Erwin Puts: " Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall"

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The redoubtable Erwin Puts has just posted an essay on his blog ( Augen auf! | The TAO of Leica ) that seems to have been inspired by the undercurrents generated in his mind by the photographic exhibit "Augen Auf." He opens with -

The current exhibition of iconic Leica pictures “Augen auf” (“Eyes open”) is in many respects a milestone. It shows in historic detail the rise of the Leica camera from a niche product for cognoscenti to the inevitable tool for the professional photographer, the camera that became a witness of the century and specifically of the turmoil of city life...

Puts closes with the following, which does not exactly carry an optimistic overtone for we Leica connoisseurs.

...We have to accept that in these days the Leica myth has more nostalgia than future. The exhibition is a proof that the future is not a continuation of the past and even Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall.

His implications are not lost on me. However, I must wonder regarding their veracity.

 

Puts knows a lot more about photography in general and Leica cameras and lenses in particular than the vast majority of us on this forum; based on his comments, he apparently thinks Leica's best days are behind us rather than in front of us.

 

Is Puts' reasoning faultless?

 

Is Leica doomed unless they start spewing iPhones out of Wetzlar with red dots and ASPH lenses that are priced at $149.95 and sold at every Wal Mart, K Mart and Target??

 

What are your thoughts?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Carlos Danger

[A miller]

In as much as the future is digital, which is the strong implication in Put's thesis, I would agree with him. I don't think it is so much that rangefinders are becoming outdated. I think that the single thing that is holding Leica back is the inability to design a full frame sensor for its color digital rangefinder with the quality of ISO of its peers.

 

So much hinges on ISO in modern photography. The ability to shoot indoors, the range of shutter speed and f-stop options, the array of situations in which zone focusing is possible.

 

If Leica could create a sensor that provide a consistent level of quality of color all the way up to, say, 3200, without degradation, and then up to 10000 with minimal degradation, it would open up a whole world of possibilities for a manual (or even hybrid manual) photographer. Until it does this, the Nikons, Canons and Sonys of the world will continue to lure photographers to the dark side of automatic photography.

 

My 2 cents.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

...apparently thinks Leica's best days are behind us rather than in front of us.

 

Is Puts' reasoning faultless?

 

Is Leica doomed unless they start spewing iPhones out of Wetzlar with red dots and ASPH lenses that are priced at $149.95 and sold at every Wal Mart, K Mart and Target??

 

The Leica myth is the problem, and if Leica keep on milking the myth pretty soon it will become meaningless.

 

It's often hard to know what Puts means, but it is a bit scary to see how many new Leica users appear on camera forums fully involved in the myth over and above understanding the camera they just purchased. They compare their new Leica to other camera's and find that Fuji and Zeiss lenses are as sharp. They compare the size of cameras and find that Fuji and Sony can be a bit smaller. They compare the features and find Fuji and Sony are fully loaded. So they become disappointed and sell their Leica for a Fuji. or a Sony.

 

And who can blame them, the Leica hype promises a unique experience based on legendary performance and usability, but which in the modern age doesn't deliver unless you are in the small niche of photographers (like many of us) who don't want their camera to do much for them except take a picture. And while many of 'us' do drive sales of new cameras, there are just as many (if not more) that are still happy with their old camera because it 'fits' them as a photographer.

 

Which means Leica sales can't grow like Fuji or Sony sales have. They are lumbered with a myth they promote that isn't deliverable any more. On top of that second hand sales allow people to delve into the myth much more cheaply than buying a new camera. Consider the sort of response on LUF if a newbie asked 'M-A or M3?', and the second hand M3 would win out time after time. It isn't a contest that Fuji or Sony have to worry about. Perhaps Leica should consign one aspect of the myth to the skip lorry by spending a few million Euro buying up all old bodies as they come on the market and scrap them?

 

Steve

[jaapv]

...which is basically true for the M series only. Reason that Leica is diversifying with cameras like the T.

On the other hand the fact that they are firmly established in their niche with the M offers them protection from competition.

Edited December 7, 2014 by jaapv

[zlatkob]

Is Puts' reasoning faultless?

 

I'm not sure that a photo exhibition can foretell the future. The camera market is shrinking as a whole because more people are making photos with their phones, and finding that having a separate camera is less of a need. The phone represents the ultimate miniaturization of the camera in that it shrinks the entire camera into another device, and then creates new functions by virtue of that integration.

 

Leica and other camera makers don't make a camera that is primarily a phone, and so don't compete in that market. With fewer cameras being sold (or rather, more being sold integrated with phones), it is quite possible that we'll continue to see fewer camera makers. However, it seems equally clear that not everyone will be satisfied with a phone as a camera. So a non-phone camera market will continue, and within that market there will be various segments and niches.

 

Yes, the role of the Leica is being taken over by the smartphone, but the role of the Leica was largely taken over by many small cameras long before that, starting in about the 1960's. Leica survived a very long time during which there were a plethora of cheaper and easier to use alternatives. So it seems that being a niche product for cognoscenti is viable survival strategy.

[thighslapper]

I think Puts is somewhat misguided and failing to take into consideration that cameras, photography and photographers are not a homogenous group..... hence the diversity of digital and mechanical offerings produced by Leica....... but ....

 

Leica has traditionally positioned itself in the 'reportage' position with the M as a robust unobtrusive high quality image producing device....... and this clearly is not the case today.

 

They would do well to promote it as 'slow photography' ...... image capture with a device that makes you think more about composition and other factors and compels you to actively interact in defining the factors that produce your record of what you are seeing.

 

Auto-everything snapping which can be done with almost anything available today and give the undiscerning perfectly acceptable results for their needs. This end of the camera market is dead.

 

I do wonder, however, whether my generation that remembers just how hard won and difficult it was to produce a really good image in the pre-digital age are keeping the Leica M alive through a nostalgic memory of those times ...... rather than the younger generations pragmatic approach of using anything available that just does the job with the least fuss and bother .......

 

The M may remain ..... but it will always be a niche product selected more by philosophy than simple practical considerations.

[honcho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..... but it will always be a niche product selected more by philosophy than simple practical considerations.

 

I agree with this, but it requires a total understanding of the 'myth' to be able to extract anything worthwhile, including the complete user experience, from it.

[Herr Barnack]

...Auto-everything snapping which can be done with almost anything available today and give the undiscerning perfectly acceptable results for their needs...

The M camera system was never intended as the camera of choice for this market segment - and rightly so. Not in the 1950s with the M3 and not today with the M240, M-P, MP, M-A or the Monochrom.

 

In 1928, Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot." Leica never promised to put an M camera in every coat pocket.

 

And comparing an iPhone with an M240? Apples and oranges.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Carlos Danger

[lct]

The M3 was advertised as "more automatic, quicker and easier to use" half a century ago. See some excerpts of its ads below. How many of them could still be used today? The danger does not come from iphones but from mirrorless cameras. Lifetime investments are gone forever but the next Leica M must be faster to operate, easier to focus and more versatile than current bodies.

 

1. lifetime investment in perfect photography

2. automatic features

3. ease beyond comparison

4. world's most advanced camera

5. you do just about everything your friends can do with a variety of specialized cameras

6. you shoot a picture in a second without moving the camera from your eye

7. more automatic, quicker and easier to use

8. lets you concentrate on taking the picture

[Guest]

And comparing an iPhone with an M240? Apples and oranges.

 

Can not argue with that. More pictures will be taken on an iPhone than will ever be taken on an M 240.

 

BrianP

[LocalHero1953]

Is Puts' reasoning faultless?

 

Frankly and, of course, just IMO, I don't see a great deal of reasoning on display, just a few platitudes and a bit of conventional wisdom, ending with a vague conclusion, inspired by looking at a retrospective exhibition. There's nothing here that couldn't be applied with a bit of modification to DSLRs or enthusiast cameras (including mirrorless).

 

The switch to digital has occurred in two arenas: taking pictures, and displaying them. With a bit of fast footwork over the last decade Leica has more or less caught up with the rest of the digital camera makers and is well placed to exploit its ability to capture technically stunning images with a neat FF package and superb lenses.

 

Given where it was coming from, I think Leica would probably be happy with where it is now, if it wasn't for the other side of the equation: how much are such technically superb images valued today? Compared to 20 years ago, a new market for digital image display has been created on screen. Print images remain important, but the market for screen images is growing quicker - and on the screen a smartphone image can look, to the casual eye (and most of them are casual), the same as one from a Leica (or Nikon DSLR etc).

 

So, IMO, if the writing is on the wall, it is on the wall for any camera maker who is targeting image quality and forgetting about convenience, usability etc i.e. most camera makers today. But I also am pleased that Leica has brought out the T, which addresses just those concerns. It's not the perfect solution (otherwise I might have grabbed one), but it is a software, hardware and ergonomic platform of great potential.

[pgk]

So, IMO, if the writing is on the wall, it is on the wall for any camera maker who is targeting image quality and forgetting about convenience, usability etc i.e. most camera makers today.

There will always be photographers who want to be in control of their photographic equipment, (and for whom 'quality' (throughout) is important), rather than their equipment dictating how they produce images (convenience and usability). So, whilst I think that there will always be an available niche for cameras like the M rangefinder, or current Alpa and such like, the real question is whether such cameras can survive commercially given the complexity surrounding how they are designed and produced (the Alpa has less problems this way).

 

Personally, I find 'automated picture taking' fundamentally dis-satisfying. Having made my living from photography for 25 years, if I had to rejig the way I operate to 'convenience and usability', I would go and do something else more satisfying and interesting (actually I'm starting to do so to an extent). I have no doubt that we are facing fundamental changes in the way images are created and used and 'traditional' methods will fade as new ways dominate. I'm not suggesting that this is good or bad, but it will shift things and any photographic company needs to be aware of the shifts and react accordingly.

 

I agree about the T - not for me but I fully appreciate why it has been produced.

[otto.f]

I'm not so sure what Puts means with the Leica myth. There are several special traits of Leitz and Leica camera and lens through decades:

- the smallest and fastest camera of the world

- a certain style of photography balancing between photojournalism and a surreal or special way of seeing in which HCB's work is central

- the best lenses

- the best lenses wide open

- the thinnest depth of field with high IQ

- a style of photography that could be described as anti-AUTO-everything

- the best Bo-keh lenses, lenses that give depth to the image, etc.

Leica has shifted to different special traits through the decades too. The idea that Leica has to watch out or so, has also passed more than several times in its history.

The way Leica develops its products the last decade show that this is not at all a continuation if the past. The build more types of cameras than ever. Don't see Puts' point, except that he himself holds an image of Leica photography that is long gone

Edited December 8, 2014 by otto.f

[Rick]

I have high aspirations for Leica. When Leica introduced the M240 there were only 4 35mm sensors that were better. When Leica's lenses were added into the equation it was hard to beat the image quality of the M240 system across most focal lengths. Certainly, other pro cameras did specific things well, but Leica also did specific things well.

 

Going forward I'm sure the new M will move back up to the front of the technological pack. But, that is only a small part of what drives sales. Small amazing lenses, the RF, the small size of the system, and the manual nature of the M, to name just a few, are always going to be unique and desirable. It would be difficult for another system to compete in those areas.

 

Leica will never have a huge market share. But, with all of the new Leica stores introducing the Leica brand to new customers and Leica's commitment to the photograph, I believe Leica very much has something relevant that photographers desire. I don't think that is going to change much in the near future.

 

Rick

[Rick]

One other thing. Am I missing the next page of his article. The article goes on and on and takes up several subjects then abruptly ends with. "Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall." And, something about the future not being the past. I guess I missed the point of the article, unless he is just retreading one of his old articles from 1960?

[efreed2754]

Thanks for bringing up the subject Mr. Danger

 

One view may even be favorable to Leica. But I digress.

 

To start, Apple's iPhone has devastated business in its short life. Most notable is the demise of the record music business. Record labels are gone or combined; record stores closed and CDs or Records not sold in real quantities. Apple's iTunes song download thank you very much. (Uber is another disruptive technology which may well be the demise of the taxi business; certainly affecting Mr. Danger's NYC medallion prices.)

 

Cameras are another looming example of a major disruptive technology--just as digital was to film. As iPhone/Samsung etc phablet cameras improve, the demand for point and shoot will/has crashed; those using the next camera step up are probably down significantly. So the buyer has gone to the iPhone and the traditional camera makers have closed, sold off and have sold less.

 

Leica and certainly some Canon and Nikon users have appealed to professionals and serious amateurs. Don't believe that market segment will turn to iPhones for their work -- at least not yet. If that's the case Nikon, Canon, Sony et al will sell many less cameras with a greater proportion being in the serious prosumer market.

 

Since the Leica probably never appealed to the rank amateur market -- at least the Ms and the Is, IIs and IIIs before. The Leica/Panasonic made joint venture cameras might be another thing.

 

So just a guess that the Leica M market may not suffer the overall fate of the traditional camera market. If Leica does well, the shrinking market might work in their favor as the more serious buyer turns to Leica to the extent their products are relevant.

[IkarusJohn]

My suspicion is that more photos are being taken now than ever before, but almost entirely with cellphones. The writing on the wall is that camera makers have to be very clear about the niche they are filling.

 

MF is a very small market, and Leica is a reasonable player with the S (leaving aside the Sinar); DSLR is a shrinking market; and EVIL/Mirrorless is reasonably healthy (I would hazard) - but remember that an EVIL user also has a phone. The EVIL has to offer more than just an average image; it has to do better than my iPhone 6 (and that is very good). The M camera fills a very specific niche - 18mm - 135mm compact and spectacular manual primes, coupled with the best optical coupled rangefinder. That's a very specific market, but I don't really see it threatened by any other market sector - it is what it is, and Leica is very good at it, provided the electronics match the rest (which I'm not sure they are quite managing).

 

I hope the people at Leica don't get confused about that (I think they were close with the M(240) - good in the basics, apparently; but half-assed in its electronics). I have great hopes that the new M camera, or at least one of the versions, will maintain that manual simplicity. If the writing is on the wall for Leica, it's a very good message - the S offers the best MF sensor and lenses possible for professional and studio use; the M is the "essence" of manual photography; the T, all singing, all dancing Leica version of the cheap(er) EVIL; and the X cameras entry level or backup if you prefer (I just bought a mint X1 for my daughter, so I hope it lives up to expectation).

 

Yep, I think the future is bright for Leica, provided it doesn't get distracted. Not so good for Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji, chasing mass market with shrinking volumes - not so good at all.

 

Cheers

John

[Rick]

The M camera fills a very specific niche - 18mm - 135mm...

 

16mm - 135mm

 

 

Edit: Ok, you said primes. The WATE is a zoom. I'd throw it in there with the best of the primes, but I psycho-bevel (digress).

Edited December 9, 2014 by RickLeica

[jaapv]

The WATE is not a zoom. It is a multiple focal length lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rick]

The WATE is not a zoom. It is a multiple focal length lens.

 

I think you already know this, but the MATE is the multiple focal length lens and the WATE is the only true zoom (hate to even say that) made for the M mount. Of course you know this, right?