Erwin Puts: " Leica can not disregard the writing at the wall"

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Carlos began this thread with some quotes of Erwin Puts. Over the years many of us have asked the others what exactly Puts meant, when they were quoting some of his lines. His tone very often is that of someone who knows what Leica apparently does not yet know or understand (according to Puts), yet his main occupation circles around Leica products (for many years). I read his lens reports and I benefit from them, but I always wonder why he feels he has to take this mysterious position of someone who understands the world of photography far better than Leica does.

So a new question would perhaps be: what is Puts telling us that we didn't already know?

Lex

Well, maybe Mr. Puts is not telling us what he knows... At least not all of it. But it does influence his thoughts.

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

Well, maybe Mr. Puts is not telling us what he knows... At least not all of it. But it does influence his thoughts.

 

So that he can say next year that Leica listened to his warnings?

[timde]

On the other hand the fact that they are firmly established in their niche with the M offers them protection from competition.

 

They have a niche for expensive cameras, with no direct competition to the Rangefinder other than the demographics of the customer base.

 

But they _do_ have competition for the M and its very direct from Zeiss, not even remotely subtle. Manual focus classic lenses that integrate completly on modern digital bodies, digital bodies that also work with Autofocus lenses, have EVF's built in, and every electric trick you will never need

 

I'm getting an A7 and Loxia lens in the new year ... and an m-mount adapter Will take a look at the next M too, but I'm part of that shrinking demographic which remembers film and rangefinders.

[jaapv]

So that he can say next year that Leica listened to his warnings?

Not really - knowing him I can safely say that that is an aspect that does not interest him in the least.

[foto2021]

If Erwin Puts' warnings about Leica are true, they are even more true of DSLR manufacturers. If there is no need for a Leica M rangefinder camera and lenses, there is even less need for bulky and heavy DSLR bodies with massively bulky and heavy lenses.

 

I think there is still room in the photographic market for Leica M. People now start out in basic photography with a smartphone camera but it leaves many people wanting more - better optics, better sensors and more creative control. Some of those wanting more will find their way to Leica. As long as enough of them do, Leica will survive and even prosper.

[biglouis]

I became dissatisfied with Leica digital and film M cameras and lenses when for a period of two years I was smitten with medium format film.

 

Sadly, two things brought this sojourn to an end. Firstly, as my spine completes its sixth decade of service there is much pain involved in toting anything heavier than a CSC.

 

Secondly, I purchased a Sony RX1. This is going to sting as far as Leica aficionados are concerned but in my opinion Sony sensors are currently the best available. They have great dynamic range, good colour draw and sharp details. I could not believe it the first time I shot a landscape and the sky was perfectly reproduced. One of the dissatisfactions I had with my M8 - compared to film - is that I had to choose to expose for the sky or the shadow detail.

 

It is ironic that in my case I sold all my Leica gear, invested in film equipment, then for medical reasons having had to abandon film and return to CSC-based digital cameras, I have just completed purchasing the range of Leica lenses I used to own.

 

Why have I re-equipped myself with Leica M lenses?

 

The reason is the appearance of the Sony A7r.

 

In this forum, for years, the same request has been made. Please, Leica, give us a mini-M. A sort-of digital CL. Well, I am sorry to say that Sony has beaten Leica to it. They have proved that you can put a high quality FF sensor into a small CSC and that it is adaptable to a range of lenses.

 

If Leica want to survive, imho as a systems camera maker then they need to finally stop fudging around, with products like the X and the T and give their users what they want. A FF CSC with a M-bayonet mount.

 

I agree with Puts, the writing is on the wall.

 

Yes, Leica might possibly survive as the 'Hermes' of the camera world but it would be the death of the user base they currently have and very much subject to the dangerous whims of fashion which can leave any product manufacturer high and dry.

 

The only way they can survive in the long run, imho, is to develop a product that 'out-Sony's' the A7/r. Build a base of camera system owners and they will want lenses.

 

Just my two cents.

 

LouisB

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I became dissatisfied with Leica digital and film M cameras and lenses when for a period of two years I was smitten with medium format film.

 

Sadly, two things brought this sojourn to an end. Firstly, as my spine completes its sixth decade of service there is much pain involved in toting anything heavier than a CSC.

 

Secondly, I purchased a Sony RX1. This is going to sting as far as Leica aficionados are concerned but in my opinion Sony sensors are currently the best available. They have great dynamic range, good colour draw and sharp details. I could not believe it the first time I shot a landscape and the sky was perfectly reproduced. One of the dissatisfactions I had with my M8 - compared to film - is that I had to choose to expose for the sky or the shadow detail.

 

It is ironic that in my case I sold all my Leica gear, invested in film equipment, then for medical reasons having had to abandon film and return to CSC-based digital cameras, I have just completed purchasing the range of Leica lenses I used to own.

 

Why have I re-equipped myself with Leica M lenses?

 

The reason is the appearance of the Sony A7r.

 

In this forum, for years, the same request has been made. Please, Leica, give us a mini-M. A sort-of digital CL. Well, I am sorry to say that Sony has beaten Leica to it. They have proved that you can put a high quality FF sensor into a small CSC and that it is adaptable to a range of lenses.

 

If Leica want to survive, imho as a systems camera maker then they need to finally stop fudging around, with products like the X and the T and give their users what they want. A FF CSC with a M-bayonet mount.

 

I agree with Puts, the writing is on the wall.

 

Yes, Leica might possibly survive as the 'Hermes' of the camera world but it would be the death of the user base they currently have and very much subject to the dangerous whims of fashion which can leave any product manufacturer high and dry.

 

The only way they can survive in the long run, imho, is to develop a product that 'out-Sony's' the A7/r. Build a base of camera system owners and they will want lenses.

Just my two cents.

 

LouisB

 

We do not know that Leica do not have such a camera in the pipeline; rumours suggest that the 'R' solution might be announced - but it could also be a FF 'M' mirrorless body …and not reliant on a Sony sensor.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-r-leica-flex/353123-possible-new-leica-r-camera-solution.html

 

dunk

[audiophileguy]

The disruptive aspect of camera phones has already been discussed----and will continue to be an increasingly huge factor in the world of amateur photography, especially point and shoot. It seems, however, that there will always be a small market segment of folks who simply love to take pictures with a real camera. With the exception of professional photographers, all who buy cameras are purchasing a discretionary item that is not required for food, shelter, or other sustenance.

 

It appears that camera sales trends are not all that different from the sales trends of other luxury goods or discretionary purchases. In virtually every discretionary consumer goods category, the luxury brands are doing extremely well, the entry-level and budget brands are also doing very well, and the middle price / performance categories are suffering horribly. If we continue to see a small but dedicated group of people who love shooting with a real camera, I would expect Leica to maintain good market presence as part of the highest / premium segment (M and S categories), but perhaps not so well in Leica's entry level categories. This is because Leica's entry level price points are (for most consumers) actually more in the category of mid-market, mid-priced products. Those who can afford mid-market can also afford (and are moving up to) the very best, and those who cannot afford mid market are settling for budget (mostly Chinese or Korean built) products in all types of consumer goods categories.

[gberger]

audiophile guy wrote: The disruptive aspect of camera phones has already been discussed----and will continue to be an increasingly huge factor in the world of amateur photography, especially point and shoot.

 

Yeah, the camera on my iPad Air 2 produces some nice "point and shoot" images, and I can send these out right away via cellular or wifi. Not Leica, not "professional," not album-worthy, but just "point and shoot" on the spur of the moment.

[LocalHero1953]

Leica's problem with camera bodies is that for years they have had little competition in their particular niche: compact, full frame, reduced-to-basics, high IQ photography. The absence of competition, IMO, has resulted in larger, heavier and pricier bodies. (As an aside, I have never understood why going digital has meant, for Leica, going large and heavy, the opposite of virtually every other electronic system).

 

The new Sony A7ii sounds like it could offer the first real competition (though still with a complex interface and low compatibility with wider M lenses). I hope this will induce Leica to look at weight and bulk as major challenges - as well as price.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Leica's problem with camera bodies is that for years they have had little competition in their particular niche: compact, full frame, reduced-to-basics, high IQ photography. The absence of competition, IMO, has resulted in larger, heavier and pricier bodies. (As an aside, I have never understood why going digital has meant, for Leica, going large and heavy, the opposite of virtually every other electronic system).

 

The new Sony A7ii sounds like it could offer the first real competition (though still with a complex interface and low compatibility with wider M lenses). I hope this will induce Leica to look at weight and bulk as major challenges - as well as price.

 

Because no other FF digital camera includes a rangefinder … there has always been, and continues to be, demand for a digital rangefinder body. Can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot. Digital rangefinders were Leica's ticket to profitability.

 

dunk

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, but the rangefinder, as you point out, has always been there. It's not a reason for increased weight and size.

[pop]

Yes, but the rangefinder, as you point out, has always been there. It's not a reason for increased weight and size.

No, but the digital parts are.

[adan]

(As an aside, I have never understood why going digital has meant, for Leica, going large and heavy, the opposite of virtually every other electronic system).

 

Hmmm - ever compared a Nikon D4/D800/D600/DF to a Nikon F or F2 or F3?

 

Or a Canon 1D or 5D to an old Canon F-1?

 

Or an Olympus OM-D to a Pentax 110-format SLR (same image area, 13mm x 17mm)? http://lowendmac.com/digigraphica/11dg/art/pentax-auto-110.jpg

 

Leica managed to produce a digital "replica" of their 35mm film cameras with only a 10% increase in weight and volume. Who else achieved that?

 

Now, if you are speaking of digital things in general, not just cameras, then yes, digital technology usually makes things smaller, as one learns how to pack more and more stuff onto a chip (e.g. a 64Gb SD card is 1/8000th the size of 8000 original 8Mb SD cards, with the same capacity).

 

However, that can't apply to imaging sensors - a FF image sensor is going to be 24 x 36mm, no matter how advanced the digital technology.

[Jeff S]

All of that, plus the larger and heavier battery. Until Leica sources an equally performing 'mini-battery', I'll take the trade-off of added pics (and efficient processing) for a bit more bulk.

 

I actually prefer the size of my M240 to now 'skinny' feeling film Ms, but that's just me. The fact that Leica even came close is remarkable, given that it wasn't long ago when indications were that a FF M, using legacy lenses, was not possible.

 

Jeff

[biglouis]

I wasn't suggesting Leica make a pared-down, reduced size range finder (e.g. the CL).

 

The only sensible product would be a fully digital body with a FF sensor and a M-bayonet adapter. That way they won't cannibalise their range finder products.

 

I'm only surprised some enterprising company hasn't come up with a mount replacement service to make your A7/r a native mount Leica body.

 

LouisB

[IkarusJohn]

I find my daughter's X1 hopelessly small, the T about as small l as I want, and the M cameras about right. Size is not my issue with the M(240).

[dkCambridgeshire]

I find my daughter's X1 hopelessly small, the T about as small l as I want, and the M cameras about right. Size is not my issue with the M(240).

 

 

Many might ask , 'Why 'hopelessly'?" … No need to build an APS-C camera any bigger than necessary - and it's pocketable.

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mantice]

No, but the digital parts are.

 

And this has to be taking care of for newer generations/users.

 

The digital world has been doing exactly this; so either chase it hard, or come up something innovated other than the existing rangefinder mechanism.

 

Diminishing tiny lens, Diminishing optical superiority, and semi-reliable rangefinder mechanism is what's keeps me holding M240, and I am still optimistic, for now.

 

Just my 2-cents

 

[LocalHero1953]

Don't get me wrong, I know WHY digital Ms are bigger than film Ms, but small size was definitely one of the selling points of the original film Leica (screw and M), and it is still important for me. Most other cameras were not sold on the attractions of small size, though the Olympus OM-1 and Pentax MX sold like hot cakes when they first appeared, BECAUSE of their small size compared to other contemporary SLRs.

 

But I still do not believe that a digital camera should necessarily be bigger and heavier than a film camera. Better integrated design (cf Apple) and custom chips are the features that have driven miniaturisation in other devices and would, I believe, work with cameras. But perhaps the sales figures do not support the level of R&D needed.