Should Leica introduce a M8.3?

[sfage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't buy an M8. I think I am tainted by the issues requiring the filter on the front of the lens to fix the internal electronic mess-ups.

[pico]

It's obvious that Leica should get their next product managers and company execs from this forum...

 

Any Leica exec would look here and wonder where these guys find the time for so much chat and nonsense. Stealing time from work? Unemployed? Retired already?

[Guest BigSplash]

See my comments below in blue:

 

Quote An interesting question is what exactly does Andy mean when he says: Any "cheap" Leica sale is one that stops the sale of a real Leica." . This could I guess mean:

1. Many Leica digital buyers really do NOT want a M9 they want a camera that is cheaper, and that they would opt for a M8 in preference if available at a lower price?
   
2. If Leica cannot make enough M9's today then why introduce a lower PRICE model and I agree.
   

Unquote

That's completely about face. How could you read statement 1 into what I wrote?

Andy you could be saying that if Leica can make as many M9's as they need to satisfy the backlog and as many M8 low cost cameras ...Then the buying public MAY forget the M9 and take the lower cost M8....that is what I understood you could be saying. However you are now saying that "People don't want cheap Leicas AT ALL." and you justify this remark by saying that ...experience with the Summarits shows that people don't want to buy cheap new Leica stuff, when they can get better, used lenses for the same price. This is why they let used M8s act as the "entry level" digital Ms, just as they did with M4s and M6s in the past. Why would you buy a 35 Summarit, when you can buy a mint used 35 Summicron for the same money?

 

If you look at the many threads on this forum you will see that used Leica lenses are going up in price apparently driven by M9 sales and the lack of new lenses. If you are saying the Summarit has to sell at the same price as a used Summicron then could it be that the Summarit is not priced at a reasonable market value, which I guess you could also say for many Leica accessories!

My hypothesis is that Leica figure out how to improve their digital M costs and by so doing maintain the M9/M10 and create the cropped lower cost M8.3 as an addittional market opportunity that will obviously lever more lens sales.

My understanding is that the Summarit did sell poorly at the beginning as mentioned at last year's Solms meeting. Is that still the case? I guess some Leica buyers will only consider a 35mm Lux, others might accept a 35mm cron and others speak highly of the Summarit.

 

If Leica sell a camera cheaply, and make, say E500 profit, when they could have sold an M9 with, say E1,000 profit instead, that's E500 profit that they will never see. That is only true if my statement No2 is correct otherwise you are plain wrong. In fact what you are saying to be consistent is that if a M9/M10 is available and a lower cost M8.3 is also on offer Leica buyers will never buy the M8.3 because they will want the best. You surely cannot want to have it both ways do you? [/quote]

[jaapv]

Over the last months many people have newly expressed interest when they see me with my M8 and want to know more.

.

That is truly amazing. I can wave Leicas around all the time without anybody but the rare Leica affectionado taking notice.

[Guest BigSplash]

That is truly amazing. I can wave Leicas around all the time without anybody but the rare Leica affectionado taking notice.

 

I am not sure what your point is here.

 

At my daughter's art exhibition I took my M8 and I invited Brett privately to attend with a M9.

• Several people asked if I was using film and they were surprised that Leica (well known Brand) now make a digital M. It became a talking point especially when they saw that neither Brett nor I used flash and could show OK images on the small screen monitor.
  
• There were a few photographic pros and journalists and they immediately knew what a M8 was and I noticed at least one of these was very keen on talking to Brett and will apparently now meet up at Mayfair ! He currently uses Hasselblads but liked the smaller size of a LeicaM.
  
• One friend of mine has subsequently last week bought a Leica (not a M however)
  

Separately I took some images locally and a Leica enthusiast came up to ask how I liked the camera .

[andybarton]

My hypothesis is that Leica figure out how to improve their digital M costs and by so doing maintain the M9/M10 and create the cropped lower cost M8.3 as an addittional market opportunity that will obviously lever more lens sales.

 

Or, people will buy a used M9 and have a better camera for the same price.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure what your point is here.

That does not surprise me

[Guest BigSplash]

Or, people will buy a used M9 and have a better camera for the same price.

 

There are NO used M9 cameras on eBay and elsewhere they are still very scarce, but let's play the game:

Today a New M9 today is £5000....

Used in one year from now at say £4000.

I am suggesting a brand new M8.3 at £3000 that comes with a 2 year guarantee and I am proposing that the M8.3 is built as easy to build and therefore high quality and reliability.

 

Given the various M9 issues and these are likely to be true for any digital camera....I suspect some people may want a NEW guaranteed product at £1000 less, that is rugged and built for reliability etc but perhaps they are stupid!.

 

When you say M9 is a better camera what exactly do you mean? I agree that it has manual lens selection, bracketing and FULL FRAME and no frame / battery counter. Would you really pay £1000 more for this and have a used camera that probably by then is two years old and out of warranty?

[stunsworth]

Leica have limited manufacturing resources, does it really make sense to have people making M8.3s rather than higher margin M9s and lenses?

[spylaw4]

........ and no frame / battery counter. ........

 

This is news indeed! Ah, but then you're forgetting the changed rear button which brings up a colourful screen with that info on it.

 

You have examined one haven't you?

[Guest nafpie]

Should Leica introduce a M8.3?

 

No.

[tbarker13]

Leica have limited manufacturing resources, does it really make sense to have people making M8.3s rather than higher margin M9s and lenses?

 

This really is the heart of the matter. If the company had the resources, it would be foolish not to tap into a less-expensive market (assuming it could figure out a way to do so).

 

But given all the cuts Leica has been forced to make in recent troubled years, it doesn't have the luxury of attempting two M lines.

Within a couple of years, they'll move on to the M9.2 and then a couple years later, they'll bring out an M9.3 or M10 or whatever they want to call it.

 

Unless the company becomes so successful that it can break out a separate production line, all of its resources will have to be focused on whatever the current flagship camera happens to be.

[Guest BigSplash]

Leica have limited manufacturing resources, does it really make sense to have people making M8.3s rather than higher margin M9s and lenses?

 

Steve please read what I said in my previous postings in this thread.

1. It makes NO sense at all to make M8.3's compared to M9 / M10's if you have a production line that is consumed trying to ship a very delinquent M9 backlog.
   
2. If the delinquent M9 backlog goes away due to double ordering being cleansed, and a limited market for a £5000 camera it odes make sense to both introduce a M10 plus add extra production volume for a lower priced M8.3 as an as yet untapped additional market ....produced down the very same production line.
   
3. The M9 is a great camera in so many ways. However it is hardly from all the inputs we see here the easiest camera to manufacture and this is not a virtue. I would say that in my view Maybe just MAYBE there is an opportunity for Leica to make the thing easier to manufacture and that could clear the current backlog, and help satisfy the obvious ongoing demand....but MAYBE Leica could and should using its present production capacity build even more cameras that generate even more Lens sales. Please tell me why this is a flawed argument, and why Leica enthusiasts would not welcome such a move.
   

[andybarton]

How much R&D money would it cost Leica to re-engineer the M9 to make it "easier to build"?

 

Wouldn't that be better spent on developing an M10?

 

The current backlog isn't great - it can't be if dealers have stock on the shelves.

 

If and when they decide to move on from the M9, it makes more sense to turn the line over to the M10, rather than some cheapo, cut price version (unless of course the world economy has gone to hell in a handcart between now and then, in which case people won't be buying cameras at all)

[stunsworth]

Please tell me why this is a flawed argument...

 

They'd make more money using their resources to make lenses.

[Guest BigSplash]

This really is the heart of the matter. If the company had the resources, it would be foolish not to tap into a less-expensive market (assuming it could figure out a way to do so).

 

But given all the cuts Leica has been forced to make in recent troubled years, it doesn't have the luxury of attempting two M lines.

Within a couple of years, they'll move on to the M9.2 and then a couple years later, they'll bring out an M9.3 or M10 or whatever they want to call it.

 

Unless the company becomes so successful that it can break out a separate production line, all of its resources will have to be focused on whatever the current flagship camera happens to be.

 

Your initial assumption of TWO separate production lines is wrong and then drives your conclusion.

 

Bosch some years ago had 25 variants of their very successful Jetronic vehicle fuel injection system flowing down their production line at the same time. The production facility was flexible, and could accept old technology product at the same time. My suggestion is that Leica could run TWO not TWENTY FIVE variants down a single line. This is a key point.

 

The point of my OP is "would people want a low cost M8.3" and "what would the spec. be in any case?"

 

In my view there is no question that Leica could make it happen if that was where they saw the opportunity at a market level and indeed at the same time that it would create the manufacturing volumes that could help them in the production arena. I think this question remains open as far as this OP is concerned.

[andybarton]

I have yet to understand how you think that this M8.3 could be made much, much (i.e.40%) cheaper than they make M9s now. The sensor is more or less the same price, the viewfinder is the same. The body, presumably, remains brass and other metal (or are you proposing a plastic M?) and the other bits and pieces are all the same cost.

 

So that leaves a bit of electronics and wiring up the sensor to the microchip. I can't see £2,000 of savings there.

 

So, how are they going to achieve this?

[stunsworth]

How about an advertising campaign "New camera, 4 year old technology".

[wildlightphoto]

[*]If the delinquent M9 backlog goes away due to double ordering being cleansed, and a limited market for a £5000 camera it odes make sense to both introduce a M10 plus add extra production volume for a lower priced M8.3 as an as yet untapped additional market ....produced down the very same production line.

 

Once the M9 production catches up with orders Leica should be hard at work developing future M products and re-tooling the production facilities for the new product. When they have surplus production capacity, it's not a large surplus and rather than use that capacity for a few units of a low-margin product it's more profitable to tap the collector market with special edition M9 bodies.

 

[*]The M9 is a great camera in so many ways. However it is hardly from all the inputs we see here the easiest camera to manufacture and this is not a virtue. I would say that in my view Maybe just MAYBE there is an opportunity for Leica to make the thing easier to manufacture and that could clear the current backlog, and help satisfy the obvious ongoing demand....but MAYBE Leica could and should using its present production capacity build even more cameras that generate even more Lens sales. Please tell me why this is a flawed argument, and why Leica enthusiasts would not welcome such a move.

 

You've got a lot of MAYBE in your argument and the biggest problem that you seem to be blind to is LIMITED PRODUCTION CAPACITY. There are only LIMITED ways any company can get more cameras out of limited production capacity without sacrificing quality. Additional sales volume from a low cost body will not generate additional lens sales because Leica is already selling every lens they make. There is no surplus lens production capacity.

 

In my view there is no question that Leica could make it happen if that was where they saw the opportunity at a market level and indeed at the same time that it would create the manufacturing volumes that could help them in the production arena. I think this question remains open as far as this OP is concerned.

 

Despite the enthusiasm many of us express for the CRF concept there's only a limited demand for this type of camera. The AF SLR rules. The CRF camera is a specialized tool. Your argument reminds me of the DeLorean fiasco: the concept was to mass-produce a specialized product in order to drive the cost down. There wasn't enough demand for a specialized car, production out-stripped demand and the company failed.

 

This is Business 101: if demand for your product is inexhaustible, make as many as you can; even if the profit is small you make your money with volume. If the demand for your product is limited, you maximize profit with a premium product and high prices. Leica doesn't exist to keep enthusiasts happy. Leica exists to make a profit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest BigSplash]

How much R&D money would it cost Leica to re-engineer the M9 to make it "easier to build"?

 

Wouldn't that be better spent on developing an M10?

 

The current backlog isn't great - it can't be if dealers have stock on the shelves. Andy you surprise me.......it was only 6 weeks ago when you said that dealers having product on the shelves was good news! I think "some" dealers having M9 in stock is good news. It becomes an issue when the ship to trade /client numbers disappear and then I guess we shall see moves on M9 pricing and an eventual M9.2 / M10 but I suspect that is not imminent, as so fare leica are apparently in great shape.

 

If and when they decide to move on from the M9, it makes more sense to turn the line over to the M10, rather than some cheapo, cut price version (unless of course the world economy has gone to hell in a handcart between now and then, in which case people won't be buying cameras at all)

 

Andy I think you have preconceived ideas.

 

Please could you explain why a M10 could not be a re-engineered M9 with added features that is easier to manufacture using the knowledge gained from M9 and M8 manufacture?

 

In previous threads you have been very keen to suggest that 10/10/10 (My thought of what they would do) was not realistic as the M10 release date ...you were proved correct and myself was wrong!.

 

You suggested that a two to three year life for M9 was more representative based on previous M models.....that puts M10 at Sept 2011 or 2012 I believe with production quantities 3 to 6 months later. Surely that gives Leica sufficient time to built into any design solid product engineering learning that can address production issues!

 

It also allows an opportunity to get ready a cheaper entry model.