swamiji Posted June 16, 2012 Share #41 Posted June 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sometimes the public doesn't know what their demands are until they are told? Like the MM for an example. My dealer says the waiting list is just as long for the MM as it was for the M9. Now lets see if it holds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Hi swamiji, Take a look here Stefan Daniel Interview Offers Clues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
THEME Posted June 16, 2012 Share #42 Posted June 16, 2012 Most probably the lack of accuracy or inflection is in the reporting... aka misquoted or mistranslated. The interview was held in English, what you read in the interview was said word by word. There is no misquote or mistranslation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 16, 2012 Share #43 Posted June 16, 2012 There has been a discussion of Leica pricing through the ages, at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/242450-leica-prices-1936-a-2.html Some reactions have been that "Leica has always been a pricey camera". True, but there is a difference beween expensive and outrageously expensive. John Thompson points this out: "Some further calculations: in 1960 a Leica IIIg with a collapsible Summicron went for $292.50. That's after WWII with the accompanying post-war inflation and 24 years, showing an increase of less than 25% from those 1936 prices. The 1960 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $2,274 in today's money, so that's a little more than a new X2 with its slower lens. Interesting." Yes, Leica has been a pricey brand, but not, as some would suggest, out of reach of all except the extremely privileged. If it had been, who would have taken all those fascinating pictures from Leica's glory years? Were all those young photographers sons of millionaires? No, the fact is that a factory new Leica was within reach of lots of dedicated young photographers without deductibles. I, at a later time, would never have been able to start my 'Leica ladder' except for the existence of a well supplied second hand market, with the prices depressed because Leica cameras were obsolete, in the opinion of the majority. That market does not exist today. A serious young non-professional today will have to start his or her career with a Canonikon. This is a fact that Leica should change, and has to change in order to survive outside the curio market. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 16, 2012 Share #44 Posted June 16, 2012 The interview was held in English, what you read in the interview was said word by word. There is no misquote or mistranslation. And I might add that Mr. Daniel’s English is excellent. There cannot be a “non-native speaker” argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 16, 2012 Share #45 Posted June 16, 2012 On the other hand on the M system we’re sticking to manual focus. There is a simple reason. A lot of the charm of the product and of the success of the product comes from the fact that the lenses are ultra small. By adding autofocus, motors and gears and electronics inside the lenses these lenses would either become much slower in speed, or it would become much bigger. There’s a good reason to stay in manual focus because it keeps the whole system as compact as possible. And having full-frame, by the way. Everybody could reduce the size of the lenses by reducing the size of the sensor. The trick is to have a very big sensor and small lenses. And this is only possible right now by having manual focus. That’s the current situation, it may change in the future. Read more: http://the.me/interview-with-stefan-daniel-leica-director-product-management-next-target-non-leica-users/#ixzz1xwUOSwiJ This is interesting. Daniel links full frame and manual focus lenses, and the reason is size. "It may change in the future". I don't know what is the exact balance, but having slower AF lenses a bit larger in size is not a bad deal. It is not a problem in a camera with EVF. It is a bad idea to establish a new system based on the current technical possibilities, on what is possible at this moment, because a new system implies a long term commitment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 16, 2012 Share #46 Posted June 16, 2012 Lars, you are right, if we were talking about the same company. Leica of today is barely related to the original company. That's fine, most companies change ownership, rebrand and/or reposition themselves. The Leica of the 1940's/1950's was a serious photographic business producing some of the best 'minature' format cameras of the time, to appeal to photojournalists and serious amateurs. Today I see Leica positioning themselves much more as a luxury brand, big boys toys, prohibitively expensive to appeal to those who want to show off that the can afford 'the best'. Leicas ambassador Seal said as much last year on this forum. I thought he was wrong then, but not now. It's the direction Leica have chosen. Good luck to them. I'm still a Leica photographer, but my money will always be spent on s/h equipment. I'm not the type of person that the new Leica are trying to appeal to. There has been a discussion of Leica pricing through the ages, at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/242450-leica-prices-1936-a-2.html Some reactions have been that "Leica has always been a pricey camera". True, but there is a difference beween expensive and outrageously expensive. John Thompson points this out: "Some further calculations: in 1960 a Leica IIIg with a collapsible Summicron went for $292.50. That's after WWII with the accompanying post-war inflation and 24 years, showing an increase of less than 25% from those 1936 prices. The 1960 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $2,274 in today's money, so that's a little more than a new X2 with its slower lens. Interesting." Yes, Leica has been a pricey brand, but not, as some would suggest, out of reach of all except the extremely privileged. If it had been, who would have taken all those fascinating pictures from Leica's glory years? Were all those young photographers sons of millionaires? No, the fact is that a factory new Leica was within reach of lots of dedicated young photographers without deductibles. I, at a later time, would never have been able to start my 'Leica ladder' except for the existence of a well supplied second hand market, with the prices depressed because Leica cameras were obsolete, in the opinion of the majority. That market does not exist today. A serious young non-professional today will have to start his or her career with a Canonikon. This is a fact that Leica should change, and has to change in order to survive outside the curio market. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 16, 2012 Share #47 Posted June 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) In my opinion, Leica is very, very lucky James... The luxury segment is perfect for a small company like Leica. It allows large markups, strongly differentiated product, stable demand, no competition, etc. Even Hasselblad envies this position. They tried to reply the idea with special edition of Hasselblad cameras (like that red H unit), but they should think on a different (smaller) system promoted by the brand. Anyway, Leica is a much stronger name in the luxury market. Many other companies, under strong competitive pressure, based on economies of scale, are in trouble. Competition is fierce out there. Leica has no choice, but the only way for survival and prosperity is very good indeed... and exclusive. Only Leica can exploit this gold mine. Lucky guys. Kaufmann saw this very clearly. Smart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 16, 2012 Share #48 Posted June 16, 2012 Even Hasselblad envies this position. They tried to reply the idea with special edition of Hasselblad cameras (like that red H unit), but they should think on a different (smaller) system promoted by the brand. Anyway, Leica is a much stronger name in the luxury market. Leica has always had the advantage over Hasselblad in that its cameras are much more suited to a more casual use. Leica cameras are smaller, lighter, easier to use and have traditionally used the more familiar 35mm film. That advantage still holds – few people are going lug an H4D around on the off chance that they might want to take some photos – so it is easier for Leica to tap into that luxury market where the buyers are not necessarily that interested in photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 16, 2012 Share #49 Posted June 16, 2012 You make your own luck. Credit to Herr Doktor Kaufmann. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 16, 2012 Share #50 Posted June 16, 2012 A technical reason to keep shooting film is that dense areas of film, such as skies, can be burned in to preserve detail or add drama. This is part of the character of film in a negative/printing process. Highlight detail is more limited with the MM. Actually it isn’t. The required dynamic range is provided for, so highlight detail shouldn’t be an issue. It’s just that the rules for optimum exposure have changed; applying the tried and proven rules of silver-halide photography to digital photography spells disaster, especially for the highlights. But surely we are all aware of this by now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted June 16, 2012 Share #51 Posted June 16, 2012 All very interesting Mr Daniel, but you still havn't convinced me WHY I should buy a Leica Digital camera. Did some of you noticed the story on Film is back on the top right hand corner of that link. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 16, 2012 Share #52 Posted June 16, 2012 ... It is a bad idea to establish a new system based on the current technical possibilities, on what is possible at this moment, .... Eh? Surely to do otherwise would be to try to establish a system that you can't physically make (yet) wouldn't it? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEME Posted June 16, 2012 Share #53 Posted June 16, 2012 Interesting indeed, that's a key excerpt of Mr. Daniel. You're sure the vast majority of current Leica users would be willing to sacrifice on speed? The Summilux' are the hottest sellers with the longest waiting lists. But, I agree, a new system could target a new market segment where the convenience factor's above speed. This is interesting. Daniel links full frame and manual focus lenses, and the reason is size. "It may change in the future". I don't know what is the exact balance, but having slower AF lenses a bit larger in size is not a bad deal. It is not a problem in a camera with EVF. It is a bad idea to establish a new system based on the current technical possibilities, on what is possible at this moment, because a new system implies a long term commitment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 16, 2012 Share #54 Posted June 16, 2012 Hey, Mr Daniel is speaking of the huge price gap between 2000 and 6000 dollars! Right! And were do we start to fill it, at the 3000 end or the 5000 end? I think the question is also the answer. The old man from the Kodachrome Age This, so openly said, is indeed the most interesting assessment, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 16, 2012 Share #55 Posted June 16, 2012 .... so it is easier for Leica to tap into that luxury market where the buyers are not necessarily that interested in photography.Possibly but hopefully not true. I would sincerely hope that even the (OK delete 'even') collectors are actually driven by an interest in photography. In fact I would be most surprised if they are not. Whatever the ultimate motive may be also collectors & fetishist presumably are interested in photography. Otherwise they would collect stamps, or cigar labels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 16, 2012 Share #56 Posted June 16, 2012 There has been a discussion of Leica pricing through the ages, at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/242450-leica-prices-1936-a-2.html Some reactions have been that "Leica has always been a pricey camera". True, but there is a difference beween expensive and outrageously expensive. John Thompson points this out: "Some further calculations: in 1960 a Leica IIIg with a collapsible Summicron went for $292.50. That's after WWII with the accompanying post-war inflation and 24 years, showing an increase of less than 25% from those 1936 prices. The 1960 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $2,274 in today's money, so that's a little more than a new X2 with its slower lens. Interesting." Yes, Leica has been a pricey brand, but not, as some would suggest, out of reach of all except the extremely privileged. If it had been, who would have taken all those fascinating pictures from Leica's glory years? Were all those young photographers sons of millionaires? No, the fact is that a factory new Leica was within reach of lots of dedicated young photographers without deductibles. I, at a later time, would never have been able to start my 'Leica ladder' except for the existence of a well supplied second hand market, with the prices depressed because Leica cameras were obsolete, in the opinion of the majority. That market does not exist today. A serious young non-professional today will have to start his or her career with a Canonikon. This is a fact that Leica should change, and has to change in order to survive outside the curio market. The old man from the Kodachrome Age I recently ran the inflation numbers for bodies marketed in the fist half of the 1970's. The M5 and the Leicaflex SL would cost about $3,800 to $4,000 (US) today, and the lowly M4 in the last year of catalog appearance was about $2450. Before the Leica fan boys jump all over me, I'll admit this doesn't mean anything in particular, but it is interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 16, 2012 Share #57 Posted June 16, 2012 Interesting indeed, that's a key excerpt of Mr. Daniel. You're sure the vast majority of current Leica users would be willing to sacrifice on speed? The Summilux' are the hottest sellers with the longest waiting lists. But, I agree, a new system could target a new market segment where the convenience factor's above speed. The idea is to develop a new system of AF lenses for a cheaper camera based on the M system, so yes, the potential public of that camera and lenses is not the same public of the current M system. The camera and lenses have to be cheaper, and f/2.5 to f/2.0 lenses are acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 16, 2012 Share #58 Posted June 16, 2012 Hey, Mr Daniel is speaking of the huge price gap between 2000 and 6000 dollars! Right! And were do we start to fill it, at the 3000 end or the 5000 end? I think the question is also the answer. The old man from the Kodachrome Age Two products in that space have to be separated from the two ends and separated between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 16, 2012 Share #59 Posted June 16, 2012 With respect, I disagree that Daniel's statement about smell and film can be read differently. It is a simple textual interpretation. He may have meant it differently but I find little in the text to support that. I treat film-based photos and digital photos the same way in terms of post-processing. I edit and adjust more or less the same in Photoshop to get the results I want. I didn't mean to get into a debate about film vs digital, the reason for the MM etc. I just wanted to point out that in terms of accuracy in the message delivered, there is room for improvement in what Daniel said. I believe he just meant that a large segment of film users still use film for emotional reasons (e.g., nostalgia, the limitations, ect.), among others reasons. And I think there's some truth to that. That should not be surprising. After all, creativity is a right brained activity. It has little to do with logic. But it's equally true that some people just prefer the look of film. I'm one of those, although I fall into the former category too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 16, 2012 Share #60 Posted June 16, 2012 Correct. He is saying in his opinion there is no technical reason to shoot film but plenty of emotional reasons. But this is not true. There are many technical reasons to still shoot film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.