Luxury Brand or High End Tool Maker?

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rugged build quality, efficient design, excellent imaging, convenient size...how can you go wrong? Honestly, I'd buy any brand that offered these, and I can prove it...I bought an EPSON (!!), and then an M8.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

...In the relatively brief heyday of the rangefinder (1950's, 1960's) there were quite a few competing brands (Canon and Nikon being among them). Leica was a premium-priced brand even in those days...

How many photogs did realy use Canon and Nikon RFs in the USA 50/60 years ago?

Very few in Europe as far as i remember. The RF market was dominated by Leitz and Zeiss Ikon and their prices were roughly the same if i recall correctly.

But Leica bodies were innovative then...

 

[dseelig]

Robert Frank used a leica for the Americans ,Mary Ellen Mark , Larry Clark, Jim Marshall shot rock and roll with a Leica all the great street photgraphers used leicas. David

[hankg]

Let me put it this way. The best tools always command a premium. But that permium is as a result of their functional excellence. Not for the rarity of the gold plated, lizard skinned limited edition of which only x number where made.

 

So it is not an issue of price. But you do things differently when you serve photographers then when you are serving collectors and the "luxury" market. If your focus is photographers making the camera as accessable as possible and increasing your user base is desirable. If you are a luxury brand, you don't want the Shiek who just bought the anniversary set seeing working stiffs walking around with the same camera as it would diminish it's status value.

[ken_tanaka]

Hey, terrific ad, LCT. You must have a collection of photo mags!

 

Here is some Canon history from Canon's online museum, starting from the end of WWII. It's fascinating that Leica's M3 caused Canon some astonishment.

 

A site called MIR has a short history of Nikon rangefinders.

 

I'm just a bit young to accurately recall 1950's photo trends. (I was alive but not yet interested.) I do, however, recall the 1960's which was the wane of the rangefinder. Nikon and Voigtlander were the two brands I saw the most. My father had a Leica from his amateur photographer days. I never saw him use it. For that matter, I didn't even know he had it until after his death. I'm sure it had a story but he never told it to me.

[dannirr]

So it is not an issue of price. But you do things differently when you serve photographers then when you are serving collectors and the "luxury" market. If your focus is photographers making the camera as accessable as possible and increasing your user base is desirable. If you are a luxury brand, you don't want the Shiek who just bought the anniversary set seeing working stiffs walking around with the same camera as it would diminish it's status value.

 

I think this is exactly right. However, it is possible to serve the luxory market at the same time you are providing a high quality product that is simply better than anything else - and thus desired and used by some (or many) in the non-luxory catagory.

 

Danni

[rwfreund]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a penchant for pens as well as cameras.

If the parallel holds, Montblanc used t be a good pen company, the maker of a very good tool.

Over the past several years, Montblanc's pen quality has dropped significantly and it has diversified into a seller of a large number of overly priced junk.

 

Leica is struggling with a transition, and nobody knows it it will survive it. Many of us here do our part by buying their stuff.

 

Once Leica shows any evidence of building, for example, a Leica branded jewlery line, that would be the signal to abandon ship.

 

-bob

[lct]

...I'm just a bit young to accurately recall 1950's photo trends. (I was alive but not yet interested.) I do, however, recall the 1960's which was the wane of the rangefinder. Nikon and Voigtlander were the two brands I saw the most...

Born in '46 myself but in the sixtees i saw very few Nikon and Voigtlander RFs in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and UK. Japanese products were considered as second-rate products then. I mean before the advent of the Nikon F at least. Others might have a different experience or a better memory though.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Born in '47:) I could see a lot of Leica professionals switching to Nikons. Not the F, but a bit later to the F2(A). None of them switched back to leica for earning money with the camera.

 

Bernd

[lct]

I was referring to rangefinders, not SLRs. Did you see many Nikon or Canon RFs in Germany then?

[ken_tanaka]

Born in '46 myself but in the sixtees i saw very few Nikon and Voigtlander RFs in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and UK. Japanese products were considered as second-rate products then. I mean before the advent of the Nikon F at least. Others might have a different experience or a better memory though.

Very interesting! I should, of course, have noted that my own observations were entirely in the U.S.

 

Indeed, Japanese goods were considered cheap junk for quite a time after WWII. The exception seemed to be optical products such as cameras and binoculars. These were generally regarded as high-precision and high-value Japanese products, particularly products from Nikon.

 

Of course, my name is "Tanaka".

[sean_reid]

Robert Frank used a leica for the Americans ,Mary Ellen Mark , Larry Clark, Jim Marshall shot rock and roll with a Leica all the great street photgraphers used leicas. David

 

Robert Frank is still using his Leicas. I would argue that much of the best and most important small format photography made in the 20th century was made with Leica cameras using lenses by various companies. It's interesting that most of these photographers were not (are not) wealthy and worked with Leica because of function and not status. The list includes:

 

Robert Frank

Helen Levitt

Garry Winogrand (often with Canon and other lenses, as well as Leica)

Henri Cartier-Bresson (family wealth but he was an exception)

Josef Koudelka (sometimes slept in his car)

Danny Lyons

Lee Friedlander

Walker Evans (for most small format work, incl. subways)

 

the list goes on forever.

 

Frankly, it's been helpful to me to realize that people do indeed come to these cameras (and this forum) for what are, sometimes, very different reasons. Some are people who love and appreciate fine things (cameras, lenses, cars, pens, watches, audio equipment, etc.) and can afford to buy the fine things that they want. There's certainly nothing wrong with that and this group has been very good to Leica over the years (and will continue to be). They've done a lot to help Leica stay alive. I can appreciate that outlook just as I can appreciate a museum of beautiful classic cars.

 

There are others whose interest in Leica is driven primarily by function. A rangefinder is the right kind of tool for some photographers and the M8 is, in my mind, the best and most versatile DRF one can buy. I'm rather brand-agnostic, I buy what works best for making my pictures, no matter who makes it. It didn't bother me a bit that my R-D1s said only "Epson" on the front - couldn't care less. While I can certainly appreciate the pleasure many take in owning fine machinery, technology, etc. that isn't the highest priority for me. I care about art in general and pictures in specific. I do a lot of travelling by motorcycle and, there again, I care more about the activity of riding itself and about the trips than I do for my motorcycles (per se).

 

Where I think we sometimes get into trouble on this forum is when certain people don't seem to understand that their priorities are not everyone else's priorities. I often wish that some would give a little more breathing room here for people who may have different priorities in photography and who may hold different viewpoints.

 

I may be in a minority with this view, but I would like to see the M8 be as accessible to as wide a range of photographers as possible. I care more about it as a functional tool than as an example of "a fine thing". We don't know yet who the 21st century Winogrand will be but I'd like him or her to be able to have the option of using a Leica M8/M9 etc. If that photographer can make successful pictures with the $300 lens he or she can afford to put on the M8 - great.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest Bernd Banken]

I was referring to rangefinders, not SLRs. Did you see many Nikon or Canon RFs in Germany then?

 

Sorry,

 

no RF from Nikon or Canon I could see at those times.

 

Bernd

[johnastovall]

Robert Frank is still using his Leicas. I would argue that much of the best and most important small format photography made in the 20th century was made with Leica cameras using lenses by various companies. It's interesting that most of these photographers were not (are not) wealthy and worked with Leica because of function and not status. The list includes:

 

Robert Frank

Helen Levitt

Garry Winogrand (often with Canon and other lenses, as well as Leica)

Henri Cartier-Bresson (family wealth but he was an exception)

Josef Koudelka (sometimes slept in his car)

Danny Lyons

Lee Friedlander

Walker Evans (for most small format work, incl. subways)

 

the list goes on forever.

 

<Snipped>

 

 

How can people keep forgetting David Douglas Duncan and his M3D Leicas....

[ken_tanaka]

A couple of years ago on the original Leica forum I recall a lengthy thread in which many folks pondered the question of whether a "digital M" would affect a resurgence in rangefinder photography. As you would expect on this venue there were many who projected that it would revive the genre. Others, including me, forecasted that the advent of such a camera would unquestionably be a significant event, probably creating a spike in Leica's lens sales in addition to a wave of digital M buyers. (At the time it was widely expected that the camera would retail for the $3,000-$4,000 range.)

 

In the wake of the M8's introduction, and its rather heftier price, it's hard to see what effect it's had. We'll have to wait a year or so to get a good picture. To my eye it looks as if mostly the usual suspects have been the predominant M8 customers so far. The fact that cameras are readily available so soon after its introduction suggests that demand has slackened after the initial tsunami.

 

Nevertheless, the M8 represents the first digital alternative to the slr (and p&s). I very much enjoy mine (and am even considering getting a 2nd to reduce lens changes --- I'm not even a doctor!) and I know that others here feel the same. I don't think our "investment" is at risk. I didn't buy the camera with any eye toward re-salability. I wanted the basic Leica rangefinder platform in digital. If it facilitates my capturing a few extraordinary images it's recouped my cost as far as I'm concerned.

 

Personally I think that the best way for the digital rangefinder to have a future is to introduce genuine competition. I was sorry to see Epson give up on the R-D1. Wouldn't it be terrific to see Nikon or Canon enter the market? I know it won't happen and the M8 will have to stand on its own. But it's fun to consider.

[hankg]

How can people keep forgetting David Douglas Duncan and his M3D Leicas....

 

And there are more, and a more still a few about today. It's the images that keep the brand viable with photographers. It would be a tradgedy if Leica abandoned that great heritage.

 

Your perspective on this can color your opinion on what specific actions Leica should take. You can view the unanticipated IR problem as an opportinuty to make the M8 more 'exclusive' or you can see it as a blow to Leica's plan to broaden it's base and get the camera into the hands of more photographers like those on the list. In that case you would think it is a priority for Leica to do what ever it takes to undue the negative impact of this issue on the original promise of the camera. I think Leica's identification with luxury watchmakers and pen makers by so many says a lot as to how far they have fallen and how much ground they have to make up.

[sean_reid]

How can people keep forgetting David Douglas Duncan and his M3D Leicas....

 

I was trying to remember his first name earlier...thank you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

I don't think our "investment" is at risk. I didn't buy the camera with any eye toward re-salability. I wanted the basic Leica rangefinder platform in digital.

 

Perhaps investment was a poor choice of words. For collectors cameras are an investment which they hope will appreciate or heirlooms to pass down to future generations. For photographers cameras are a capital expense. The value of which is recouped not principally in resale value but in images produced.

 

I was refering to the financial expense and risk when you commit to a system/platform. You are really tying your wagon to the manufacturer and their future has a real monetary impact on your own balance sheet.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LichMD]

Sean,

 

well stated.

[sean_reid]

A couple of years ago on the original Leica forum I recall a lengthy thread in which many folks pondered the question of whether a "digital M" would affect a resurgence in rangefinder photography. As you would expect on this venue there were many who projected that it would revive the genre.

 

I still think that's quite possible. We won't know for several years. To be sure, however, the fewer barriers there are to owning and working with an M8, the more likely it is to be adopted by photographers (including many on this forum) who are fairly new to rangefinder photography. I wouldn't expect rangefinder cameras to become as popular as SLRs but I wouldn't be surprised to see growth in the number of photographers working with DRFs and perhaps even some DRF competition down the road.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean