CEO Alfred Schopf and future products

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I entirely accept (and have said many times) that the M8 was a necessary evil (no pun intended) - it saved Leica by the skin of their teeth after they were stung into doing something by Epson (that well known photographic manufacturer... ) but it was a kludge. Look at Mark Norton's "anatomy of" thread and remind yourself of how primitive the electronics were, the solders, the components...

 

To re-brand the filter fiasco a "feature" is revisionist thinking worthy of the Chinese Communist Party. Those of us who were around at the time remember the howls of frustration and derision when blacks came out purple... others seem to have very short memories. The M8.2 got there, but only after a lot of pain. I know it is human nature to gloss over these "teething problems" but they should not be ignored. The M9 was a massive improvement, but the M has it's detractors (I have no opinion, other that it is bloated physically and functionally and therefore not for me). The X series - well, the X2 was an advance on the X1 but, the XV - oh dear... It is simply not competitive. The world has moved on.

 

Today, Leica is making "high quality" (debatable) high price (subjective) highly reliable (really?) products out of elderly components, with dubious, and in some cases, "follower" functionality. They are beautifully crafted, lovely to handle, but oh so frustrating because they require the photographer not just to compromise but to compensate and therefore to change what they want to do based upon the limitations of the tool.

 

Nothing is going to change. Leica will do what they want. But they are in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant and that pains me greatly.

[mjh]

For a company churning out one crappy product after another, Leica is doing surprisingly well.

[wattsy]

Yes, the need for IR filters should never be touted as a "feature", particularly because Leica appeared to have been as much surprised by the problem as were the early buyers. The later issuing of filters was also clearly a sticking plaster solution. However, I think the M8 was (and is) an excellent camera. It retailed at what now seems a very reasonable £2950 and is capable (especially at base ISO) of taking photographs of extraordinary quality. Far from being "junk" I happen to think it is a bit of a classic.

[Stealth3kpl]

I think for a small company, Leica does surprisingly well, and has quite a range of cameras. They help maintain the validity of holding the lenses as assets. I do wish there were a Steve Jobs/Bill type there barking "it's too big" or "It's too glitchy" whenever a prototype is brought to the party. Still, these are things they can work on over the coming years.

Pete

[Paul J]

For a company churning out one crappy product after another, Leica is doing surprisingly well.

 

Well in what sense? Well at churning out average products that are well marketed? or well at creating products whose performance live up to their price, marketing, competition, expectations. I believe one to be long lasting, one has relevance.

 

I don't think Leica is doing too badly at all with their products, I just want to see them do more. I actually want the performance to match, relatively, to the price. I understand that is a difficult position to maintain but sometimes - there is no trying, just doing. Any other ethos for a brand that is positioned like Leica is not worth entertaining, IMO.

 

I'm more than happy with high prices if the products are worthy.

[derleicaman]

This thread has been interesting reading. One thing for sure is that hindsight is 20/20. It amazes me that all the armchair CEOs know exactly what Leica should and should not do.

 

The reality is Leica is a small company compared to the Japanese giants. They cannot draw on scores of mechanical and electrical engineers, software engineers and optical designers like the Japanese do. Yet, they still come up with some amazing products. The Japanese cameras are techno marvels, but you need to wade through menu after menu to do the simplest things. With the Leica, you intuitively use it pretty much the way you always used your film M camera and get excellent results.

 

In my association with Leica over the years, the company has always been on the edge of going under. I was an enthusiastic owner of the M5 as a teenager. That was the first "big mistake" from Leica that almost killed them off. BTW I still have that camera and if I was still shooting film it would be used on a regular basis. Years later, I was at the Photokina intro of the M6 as a Leica dealer. I purchased one of the early production cameras used at the intro. I still have that camera and it is still going strong.

 

It is absolutely amazing to me how they have soldiered on. I can't even remember all the CEOs I have known at Leica and what a revolving door that has been. I recall very vividly when the German banks called in Leica's notes. This was at a PMA show when I was set to interview for LHSA Viewfinder the new CEO at that time, Ralf Coenen. Next thing we knew, everyone from Leica Germany left for the airport. Interview never happened. This resulted in Leica selling off a lot of their heritage from the museum just to make the banks happy! Talk about an embarrassing low point.

 

Enter Dr. Kaufmann. He provided the funding so sorely needed to enter the digital age with the M8. Leica had to overcome some major technological challenges just to make it viable. But it did work and it was a start. At the time, Leica was still in the mindset that a Leica camera was a lifetime purchase. They were seriously talking about continual upgrades being retrofitted to the M8 once you purchased it. Well, that certainly didn't work out. I had a pre-production M8 for several months to evaluate before the unveiling at Photokina 2006 and I regret not noticing the IR problem with black materials. No one did! That was embarrassing and the response of CEO Steven Lee didn't help much and he ended up being tossed out of the company. I kick myself for not reporting the IR problem to Solms, but I chalk it up to my own inexperience with digital at that time. I was still primarily using my M6 TTL and MP at that time. I also shot a lot of images with the M8 set at ISO 1250, but surprisingly got some phenomenal images set that way. Everyone "knows" the images will look like crap at that setting. I have a 20x30 enlargement in my office I took at night of the Dom in Cologne at Photokina 2006 that would knock your socks off even today. The problems with the M8 that I did report were the rangefinder being off with some of my lenses and having problems accurately framing and composing with the frame lines in the viewfinder.

 

The M9 really brought the company back and a return to the black after so many years in the red. It made the expansion and move back to Wetzlar from Solms possible. Yes, the M camera is limited and not the be-all end-all for everyone. But the Leica never was. I've been listening to the naysayers for the past 40+ years. Their Nikon is better, Their Canon is superior. OK, for them. Give me my Leica any day. With all their supposed superior resources, why is it that the "big boys" still can't come up with a viable competitor for the M? After wandering the wasteland for several years using several pro Nikon dSLRs, I took the plunge and bought my M9-P last spring and haven't looked back since. For me, the M9 is just about perfect. Who knows what the future may bring?

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A voice of reason. Thank you.

[stunsworth]

Yes, the need for IR filters should never be touted as a "feature", particularly because Leica appeared to have been as much surprised by the problem as were the early buyers

 

I can't believe that Leica were unaware of the issue. The simplist of tests would have shown the problem. I still think that the release of the M8 was dictated by financial/marketing, rather than engineering, decisions.

 

I'd prefer not to use filters I admit, but I'd probably hang on for an M rather than buy an M9.

 

However, after saying that, I'm still using the M8 I bought just after launch. The only problem I have is that it sometimes says the SD card is locked when it isn't. Blowing into the SD slot sorts that out, so I assume it's a sticking switch somewhere inside.

[IkarusJohn]

Very nice summary, Derleicaman.

 

I too love my M9 & Monochrom. But I'm not sure I get the point of your post, in the context of the topic title. Are you saying that Leica's future products should be M9s, M6s or M5s?

 

We get that they should not be Japan style dSLRs. I don't think anyone here is advocating that. What almost everyone is railing against is a "me too" product that competes with the Japanese. We all, here, want the M camera to continue to succeed, and also the S camera. The problem is at the other end.

 

There is a place for the purity of thought, elegance of design and image quality of the M camera in that gap. The problem is Leica isn't and hasn't engaged that level of thought, or the bravery that marked its best products, in this market sector.

 

So, what are you saying? We should simply trust Leica, and not express an opinion for fear (Oh, my God) of being branded armchair CEOs? I'm sorry if I missed your point ...

[stunsworth]

Are you saying that Leica's future products should be M9s, M6s or M5s?

 

I think it's just a run-down of an individual's previous purchases to indicate their commitment to the brand.

 

I've been hearing about the imminent demise of Leica since I first started buying their cameras in the 90s. I'm sure such worries have been expressed since the widespread introduction of SLRs in the 60. As things stand they're probably healthier now that they have been in the last 50 years.

[wattsy]

I can't believe that Leica were unaware of the issue. The simplist of tests would have shown the problem. I still think that the release of the M8 was dictated by financial/marketing, rather than engineering, decisions.

 

Whilst they must have known about the sensitivity, I get the impression that Leica were caught on the back foot by the public reaction to that sensitivity and were rushed into coming up with the filter solution. As is well known now, one or two of the well known reviewers did not pick up on the problem and Leica probably assumed that their regular customers would be similarly relaxed about it.

[NJH]

So in what area is it "fair" to criticise Leica...?? In your opinion?

 

 

Things like the seemingly poor live view implementation on the latest M as one example, or the many other QC and similar details discussed at length on these forums are all fair game.

 

OTOH a previous poster was heavily criticising Leica for being technologically behind the Japanese and I don't think that point is fair for a number of reasons. For one its not necessarily true anyway when one considers the corner and edge performance of the M system. The point I made about MMI was for another specific reason as it has seemed to me that some Japanese companies care about little more than getting the latest tech features into their products. Actual operability as a tool for taking photographs seems to come second. The Olympus Super Control Panel is a great example of a company that just can't be bothered to work on their MMI since they wrote some firmware for E series DSLRs several years ago. Leica is different and I fell for their products because they do have a different approach. Like others I want them to be Leica but be better at it.

 

Lower prices would of course be nice .

[jaapv]

Whilst they must have known about the sensitivity, I get the impression that Leica were caught on the back foot by the public reaction to that sensitivity and were rushed into coming up with the filter solution. As is well known now, one or two of the well known reviewers did not pick up on the problem and Leica probably assumed that their regular customers would be similarly relaxed about it.

Which actually makes it a marketing error. It may be that Leica was lulled into a sense of security by the non-reaction to a similar, albeit slightly lesser, IR sensitivity of the RD1 and Nikon D70.

[lct]

Much lesser i would say. R-D1, D70 & M8.2 user speaking.

[wattsy]

Which actually makes it a marketing error. It may be that Leica was lulled into a sense of security by the non-reaction to a similar, albeit slightly lesser, IR sensitivity of the RD1 and Nikon D70.

 

Considerably lesser, though noticeable (at least in the case of the RD1). I also disagree with you that the sequence of events from launch of the M8 to the later introduction of free IR filters necessarily indicates a "marketing error" (unless you are going to start twisting semantics like you usually do).

[jaapv]

Well, I was one of the very first owners and amongst the first two or three to identify and solve the problem by getting a filter*, so I think I know what I am talking about. I got the strong impression Leica was taken utterly by surprise, and find it unbelievable that the tech department was not aware of this. So the only conclusion is that there was a breakdown in communication within Leica or it was deliberately ignored. In both cases that must have been the marketing department. Take your pick.

The free filter thing came weeks later, because Leica had trouble finding a supplier for the number needed.

You are forgetting, too, the beam-me-up-scotty banding ( first reported by me), high-ISO banding, and green blobs (which I never saw) which held up production for about two months and needed a recall.

 

Still, considering the enthusiastic following the camera still has, after more than seven years, it is hard to call it a failure.

 

 

Sean Reid had side-by-side test early 2007. Possibly still on his site. The RD1 was surprisingly bad in this respect, as it was worse than the Nikon, despite using the same sensor. Of course both were less affected than the M. I’ll happily drop the unquantifiable “slightly” if that gets you out of bad mood you always get into when somebody actually agrees with you;)…

 

*Helped by the fact that I had been wrestling with this on a D70 previously, so it was not by brilliance but by luck….

[earleygallery]

This thread has been interesting reading. One thing for sure is that hindsight is 20/20. It amazes me that all the armchair CEOs know exactly what Leica should and should not do.

 

The reality is Leica is a small company compared to the Japanese giants. They cannot draw on scores of mechanical and electrical engineers, software engineers and optical designers like the Japanese do. Yet, they still come up with some amazing products. The Japanese cameras are techno marvels, but you need to wade through menu after menu to do the simplest things. With the Leica, you intuitively use it pretty much the way you always used your film M camera and get excellent results.

 

In my association with Leica over the years, the company has always been on the edge of going under. I was an enthusiastic owner of the M5 as a teenager. That was the first "big mistake" from Leica that almost killed them off. BTW I still have that camera and if I was still shooting film it would be used on a regular basis. Years later, I was at the Photokina intro of the M6 as a Leica dealer. I purchased one of the early production cameras used at the intro. I still have that camera and it is still going strong.

 

It is absolutely amazing to me how they have soldiered on. I can't even remember all the CEOs I have known at Leica and what a revolving door that has been. I recall very vividly when the German banks called in Leica's notes. This was at a PMA show when I was set to interview for LHSA Viewfinder the new CEO at that time, Ralf Coenen. Next thing we knew, everyone from Leica Germany left for the airport. Interview never happened. This resulted in Leica selling off a lot of their heritage from the museum just to make the banks happy! Talk about an embarrassing low point.

 

Enter Dr. Kaufmann. He provided the funding so sorely needed to enter the digital age with the M8. Leica had to overcome some major technological challenges just to make it viable. But it did work and it was a start. At the time, Leica was still in the mindset that a Leica camera was a lifetime purchase. They were seriously talking about continual upgrades being retrofitted to the M8 once you purchased it. Well, that certainly didn't work out. I had a pre-production M8 for several months to evaluate before the unveiling at Photokina 2006 and I regret not noticing the IR problem with black materials. No one did! That was embarrassing and the response of CEO Steven Lee didn't help much and he ended up being tossed out of the company. I kick myself for not reporting the IR problem to Solms, but I chalk it up to my own inexperience with digital at that time. I was still primarily using my M6 TTL and MP at that time. I also shot a lot of images with the M8 set at ISO 1250, but surprisingly got some phenomenal images set that way. Everyone "knows" the images will look like crap at that setting. I have a 20x30 enlargement in my office I took at night of the Dom in Cologne at Photokina 2006 that would knock your socks off even today. The problems with the M8 that I did report were the rangefinder being off with some of my lenses and having problems accurately framing and composing with the frame lines in the viewfinder.

 

The M9 really brought the company back and a return to the black after so many years in the red. It made the expansion and move back to Wetzlar from Solms possible. Yes, the M camera is limited and not the be-all end-all for everyone. But the Leica never was. I've been listening to the naysayers for the past 40+ years. Their Nikon is better, Their Canon is superior. OK, for them. Give me my Leica any day. With all their supposed superior resources, why is it that the "big boys" still can't come up with a viable competitor for the M? After wandering the wasteland for several years using several pro Nikon dSLRs, I took the plunge and bought my M9-P last spring and haven't looked back since. For me, the M9 is just about perfect. Who knows what the future may bring?

 

Just to correct you on a couple of points, the M8 came some time before Dr Kaufmann took control of the company. The M8 was released in 2006 and would obviously have been in development for a year or two prior to that. The Epson was announced early 2004.

 

I recall a 'first look' article on the M8 in BJP. Sample images showed a lot of dark purple clothing. I actually remarked to a colleague (who was into photography) about the odd colours, not believing that the clothes were actually all purple, and we both dismissed it as being due to the magazine print.

 

Later I read comments from the photographer concerned (sorry I don't remember who he was) that the issue was noticed and reported back to Leica, but for some reason it was decided not to mention it in the review.

 

My guess is Leica knew very well about it but were under pressure to release the camera and decided to press ahead - maybe they hoped for a software solution before it became a widely recognised issue? Clearly the filter fix was a fudge and not part of the master plan, it must have cost them dearly.

 

Yes Leica desperately needed a digital M, even though they'd said it would be impossible (until the Epson appeared). However their partnership with Panasonic was their 'cash cow' that enabled them to limp along during those difficult years when they were caught with their pants down having underestimated the take up of digital imaging and relying too much on Hermes edition M7's.

 

With the M8 and then the M9, suddenly Leica were serious contenders in the pro market again - I remember being at an event which was being covered by the press and there was a lot of interest by all the photographers in one of the guys M8 - he'd ditched the DSLR in favour of it.

 

My biggest concern is that Leica are once again veering towards the 'luxury goods' market of the darkest Hermes days. Leica were innovators once. They should be again.

[mwilliamsphotography]

So far, most of the posts here are focused on features and technology.

 

The Japanese products continue to be the comparison point, but I wonder if features and technological aids should be the point of reference?

 

In my 2 week test phase with the M240, I was struck by the refinements of the classic rangefinder, the much improved LCD, and the over-all simplicity and relatively silent operation.

 

I'm sure many of us favored the sentiments expressed by Derleicaman, reflecting a time when we bought a M and lived with it until is was a true extension of our minds. Probably the only "innovation" to a M that I ever really cared about was the addition of TTL metering missing on my M4 … LOL!

 

I wonder if digital has now reach a point where a 24 meg or so, FF Leica M could be a "keeper"?

 

In terms of "future products" what needs to happen to make that a reality?

 

 

For one thing, I'd suggest foregoing half baked technology … like EVFs that get outdated so quickly.

 

What Leica may be able to glean from the Japanese is modular electronics. As Roger from Lens Rentals mentioned in his tear down of the Sony A7, "They have made the camera very easy to repair".

 

For the most part, the M film cameras were simple reliable tools you could keep for a long time. Given the state of sensors these days, why can't the M digital be the same?

 

Then all "Wiz-Bang, Lego-Block,Tinker Toy, Billion Button" stuff can be put into a different Leica camera for the technophiles who change cameras as often as their cellphone and laptop.

 

Just a thought.

 

- Marc

[UliWer]

If you watch television - at least in Germany - you usually see magenta for black on certain clothes etc. and lots of moiré. They use digital cameras with CCD-sensors which don't have strong filters - and cost much more than even a Leica M8.

 

Those professional cameras obviously were the models for Leica's deviation from the mainstream of other digital photographic cameras: low filtering gives the better images - they thought and it wasn't completely wrong.

 

What they didn't think about in Solms was that "right" colours are at least as important for photography as high resolution. So reaction on the customer's side was much more critical against the M8 as it was and still is against TV-production. Not thinking about this was Leica's fault - and they had to pay for it during the first years of the M8 by lower sales. Now they learnt a little bit and compromised with thicker filters - still showing more magenta than a Canon does.

 

The Leica experience was based on optics which places highest resolution on top of all aims. It was not based on opto-electronics where many co-factors which work against your optical aims have to be considered as well.

 

Another lesson to be learnt by developing opto-electronics seems to be that you need an other lens design than before. Magenta was yesterday and (almost) solved, the "italian flag" still is a serious problem. A lens design which does not produce the "italian flag" needs larger openings for the rear lens, so the M-bayonet does not suffice any more.

 

Everybody who reminds us about the M8/magenta-problem and says at the same time that Leica should stand with the M-design should think once again. It might be that the lessons to be learnt for a modern digital camera system leed us straight away from the M-design.

 

Though since we are talking about Leica we will not see a sudden decision to dump the M and replace it by a new system, but they need a way out of it. Ernst Leitz II was against the M as he feared that his company's success was based on Barnack's camera. He was wrong. But he was right some 30 years before when he decided they would try a completely new system.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[derleicaman]

Just to correct you on a couple of points, the M8 came some time before Dr Kaufmann took control of the company. The M8 was released in 2006 and would obviously have been in development for a year or two prior to that. The Epson was announced early 2004.

 

You are correct that development had been going on for some time before Kaufmann appeared on the scene. He was certainly there at the introduction in 2006, along with the infusion of capital he brought.

 

My biggest concern is that Leica are once again veering towards the 'luxury goods' market of the darkest Hermes days. Leica were innovators once. They should be again.

You are correct that development had been going on for some time before Kaufmann appeared on the scene. He was certainly there at the introduction in 2006, along with the infusion of capital he brought.

 

I am certainly concerned about this as well. The prices for new Leica lenses are breathtaking! On the other hand, the specials, like the LHSA Special Edition cameras I worked on kept the company going for many years. Especially in those years when they were desperate for anything that would sell.