Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hammam

Leica stubborness will hurt sales

Recommended Posts

This, for Leica, would be unacceptable, and also for a number of their users. Leica wants to be as perfect as feasible.

There is not much 'perfection' in this IR story dare i say but anyway it's not what i meant Tom.

The menus would be as 'perfect' as they could be of course. It's just my results which would be imperfect and that's OK for me. Just my problem not Leica's.

Let me take my Rokkor 28 example again. I am the happy owner of both Cron and Elmarit asph 28 but i like to use the little Minolta as well.

Then suppose that the menu let me choose 3 options between Cron, Elmarit asph and Elmarit pre-asph for instance. I will then choose the Elmarit pre-asph option probably as the latter and the Minolta lens were from the same generation.

You see what i mean. The Leica menus would be 'perfect' this way. Of course my choice would be 'imperfect' but the result would be better than with no menu at all obviously.

Things would be exactly as if i had hand coded the Rokkor like an old Elmarit that's all.

Quite harmless for Leica and reasonably fair for an old Leicaphile like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest flatfour

There are some very knowledgeable people on this site who know perfectly well how to adapt, modify, or convert non Leica lenses for use on Leica products, but with respect that is not the point. Leica are a commercial operation not a charity and whilst it would be nice for some people to be able to shoehorn a Mercedes engine into a Nissan it is not in Mercedes-Benz interests to deliberately make that possible. This is a question of business economics and has nothing to do with technical ability or design. Of course Leica could make it possible but they would be heavy losers in total. They are absolutely right to make it as hard as possible for non-Leica lenses to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imperfect pic with an imperfect lens (Rokkor 28) on an imperfect body (Epson R-D1).

I would like to get at least the same result with a 'perfect' Leica.

Fair enough no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...They are absolutely right to make it as hard as possible for non-Leica lenses to be used.

And to loose at least one client: me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are absolutely right to make it as hard as possible for non-Leica lenses to be used.

Anthony ... I for one, do not buy nor use CV, ZM or whatever non-Leica lenses, yet not all of my Leica lenses are supported by Leica through this bogus stupid 6-bit coding, what do you call business ethics ... screwing your own customers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest flatfour

Simon - I don't think Leica can be accused of "screwing" anyone. Their marketing department will decide what price any product will bear and it is their duty to their shareholders to maximise the profit. If coding is so expensive that it is driving people away from the M8 then they will reduce the price. At present they can sell every M8 they make so clearly the coding prices are not excessive. I do sympathise with you as I think the coding charges are high. But as with all products if you price them too highly then alternatives appear.- perhaps a Chinese company could offer coding at a lesser price. If they did then Leica would - assuming the process cost is below the price - reduce their prices accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some very knowledgeable people on this site who know perfectly well how to adapt, modify, or convert non Leica lenses for use on Leica products, but with respect that is not the point. Leica are a commercial operation not a charity and whilst it would be nice for some people to be able to shoehorn a Mercedes engine into a Nissan it is not in Mercedes-Benz interests to deliberately make that possible. This is a question of business economics and has nothing to do with technical ability or design. Of course Leica could make it possible but they would be heavy losers in total. They are absolutely right to make it as hard as possible for non-Leica lenses to be used.

 

I am not sure your reasoning is entirely correct. Let's say I'm interested in the M8. First I have to shell out $4,500 for the body. Then I need lenses. Just for the purpose of the discussion, let's just talk wide angles, since this is where the lens coding is important to get rid of the cyan drift in the corners. The three Elmarits (21, 24 and new 28 asph) plus the 35 Summicron amount to roughly $10,000 new. OTH, the four C/Vs (21/4, 25/4, 28/1.9 and 35/1.7) amount to... $1,417. Now, I'm told that to get faultless results with my $4,500 camera, I need to get my lenses coded (or get the ones already coded) but you can't code the C/Vs, and because you cannot enter the lens data via menu, I'm stuck with the Leicas. Do you really think I'm gonna go «Oh, what the heck, let's fork out the $10,000»? I won't, the difference is too huge, and I'll walk away from the M8.

 

Very good lenses at an attractive price to go with my M8? That's good. Being forced to buy those awfully expensive (though fabulous) Leica lenses, sorry, I can't.

 

That's what I mean when I say Leica may lose buyers if they keep their closed system policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon - I don't think Leica can be accused of "screwing" anyone. Their marketing department will decide what price any product will bear and it is their duty to their shareholders to maximise the profit. If coding is so expensive that it is driving people away from the M8 then they will reduce the price. At present they can sell every M8 they make so clearly the coding prices are not excessive. I do sympathise with you as I think the coding charges are high. But as with all products if you price them too highly then alternatives appear.- perhaps a Chinese company could offer coding at a lesser price. If they did then Leica would - assuming the process cost is below the price - reduce their prices accordingly.

Anthony, you may want to read Leica's literatures about the 6-bit coding again ...

 

One of the very important reasons they've adopted this is to "optimize" the image quality with in camera processing when "supported" lenses are used.

 

I don't care about any Chinese company or whoever, my kids can paint the bits on the lens mount if I ask them to do so, I can also toss 50 bucks to anyone who has a machine tool to make an adapter for me however ... that's not the point because, Leica doesn't have a profile to work for my lens even when it's recognized ... of course we should say it's when the camera is fooled to recognize it.

 

This isn't an tremendous deal to me but it does make me feel uncomfortable. Unlike many other folks here, I ONLY use Leica lenses on my Leica cameras, why some Leica lenses can be supported and others can not be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is highly inappropriate to use words like "idiotic", "bogus", "stupid" when referring to the lens coding system.

 

It is none of these things. It's a novel solution to the problem of identifying the lens to the camera when there is no room in the lens mount to put ROM contacts. Leica are not in a position to provide a replacement lens mount for every lens ever made and had to draw the line somewhere. Pretty much any lens bought in the last 10 - 15 years can be coded which I think is a well-judged compromise. I cannot readily think of any other vendor who will provide retrospective upgrades to products as old as this. No, Leica deserve our unstinting praise for going as far as they have.

 

As for Leica screwing their customers, this is absolutely not the case. Their starting point in developing the M8 was to protect our investment in their glass. The cost of the coding is absolutely minimal and barely covers costs. I run a technology business and I wouldn't do what they do for the same price.

 

Those of you who think you are being screwed by the company should perhaps look beyond your own frame of reference and think about what's involved in coding a lens and what it costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

That's what I mean when I say Leica may lose buyers if they keep their closed system policy

 

 

But the key here is there not. Lenses and M8's are flying off the shelf and back orders are rampant on there lenses. When supply meets up with demand than long term they may have a issue. As said before this is not hurting them financially at all by not adding a menu option. But it is hurting a lot of users and that is something they have to look at.

 

Take Hassy for example by switching to a closed system, they pissed off every owner of the H1 and H2 system because there not compatiable and these folks have to upgrade just to use a new lens the 28mm. man are people mad as hell and were talking 10's of thousands of dollars here and at the end of the day , guess what people are switching and buying new H3 systems and are switching to a closed system . they maybe bitching and moaning about it but there doing it and in the end Hassy still wins and i will buy into that same closed system when i have the funds ready. That is a 40 k investment and i am walking right into a closed system with no way out except follow there upgrade path into the future. Now that is scary

 

So what do you do you can scream from the mountain saying it is not fair and all that but people are at the base of the mountain are buying it anyway. Your not going to win the financial arguement game here , there is only 1 RF game in town.

 

The only chance you have is leica will want to do this for there customer base and that my friends is the only hope you have and no company in the world is ever going to want to give up there financials doing it. As a small business owner it's like giving someone my copyright stamp and telling them all future revenue is there's. is that good business sense. i still support the idea of the menu option for the end user but saying it's about the money is like wearing a raw egg on my face

 

What many fail to realize is Leica is actually helping the end user by using there coding system just imagine if they completely switched the mounts ergo Canon . The coding gives life to most all the lenses of the past and is not forcing you to buy new ones like Hassy is doing and what Canon has done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot readily think of any other vendor who will provide retrospective upgrades to products as old as this. No, Leica deserve our unstinting praise for going as far as they have.

 

Perhaps you don't know Pentax provides support to every single K mount lens on earth? ... stop down metering, focus confirmation ... they're all there.

 

I can even screw on a Nikon lens without adapter to the K10D ... everything works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are absolutely right to make it as hard as possible for non-Leica lenses to be used.

That is your interpretation of Leica's intentions. Leica has stated nothing of the kind. I don't believe there is any unannounced devoius conspiracy on Leica's part as you imply. The 6-bit coding was developed to provide an optional added level of image optimization and convenience to customers, not to prevent potential buyers from using the camera if they don't buy supported lenses. Leica actually spent a fortune making sure wide angles would work with a digital M and they do except for the IR issue. The cyan-drift issue was an unintended byproduct of a unforseen fault which has thrown a monkey wrench into Leica's marketing as described in Leica's own published statements.

 

Contrary to those on both sides of this issue who ascribe to Leica some unwritten agenda to close the M platform, Leica itself has said nothing to lead one to believe that that is their intention. If they wanted a proprietary mount they would have developed one and saved themselves a lot of development dollars. Leica is now trying to sort out the best way to deal with these unanticipated issues and preserve the promise of the camera as they announced it. They have already implemented some fixes, what others are on the way we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica did provide a menu specifically for lens selection of Leica lenses, it would be interesting to see if they chose to exclude the two lenses which have always been coded - the WATE and 28 Elmarit APSH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you don't know Pentax provides support to every single K mount lens on earth? ... stop down metering, focus confirmation ... they're all there.

 

I can even screw on a Nikon lens without adapter to the K10D ... everything works.

 

I'm not a Pentax junkie (other than their digital spotmeter which I love) but how old is the K mount? And how old is the M mount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They maybe bitching and moaning about it but there doing it and in the end Hassy still wins and i will buy into that same closed system when i have the funds ready.

 

Don't be so sure. Phase One is still outselling every back maker by a wide margin and their installed base dwarfs the proprietary H3. Hasselblad may have thought they where the only game in town, but their arrogance may backfire on them and create more effective competition for them then they would have had otherwise. Even without the Hy6 and Mamiya, there are enough used Conatax and Hassy systems out there to keep the medium format market supplied for years. Messing with your customers can have many unforseen and unintended consequenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tummydoc
What many fail to realize is Leica is actually helping the end user by using there coding system just imagine if they completely switched the mounts ergo Canon .

 

Nevermind changing the mount, they could have glued a microchip into a milled recess in (or through) the mount. Using a system of simple painted wells was like a huge gift to customers. Even if using nearest-substitute codes (or non-Leica IR filters) doesn't completely eradicate the cyan drift, it still allows the lenses to be identified in EXIF so the user can file them together by lens and run them through batch actions.

 

As an aside, it's interesting to note 20+ years after the EOS mount was created and there were many angry defections, that today Canon EOS provides the only current platform for using Nikon, Leica-R, Olympus, Contax and Pentax lenses on a full-frame DSLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the inappropriate words used in my posts and please, there's no need to treat my posts seriously.

 

Taking pictures is just one of my many hobbies ... there're always many things to make me happy. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I agree Hank and it certainly can bite them in the butt down the road. Until Phase can hook directly up with a camera system. Reason i still have not jumped yet is things are changing on a hourly basis in MF. There move in my opinion was over the top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a Pentax junkie (other than their digital spotmeter which I love) but how old is the K mount? And how old is the M mount?

 

Now you've got me, Mark. LOL

 

K mount was created in 1976 but, there was M42 since 1949 right?

and Pentax lets you use at least one other manufacturer's lenses without an adapter. I've heard some other mounts can be used on the K10D without an adapter as well but never tried it myself. Note ... this is with metering, focus confirmation ... almost everything except AF of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...