympus E-M1.



Angle with IPhone 5s by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

Iphone 5s, edit 2 by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

 

[airfrogusmc]

I don't think anyone disagreed about Leica being different, but rather about if this differences mattered, and to who they ought to matter.

Even for a lot of people on RFF, they just don't. For B&W, you have plenty of people swearing by the Foveon sensors. For the bells and whistles, you have probably even more people who operate Leica's as second cameras to their main systems and find ways to earn a living with the bells and whistles, or can at least tolerate their existence in return for a lower price, larger support network, and often comparable or higher reliability. As for the rangefinder, well people learned to adapt to TTL even before AF let alone digital.

So we've gone from "Why Leica matters"

to

"Why Leica matters to old film guys like you, who want a FF digital to use with old lenses that are often outperformed my much cheaper modern options, haven't adapted to the lack of a rangefinder, cannot or will not put a DSLR or mirrorless in manual mode, are willing to shell out $7k and tolerate the occasional repair trips to NJ or Solms, and put up with fewer FPS, worse low high-ISO, lower dynamic range, crap video and live view, no AF, and more weight than most mirrorless cameras."

I'm really glad you get your choice in the one size fits all world, but the OP was arguing that Leica mattered and should "succeed in this new era of instant snap shots and social media" (so presumably he feels it ought to matter to the market, not just him) because of their simplicity. And Leica does matter to their market. It's just that their market is pretty darn small - so small that it matters to no one but Leica.

Their aren't many new DSLR lenses that out perform my 35 Lux FLE. And I doubt i will loose any money on the Lux and I know my 35L is worth a lot less than what i paid for it.

But Leica digital matters because it is producing things that many of the others won't produce like the MM.

 

[noisycheese]

LoL...

In our defense they are doing a very credible job of pretending.

...Not to mention the fact that Leica M lenses are doing a very credible job of pretending to produce superior image quality - while the bodies are also doing a very credible job of pretending to be sturdy, well made and reliable

Man oh man, there's a whole lotta pretending going on! 😀

 

[airfrogusmc]

...Not to mention the fact that Leica M lenses are doing a very credible job of pretending to produce superior image quality - while the bodies are also doing a very credible job of pretending to be sturdy, well made and reliable

Man oh man, there's a whole lotta pretending going on! 😀

And that to.

 

[LazyHammock]

For me, Cosina are probably doing more for keeping modern range finder photography going. I say "for me", as I have no interest in digital Leicas, and therefore their efforts in that regard are of no more interest than the latest DSLR to me.

However, Leica do still make the M7 and MP, and for that, I applaud them.

Between them, Leica and Cosina make a very credible range of 35mm range finders, and for me, that is why Leica (and Cosina) matter. If they were to stop making film cameras, they'd cease to matter though, as far as I was concerned.

Absolutely, i agree but (looking back 15 years or so) would VC and Zeiss have even entered (or re-entered) this market if it wasn't for Leica making it viable?

I would definitely say that VC have done a fantastic job of making rangefinder photography more accessible without sacrificing quality.

 

[thegman]

Absolutely, i agree but (looking back 15 years or so) would VC and Zeiss have even entered (or re-entered) this market if it wasn't for Leica making it viable?

I would definitely say that VC have done a fantastic job of making rangefinder photography more accessible without sacrificing quality.

I'm sure you're right. Looking back though, when I first started in photography, I was interested in AE, that sort of thing, which Leica could not provide at a price I could (or would) pay. So for me, Zeiss/Cosina made RFs accessible to me.

Now I'm not fussed about AE or meters etc. so Leica becomes a lot more accessible and desirable.

 

[rfaspen]

Leica matters because, as with Nikon, I'm heavily invested in thier gear. The difference between Leica and Nikon for me -- my Nikon gear has depreciated in value by a *huge* amount. Today, I couldn't get more than $0.05 for every $1.00 I've sunk in Nikon bodies, lenses, accessories. All my Leica gear has held or increased in value over time. So, Leica matters! Unfortunately, I'm deeper into Nikon (in terms of my hard-earned money spent). When I used to get paid for photography, I tried to obtain the best tools for my job. Nikon seemed to be that tool. Today, I shoot only for my personal pleasure (or nearly so). I'd love to divest of most of my Nikon gear and expand Leica, but such a depressing thought to see it all go for a pittance (the Nikon gear, that is).

Funny how I hesitate to spend on digital Leica partly because of my Nikon experience with depreciation. I've figured I'm willing to spend $2000-2500 or so for digital Leica. That's in the range of used M8 prices. But, there's such differing opinion on the M8, some think its yesterday's technology and not worth the used prices, others love the M8 and actually claim they prefer it to the FF digital Leica's. Eh, looks like I'll continue shooting film while I watch the dust swirl and hopefully settle in a favorable pattern. I've said elsewhere on RFF that I'm open to a 3rd party solution to my digital need.

 

[willie_901]

I just sold a bunch of Nikon (D700 and Nikkor lenses). The depreciation after 2-3 years was 25-33%. That's rather different fro 5 cents on the dollar.

I am sure Leica lens would have suffered much less depreciation.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm in the process of completely switching to Leica M even for my commercial work. I will be picking up a couple of color bodies and a couple more lenses over the next couple of years and will be dumping all of my Canon digital gear.

I know there are some out there that are film only and wonder about Leica digital. If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in some capacity. Divorce, some years back, and other circumstances create a situation where huge downsize was necessary so the darkroom was lost. Also my commercial clients forced a move to digital in 06.

To rap this up I don't think the Leica M camera division would have survived if they hadn't gone digital. So if they sell all kinds of things I would never buy as long as that income can keep Leica taking risks like the MM and keep making great easy to use rangefinders then sell to the dentists and collectors and make all those special additions. As long as Leica keeps giving me a camera option all the others aren't, a camera that doesn't take me out of the process, then it's all good in my opinion and they will matter.

 

[hepcat]

I just sold a bunch of Nikon (D700 and Nikkor lenses). The depreciation after 2-3 years was 25-33%. That's rather different fro 5 cents on the dollar.

I am sure Leica lens would have suffered much less depreciation.

Interestingly, you can buy used but like-new current model Voigtlander lenses for about the amount of the depreciation of a similar new Leica lens. They'll last MY lifetime (I'm not concerned about whether anyone else is still using them in 50 years) and the image quality is excellent; certainly the equal of any modern offering coming out of Japan. Looking at value for dollar, especially with lens performance figured in, Mr. K offers some pretty amazing value in his lenses, and they're just getting better and better with each iteration.

 

[rfaspen]

I completely agree with Hepcat's opinion of CV lenses. I have a number of those too. I'm not wedded to Leica. Rather, I try to get the best image quality-to-dollar ratio I can. There are some values (gems!) to be found among CV lenses. So, now *both* Leica and CV matter to me.

My experience with depreciating gear: I bought into Nikon system in the early 1980's. I'm easily 10s of thousands of dollars into it. Those gear have deprecieated tremendously (I didn't do the math, it might not be 5cents to the dollar). Example: I purchased a *used* black FE2 in 1987/88 for $600, today I can't sell it for more than $50. That's enormous. What's more, an FE2 is one very capable camera. Now, consider that in addition to that FE2, I have an F2a, F2as, FM, FM2, another FE2, an FE, FA, and I believe I still have an EM (the cheapo model). I might have yet more than that, I haven't dug through the cabinet in a long while. Add to that a wide range of lenses, Nikkor and other brands (24 to 400mm), bellows, motor drives, battery packs, screens, and who knows what else. I get naseous just thinking about it. One interesting thing about that gear: it all still works as it did when I bought it. That's not what I'm told to expect with digital bodies.