International Collaboration

[Ron Kennett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have only been a Leica owner for six years since adopting digital photography, having been an enthusiastic amateur for many decades. I flirted with Leica earlier, but decided to stay with my Contax G1 system.

 

The Amateur Photographer magazine has recently included an article on the Leica/Minolta collaboration in relation to the development of the R series. Given the emotion more recently expressed about the Leica/Panasonic collaboration, I was quite surprised to learn about the earlier precedent. There is no doubt in my mind that international collaboration is a very valid aspect of high tech business and that this is a perfectly legitimate course of action for Leica. The company's unmatched competence in optics and precision engineering provides its passport.

 

I have been quite startled by the cynicism of a sector of the Leica community in this context. I can well understand, for example, the dismay of R series enthusiasts at the apparent demise of this range. It is seemingly the case that international collaboration may well have been an important factor in establishing this successful concept. Perhaps the same may also be said of the the amazing S series, even if it is completely unaffordable to all but a few! Trickle-down is yet to come.

 

Having been very content hitherto with the so-called 'Pana-Leicas', I am now the proud possessor of the Leica X1 (Made in Germany!), but I recognise that this is an outcome of Leica's cumulative experience having included international collaboration.

 

I think that we need to content ourselves with the extraordinary stature and durability of the the Leica brand and welcome the fact that, however cautiously, the company is open to pragmatic approaches to its business.

[Advertisement]

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

[robert blu]

Welcome to the forum Ron. I think we must face the reality. We live in a globalized world , R&D cost are usually very high if you want to develop something high quality and innovative, international collaboration is one of the keys of a success. Enjoy your x1 !

robert

[NZDavid]

Leica also collaborated with Fuji on early digital cameras.

 

Collaboration makes a lot of sense. Few products are designed and built exclusively in any one country now.

 

The main consideration should be quality and performance.

 

Panasonic makes excellent products. Leica-designed lenses do make a difference -- they are extremely sharp and free from distortion -- but sensors and software are also important in the digital era.

[dave.gt]

Yes, it is a global economy and has been for a very long time. Even now, Leica M and S digital cameras use...gasp! non-German sensors. What will they use in the future? Who knows? I for one, am thankful that Leica has the commitment to continue building exceptional products that I just happen to enjoy so much.

 

I love the M3. I love the R4 so much, I am trying to save up for an R8. A digital M? A bit down the road as the trickle down takes a while to get so far downstream to me.

[earleygallery]

There are numerous Leica collaborations through history, as well as the fact that they routinely outsource - glass from Hoya, Sensors from Kodak and others, lenses with Sigma and Kyocera...This is nothing new but it is amusing to read the occassional rant from a new Leica user who has just found out that his camera wasn't completely carved by hand by some old sage in a little hut in the Bavarian forests.

 

Leica made both R and M mount cameras and lenses in collaboration with Minolta. I have to say that my R3 is one of the nicest SLR's I've ever used. It is not just a rebadged Minolta either, Leica designed their own shutter/mirror box assembly, added some other features, and of course if has the R mount.

 

What matters most is that Leica produce products worthy of the name, because it's a name that people trust to mean the best in terms of quality.

 

I'm not entirely sure they have done that every time in recent years, but we must also recognise that they had a period where they desperately needed to get some digital product out to market, for their very survival. Thankfully rebadging Panasonic cameras proved very successful for them but now that we have a mature digital market, Leica cannot keep selling rebadged Panasonics - I think that they recognise this in that they haven't released another C Lux camera (the most basic of the Panaleica offerings).

 

By all means carry on licensing the brand for use on Panasonic camera lenses, but new Leica cameras should - IMHO - offer some significant difference to any equivalent products.

[wda]

Ron, welcome to the forum!

International collaboration is surely the way to go if manufacturing of advanced technology merchandise is to prosper.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe the Minolta collaboration was originally an attempt to broaden customer base with a low-cost option (CL), hoping the newcomers would then move to the M series. Instead it appears customers bought the CL instead of the M, and you often hear the CL blamed for the decline of Leica at the time. (Good sales, lower profit.)

The CL was a very nice camera, and I still use mine.

I skipped the R3, but have enjoyed the R4. The pedigree has never mattered to me. If an "R-solution" came from collaboration I wouldn't mind a bit.

[ho_co]

Tom, I think the sequence with the CL was a bit different:

 

Leica thought they had the dragon-slayer with the M5, but it bombed on the market.

 

Sales sank so fast that they needed something to get back in business, as it were, and the CL emerged from the new Leitz-Minolta cooperation. It was a life-saver for the company.

 

It was during this period that the decision was made by Wetzlar to discontinue the M line and proceed with only the reflex camera. (Leitz Midland sank that idea by insisting on building the M4-2.)

 

So it wasn't that the CL cannibalized M sales; the M5 had already killed the M.

 

(During the same time frame, the company decided to work with Minolta to produce the R series. The R3 that came out of that cooperation was both automatic and lower-priced than the SL2 that it replaced.)

[TomB_tx]

Tom, I think the sequence with the CL was a bit different:

Leica thought they had the dragon-slayer with the M5, but it bombed on the market.

...

So it wasn't that the CL cannibalized M sales; the M5 had already killed the M.

 

Thanks for the correction Howard. I recalled that when Leica dropped the CL they claimed it failed to meet marketing expectations - but as you noted it actually sold very well, so analysts trying to reconcile both facts read between the lines and tried to blame the M decline on the CL. The CL was introduced only 2 years after the M5, which means the development timeline began before the M5 sales were disappointing.

In fact, while in college I worked part time at the local Leica dealer in '68-69, and at that time the Leica rep was talking about a new compact Leica M that would be introduced soon. (This was before the M5 was launched.) So when the LARGER M5 came out I was puzzled, as it wasn't the camera he had talked about. Later I heard the compact model would have been too expensive.

So if my memory is right it sounds like the M5 and CL concepts must have originated about the same time; but the CL had to wait for the Minolta collaboration to meet the cost targets.

I heard the Leica purists complain about the "monstrous" M5, so I never upgraded my M4 until the M6 came out. Much later I got a used M5, because I liked my CL so much, and found out how great the M5 really is.