Erwin Puts on Leicas future

[DTD]

I've long admired/respected/appreciated etc. Leica's cameras/history/cult etc.
Eventually I bought one – it was second hand. So far Leica have made about £20 out of me (I bought a new lens cap).

Hassleblad are possibly someone Leica should be looking to for inspiration – they have developed new, modern (and expensive) products that enough professional photographers want to buy to keep the company going.

[stephan_w]

I guess the most important question is: Has Leica been able to attract new customers with the M8?

Yes me :-) And I know at least one other ........ And to be hoenst, it gives me more fun and value for money than any DSLR I had before. It's like a perfect watch.

This is why I believe in this concept. I don't necesseryly believe in the company, but this camera and lens line is unique (at least in chrome finish). And in my opinion there is no company except maybe Zeiss who can offer such a quality actually. So what?

And I'm just wondering: All people here own, I presume, a Leica. Are we all stupid? I agree that a Noctilux is expensive, but is this an argument? Good lenses from Nikon cost as much as good lenses from Leica. Did anybody start to discuss prices with Nikon?

[ddp]

Originally Posted by Ivar B

I guess the most important question is: Has Leica been able to attract new customers with the M8?

Absolutely...and some of them have been snapping up lots of the new, exotic glass that is out there. I'm curious as to what makes one buy into a system they have no prior experience with and start acquiring glass at jaw dropping rates. Yes - Leica does have a reputation for their optics....but the M8 (regardless of what one's opinion is on it) has generated interest and sales for them. The ensuing wackiness we're seeing now with the backfocus issues and other tech problems may dampen that quite a bit.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by stuny

A new focusing screen comes with the DMR which has the frameline indicating picture area, thereby showing what is out of frame. At first I was skeptical about its value, but after using it for a couple of years I finally get this aspect of RF design advantage. I don’t know if the designers can do this with an electronic viewfinder.

The problem with a rangefinder as described above is that to be able to see outside of the framelines quite a bit of the sensor's pixels would need to be 'thrown away' in the final image.

[Jeffry Abt]

The M8 has brought new customers to Leica. I'm one of them. Along with the original 28-SUMMICRON. that I bought with the M8, I've since purchased two other lens. I've use Nikons for years and will continue to use Nikon equipment especially for sports. But the M8 is a delight to use and wonderful change of pace. I think more professionals would use M8s if they had low noise, high ISO capabilities.

[Leica(at)Palatinate]

Originally Posted by k_g_wolf

... And this on my birthday...

Congratulations, anyway Another good example for that life goes on against all odds.

Hermann

[ddp]

Originally Posted by Jeffry Abt

I think more professionals would use M8s if they had low noise, high ISO capabilities.

Price of entry is still the limiting factor here.

[hankg]

While the rangefinder way of seeing is still valid in the digital age there is one major hurdle to overcome. If you want to expand the M market beyond it's aging base you need to get digital rangefinder's in the hands of students and young photographers. In the film era as SLR's became ascendant an aspiring photographer could pick up a used M3 or M4 for to not to much and a new generation of RF shooters was born. I still remember picking up my first Leica a used M4 at Olden Camera in NY in the 70's it replaced my student Pentax.

Without new young blood it's just a matter of time before Leica's customer base dies off. I think Leica needs a reasonably priced reportage camera something between a Ricoh GRD and an M. It could be a fixed lens compact with an APS-C or 4/3 sensor with an excellent optical viewfinder. Maybe it could be the first step in a new digital line. A Barnack camera for the 21st century. The M carries a lot of expensive baggage and not all of it is an advantage in digital - the expensive complex optical finder, digital-unfriendly M mount compatibility, the M form - there is really no way Leica can risk messing with the M formula. Leica should make an M for the forseeable future but it needs something more and more forward looking to survive.

If you didn't have to have M compatibility so you could leverage cheap DSLR technology, and you could make it in Asia, and you had maybe 2 fixed lens models maybe a 28/2.8 and 40/2 equivalent (or 21 and 35). You should be able to come up with a $1600. camera ideally the size of a screw mount Leica or smaller. Skew the performance to higher speeds with a base ISO of 200 and a usable 2500.

There really is not a viable market for Rolex cameras in the digital age. To expensive to develop for to small a market.

[jquimby]

Leica needs to go back to its roots... do the same thing they did before, they invented 35mm photography out of a need to take pictures without having a team of porters carrying all that large format equipment.

Leica needs to appraise the market and say we can do this better.

There is a huge market for high quality small, quiet, discreet cameras. This is something Leica can solve and they would have the market to themselves.

There is a real need for better image quality in the DSLR market (thus everyone trying to equip "alternative" lens onto Nikon and Canon. Leica could solve this.

If the solutions to these problems are not the R and M series, fine, leave them for dead and move on. I would be sad if there was no M, but I would feel worse if there was no Leica option.

Maybe its time to build an M like camera but a different M camera, one that will drive Leica for the next 50 years...


Just my 2 cents

[jrc]

"Pricing yourself out of the market is suicide. $6000 for a Noctilux? $3600 for a 35 Lux ASPH? Get real. Unless you are rolling in cash, these prices are not realistic for 90% of the buying public."

90 Percent? More like 98 or 99 percent. The only people who buy Leica are aficionados (and maybe fashionistas, to exhaust my Spanish vocabulary) and people who don't care about money. A solid Leica-brand single-body kit will now cost $20,000 minimum, bought new, and for that you could buy two D3s and a nice selection of Nikon pro glass, or the equivalent Canon stuff.

Even if Leica has the money to survive now, which is uncertain, it must do three things:

-Come up with a modern M. Leica must sit and think about what the camera should do, functionally. What it should *be.* Start with Leica glass, and then build an entirely new modern camera. Leica's model shouldn't be the M3, but the Ur-Leica. That is, a revolutionary camera using Leica glass. They need a small, highly functional, very reliable, modern camera with exceptional high ISO response and a fairly large sensor that will provide brilliant image quality (and in IMHO, 1.3x may be large enough.) The problem with the current M8 IMHO isn't image quality but the old-fashioned rangefinder mechanism and the general unreliability. If the current M8 had an electronic "in-focus" mechanism that actually worked, it would be a far, far better camera.

-Either kill the R system, or come up with a revolutionary design that departs from the Canon/Nikon model. Autofocus for sure. Look at Nikon -- Nikon incorporates in its FX models the DX crop. Suppose the new R was something substantially bigger than a FF -- a half step toward a MF system in a 35mm camera size, but that could use legacy glass for internally cropped shots, with a new system of autofocus lenses that would take in the full sensor. This might seem goofy, but it would offer MF and FF in a single box, and it *would* differentiate the Leica. I have little faith that Leica will do anything like this -- or anything revolutionary at all -- because it's not an innovative company, and hasn't been for half a century. If they killed the R system, they could possibly come up with some serious designs that would directly adapt their R lenses to Nikons and Canons, like the Zeiss ZF line.

-Treasure their traditionalist buyers -- but move on. Know what? The traditionalist buyers are dying out. Getting old. Retiring. Their eyes are going, and they can't focus rangefinders any more. I've known newspaper reporters who say that autofocus is the only thing that kept them going in their 50s. There are a few young traditionalists who are avid Leica fans, but how many young people have $20,000 to put into a camera system? Leica needs a useful, modern camera for modern users. Period.

JC

[Leica(at)Palatinate]

Originally Posted by mjh

The only reason that Leica did and does survive is that they are not like every other manufacturer in the market.

Well, Michael,

Hasselblad is not like every other manufacturer in the market, too. They did survive and even do thrive because they created a new (digital) camera that could flatten the people because of the sheer quality of it`s pictures, disregarding the horrendous price.

In my humble opinion: If Leica finally created a trouble-free, probably fullframe camera that really would produce smashing quality standing well above others in the 24x36 mm segment or at least in the same line they might survive, eventually but only if.

Regards, Hermann

[Speenth]

I've been thinking about this and wracking my brains for a parallel product and manufacturer that has the mix just right. The comparator was right under my nose - a bicycle - my other passion!

There is a company in the US called 'Seven'. They make bicycles. Very expensive (like Leica). Not many (like Leica). Very small model range (like Leica). Huge reputation and honourable pedigree (like Leica).

One model, the Seven Sola, is their flagship (like the M8). Its been around a long time (like the M series) and its just a plain old hardtail with no fancy multi-link suspension or flashy gizmos (its essential and elegant - very like a Leica). Its aimed at the pros and the very serious amateur (just like a Leica).

But, people would give their non-cycling anatomy in return for one of these minimalist multi-Olympic winning beasts and cost is irrelevant (in fact, the costlier the better). The waiting list is long and this ageing model shows no signs it will ever go out of fashion.

Why?

1 The Seven Sola is the best at what it does. Simple really. With a good rider on top, it wins every time. Undoubtedly Seven will replace/upgrade the Sola when that statement shows signs of no longer being true (unlike Leica). In other words, its about being the best where you know you can deliver.

2 Its made (very) precisely to the owner's exact specification but with true craftsmanship. These unpainted titanum alloy beauties have flawless welds and flex only where they should, to the extent dialled in by the engineer, in accordance with the preferences and physique of the rider. In other words, the customer is everything and quality is ultimately about fitness for purpose.

3 Seven cycles are very skillfully promoted and marketed, distributed and controlled. Subtle, well directed, efficient sales and flawless support. The boss (Rob Vandermark) has an upfront presence and a high reputation in the business world. In other words, Seven is a business first.

4 The team that builds them is small, dedicated and professional. The workshop is unpretentious and functional. In other words, they're efficient and focussed.

What makes a Sola the best? This: The bike is everything.


Given my highlighted observations, Leica might do well to study the Seven story.

Seven Cycles |

Below is just one example of press that reflects the parallels between Seven and Leica, even to the extent that some accuse Seven of being makers of cycle 'jewellery', albeit minimalist and built without compromise (do I hear, like Leica)?

Seven Cycles | Press Archive | Seven

[charlesphoto99]

My take is that Leica should dump the R line and concentrate on the M line. It's what makes them unique from every other camera out there. It's their signature. And god knows when the last time someone actually bought a new R lens.

A few years back I bought a used R8 and a couple of used lenses. I so wanted to like it (like all things Leica it feels so nice in the hands, etc) but it's really a camera for wealthy afficianados and maybe a few high end niche commercial photographers. Need a 400mm f2.8 for the day? Well, I could buy a Leica one for $10k or rent a Nikon/Canon for $45. Big difference there. I felt really confined by the R for that reason. If I want a camera with just one lens then the M is that camera. SLRs are meant to be tools where one can spread their wings so to speak. And without access to rentals and even the ability to afford some basic lenses it just can't compare to the quality/price that Nikon and Canon have to offer. It's a daunting system to to try and "buy" into it. I couldn't even go there.

Leica should promote the M as a timeless design classic and add other models so as to have price tiers. But they have to be wholly unique - why should a buy a leica when I could buy essentially the same camera from panasonic for almost half the price? They should have knocked out Ricoh and Sigma a long time ago. Where's the leica equivalent of the G9? A digital version of the CL or the CM? They should not have tried to compete with the japanese on the dead in the water 4:3 format but instead concentrated on what made them famous in the first place - 35mm compact cameras. Companies shouldn't forget their history.

Rangefinders are not dead. It's only the perception that needs to be changed and maybe the technology somewhat updated. And Leica does need to move at least some of their manufacturing to China. Heck, if they can put together iPhones they should be able to assemble the guts of digital Leicas (and maybe even do it better). Keep the lenses and r&d in Germany. Anyway, it may be too late for them period. I'm sure that the sales of film M's have trickled to very little (the used market has really hurt I bet) and the M8 seems to have reached it's zenith and they've done nothing but confuse potential buyers.
They need some radical prosumer models at Photokina, and I'm sorry but an overpriced too little too late R10 isn't it.

[hankg]

Originally Posted by Speenth

Given my highlighted observations, Leica might do well to study the Seven story.

Seven Cycles |

Apples and Oranges. Seven is like Leica pre digital a maker of fine handmade mechanical devices. Leica is not in that business anymore. It's now in the computer imaging and with the low end point and shoots the consumer electronics business. Leica's small size is a real problem in the new business it finds itself in. If it was innovative enough it might be able to assemble really interesting alternate design cameras from off the shelf components but Leica has not shown any outside the box thinking since it introduced the M3.

Many of the traits that served Leica fairly well (it has not been doing well for years) as a boutique maker of retro mechanical devices don't translate to digital.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Leica(at)Palatinate

Well, Michael,

Hasselblad is not like every other manufacturer in the market, too. They did survive and even do thrive because they created a new (digital) camera that could flatten the people because of the sheer quality of it`s pictures, disregarding the horrendous price.

In my humble opinion: If Leica finally created a trouble-free, probably fullframe camera that really would produce smashing quality standing well above others in the 24x36 mm segment or at least in the same line they might survive, eventually but only if.

Regards, Hermann

I would hope Leica doesn't follow in Hasselblad's foot steps by creating a closed system.

[GMB]

Originally Posted by thrid

Pricing yourself out of the market is suicide. $6000 for a Noctilux? $3600 for a 35 Lux ASPH? Get real. Unless you are rolling in cash, these prices are not realistic for 90% of the buying public. I could afford to go out and drop the $3500 for a 50 Lux ASPH today, but you know what? I'm not doing it, because although it may be the best 50 on the planet, it offers a poor price/performance ratio.

ICouldn't agree more. I am fortunate enough to earn good money in my non-photographic profession and don't have to spend sleepless nights before deciding whether to buy a new lense. But I find that the prices are simply to high for what you get and I therefore bought most of my stuff (including a Noct) second hand.

I also agree with the point made by others that the future of a company like Leica cannot lie in producing mass-market products where competition is taking place only over price. But they should be able to produce decent products with the Leica appeal for somewhat less ridiculous prices so that more people are willing to buy them. Its basic economic: supply and demand curve.

The main issue seems to me that they must find a way to reduce their development costs per unit sold. If you have high development costs and low sales volumes, you must charge high prices to recover your costs. Take the R10, in particular, if it has auto focus. The costs to develop this camera will be much higher than Canon’s costs to upgrade one of its DSLRs. All other costs being equal (which is in my view an optimistic assumption), Leica will have to charge a higher price to break even (and this ignores that Leica will never reach the same volume as Canon). So they either have to be so much better (and perhaps they are because of the glass they offer) or offer just a better brand.

As for myself, I enjoy the M8 and M7 (and Xpan) because I like the rangefinder concept even if its somewhat outdated. But I think I am in a small minority (not here but overall). More importantly, I think there are very few who are prepared to switch to this system; i.e., very few new customers. And as much as I like Leica glass, I would not buy a R10 if I can get something better, as good, or almost as good from Canon or Nikon.

Interesting times ahead for sure.

[Speenth]

Originally Posted by hankg

Apples and Oranges. Seven is like Leica pre digital a maker of fine handmade mechanical devices. Leica is not in that business anymore. It's now in the computer imaging and with the low end point and shoots the consumer electronics business. .

Good points Hank, and I think my earlier highlighted comments complement your accurate obervations. If Leica are going to be in the digital imaging business, then they have to be up there with the best. Any other strategy in today's throwaway world is doomed. They have not focussed, they are not efficient, they lack clear leadership and they do not research, develop, market and promote their product effectively (today's press release being testimony to that).

Seven = Make the best of whatever every discerning customer needs - always.
Leica = Make kit to please a discerning, but dying breed.

Select your preferred strategy.

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by DTD

I've long admired/respected/appreciated etc. Leica's cameras/history/cult etc.
Eventually I bought one – it was second hand. So far Leica have made about £20 out of me (I bought a new lens cap).

Hassleblad are possibly someone Leica should be looking to for inspiration – they have developed new, modern (and expensive) products that enough professional photographers want to buy to keep the company going.

I used 4 Leicas and > 20 lenses for 25 years without giving a dime to the company (used all)... this year I bought a M8 NEW, a Summarit 75 NEW (+ a used 21 asph...):
I don't think to be the one in such a situation... and that's good for them

The comparision / possible inspiration to Hasselblad, for me doesn't fit Leica co. : Hasselblad maintained a stable significant share of the pro market in the film era... Leica lost most of it in the (about) '70-'80 decade ... too much time passed... "generation effect" ... very difficult to catch it again (and, let's admit, DSLR are a lot better for many pro tasks, in my op.)