Spiller interview in Welt Online

[Dan States]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson,

 

I fully agree with what you say. Yesterday, when I saw the interview, I sent a personal email to Rudolf Spiller, quoting his own words, to point out my disappointement. I haven't got an answer yet.

 

What makes me feel really inconfortable (and somehow insulted) it's not the fact I don't belong to any group he has described but, as you say, 'we are all just "customer fodder" to be milked'.

 

I find perticulary insulting when Herr Rudolf Spiller says: „Es gibt technikbegeisterte Kunden, die eine höchstwertige Kamera mit einem digitalen Sensor im Vollformat suchen". (There are tech-savvy customers who seek a most significant camera with a digital sensor in the full format) and says at the same time: „Die Leidensfähigkeit unserer Kunden ist hoch". (The endurance of our customers is high). He just take us as masochists who want the best quality and ready to put the price for that high quality but... who accept all the bugs, issues, late FW releases, sensor cracking, shutter failures... Where is the quaity he's talking about!?... Leica has replaced three of my M8s and my „höchstwertige Kameras" need regular visits to Solms' Leica Krankenhaus (Leica Hospital)...

 

Leica needs a competitor.

.

.

 

Wouldn't common sense tell you he is referring to LOYALTY, not endurance in the traditional english meaning? Lost in translation is my bet.

[ArtZ]

Wouldn't common sense tell you he is referring to LOYALTY, not endurance in the traditional english meaning? Lost in translation is my bet.

 

Loyalty is "die Treue" in German, which has nothing to do with "Die Leidensfähigkeit" AFAIK. Besides, you only need to read here the comments of native German speakers. I don't think lost in translation is the problem. Sorry.

[Guest BigSplash]

I'll have one last try, Frank, though I really struggle to believe that after all this time and all these threads you really don't know the answers to these questions.

 

1) The modern "Voigtlander" lenses are made by the Japanese company Cosina. Some people therefore call them "Cosina Voigtlander", hence CV. They are vastly cheaper than Leica lenses but don't aspire to the same pinnacles of optical performance or build quality (or indeed quality control, though it's clear from this forum that Leica don't always meet their own standards in this area). But by any other standards they're pretty good.

 

2) Leica doesn't manufacture lenses for Panasonic, it designs lenses for Panasonic, which are then manufactured in far eastern factories in the usual way, to the usual sort of standards of precision and quality control.

 

3) Leica M lenses need more hand-work than because Leica - rightly or wrongly, and alone among mainstream camera makers - demands superb performance at wide apertures. Mr Puts describes it thus:

 

The other manufacturers aim for superb performance at moderate apertures and useful performance wide open ... and this lets them use more relaxed production tolerances than the Leica approach permits.

 

John many thanks and very much appreciated.

• I had figured that CV was "Cosina Voigtlander" but I was not sure as I did not recognise the accronym.
  
• I did not know that the only involvement of Leica with the Panasonic lenses was that they designed them. I would actually have thought that illegal and misrepresentation as Panasonic use the Leica brand on each lens. I thought that Leica may have made the glass at least. Unbelievable!
  
• I think your point about manuf. tolerances and Mr Puts comments are interesting and thought provoking:
  
  • Leica say that they developed computer controlled lens grinding machines for Noctilux and as a consequence can now manufacture these without hand grinding, which made the original Noctilux yield badly. (see last LFI )
    
  • Leica also are rightly proud of their computer controlled lathes that make the focussing mechanisms that are state of the art
    
  • Puts suggests that manual manuf. gives 1 micron accuracy and computer aided manuf.gives 5 micron ....I find that surprising as usually CAM gives higher levels of accuracy as proved by the Noctilux example.
    

  [*]Your point that wide aperture performance makes sense to me as I have always felt and said in the forum that Leica is King of available light photography. .........However in previous threads I have been told that actually Canon is now able to meet and even exceed in this segment. Leica is not King and I am out of date etc. So if that is true why go to the lengths that Leica apparently do for wide aperture performance when their compaitor achieves it through close tolerance manufacture?

  [*]I believe that the Summarit at f2.5 is not a state of art wide aperture lens. It is a low cost offering so why does it cost £950 and not less than half of that just like the competition products? Do they really need 1 micron hand assembly for a Summarit?

[stunsworth]

Agree but a digital ZI made in Germany would cost a little fortune as well. Question is to know whom is able to build accurate and reliable optical rangefinders at a reasonable price IMHO. I'm afraid nobody any more but i may be wrong.

 

I seem to remember that when the M8 came out Zeiss said that they wouldn't be able to sell a similar camera for less than what Leica were asking for the M8 - and no, I can't find the quote.

[stunsworth]

I did not know that the only involvement of Leica with the Panasonic lenses was that they designed them. I would actually have thought that illegal and misrepresentation as Panasonic use the Leica brand on each lens. I thought that Leica may have made the glass at least. Unbelievable!

 

Frank, I believe it's known as licensing.

[Guest BigSplash]

This should be enough to convince even Frank that Leica are not in the business that he thinks they are.

Andy I am convinced that they are not in the business.........that they should be in, levering their M experience and patents. I find it mind blowing that they do not have plans to grow their business volumes. Apparently you do not agree.

 

Rolex do it ...........................Tudor brand

Canon & Nikon do it..............low end volume plus high end stuff that costs more than a Leica M9

Porsche do it........................911 v Boxter

Mercedes do it......................S model and A model plus a tiered program inbetween. They also have their up market race prepared models

Aston Martin do it...................Virage v DB9

Bose, Apple, B&O do it....................

 

Hermes, MontBlanc, Cartier, Louis Vuitton have focussed high end with no cheap stuff but they have a wide product range and spend a fortune on marketing plus have their own shops, whilst moving away from using dealers......Hmm?

 

Seeger Leather did it with a small range and were bought by MontBlanc as they had difficulties.

 

I think too many people here expect Leica to survive by selling to rich snobs and live in hope to buy their cast offs. Hardly IMHO a winning strategy to build on.

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Frank, I believe it's known as licensing.

 

You are right, thanks. If it is such a good idea why not put the Leica brand on cheap Kodak or Chinese throw away cameras?

 

I actually think the rich snobs, Herr Spiller's target market, may not appreciate however and it may confuse the S2 buyer also.

 

I take pride in the brand. Call me old fashioned but I must say it is not good to know that Leica have nothing to do with the manufacture of lenses that they have allowed their name to be put on it.

[stunsworth]

You are right, thanks. If it is such a good idea why not put the Leica brand on cheap Kodak or Chinese throw away cameras?

 

Presumably because it's not worth their while spending the money on installing the strict Leica quality control procedures that Leica insist on before they allow their name to be used on a lens - if you look at the cheaper Panasonic cameras you'll see that they have Lumix lenses rather than Leica ones. I would imagine also that part of the deal with Panasonic is that they are the sole company able to use the Leica brand on their cameras.

 

In addition I imagine it's part of the deal that allows Leica to sell rebadged Panasonic cameras.

[andybarton]

I don't think S2 buyers would be confused about anything. But, Frank wants Leica to make a cheap plastic M, yet that isn't going to confuse S2 buyers? This all doesn't add up.

 

Leica have QC staff embedded in the lens factory out east.

 

Frank has still to explain how Leica can possibly make any money by selling cheap Zm gear below cost, but then again, that's par for the course.

[Guest BigSplash]

Art Please see my comments below:

Frank (BigSplash),

 

I know it's a very Anglosaxon (and Protestant, in general) thing to talk about money. For us, Catholics is a sort of taboo and we dislike to see having everything related to money everywhere. I agree in principle but when you look at Leica's issues IMHO they need to have an entry level model and price is THE issue to drive volumes. Sorry I see no other way and if you do please let's here it.

 

This said, I would never expect from Ferrari, Porsche, Bentley, R&R, Maseratti, Bugatti, Aston Martin to sell their cars at the price of a Toyota, Seat, Renault... (BTW, Aston Martin has a new "citadine" based on the Toyota IQ which sells at 30.000 € only for Aston Martin owners only). You pay their high price (if you can afford it) but you know you get premium quality and services, exclusif desing and a bit of history.

Most of the example you quote have tiered pricing models Porsche Boxter, Porsche 911, 911 Turbo etc...this is mostly about price as given a choice most people would buy the 911 turbo if the price was equivalent to the Boxter.

 

Now, the main reason to buy a M9 is to use wide angle lenses... but why I should get one if when I use a lens wider than 35mm, I risk to get "red edge contamination"? Even using the latest firmware, which took 6 months to be available, the correction of "red edge contamination" is done in detritment of quality (you get more noise in the corrected areas). Yes, I wouldn't mind to pay 5.500 € for a M9 "red edge" and sensor crack free, a M9 which doesn't have flaws that need to send the camera to Solms to be repaired, et cætera, et cætera, et cætera...

 

I would just be very happy if Leica started selling relaible and good quality digital rangefinders instead of overpricing their products because their consider us like collectors, tech-sevvy... you know the rest. What you are saying is that Leica should behave as an easy to business with, quality supplier. They are not (firmware late, delinquent backlog, poor quality, dealers not knowing what is going on, poor after sales support too often reported here, etc etc)

I fully agree and think they must address as a priority and I would hope they are even if Herr Spiller's comment was that they are working weekends, and are at the mercy of their suppliers. He did not mention quality at all, unless that was edited out.

Regards,

 

FYI I also do not like being lumped in with Herr Spiller's target market. I find it obnoxious to suggest that I would buy a M9 or M10 becuase I wish to show that I can afford it.

I also think suggesting that the M9 is for the technical savvy is a joke...It would be more accurate IMHO to suggest the camera is for those that appreciate a digital camera within a classic design and can accept in the short term its shortcomings provided that they are eventuall fixed.

[stunsworth]

I also think suggesting that the M9 is for the technical savvy is a joke...

 

I would have to strongly disagree with that. The controls on the camera are simple, but that throws the onus of getting things right back to the photographer rather than relying on the in camera automation. The simpler the camera, the stronger the photographer's technical abilities need to be.

 

I'm also puzzled that you think Panasonic using the Leica name on their lenses is cheapening the brand, but produce a cheap plastic Leica would somehow strengthen it.

[Guest BigSplash]

I don't think S2 buyers would be confused about anything. But, Frank wants Leica to make a cheap plastic M, yet that isn't going to confuse S2 buyers? This all doesn't add up.

 

Leica have QC staff embedded in the lens factory out east.

 

Frank has still to explain how Leica can possibly make any money by selling cheap Zm gear below cost, but then again, that's par for the course.

 

I would hope that they do if a Leica badge is on the product. I assume Andy that this is for the rebadged compacts and the QC has something to do with product acceptance for these? These guys can refuse product.

 

I do not understand how Leica QC inspectors can work within a factory and refuse subassemblies that go into a Panasonic with a Leica badge on the lens, which is what we were discussing.

 

Andy you say " Frank has to say......by selling cheap Zm gear below cost" ...where have I said that selling below cost ( apart from during initial production ramp up) is what I suggest as Leica's long term future.

Sorry but you are guilty of misquoting me, which is what you have accused me of in the past.

[stunsworth]

I do not understand how Leica QC inspectors can work within a factory and refuse subassemblies that go into a Panasonic with a Leica badge on the lens, which is what we were discussing.

 

Well, they could sit in the factory, and if an assembly doesn't match the specs refuse to let it be used in a camera. Or is that too simple?

[giordano]

• I did not know that the only involvement of Leica with the Panasonic lenses was that they designed them. I would actually have thought that illegal and misrepresentation as Panasonic use the Leica brand on each lens. I thought that Leica may have made the glass at least. Unbelievable!

If you find that unbelievable you know nothing about current practice in branding and manufacturing consumer products.

 

• I think your point about manuf. tolerances and Mr Puts comments are interesting and thought provoking:
  
  • Leica say that they developed computer controlled lens grinding machines for Noctilux and as a consequence can now manufacture these without hand grinding, which made the original Noctilux yield badly. (see last LFI )

I don't subscribe to LFI, but the hand-grinding business refers to the original 1960s Noctilux.

 

• Leica also are rightly proud of their computer controlled lathes that make the focussing mechanisms that are state of the art

I think this is partly Leica coming late to high-precision CNC machining, and partly that they have only recently begun to design lens mounts that take advantage of it. If the lens mount is designed so it has to be assembled and adjusted by hand, there's no benefit in machining the components more precisely.

 

• Puts suggests that manual manuf. gives 1 micron accuracy and computer aided manuf.gives 5 micron ....I find that surprising as usually CAM gives higher levels of accuracy as proved by the Noctilux example.

You need to work on your verbal comprehension. I guess that "manuf." is your shorthand for manufacturing. Puts does not suggest that "manual manufacturing" - whatever you think you mean by that - gives 1µm accuracy while computer aided manufacturing gives 5µm. What he does say is that hand assembly and adjustment by experts can manage tolerances in the 1µm range, while mechanised production - i.e. products that are assembled by robots or by assembly-line labour - can't consistently achieve tolerances better than around 5µm.

[*]Your point that wide aperture performance makes sense to me as I have always felt and said in the forum that Leica is King of available light photography. .........However in previous threads I have been told that actually Canon is now able to meet and even exceed in this segment. Leica is not King and I am out of date etc. So if that is true why go to the lengths that Leica apparently do for wide aperture performance when their compaitor achieves it through close tolerance manufacture?

I don't know, but if you buy me examples of the three 24mm f/1.4 lenses (Leica, Canon, and the new Nikkor) I'll tell you. So far I've heard nothing to suggest that Canon and Nikon have decided to prioritise wide-open performance the way Leica do.

 

• I believe that the Summarit at f2.5 is not a state of art wide aperture lens. It is a low cost offering so why does it cost £950 and not less than half of that just like the competition products? Do they really need 1 micron hand assembly for a Summarit?
  

No, they don't, and I'm sure that the tolerances are larger and that there's more use of machines. But you're the one who keeps telling us that cost and price are two separate things.

[nhabedi]

Wouldn't common sense tell you he is referring to LOYALTY, not endurance in the traditional english meaning? Lost in translation is my bet.

 

No, it's not about loyalty. It's a mixture of forbearance and capacity for suffering.

 

Edi (native German speaker).

 

PS: But note that Spiller didn't talk about the "Leidensfähigkeit" of Leica customers specifically. That's just the headline the newspaper generated from his interview. He made a general remark about (unspecified) customers with a high degree of identification with a brand.

[ho_co]

1) Leica doesn't design the Panasonic lenses, but approves the designs offered by Panasonic.

 

2) The Panasonic-designed Leica-branded lenses are quite likely produced to a great extent in China.

 

3) I'm unaware of Leica personnel overseeing output at Panasonic. OTOH, Leica was forced in the end to send approval technicians to check performance of the DMR at its place of manufacture.

 

 

But none of that has to do with Leica Quality. We're talking in this thread, I think, not about rebadged products, but about those designed and offered as Leicas.

 

 

A) The Panasonic-designed Leica-branded lenses are good, as are other Japanese lenses. But they don't meet the demands or performance of the M-series lenses.

 

Frank, Frank, Frank, please do your homework before pontificating. Read Mr Puts' explanations. Computer design, yes. Computer surface grinding, yes. Followed by manual touch-up to bring the surfaces to the necessary tolerances. Leica lenses are and must be hand-assembled to reach their specification. That is not the case for most Japanese manufacturers' lenses.

 

C) Frank, yes, CV lenses are indeed good for the money. But do read in Mr Puts' reviews about their decentration problems. Do read here the comments of users who had to return their initial CV purchases for poor optical quality. When you spend less, you get less.

 

D) Frank, yes, Leica makes an exorbitant profit on every product they sell, if you compare that product to the competition. But the competition for the most part doesn't make products that compare with Leica quality. When you spend more, you get more.

 

E) Frank, Leica must make a solid profit on every product they sell, because they sell so few. Comparison: Canon is reported to have said when introducing their T/S lenses that they would never be able to sell enough for them to become profitable. Canon underwrites the cost of selling the T/S lenses with their profits on other parts of the line. Leica doesn't have that option. Canon initially offered the T/S lenses to prove they were 'serious' about the professional market. Every product Leica produces proves they are 'serious' about the professional market. The sad part is, that professional market isn't visible in Mr Spiller's tally.

[rosuna]

I don't think so. Small sensor cameras are a different market.

 

Well, I was referring to APS-C or 4/3 sensors (smaller than 24x36).

[Guest stnami]

Mr Spiller's comments simply reflect the Leica customer attitudes

[k-hawinkler]

No, it's not about loyalty. It's a mixture of forbearance and capacity for suffering.

 

Edi (native German speaker).

 

PS: But note that Spiller didn't talk about the "Leidensfähigkeit" of Leica customers specifically. That's just the headline the newspaper generated from his interview. He made a general remark about (unspecified) customers with a high degree of identification with a brand.

 

Well put.

 

Thanks, K-H.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest BigSplash]

John I give my comments below:

If you find that unbelievable you know nothing about current practice in branding and manufacturing consumer products.

You are certainly correct. However I am shocked to think that we could have a crap camera made in XXX with a Hasselblad badge on it. I can imagine a Zeiss label on it and perhaps more worrying that is where Herr Stiller came from as a consultant to the company.....is this the future for Leica?

 

I don't subscribe to LFI, but the hand-grinding business refers to the original 1960s Noctilux.

I agree and the point is they moved away from hand grinding to computer controlled manufacture to achieve better quality and reproduceability

 

I think this is partly Leica coming late to high-precision CNC machining, and partly that they have only recently begun to design lens mounts that take advantage of it. If the lens mount is designed so it has to be assembled and adjusted by hand, there's no benefit in machining the components more precisely.

Agreed but what is your point? I think they should embrace CNC and avoid the need for excessive manual adjustment because of the increased manufacturing tolerances that they will and have (I guess) achieved by using CNC. Making loose tolerance bits and then fixing these via shims etc seems to be expensive and actually unreliable when the items get serious use in an environment that is hostile or full of vibrations. On this forum we keep reading about serious users that have even bought the rangefinder adjustment tool ! Seriously!?

 

You need to work on your verbal comprehension. I guess that "manuf." is your shorthand for manufacturing. Sorry yes I do try to avoid abbreviations yet thought that manuf. was reasonably clear. I think it more clear than CV by the way (for Cosina Voigtlander) and not Curriculum Vitae. which seems to be a well understood abbreviation here!

 

Puts does not suggest that "manual manufacturing" - whatever you think you mean by that - gives 1µm accuracy while computer aided manufacturing gives 5µm. What he does say is that hand assembly and adjustment by experts can manage tolerances in the 1µm range, while mechanised production - i.e. products that are assembled by robots or by assembly-line labour - can't consistently achieve tolerances better than around 5µm.

I actually would challenge that as such tolerances are a decade old in the semiconductor industry already. I see Puts as knowledgeable but not the bible.

 

I don't know, but if you buy me examples of the three 24mm f/1.4 lenses (Leica, Canon, and the new Nikkor) I'll tell you. So far I've heard nothing to suggest that Canon and Nikon have decided to prioritise wide-open performance the way Leica do. No, they don't, and I'm sure that the tolerances are larger and that there's more use of machines. This is pure speculation and I include the comment "prioritise wide-open performance the way Leica do" Does Leica somehow have a different specification that we can read about somewhere? Forget the marketing hype let's look at the facts and that the CEO is NOT making capital of such things.

But you're the one who keeps telling us that cost and price are two separate things.I agree and am still of that opinion