Will the M9 encourage or discourage Zeiss to make a Digital Ikon?

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I have no way of knowing Leica's margin on each sale. But, it makes sense to me that it is higher than Canon's or Nikon's. Leica sells into a different market. So far, that's worked. Leica has sold relatively few expensive cameras and managed to stay afloat. Can it do that selling a $7000 camera? Who knows?

I think the real marketing opportunity will be for the company that rolls out a rangefinder-sized full frame no-mirror digital autofocus camera on the model of Micro 3/4 along with a line of reasonably competent but affordable lenses. I.e., something with no crop factor and reasonably fast wide angles lenses, where "reasonably" means f/2.0. It would help to have a good viewfinder, but even without that I think it would attract a lot of RF users who want to go digital. I question how many RF users are really wedded to the RF focusing model.

Dear Bill,

Fair enough. But how are they going to solve the full frame/body thickness problem, and besides, who needs 'full frame' if it's an all new design? Ten to twelve megapixels off APS-C is probably all you need. The main reason for 'full frame' is legacy lenses (applicable only to Leica). Subsidiary reasons are differential focus (grossly overrated on RFF in my view) and tradition. AND you're talking about a whole new system, with new lenses that will only fit that camera. How likely is this? Even more important, how is anyone going to fill this tiny market segment at a price that daydreamers want to pay?

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

Dear Bill,

...besides, who needs 'full frame' if it's an all new design?

R.

Very good point that I wanted to mention. I've said elsewhere that if I could buy a Micro 4/3 with a good VF, I would, even if it meant all new lenses. My only point of comparison is the EVF on my GX200. If that's what to expect from a mainstream EVF, they've got a way to go. It's not usable in dim light and really bright light. The other day I was looking through it at some dark grey roofs under a lighter grey overcast sky. The Ricoh's EVF displayed both as one overall grey area. The roofs were invisible.

 

[Pavel+]

Roger ... are you being difficult on purpose? 😉
How hard is it to decide that "extreme" in the argument I was making is ipso facto relative to other companies. You are lending weight to my argument (put that way) by pointing out that they can't compete against the giants like Canon on margins because they don't have the volume. That is what I'm saying! I don't mean it in the sense " Bad, Bad Leica ... they are ripping me off" but simply stating that I believe that they have much larger profit margin built into the sales price due to low volume.

Then the other half of the argument is that if a much larger company, who was aggressive about market dominance (at the expense of initial profits) could knock the stuffings out of Leica by marketing a eaqual product for far less.

For the sake of illustration and simple numbers, if Leica projects sales of 8,000 units they may find that with R&D costs being X, they need to charge $7000 of which say $3500 is profit. Is that excessive? That is not pertinent. Is that extreme? Yes .. relative a fictional 800 pound gorilla company (like Canon, Pentax or Zeiss) that may decide to enter the market with the idea of trying to own it. They may project the same sales number or lower, but decide its worth it and sell the camera for a $200 profit (in effect a loss) because they can easily subsidize the cost.

Take a look at Sony who is doing just that in a market with much lower margins than this exotic nitche that Leica now has to themselves.

Now I agree that this is not likely ... as long as we are all right about our assumption that this market is not likely to explode past the past performance. But if it does happen that Leica is wildely sucessfull in with the M9 (even for Leica type expectations) and the market seems to be fatter than though ... it just could be that a much larger company will ride into town on Leica's hard won coat-tails and compete on price in a really strong way. In that kind of light ... I can see a Zeiss priced at even a better ratio than the Film Ikon was relative to a film Leica.

Film and mechanical was Leica's strength. Electronics ... they lose much of their old advantage. The M8 was a great camera. When gremlins did not spoil the fun. Can you imagine the M3, or M6 with a failure and bug rate similar to the M8? We still don't know how much Leica has learned the digital game. I hope this will be a home run ... but we don't know yet ...do we.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... they can't compete against the giants like Canon on margins because they don't have the volume.

That's my point. They never will have, because rangefinders are a small niche. You could reduce the price by 30% and sell twice as many and still fail to make a profit.

Any company must guess -- and it is no more than a guess -- at how many cameras they can sell, at what price. Leica has won so far: they're still in business, still making RF cameras. Plenty have dropped out of the RF market because it isn't worth their while. Yashica. Canon. Nikon. Minolta. Konica. Robot. I could probably list two dozen others, maybe three dozen or more.

In other words, you're conflating 'profit' and 'profit per camera'. If you can stay in business at $10 per camera profit, that's a reasonable margin. If you'd go out of business at less that $500 per camera, then $500 per camera is a reasonable margin.

You could equally well ask what 'profit' means. If a company makes a loss, then pretty much by definition, they have not made any profit on what they sell, let alone an excessive profit.

I could eqully well accuse you of being deliberately difficult.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

Film and mechanical was Leica's strength. Electronics ... they lose much of their old advantage.

That's an important point. Leica's concept of a camera may have been cutting edge decades ago, but they are not a cutting edge digital company. In their three digital products to date, they have adopted technology rather then inventing technology.

It is inevitable that people who take pictures will increasingly demand the integration of the tool that takes those pictures into their thoroughly digital lives. The virtues of film and the quality of Leica optics notwithstanding, other attributes typically take precedence in the purchase decisions of most consumers. I'm convinced that wet printing will, if it isn't already, become an activity confined to hobbyists and artists. Everyone else thinks it is more important to be able to avoid paying for film and its processing, and to dump the images online so your friends and family scattered across the planet can see them. Those who lament the aesthetics of 72 dpi web images will simply expect technology to provide better displays, and it will.

Leica is not in a position to be innovative in that environment because it is a camera company, not a digital technology company. That absolutely does not mean they will stop producing wonderful cameras or disappear. But, I think it means that we should be looking to other companies for innovative approaches to digital photography.

Personally, I'd love to see Apple do a deal with a company like Zeiss to supply the optics for a new line of picture-taking tools. Great optics, great technology, great designs, and great market savvy. It would be an interesting combination.

 

[italy74]

Ciao Roger
I'm not an economist, but I too think that the lesser relevance that might have Zeiss in charging whatever, camera or lens, AND the contemporary that trust ANYONE might have for a reasonable priced Zeiss product might be very close to the minimum required to play the game. As I wrote somewhere else, although having a D700 wouldn't stop me to get a Zeiss Ikon DRF if it would come out at around 1/2 or even less of the M9 price. How many people with a minimum interest in photography and photographic gear could find interesting an alternative to M9? The same fact we're debating here is a sign that such market may be ALSO a niche, but a highly regarded one. I don't know there, but in Italy luxury market (of whatever item) has raised its sales just because for many people who're becoming poorer there are also others who become richer on their shoulders. Recently here a research showed how for vacations people left the middle range to move toward the top or the bottom end. I might not afford a 15k holiday but I could still save money for a 3k camera that i'll use and enjoy for a long time. (while I would never save 3 k for a single holiday which simply "passes")

Now, even in this case, people would look at their convenience. Why spending 7k unless you're a Leica aficionado when you know you may have the same 99% performance and quality by spending half of the price? In the end, the Zeiss Ikon looks more practical on the field, ALSO price wise, than the M7. Just think of the weird flash sync time of M7 vs the standard 1/125 offered by the Ikon. For what I see, the main problem here isn't the realization of a DRF whoever built it, but the fact that within a few years it might be (hmmm.. wait and look after) overcome and lose much more price than any film body in the same period of time over the last years. Now let's do a step back and let me explain what I think. Probably, for such a product, if well engineered, people wouldn't move on so fastly as other customers do for lower markets where the last is always the best. If a (really) good DRF is designed, and it proof to be RELIABLE under whatever condition, then a major leap has to be done because who gets it moves toward another camera. I got the D700 in february and - also because of film - I'm guessing it will take much longer than any other digital camera I owned til now to be replaced BY ANOTHER DSLR.

Taken for granted ( I hope ) an excellent d/r and high iso capability, size, weight and ease of use (PLUS weather sealed !!!) could be the keys to erode a market that NO RF has ever eroded til now. If pros could see the convenience of a DRF, I guess that not only typical Zeiss or Leica users could be interested but also Canon or Nikon Pros. Zeiss has to take them into account, while Leica can't because of the steep price. A rich keen amateur already having a Nikon might afford a Zeiss while he couldn't have any convenience to look for a Leica. This is underestimated here, I think.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ciao Roger
I'm not an economist, but I too think that the lesser relevance that might have Zeiss in charging whatever, camera or lens, AND the contemporary that trust ANYONE might have for a reasonable priced Zeiss product might be very close to the minimum required to play the game. As I wrote somewhere else, although having a D700 wouldn't stop me to get a Zeiss Ikon DRF if it would come out at around 1/2 or even less of the M9 price. How many people with a minimum interest in photography and photographic gear could find interesting an alternative to M9? The same fact we're debating here is a sign that such market may be ALSO a niche, but a highly regarded one. I don't know there, but in Italy luxury market (of whatever item) has raised its sales just because for many people who're becoming poorer there are also others who become richer on their shoulders. Recently here a research showed how for vacations people left the middle range to move toward the top or the bottom end.

Now, even in this case, people would look at their convenience. Why spending 7k unless you're a Leica aficionado when you know you may have the same 99% performance and quality by spending half of the price? In the end, the Zeiss Ikon looks more practical on the field, ALSO price wise, than the M7. Just think of the weird flash sync time of M7 vs the standard 1/125 offered by the Ikon. For what I see, the main problem here isn't the realization of a DRF whoever built it, but the fact that within a few years it might be (hmmm.. wait and look after) overcome and lose much more price than any film body in the same period of time over the last years. Now let's do a step back and let me explain what I think. Probably, for such a product, if well engineered, people wouldn't move on so fastly as other customers do for lower markets where the last is always the best. If a (really) good DRF is designed, and it proof to be RELIABLE under whatever condition, then a major leap has to be done because who gets it moves toward another camera. I got the D700 in february and - also because of film - I'm guessing it will take much longer than any other digital camera I owned til now to be replaced BY ANOTHER DSLR.

Taken for granted ( I hope ) an excellent d/r and high iso capability, size, weight and ease of use could be the keys to erode a market that NO RF has ever eroded til now. If pros could see the convenience of a DRF, I guess that not only typical Zeiss or Leica users could be interested but also Canon or Nikon Pros. Zeiss has to take them into account, while Leica can't because of the steep price. A rich keen amateur already having a Nikon might afford a Zeiss while he couldn't have any convenience to look for a Leica. This is underestimated here, I think.

Ciao Dino,

First highlight: a highly regarded niche is not the same as one that is profitable.

Second highlight: indeed, many did very well in the Great Depression 1929-1940.

Third highlight: I agree completely. Those who write off all digital cameras as equally short-lived, on the basis of historical evidence only, are not thinking very clearly and should read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Olsen]

I am not so sure that Zeiss will find it tempting and economically interesting to make a M9 competitor to the price of $ 6,999. - They will make money out of the launch of the M9 anyway. As they did on the M8 coming into the market.

It is not economically interesting to make small series digital cameras. Particularly not with a lot of old fashioned clockwork mechanics that demands adjustments and a lot warranty service. I don't think that this small segment of the market is roomy enough for two.

 

[italy74]

I guess it won't look tempting until someone will be thinking with actual figures ONLY and won't realize the potential number of DSLR users that might switch or join the DRF bandwagon... Of course, the actual number of RF users is low compared to DSLR but here a very good product reasonably priced might be able to change this status. People that wouldn't switch for a compact p/s whatever good it might be, but that would take at once a top of the line RF concept if one would ever come out. It's a risk and the bigger risk would be not to play.

However, I guess in the next 12 months (within Photokina 2010) we'll have the answer or a hint on what Zeiss thinks to do...

 

[climbing_vine]

I guess it won't look tempting until someone will be thinking with actual figures ONLY and won't realize the potential number of DSLR users that might switch or join the DRF bandwagon... Of course, the actual number of RF users is low compared to DSLR but here a very good product reasonably priced might be able to change this status. People that wouldn't switch for a compact p/s whatever good it might be, but that would take at once a top of the line RF concept if one would ever come out. It's a risk and the bigger risk would be not to play.

With all respect, this is far out of reality. There was a time when rangefinders were dominant, and people were offered a choice of that or an SLR. Once SLRs were halfway decent nearly every person who bought a camera (quite literally) chose them over a rangefinder. Everyone can argue their own ideas of what is better. But the by far dominant perception is that the SLR model of seeing through the lens what you'll get, is superior for most things most of the time. There is no going back.

 

[darinb]

Leica weakness = market opportunity

Leica weakness = market opportunity

Zeiss is clearly interested in "the rangefinder market" and it seems there is an opportunity.

The excitement over the new Leica and the new Olympus and panasonic offerings seems to make that case indisputable.

So as far as a Leica rival, what are the market opportunities?

First and foremost is price. Lucky for Leica that its high price is seen as a plus by many purchasers who seem to crave a status symbol of some sort. However, it seems that price pressure is on the way. Sony, of course, just announced a $2000 full-frame, high-res SLR. If Nikon responds and then Canon responds that will quickly leave Leica sort of alone way up there at $7,000. Zeiss has lots of room here to offer a rival at a much lower price point.

Low light capability. The new M9 is a good-looking effort, but behind the technology curve in the digital world. The film-M series cameras were (and are) great for low light work. Fast lenses, no mirror slap, bingo. In the digital line however the sensors are noisy and they don't have vibration reduction. The M9 lags well behind the SLR alternatives in this area. A big opportunity for Zeiss if it can come up with a better sensor and other technologies standard on entry level SLRs and point and shoots.

Quality control. With the M8 Leica has slipped up on quality control. I don't need to repeat the embarrassments. Hopefully those days are gone but given the financial pressures on Leica they may not be. We will see.

Weather sealing, shock proof. This seems sort of a no-brainer for the rangefinder market. Make the camera durable in fact, not just durable in feel. Its a niche camera, so fill that niche.

To sum up, Zeiss needs something like the M9 but more advanced here and there--not so "radical "as the Contax G2--a great camera but the rangefinder crowd in very conservative. Just a little bit better than the M9 playing on the M9 turf. The M9, perfected, in other words.

In any event I'm excited to see the excitement around the M9--I'm even more confident that a better rangefinder solution can't be long in coming.

--Darin

 

[darinb]

Leica weakness = market opportunity

Leica weakness = market opportunity

Zeiss is clearly interested in "the rangefinder market" and it seems there is an opportunity.

The excitement over the new Leica and the new Olympus and panasonic offerings seems to make that case indisputable.

So as far as a Leica rival, what are the market opportunities?

First and foremost is price. Lucky for Leica that its high price is seen as a plus by many purchasers who seem to crave a status symbol of some sort. However, it seems that price pressure is on the way. Sony, of course, just announced a $2000 full-frame, high-res SLR. If Nikon responds and then Canon responds that will quickly leave Leica sort of alone way up there at $7,000. Zeiss has lots of room here to offer a rival at a much lower price point.

Low light capability. The new M9 is a good-looking effort, but behind the technology curve in the digital world. The film-M series cameras were (and are) great for low light work. Fast lenses, no mirror slap, bingo. In the digital line however the sensors are noisy and they don't have vibration reduction. The M9 lags well behind the SLR alternatives in this area. A big opportunity for Zeiss if it can come up with a better sensor and other technologies standard on entry level SLRs and point and shoots.

Quality control. With the M8 Leica has slipped up on quality control. I don't need to repeat the embarrassments. Hopefully those days are gone but given the financial pressures on Leica they may not be. We will see.

Weather sealing, shock proof. This seems sort of a no-brainer for the rangefinder market. Make the camera durable in fact, not just durable in feel. Its a niche camera, so fill that niche.

To sum up, Zeiss needs something like the M9 but more advanced here and there--not so "radical "as the Contax G2--a great camera but the rangefinder crowd in very conservative. Just a little bit better than the M9 playing on the M9 turf. The M9, perfected, in other words.

In any event I'm excited to see the excitement around the M9--I'm even more confident that a better rangefinder solution can't be long in coming.

--Darin

 

[italy74]

Ciao Brian
here I'm not talking about superiority of a certain system over the other, not in direct terms. I'm just stating that several people already having a DSLR might find convenient having ALSO a DRF for its portability, stealthness and optical quality, if a very good one could ever come out. Then yes, probably the number of DSLR users SWITCHING ( = leaving ) DSLR platform would be for sure much lesser than the one of those joining it ONLY. I for one would be one of them. I would NEVER buy a compact whatever gimmicks or features they can put on top of it, but I DO would consider a DRF which comes for a much better base project and brand reputation.

 

[italy74]

Agree with Darin.

 

[ulrikft]

I think that a cooperation with Sony, sony providing a sensor, sensor-stabilization, image processors, lcd-screen etc, and zeiss providing a digital ikon housing, rangefinder and make it a good rf mechanically. Price it at 2999,- and it will sell reasonably well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that a cooperation with Sony, sony providing a sensor, sensor-stabilization, image processors, lcd-screen etc, and zeiss providing a digital ikon housing, rangefinder and make it a good rf mechanically. Price it at 2999,- and it will sell reasonably well.

...and lose money every one sold, even at £2999 or 2999€, let alone $2999.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ulrikft]

...and lose money every one sold, even at £2999 or 2999€, let alone $2999.

Cheers,

R.

I don't think that they necessarily would lose money. If it had a build quality like the d700, use the rangefinder already in the zeiss ikon etc, it should be possible to sell it for 2999,- USD with a profit. I'm quite sure of it.

 

[parsec1]

With all respect, this is far out of reality. There was a time when rangefinders were dominant, and people were offered a choice of that or an SLR. Once SLRs were halfway decent nearly every person who bought a camera (quite literally) chose them over a rangefinder. Everyone can argue their own ideas of what is better. But the by far dominant perception is that the SLR model of seeing through the lens what you'll get, is superior for most things most of the time. There is no going back.

Thereby thats the rub "the dominant position of seeing through the lens and what you get is superior"

Try seeing through your eyes first ....... camera second.

For those that can do that rangefinders are vastly superior.

Except in sports and the like of course and those who put their 5to500mm
zoom lens to there eyes and wave it about to 'look for a picture'.😱😱😱

 

[ferider]

ZM/ZI does not mean cheaper, necessarily. Take the 85/2.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think that they necessarily would lose money. If it had a build quality like the d700, use the rangefinder already in the zeiss ikon etc, it should be possible to sell it for 2999,- USD with a profit. I'm quite sure of it.

Why are you quite sure? Have you talked to Zeiss or Kobayashi-san about it? What is your estimate of the market size? Are you familiar with the price and availability of sensors that can deliver adequate quality with a flange/sensor distance under 30mm? Have you checked what the US dollar is worth against other world currencies lately? (Hint: about 2/3 as much against the euro as when the euro was launched). How much hard research have you ever done into the camera market, instead of relying on hunches and wishful thinking?

Cheers,

R.