Will R10 too expensive for me?

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by jrc

If the next R has an inferior sensor, no AF, no vibration reduction on longer lenses, AND the typical Leica price, they will sell mostly to wealthy collectors.

Very few Leica collectors (wealthy or otherwise) have any interest in the R system, only the Leicaflexes. The R system appeals mainly to a user base, albeit an infinitessimally tiny one. That market has been as vocal as a herd of cows in dire need of milking, in expressing disdain and contempt for AF and VR (and typically, anyone who uses either or both). Accepting the inclusion of those features would entail consumming mass quantities of crow. Leica must weigh very carefully whether to pander to its woefully insignificant but fiercely loyal existing R market (a decision that proved successful enough to sell-out the entire, albeit woefully insignificant, production of DMRs), vs abandoning them in what in all probability would be a futile quest to attract customers from Nikon and Canon.

I mean, there's some prestige in using Leicas, but is there more prestige in Leicas than in a Hasselblad 39mp system?

Not amongst those who are besotted with the Leica brand. Again, the decision is whether to take aim at the easy target, that being the existing fan-club, or risk the comparison to other brands by photographers who operate with a realistic and un-biased set of comparison criteria.

It has no choice but to be the absolute best.

Which, to that existing market, it will be...by definition, as long as it's a Leica.

[doctorlol]

So, VP says, ditch the R format and keep and improve the M. Very plausible, as a suicide note!

If all the R glass becomes redundant, so does the red dot! Leica is between a rock and a hard-place.

Laurence

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by doctorlol

So, VP says, ditch the R format and keep and improve the M. Very plausible, as a suicide note!

If all the R glass becomes redundant, so does the red dot! Leica is between a rock and a hard-place.

Laurence

I posted this elsewhere - A simple interim solution would be to add live view to the next M model. (This is contingent on finding a source for a suitable chip.) Then it could have a clip on hi res EVF and an M to R adapter to utilize the R lenses for precison work on the LCD or EVF. If they add ROM contacts and focus confirmation to it, they might make it pretty useful.

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by doctorlol

So, VP says, ditch the R format and keep and improve the M. Very plausible, as a suicide note!

If all the R glass becomes redundant, so does the red dot! Leica is between a rock and a hard-place.

Laurence

Firstly, I merely feel that Leica is more likely to achieve success selling an R10 with traditional R features to traditional R users, than by throwing that market aside to make an ill-fated attempt at capturing a segment of the Canon/Nikon market.

Secondly, if Leica "ditched" the R format it would have little to no effect on the success or failure of the M system or of Leica as a company. As long as there are adaptors to other bodies, R glass will never become completely redundant, but even if it did, the collective tears of every devout R user on earth wouldn't fill a tankard.

[platoali]

IMHO, R serie suffers from two problem. First they don't have any body to sell.

Second the prices are too high to gather new customers. R lenses are tree to four times more expensive compare to others. The new technologies like AF and IS are not as important as it seems.

One of my colleges did want to start photography, so he did bought a Canon powershot. after a month he bought an EOS 400D with the lens kit. he was not happy with lens so he sold it for 50$ and bought a 500 or 600$ lens. than changed his body to EOS 30D, I'm sure he will buy a more expensive lenses and maybe a full frame body in comming months. It is intresting that a company like canon can satisfy every taste and gather the new generations. He did start from 800$ and now his inventory is 2000$. If he wanted to start with Leica He had to start from 2000 and now he would have spent 12000 for the same equipments (I'm not talking about quality, but the functionality. I'm sure Leica is much better).

Canon and Nikon are building very cheap low quality lenses to very good quility ones at very reasonable prices. I think Leica should have the same products too. From cheap asian|african|anywhere_made lenses for the new costumers to high quality made_in_germany ones for the pros.

[R10dreamer]

econdly, if Leica "ditched" the R format it would have little to no effect on the success or failure of the M system or of Leica as a company. As long as there are adaptors to other bodies, R glass will never become completely redundant, but even if it did, the collective tears of every devout R user on earth wouldn't fill a tankard.

And you know this based on what facts? How many R users are there? How many R cameras are there? Facts - do you have any?

[Craftsman]

FACTS! We don't need no stinkin facts.

[john_j]

Greetings-

I for one have no desire to see an economy line of Leica.

I began with a 126 instamatic as a teenager, in college I bought a Minolta 101 and added a 102 body. In my early 30's, I purchased a Nikon F3 and early 40's an M6. I added another M6 and almost 20 years later continue to use both M's. I also use the R. I aspired to Leica as once I drove $100 cars.

Most of my purchases are used or demo. I like the build and optical quality and the simplicity of the system. I also like manual focus and exposure and fast fixed focal lenses that are smaller than slower zooms. My M's have been all over the world and never let me down (had each in for a going over a few years back). I like to turn a few simple dials rather than use an LCD screen to change s/s, f/stop, ISO and let a sensor decide what will be my focal point. A quick glance and I know where everything is.

For digital, I use an Olympus E1. Have to admit, I still like film. The M8 is nice but yes, expensive as are Leica lenses. However when I look at the purchase price of my M6 in '88 compared to my annual income and do the same comparision with the M8 today, The M8 is actually less expensive as are the lenses.

So, I do not want to see Leica become another Canon or Nikon and do not want to see made in China on its products. Nor would I buy a digital M with what's that called? "Live View?"

Best Regards and Happy Labor Day,

John

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by R10dreamer

econdly, if Leica "ditched" the R format it would have little to no effect on the success or failure of the M system or of Leica as a company. As long as there are adaptors to other bodies, R glass will never become completely redundant, but even if it did, the collective tears of every devout R user on earth wouldn't fill a tankard.

And you know this based on what facts? How many R users are there? How many R cameras are there? Facts - do you have any?

-sales figures for M vs R are calculable from several books with information gathered directly from Leica. 'Flex and R sales are fractional to M sales.

-Leica has published reports that break sales down by system, R is the lower volume by far.

-ca. 4,000-5,000 DMRs sold during 2.5 years of product life vs at least 12,000 M8s sold in the first 10 months with no appreciable slowdown at this point.

Sorry, but you asked for facts. I never could figure out why some R users deny or react defensively to these facts, rather than embrace them and revel in their ecclecticism, like owners of exotic automobiles. Recall that unlike a large number of Leica supporters who favour discontinuing the R system and concentrating R&D funds into the M system as a strategy for the company's well-being, I do not. I simply believe that Leica would be best to assure that the R system remains technologically archaic since the tiny cadre of loyal users has expressed vehemently that they like it that way, rather than cast their wants aside in a doomed attempt to garner a piece of the Canon/Nikon market.

[leicanewbie]

From a retail perspective, Canon and Nikon fight for the wanna-be pro photographer.

The guy who's willing to invest 1500 to look like a pro because that's the brand the pros use. And quite honestly, the only DSLRs
on the shelves and in the magazines. They spend heavily on marketing to not only promote this concept,
but they cater to the pro photographers that become their standard-bearers.

To prove a point, I read a story recently where in the NFL the sports photographers on the sidelines must wear Canon-logo vests otherwise they
won't be allowed in. Why is this? So that the people looking down from the stands, watching TV, see the brand name and want to be like them.


Leica has a different value proposition : the manufacture, legacy, expertise, and the cachet of the brand. They are selling to people who want to have
a relationship with their camera and their craft.

I have had two film cameras that I've ever owned. The first is the Pentax that my father gave me 30 years ago, and the other is the Leica R that I chose for myself.
I have had about a half-dozen digital cameras, none of which I use anymore. Each has come and gone. Despite its conveniences, digital has always
disappointed me. Or at least it never measured up the relationship I've had with my Pentax. My Leica is getting there


Economically speaking though, investing 4k -- 8k for camera equipment seems like a lot of money, but in reality it is not. People spend more than that
on Starbucks in a year. It's really about the choices you make.


And there's a LOT of people with disposable income out there, so why would Leica leave money on the table?

If you decide that it's too expensive for you, there's going to be 10 more people behind you who will probably want to buy --- if Leica does a good job marketing it

[doctorlol]

If you decide that it's too expensive for you, there's going to be 10 more people behind you who will probably want to buy --- if Leica does a good job marketing it [/quote]

If the new R is too expensive, there indeed may be '10 more people behind you', but I doubt there will be 100!

QED.

Laurence

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by leicanewbie

From a retail perspective, Canon and Nikon fight for the wanna-be pro photographer.

The guy who's willing to invest 1500 to look like a pro because that's the brand the pros use.

Leica's only remained in business over the last decade thanks to people who pay well more than that to emulate icons from their youth in the 50s-60s most of whom are deceased.

Economically speaking though, investing 4k -- 8k for camera equipment seems like a lot of money, but in reality it is not. People spend more than that
on Starbucks in a year.

Wow! I'll wager those people would be lost without some form of anti-shake technology

[zapp]

Originally Posted by platoali

From what I read in the forums and the other places. Peaple are pushing Leica to make R10 a super dream camera that will be cost more than 8k$. I love to have a 21MP FF sensore with the autofocus and etc, but my pocket dictate me to lower my wishes to more sensible choices.
Almost more than 99% of SLR users don't choose Leica, and the main reason is the price. Canon and Nikon are earning most of their profits from the low priced bodies like EOS 400D and D50. It is intresting When sony did enter the SLR market, they didn't choose to compete with high end SRLs like EOD 1D.

IMHO, R10 should be price between 3000 to 4000$ to be successfull and if they want to get more market share they should get another body with much lower price( 2000 to 3000) after that.

Another thing is the lens prices. vario-Elmarit 70-180 is 7k$. and all the other lenses except 2 or 3 are more than 4k. What I'm thinking is Leica should began to produce a series of low price lenses (500$ to 2500$). They can be built in countries like china, aimed for the mass market. We have Leica lenses for the Panasonic, why should'nt we have Leica lenses for the Nikon and Canon. This little company is a master in optic industry. but they are no good with electronics at least now. building lenses for the other brands is good solution to get more revenue while they are not good in building bodies for their costumers. Many of SLR users have already using canon with their current leica lenses, why don't leica produce these lenses directly for canon or nikon bodies, at least untill they can produce more competive bodies.

Please Leica don't listen to your small minority of multi-millionaire fans.They are spoiling you, They are showing you the wrong path. Lets build good quality products for mass market.

Thanks

Sorry to say this, but Leica is probably quite happy with its current position in the market and will not expand towards the cheap mass market. Rollei went down the drain, trying to be a global player.
If you want a cheap Leica with decent lenses, buy a Nikon with Zeiss F lenses.

[Iron Flatline]

Yeah, I agree with Zapp - Leica can't compete with the big companies, and shouldn't. Instead they should look at a company like Porsche, the most profitable car company in the world. They came back from the brink of extinction after trying to compete with low-cost sports cars. Instead they focused on the high-end first (re-inventing the 911), and then added a few products that are still at the high-end, though it's lowest point (basic Boxter, basic Cayenne). Everything else is high-end to super-high-end.

I guess one of the questions that Leica had to answer is whether they want to be a lens company, or a camera company. I'm sure they've looked at this, and have apparently decided to be a camera company - they can still establish a market for their lenses beyond that.

[earleygallery]

Originally Posted by platoali

One of my colleges did want to start photography, so he did bought a Canon powershot. after a month he bought an EOS 400D with the lens kit. he was not happy with lens so he sold it for 50$ and bought a 500 or 600$ lens. than changed his body to EOS 30D, I'm sure he will buy a more expensive lenses and maybe a full frame body in comming months.

Bit OT but I wonder if his photos showed a significant improvement with each subsequent upgrade? This sounds like a classic example of spending more £$€'s in the belief that you photographic talent will some how grow in line with the amount of money spent.

[earleygallery]

Just a thought, lets imagine Leica did a deal with Canon and released the R10 with a selection of lenses which were simply a rebadged Canon 5D and Canon Zooms badged as Leica Summicrons.

Would you think "Great, Leica are really up there now with an AF auto everything SLR" or would you be disappointed in some way?

[platoali]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

Bit OT but I wonder if his photos showed a significant improvement with each subsequent upgrade? This sounds like a classic example of spending more £$€'s in the belief that you photographic talent will some how grow in line with the amount of money spent.

From his point of view, his photos have changed very much.
From my point of veiw, not realy. And I'm sure, it is irrelevant for canon.

[telyt]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

Just a thought, lets imagine Leica did a deal with Canon and released the R10 with a selection of lenses which were simply a rebadged Canon 5D and Canon Zooms badged as Leica Summicrons.

What's the emoticon for tossing one's cookies?