Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"

[jsrockit]

What is with every rumor site and spec chaser calling every mirrorless camera that hasn't been released yet a "Leica Killer?"

Why the obession with killing Leica? Sure, I realize they are expensive, but does anyone really think Leica is going to be killed by these cameras? or is it just something to say when you want a Leica and you don't want to / can't afford to spend the money to get one?

The way I see it, is that Leica can continue to exist along side these other cameras... :bang:

 

[maggieo]

It is mild hyperbole. Leicas are great and if there was something that performed as well or close to one, then it would be "killer." Which means good. It does not imply that the new camera has homicidal tendencies, nor that it would be able to act upon them. </Commander Data>

 

[burancap]

The way I see it, is that Leica can continue to exist along side these other cameras...

As well they do in my cabinet.

 

[Matus]

I would not take it too literally - many hope to finally get a camera they can mount their M-mount lenses on for much less than M240. Nobody actually wants to kill Leica I would think. Let's see whether new new FX mirror-less cameras will actually have influence on Leica prizing.

 

[Margu]

What is with every rumor site and spec chaser calling every mirrorless camera that hasn't been released yet a "Leica Killer?"

Why the obession with killing Leica? Sure, I realize they are expensive, but does anyone really think Leica is going to be killed by these cameras? or is it just something to say when you want a Leica and you don't want to / can't afford to spend the money to get one?

The way I see it, is that Leica can continue to exist along side these other cameras... :bang:

When you say "Leica" you mean rangefinder cameras?

 

[N.delaRua]

You know I think its statement that has many meaning.

First, I think people say Leica killer to acknowledge the quality produced by the system and insinuate that a Leica killer is a camera that approaches the IQ of the Leica system while being considerably cheaper and possessing a similar form factor. It produced the first full frame "mirrorless" camera, and this genre of camera seems to be the one type the interwebs wants more than anything. (Let's see if people put their money where their mouth is)

Its same with Corvette and GT-R fans. They call those cars Ferrari killers because they offer similar performance for a fraction of the cost, and in some categories outperform a ferrari. However, journalist invariably write about the experience of driving a Ferrari, and invariably a corvette and GT-R do not provide the same experience.

Leica sells an experience too. The rangefinder experience. The mystique of Henri Cartier Bresson and others.

Second, it seems that people show real animosity towards Leica products due to the cost of the system and the "collectible" variants that are released for princely sums. Lets admit that Leica has a mystique about its name, and it is a name that every hobbyist will eventually learn; upon learning of the Leica name they learn about the Leica price. This leads to bitterness and envy because the price of admission is way too high. Furthermore, Leica has moved to positioning itself as a luxury brand; all luxury brands are envied by many common people (people have shot each other over starter jackets). Its natural to see how the animosity towards Leica forms in the collective voice of the interwebs because Leica has positioned itself in the "if you gotta ask, you can't afford it" realm of the market.

People want the best, but when the best prices itself exorbitantly above the rest, people will clamor for a "killer" to dethrone the king and give access to best.

 

[btgc]

Leica as it were known were killed by technology a time ago, I think. Now they own a narrow niche and all the killing is about substituting expensive DRF with affordable mirrorless. Like Honda Civic vs Lambo talks, it has two doors, revvy sound and covers ambitions of 90% of cafe racers for a fraction of price. While it's great car itself do it really kills supercars....? They still have their buyers like Leica does.

 

[Ronald M]

You know I think its statement that has many meaning.

First, I think people say Leica killer to acknowledge the quality produced by the system and insinuate that a Leica killer is a camera that approaches the IQ of the Leica system while being considerably cheaper and possessing a similar form factor. It produced the first full frame "mirrorless" camera, and this genre of camera seems to be the one type the interwebs wants more than anything. (Let's see if people put their money where their mouth is)

Its same with Corvette and GT-R fans. They call those cars Ferrari killers because they offer similar performance for a fraction of the cost, and in some categories outperform a ferrari. However, journalist invariably write about the experience of driving a Ferrari, and invariably a corvette and GT-R do not provide the same experience.

Leica sells an experience too. The rangefinder experience. The mystique of Henri Cartier Bresson and others.

Second, it seems that people show real animosity towards Leica products due to the cost of the system and the "collectible" variants that are released for princely sums. Lets admit that Leica has a mystique about its name, and it is a name that every hobbyist will eventually learn; upon learning of the Leica name they learn about the Leica price. This leads to bitterness and envy because the price of admission is way too high. Furthermore, Leica has moved to positioning itself as a luxury brand; all luxury brands are envied by many common people (people have shot each other over starter jackets). Its natural to see how the animosity towards Leica forms in the collective voice of the interwebs because Leica has positioned itself in the "if you gotta ask, you can't afford it" realm of the market.

People want the best, but when the best prices itself exorbitantly above the rest, people will clamor for a "killer" to dethrone the king and give access to best.

I can only compare it to the cost of cars. 1965 Impala SS $2800. Current 35,000. Roughly a factor of 10.

1965 M3 + lens as around $500/550. M + Summicron is $9000. factor of 18. I would say they have gone excessive.

One must consider two other things to make a fair comparison. Value of our money compared to German, first marks then euro. Second realize Americans on average have seen no increase in purchasing power for 30 years. The 1% have no such problem, in fact their standard of living and income is booming. USA has by a very wide margin the widest disparity of income of any developed nation in the world. So unless you are part of the 1%, things do not look good.

Now consider Leica no longer sells as much to pros because of the changing nature of their work, they have to promote to the wealthy.
The Kaufmann family did not get to be billionaires by being kindly.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You know I think its statement that has many meaning.

First, I think people say Leica killer to acknowledge the quality produced by the system and insinuate that a Leica killer is a camera that approaches the IQ of the Leica system while being considerably cheaper and possessing a similar form factor. It produced the first full frame "mirrorless" camera, and this genre of camera seems to be the one type the interwebs wants more than anything. (Let's see if people put their money where their mouth is)

Its same with Corvette and GT-R fans. They call those cars Ferrari killers because they offer similar performance for a fraction of the cost, and in some categories outperform a ferrari. However, journalist invariably write about the experience of driving a Ferrari, and invariably a corvette and GT-R do not provide the same experience.

Leica sells an experience too. The rangefinder experience. The mystique of Henri Cartier Bresson and others.

Second, it seems that people show real animosity towards Leica products due to the cost of the system and the "collectible" variants that are released for princely sums. Lets admit that Leica has a mystique about its name, and it is a name that every hobbyist will eventually learn; upon learning of the Leica name they learn about the Leica price. This leads to bitterness and envy because the price of admission is way too high. Furthermore, Leica has moved to positioning itself as a luxury brand; all luxury brands are envied by many common people (people have shot each other over starter jackets). Its natural to see how the animosity towards Leica forms in the collective voice of the interwebs because Leica has positioned itself in the "if you gotta ask, you can't afford it" realm of the market.

People want the best, but when the best prices itself exorbitantly above the rest, people will clamor for a "killer" to dethrone the king and give access to best.

An excellent analysis. But Leica was always a luxury brand. The reason for a relative increase in prices (they've roughly doubled, though usually for a much better product) is, I suspect, because there are more people "at the top" financially, and Leica can therefore afford to go even further up-market.

Until maybe 50 years ago, Zeiss cameras were insanely expensive, too, but they offered little or nothing that others didn't, so they died. Leica did offer something others didn't, and survived.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

I think the term "Leica Killer" is a pretty flattering term that states that Leica is the camera to beat whether it is for small camera with a big sensor, resolution, ergonomics, snob appeal, status symbol, enduring modular design, branding, glamour, superior optics, simplicity, elegant design... or all words that describe a Leica excluding the word "expensive."

In a way the name Leica has a long reputation, and it it is doubtful that a legend can easily be killed or displaced so easy.

Cal

 

[Pioneer]

Until maybe 50 years ago, Zeiss cameras were insanely expensive, too, but they offered little or nothing that others didn't, so they died. Leica did offer something others didn't, and survived.

Cheers,

R.

I sure hate to disagree with your view of the world, but that is a pretty simplified view; probably not exactly how it happened. Markets are funny things and **** happens that has nothing to do with quality or which is best.

Somewhere WWII happened and decimated Zeiss Ikon. Then Japan happened and all German camera manufacturing was decimated, even Leica. Leica survived by focusing only on rangefinder cameras but even that almost didn't work. Zeiss tried to compete with Japan on the SLR front and ended up ignoring their rangefinder.

But they sure built some awesome cameras and lenses in the meantime. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

When you say "Leica" you mean rangefinder cameras?

I would assume they are referring to the digital Ms...

 

[Brian Legge]

It's a general term for a product that beats the known market leader. The fact that Leica is still considered the reference for quality at this point given how little market share this have is the surprising part to me. Or maybe the insane price of new Leica gear and the quality of the Asph lenses just makes them a bigger target.

 

[jsrockit]

Or maybe the insane price of new Leica gear and the quality of the Asph lenses just makes them a bigger target.

Probably more this than being a market leader. Sure, they are a market leader in quality for mechical RF digital cameras... but not as a whole vs. every digital camera on the market.

 

[N.delaRua]

@Roger. You are right they have always been a luxury brand, but I think recently they have taken it to the next level with the boutique stores. Before, you just had to know a "dealer" like someone who sells Rolexes, but now you can march into the Leica boutique store and have the "Leica experience."

 

[noisycheese]

What is with every rumor site and spec chaser calling every mirrorless camera that hasn't been released yet a "Leica Killer?"

Drama queen shinola? 🙄

 

[lam]

Fuji X Killer! ©

There I said it.

Because when something is too popular for what ever reason, there must be something to undercut it.

 

[jsrockit]

lam, that makes more sense than Leica killer to me... 😉

 

[semilog]

Simple: Two or three grand for a lens or a (film) camera body that will hold its resale value after a decade or more of use is a reasonable value proposition, but it is the height of absurdity to pay seven large for a camera whose electronics will be obsolete in 2-3 years. It's just freaking preposterous.

Put slightly differently: paying that kind of premium for top quality makes sense for durable goods (lenses, woodworking tools, bicycles, furniture), but not so much for consumables. Digital camera bodies are consumables; a business model that treats them as durable goods is slightly perverse and implies a certain contempt for the company's customers.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I sure hate to disagree with your view of the world, but that is a pretty simplified view; probably not exactly how it happened. Markets are funny things and **** happens that has nothing to do with quality or which is best.

Somewhere WWII happened and decimated Zeiss Ikon. Then Japan happened and all German camera manufacturing was decimated, even Leica. Leica survived by focusing only on rangefinder cameras but even that almost didn't work. Zeiss tried to compete with Japan on the SLR front and ended up ignoring their rangefinder.

But they sure built some awesome cameras and lenses in the meantime. 🙂

Quite right: there's always an enormous degree of randomness involved. On the other hand, Buridan's Ass demonstrates that quite small "nudges" can have chaos-like effects; and there's no real doubt that a mechanically overcomplicated rangefinder with a very small lens throat was always going to be at a disadvantage compared with the M. Also, the fact that Zeiss didn't really try to make a better Contax doesn't alter the fact that the M was a vastly superior and more versatile camera. Of course you can argue that Zeiss might have made a better rangefinder than the M. The point is, they didn't.

Cheers,

R.