Why the obsession with "Leica Killers?"

[jsrockit]

j_j ... did you really think you were going to be able to google "Leica Killers" and find a lot of information?

 

[FrozenInTime]

Doesn't address FF, but if you can't beat them join them : Leica branded micro 4/3 ?

panasonic-mulling-providing-leica-high-end-digital-cam

 

[Ranchu]

It's just plain old consumer fetishism.

 

[thompsonks]

I have no interest in Leica 'killers' per se, but I'm taking a good look at the emerging options.

I've used a succession Leicas for 42 years (and still have the first one), but I've been watching the physical object grow lumpier while the price grows higher – the 'plus' curve descending in relation to the alternatives, while the 'minus' curve rises.

I've been using X100s in addition to Leica lately, and IMO its files measure up to M8, if not M9. I'm sticking with M9s because the M240 didn't go anywhere I want to go, except for higher ISOs.

Much of my Leica loyalty depends on having accumulated some valued M lenses – a couple of newer ones, some older Mandler designs, and a trio of 28-35-50 'beaters.' If/when I can use these more conveniently on another body, so be it. When there's a better camera body for me than M9, I'll be pleased if it'a a Leica, but brand loyalty alone can't keep me aboard.

 

[Wulfthari]

The highlights are impressively indefensible statements.



WHAT other luxury brands does the Leica resemble? Lobb shoes? Range Rovers? What on earth could "any other" mean in this context? And if you want a digital RF, how much choice have you? At least you can buy other shoes or four-wheel drives.

As for "the rangefinder market doesn't exist any more", this is the sheerest nonsense. Who buys Bessas, then? And who cares what the "average photographer" uses? You might as well say that there's no market for motorcycles any more, because the "average driver" has a car.

And "Contax was killed by Zeiss"? You admit yourself that Zeiss didn't develop the Contax for 20 years. By this you presumably mean that it eventually died because it was hopelessly outdated. Another way of phrasing it is to say that the Leica survived because it was the better design.

Cheers,

R.

Ahahahhaahh! This post made me think about a semi/satirical article about the Leica man:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm

Don't take any offense, but you must be a Leica man to really think what you've written: the market for rangefinders is today so small that no big name (Nikon, Canon...) invest in it anymore, anybody with common sense knows that.

Nikon & Co. are companies that every year make a lot of money with SLR, digital cameras etc...for them it doesn't worth it, if you don't believe it, go to see the financial results of Canon in 2013 and compare the numbers with Leicas.

"Another luxury brand" is referred to the way they promote their brand, that it's not that different than Rolex's policy, or Aston Martin's etc..." the X experience", in short it's not about technology anymore, but perception of the brand.

Finally, regarding Contax, I never claimed that the design was "timeless" because it would be ridicoulus to assume that, but from that to saying that Leica's design of the shutter is better because Leica updated their cameras while Zeiss concentrated their efforts on lenses and SLR is absolutely hilarious.

 

[jsrockit]

And, in fact, is there any way to reliably represent such a faction on (or off) the internet?

There is an interesting kind of irony in this thread.

I suspect the only "Leica killing" that is to be had will be at the hand of Leica itself.

And more importantly, does Leica need killing?
Or, does Leica want to be killed?
What is the entity "Leica" that may hold the necessary self-awareness for such acts?

You know what man, I am so sorry to have ruined your day with my simple little post. I go to rumor sites and people talk about many cameras as the camera that will kill Leica. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. 🙄

 

[NazgulKing]

Wasn't the original Leica Killer the Nikon F? I mean, it did win the market by leaps and bounds. I don't believe that feat is repeatable anymore, since Leica has been reduced to a boutique marque anyway. Most new cameras win by mere default.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . the market for rangefinders is today so small that no big name (Nikon, Canon...) invest in it anymore, anybody with common sense knows that.

True. And anybody with any sense at all, common or not, knows that the Big Names don't make the only good cameras (ever heard of Alpa? Linhof?) and that at the top of the market, you don't normally include Ford and BMW.

Your world picture is uncommonly solipsistic, and demonstrably untrue: ""I don't want/own/use digital Leicas, therefore nobody else does." You further imply that anyone who does use Leicas is living the the past, or in Never-Never Land. Even f this were true -- and you'd be hard put to support such a viewpoint -- who cares? As long as there are enough buyers to keep Leica in business making Ms, your viewpoint is clearly irrelevant as well as faintly offensive. Only faintly, because such such a viewpoint is a great deal more irrelevant than the continued existence of Leicas.

As for shutter design, to pretend that Leica's simple cloth focal plane shutter is inferior to the Contax roll-top desk is (to borrow your own phrase) "hilarious".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's probably not very productive to get wound up about this. What I do I notice is that Panasonic use the Leica brand, whenever they can get away with it. My current "go everywhere" camera has "Leica" and "Elmar" quite prominently displayed on the lens mount, so at least one of the mass market camera makers appears to believe that the name is still a useful sales tool.

 

[uhoh7]

The meaning of the word "killer" aside, the Sony A7r is unprecedented challenge to Leica, theoretically at least, because unlike the Nikon F, which certainly killed some Leica business, the sony proposes to compete with Leica lenses attached to a brand new FF sensor.

Like or not, it's a major landmark in the digital camera age.

You have to think either the M9 or M240 can better the Sony, having been designed with ONLY lecia glass in mind.

But counting chickens before they hatch sometimes proves....inaccurate.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Another existential question, then: if Leica cannot be killed (except by an ineffective "suicide"), why try to kill Leica?

Dear Shane,

Spite. Envy. Stupidity. Ignorance. Arrogance. There are no laudable reasons why. "Live and let live" makes more sense. Do I want to kill the new Sony? No. Why should I?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think Nikon set out to try and kill Leica, anymore than I believe that SONY has set out to kill them. Leica is a very small company, not really a threat to any Japanese camera manufacturer. But there is no question in my mind that there is a coattail effect going on here -- Leica has surprised everyone.

You are of course right, and I did not mean to point the finger at companies: this would be very stupid indeed. Rather (as the OP asked) the question is why so many incognito nonentities on the Internet seem so obsessed with the idea. And so many lazy journalists and sloppy ad agencies. I suppose that both the journalists and the ad agencies may have the excuse of deviousness and shock value, but what have anonymous individuals to gain? Or lose?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

Dear Shane,

Spite. Envy. Stupidity. Ignorance. Arrogance. There are no laudable reasons why. "Live and let live" makes more sense. Do I want to kill the new Sony? No. Why should I?

Cheers,

R.

+10000
Out of all the exchangeable lens digital cameras available Leica M series camera equals what maybe 1 camera out every 10,000 sold each year? So the idea that huge corporations like Sony, Nikon or Canon would target Leica is beyond silly.
I can just hear the CEO of Sony,,We need to build a FF mirorless camera so we can go after Leica's .001% market share.

 

[uhoh7]

+10000
Out of all the exchangeable lens digital cameras available Leica M series camera equals what maybe 1 camera out every 10,000 sold each year? So the idea that huge corporations like Sony, Nikon or Canon would target Leica is beyond silly.
I can just hear the CEO of Sony,,We need to build a FF mirorless camera so we can go after Leica's .001% market share.

sry, wrong. you're stopped down to f/32. 🙂

Leica's prestige factor is alive and well---in fact more legendary today among pros, thanx to M9, than ever. Best glass line on the planet.

Whats the fastest way to get your gunfighter rep?

Beat the fastest gun.

 

[Pioneer]

sry, wrong. you're stopped down to f/32. 🙂

Leica's prestige factor is alive and well---in fact more legendary today among pros, thanx to M9, than ever. Best glass line on the planet.

Whats the fastest way to get your gunfighter rep?

Beat the fastest gun.

I am not too sure that the pro really cares all that much. Maybe for personal work but for paid work I suspect that most pros pick what works best for them. For some it may be Leica, but probably not for most. And I really don't think it has anything to do with how good it is, it has more to do with how expensive it is.

Admittedly I do not do a lot of work in my little town for pay. But when I do I usually grab my digital Pentax. Why? It certainly works well, it is quite flexible and I have accumulated the necessary glass to make it work for me. But the biggest reason was the cost. I do not make a ton of money and I was able to buy that equipment for far less then the cost of a Leica M9.

Of course YMMV. If you make a lot of money at photography, or you are not worried about using your income to pay for your equipment, then Leica may certainly make sense for you. From a business perspective it does not for me and may not for an awful lot of pros.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention. I own a couple of older digital Pentax cameras that function as acceptable backup options if my main camera goes dead. Leica equipment is certainly nice but it just costs too much money if you are trying to make a living, at least for me.

 

[icebear]

....

Whats the fastest way to get your gunfighter rep?

Beat the fastest gun.

Beat the fastest gun fighter - how ?
Obviously there is more - or more precisely LESS - to Leica, than specs on paper.
Almost every new camera has 10 times more features.
Others have more Mpx, more fps, auto focus, longer battery life, so what 😉 ?
Just being faster ( bigger, better, more...) doesn't really cut it.

BTW :
My MM has been dipped in dragon's blood, so it obviously is impervious to any attack 😀.

 

[semilog]

A lot of people here seem to be misreading the term "Leica killer."

When we say that a new Porsche is a "Ferrari killer" we do not imply that the new Porsche is intended or likely to put Ferrari out of business, but rather that it's faster, better-handling, has better stoppers, is sleeker, etc.

No one who pays attention thinks "Leica killer" means a product designed to put Leica Camera AG out of business. Rather, it refers to a camera that beats an iconic product at (one or more of) its own game(s).

Many posts on this thread give the impression that a certain subset of Leica fans has a precariously-balanced chip on its collective shoulder.

 

[hausen]

Will the new Nikon be the Sony killer, and will the that be after the Sony has killed the M-240 or before?

 

[uhoh7]

Beat the fastest gun fighter - how ?
Obviously there is more - or more precisely LESS - to Leica, than specs on paper.
Almost every new camera has 10 times more features.
Others have more Mpx, more fps, auto focus, longer battery life, so what 😉 ?
Just being faster ( bigger, better, more...) doesn't really cut it.

BTW :
My MM has been dipped in dragon's blood, so it obviously is impervious to any attack 😀.

in this context, fast = accurate.

if the A7r takes a more accurate image with the incredible leica glass than the latest (not greatest) M240 it wins the gun fight.

Sony is not interested in Leica market share, it is interested in Leica reputation as way to capture Nikon and Canon market share. (Though Leica has made more profit than Sony for years).

features are for geeks, but everyone appreciates a razor sharp landscape shot with legendary lenses.

Some here think Sony doesn't even know Leica exists. They've never been to Japan, i guess, or perhaps they underestimate Japanese sense of history. Leica and Contax were the fathers of Canon and Nikon. Japanese don't forget the ancestors.

Pathos.

Sony is the ugly step child in camera history. Redemption beckons.

another way to look at it: what prompted the invention of leica cameras? Form factor. It started as a hiking camera. Hard to mountain climb with a speed graphic. In this sense the A7r is more leica than Leica (who seem to have forgotten everything but the M6). It's smaller, it's lighter. If it's sharper, especially with the incredible M glass: mission accomplished. The original Leica spirit is captured.

What do you think all the fuss is about? 🙂 Sony is not trying to kill Leica. Sony is going to kidnap the lens line. You know, take the children. Well, they are about to try anyway. We'll know if they managed it within a month.

oh, I forgot, all that matters is how you focus 😉

 

[Doug]

Interesting viewpoints, Uhoh7, and I largely agree. But I think there's going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth as the first Sony reviews come in testing it with Leica lenses. Already a Canadian blog's quick look shows the sensor will work much better with telecentric lenses, and will suffer with many Leica-mount optics.

And I don't think Sony will be unhappy about that, being surely more interested in selling customers new Sony/Zeiss lenses than having them use someone else's product.