Leica M success

[mca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone have data on the success of the Leica M when compared to the Leica M9 in 2009 and 2010 (in terms of sales)?

 

I was discussing this with a friend the other day and he mentioned that he thinks sales are not going well because there are always cameras in stock at local shops where in the M9 era they always had a few months waiting list. I couldn't find any data about this to support either view.

 

This basically serves to prove or disprove our views, where I think Leica is having a moderate success in reinventing itself and building brand value and he thinks Leica is a bit lost and out of ideas for it's future and at these price points it could be digging it's own grave.

 

any thoughts on this?

[jaapv]

Leica had increased production capacity considerably even before moving to Wetzlar. I think we can expect more expansion and production flexibility in the future.

[garygraphy]

Having products on the shelves hardly indicates a poorly performing product.

 

This could suggest that Leica finally worked out manufacturing inefficiencies.

[adan]

First, since Leica is now privately owned and no longer has to put out public business reports, we'll likely never know for sure.

 

Second, as already mentioned, Leica's production capacity has likely improved.

 

Third, I think the proposition that "...in the M9 era they always had a few months waiting list" is not really accurate. At least in the U.S., while there was definitely a backlog for the first 18-20 months, M9s were generally available in stores for the last year or more of production.

 

The shop where I work ordered four M240s at the time of announcement. And it took over a year to receive all four cameras. So the M240 was also wait-listed for a significant period - not that much different from the M9.

 

Fourth, the M9 was the "paradigm shift" - the first full-frame digital M, on which a 21mm acted like a 21mm, and a 35 f/1.4 produced "35 f/1.4 pictures". As such, it commanded an unusually high demand. Its availability (or lack thereof) was abnormal, not a standard by which Leica sales in general, or in future, can be judged.

[250swb]

Andy makes a very good point.

 

It is a naïve assumption to think that the M240 will sell as many as the M9 (although its extra features may go some way towards this target). There are many people still happily using their M9, M9P, M-E, or MM. It is the same as sales were when Leica only made film cameras, unless there was a compelling reason to use a newly introduced feature people held on to what they had. This diluted new camera sales amongst current customers and Leica would hope to pick up some new customers with the excitement of a new product. True some people change or 'up grade' almost automatically, just as they might if a new model of their car was introduced, but you can't expect everybody to automatically replace an M9 with an M240. With the M240 being the true second generation full frame from Leica they are back to selling cameras as they always have, some loyal customers skipping one or even two generations before feeling compelled to 'up grade'.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Quite correct, and this is opposed to the sales pattern digital cameras in general up till recently.

 

I think that the trend is changing with the more traditional cameras like the Canon 5D, with people using an “old” model for longer periods, as the development curve has certainly flattened.

Leica, producing the most traditional digital camera of all will certainly notice this change.

 

The frenetic upgrade carrousel is now mainly running in the mirrorless segment, with Sony trying to get it to spin as fast as possible.

I think it won’t last, with the T being a game changer in this respect. Durably built, not relaying on gimmicky features and with a proven excellent sensor it is built for more leisurely upgrade cycles.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it won’t last, with the T being a game changer in this respect. Durably built, not relaying on gimmicky features

 

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. IMO, far from being a game changer, the T is an unproven entry into a quite saturated consumer market. It has a strong brand and a "gimmicky" touchscreen interface but that's about it. I already get the sense that the initial excitement and interest has faded now that it is yesterday's "new thing".

[nameBrandon]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. IMO, far from being a game changer, the T is an unproven entry into a quite saturated consumer market. It has a strong brand and a "gimmicky" touchscreen interface but that's about it. I already get the sense that the initial excitement and interest has faded now that it is yesterday's "new thing".

 

I agree with you. Not to take us off-topic, but I still do not understand the reason for the 'T' to exist. If they had priced it competitively I could understand it (as perhaps a value-line vehicle into the Leica brand), but I can't see anyone jumping from the major mirrorless players to the 'T', given the cost and the radical departure from 'normal' camera operation, when most of the big players already allow for adapting Leica glass.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the T is a serous misstep for Leica.

[mca]

(thank you for moving my post, I wasn't sure where I should post this topic)

 

Thank you very much for your views, they are certainly quite sensible and make very much sense to me (regarding the M and M9). Increased production capacity and having passed the initial few months delay (production ramp up period?) and also the european crisis (customers who can't upgrade?) and even the happy M9 users who don't feel the need to upgrade, all of these make a lot of sense.

 

Personally, I admire what Leica is doing, because they took a company with a death sentence (film camera manufacturer dying with the advent of the digital world) and transformed it into the digital world creating a brand with value, recognition and status. Many companies could not do this and ended up dying, of which Kodak is probably the best example, whereas Fuji did the exact opposite. I see Leica more or less following the Apple strategy, even though it's a small business with hand made products as opposed to a mass market manufacturer: premium brand, the best quality of materials and construction in the business and even their own line of stores (Leica Stores seem to be very much like Apple Stores).

 

As for the T, even though it looks like a nice camera, I too don't understand exactly what Leica is going for. Maybe it's the second camera for M shooters, as I believe most digital M shooters also have smaller cameras in their kit and most of them probably aren't Leica made. If their intention is to compete with Sony, Fuji or even Olympus in their APS-C or Micro 4/3 cameras, then I think the T is overpriced and will not sell very well because of that.