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

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You three are so easily distracted .

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

John, I agree with most of your post but I wouldn't put Sony photography in the same class as Canon and Nikon.

 

Sony Photography provide very innovative products (ie the A7S, compact FF sensor cameras compact RX-1, curved sensors on the way), are linked with Zeiss for optics, have huge R&D expertise and resources, and are only one component of a huge corporation.

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, that's all very true. And they're the biggest sensor producer for cameras. But, if I recall correctly, they are also suffering from the downturn in the photography market.

 

This has nothing to do with the quality of their products.

[semi-ambivalent]

The band-aid of effective cheap credit is EoL and you can't expect people to upgrade en masse to yet another expensive camera (away from DSLRs).

 

People want the camera to do everything (their phone), or everything very well (their DSLR). They don't want to think and they don't want to have to work too hard. They want easy pretty, which is easy and what digital promises. Just buy the same filters everyone else uses. That's Flickr; everyone vomiting into the same bucket, a hundred million times a day.

 

Modern communication has rendered the whole world's imagery familiar. The day of exotic palaces in the Hindu Kush is over and with it the globe-trotting journalist, and his scarf. My son can take a selfie on a fourteen thousand foot mountain summit and send it to Canton in less time than it takes me to open a box of Tri-X. That same selfie has all the content and quality that Gannett or Fox or Murdock wants or is willing to pay for. Their readership doesn't seem to notice or care.

 

Leica would sell more stuff if it wasn't so expensive. I think they could do this without jeopardizing the brand's value. The unit lifespan stinks because that's what getting into bed with digital ends up being. This doesn't change the fact that Leica had to; just like all the others. Have a look-see at the industry's financials, they're ugly. Nikon's especially so. But 'the camera for a lifetime' business is, for most, finished.

 

All comments are pointless unless you have access to Leica's financials, and the good Dr. is too smart for that. That's why he owns Leica and I don't. It's also why Leica can probably weather a severe downturn much better than huge-volume manufacturers like e.g. Canon, that need huge volume sales. Whatever one might think of Leica cameras, the Leica brand is a jewel. But I do worry about that big Chinese locomotive running out of coal.

 

Buy an M-A and sit tight. The masses don't really need ISO 10000.

 

s-a

[thompsonkirk]

Wise words from s-a.

 

Following MarkP on Sony's R&D and products: I can read some new writing by Sony on the wall of my particular niche.

 

I'm a Leicaholic and a bit of an Image Quality Freak. The M240 didn't appeal to my sense of color or sense of value, so I stayed with M9s. Recently I've turned from street shooting (color) to BW landscapes, perhaps for age-related reasons. My MM recently left me for warranty repairs (loose mechanical parts), but just before its trip I borrowed an A7r. I made identical tripod shots with my MATE on both bodies. In full-frame 15x22.5" prints, the A7r BW conversions were distinguishable from the MM prints only in some quite tiny tonal details. I can see them with a loupe and occasionally with the naked eye, but perhaps not in a print on the wall.

 

This is the writing that doesn't look favorable: competing light gear with equal IQ and reasonable handling; use of Zeiss and some Leica M lenses, plus all R lenses – and a fraction of the price. I can use either body for landscapes with WATE and MATE. These developments push me toward the outer limit of 45 years Leica use. If Leica announced an M360 or an MM2, I'd want to compare what Sony was currently offering.

 

Re: financials, I suppose Leica will survive as an important logo in the luxury goods market, as the flowering of Leica boutiques suggests. But unless they move soon to more appealing sensors, higher ISOs, and hybrid viewfinders, I'd agree with Puts about a declining appeal to committed photographers.

 

Kirk

[Rick]

Wise words from s-a.

 

Following MarkP on Sony's R&D and products: I can read some new writing by Sony on the wall of my particular niche.

 

I'm a habitual Leica user and a bit of an Image Quality Freak. I've recently turned from street shooting to landscapes (mostly for age-related reasons). My MM is currently in NJ for warranty repairs (loose mechanical parts), and I borrowed an A7r just before its hospital trip. I made identical tripod shots with MATE lens and both bodies. In full-frame 15x22.5" prints, the A7r BW conversions were distinguishable from the MM prints only in some tiny tonal details that I had to strive to recognize. I can see them with a loupe, and occasionally with the naked eye – but perhaps not in a print on the wall.

 

This is the writing that doesn't look favorable to me: competing light gear with equal IQ and reasonable handling; also Zeiss and some Leica M lenses, plus all R lenses – and a fraction of the price. I can use either body for landscapes with WATE and MATE. These developments push me to the outer limit of 45 years Leica use. If Leica announced an M360 or an MM2, I'd want to see what Sony did next.

 

I suspect Leica will continue as an important logo on the luxury goods market, as the burgeoning of upscale Leica boutiques indicates. The problem is imminent loss of an edge for more committed photographers.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk,

 

This all makes no sense from a pixel peeping viewpoint. Or a loupe peeping viewpoint in your case. If you enjoy shooting the A7r with a MATE manual lens more on the Sony than the Leica, that is fine, it is time time step into the fiddly world of manual lenses on the A7r.

 

Myself, I just can't get into using manual lenses on the Sony A7r, not to mention the compressed sony RAW files, the sub-par mount, the vibration prone shutter, and the way too wide focus peaking. For a self proclaimed "Image Quality Freak," you, I'd think you would notice these things?

 

You can always play the Leica "luxury goods market, as the burgeoning of upscale Leica boutiques " card, but it just doesn't get any traction with me. Leica is all about the highest quality lenses. Don't distract me with boutique smoke. Combine those amazing Leica lenses with the simple manual M240 with excellent sensor and you arrive at a system that just can't be beat by anything Sony has tried to cobble together so far with their "system."

 

Image quality from the M240 and Leica lenses are unmatched by Sony. Name one example where Sony + any lens can out run the Leica M system from an "Image Quality Freak" standpoint. I'd really like to know, because I can't find one.

 

Rick

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I wouldn't care to argue with you about it. I was just writing about the lack of major differences in medium-sized exhibition prints, and what Sony's competitiveness and R&D might mean for a small company like Leica in the future. Feel free to disagree – neither of us has spent time looking at one another's prints, and neither has a crystal ball.

 

Kirk

 

Oh, BTW, I do have a couple of very simple resolution/tone test prints of MM and A7r with MATE @ 28mm (center-to-edge portions of a print of the size I mentioned). If you're concerned with evidence of how nearly the raw files approach one another, I'd be happy to send one along.

 

K

[k-hawinkler]

Well, I wouldn't care to argue with you about it. I was just writing about the lack of major differences in medium-sized exhibition prints, and what Sony's competitiveness and R&D might mean for a small company like Leica in the future. Feel free to disagree – neither of us has spent time looking at one another's prints, and neither has a crystal ball.

 

Kirk

 

Oh, BTW, I do have a couple of very simple resolution/tone test prints of MM and A7r with MATE @ 28mm (center-to-edge portions of a print of the size I mentioned). If you're concerned with evidence of how nearly the raw files approach one another, I'd be happy to send one along.

 

K

 

Thanks Kirk. I would be very interested to have a look. TIA.

[Rick]

Well, I wouldn't care to argue with you about it.

 

K

 

Hi Kirk,

 

Me neither. I reread my post and my tone was way too strong. Sorry. And, I do believe you about the prints you made.

 

I had the A7r and I will answer my own question about name one lens on the A7r +lens that beats the M240. When I wasn't getting shutter vibration I have some M240 beating shots of the cityscape of Seattle done with the A7r + Leica 280/f4.0 APO that are just jaw-dropping for color/tonality/sharpness.

 

Rick

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, Rick, for your kind apology.

 

And perhaps I should have placed more emphasis on the narrowness of my current niche: BW landscape photography on a tripod with a Monochrom - not the 240 sensor. My MM, with L bracket, is sort of a 35mm view camera – except that I 'post-visualize,' seeing what's actually in the frame via playback rather than on ground glass or LCD. And I use only wide-angle lenses. I was carrying around a bunch of them and am just now scaling down to WATE, 25 Zeiss, and MATE.

 

Full disclosure of how I arrived at my admittedly narrow opinion:

 

I ordered an A7r when they were announced, but returned it for A7 when we began to realize how few M lenses could cover either Sony sensor without tinting and smearing. I posted a number of threads here and on RFF about lenses that did and didn't work well, and also acquired a set of Zeiss-for-Contax DSLR (retrofocus) lenses for A7. I've stayed in touch with Sony mainly by using A7 with 40 Cron as my color snapshot camera.

 

When I turned to BW landscapes with the MM I also experimented with a Piezo printer to decide how to print them (decided against piezo – long thread about this on RFF). These are my image-quality concerns, more than direct pixel-peeping.

 

So when my MM got sick, I already knew the limitations of the two Sony models and the Leica lenses I could use with them. I missed a chance to buy a backup MM at a good price and borrowed the A7r from a friend (who happens to be a color consultant and uses it almost interchangeably with an 800e). He'd long been of the opinion that I'd wasted $$ on the MM, because the larger Sony files could compensate in some measure for the Bayer pattern interpolation, and I was trading off the individual LR/PS BW conversion sliders as a means of tonal control.

 

When I borrowed his A7r (and avoided shooting from 1/4 through 1/125 second), I assumed I was just looking to see how much worse the A7r would be than the MM. I wasn't too happy to find that in 15x22.5 prints, the differences/tradeoffs were minor and fell within the area of differences of taste. With more processing than it took just to compare raw files, I think I could have used files from either sensor to make just about equally strong exhibition prints.

 

So it's in this narrow area of experience that I agree with Puts and am confident that Leica needs to watch out for Sony's recent and forthcoming models, their ability to craft their own sensors, and their budget for R&D. I find the A7/r clumsy from the standpoint of buttons and user interface, but the A series is doing the 'Seabisquit' thing – while uglier and poorer in pedigree, it can still pull up neck-and-neck with Leica for my kind of BW.

 

And then only after all this did I learn that my MM sensor is subject to the same frailty as the M9's!

 

Kirk

 

http://kirkthompson.visualserver.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=17645

[sandro]

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

[NZDavid]

...Is Leica doomed unless they start spewing iPhones out of Wetzlar with red dots and ASPH lenses that are priced at $149.95 and sold at every Wal Mart, K Mart and Target?? :roll eyes: ...

 

Great idea! Now when will they hit the shelves?

[Hariseldon]

From a technical point of view the M240 has a first class sensor and if ISO is important than I find the M240 is good to ISO3200 and my Nikon D4 is good to 6400, not a huge difference in the real world. In other respect the M240 was a major step forward from the M9 and with the new models like the T, Leica are innovating and moving forward.

 

The M240 could be quicker when used as a mirror less EVF camera but compared to my Olympus OMD EM1 the images produced by the Leica are streets ahead, the major area we may see a major improvement on the M would be some form of electronic focus confirmation from the rangefinder.

 

Long term the Leica M is capable of producing great images and will continue to do so for many years, for every picture application there is no perfect camera and like most people I have multiple cameras but on a shoot using the three cameras mentioned the images from the Leica stand out, I probably take more images with the Nikon but invariably the bulk of the best images will come form the Leica.

[barjohn]

I don't think any of us would disagree with the statement that of the various elements that go into photography today, that is, sensor, electronics hardware, software and optics, Leica has the optics down as well or better than anyone. By optics, I only mean the lens design and manufacture. The problem is that isn't good enough today and it will be less so tomorrow. In the past, they could also claim the highest quality mechanical bodies but this too is becoming less relevant. The digital age makes the quality of the bodies less relevant because within a few short years the internals will be obsolete and parts will no longer be made so maintaining a camera for decades no longer makes sense. Look at any segment of the electronics market and it quickly becomes evident that an item purchased as little as 3 years ago can easily cost more to service and fix than to replace with a new model with better performance and features. A simple example is my 50" Pioneer Plazma TV went out due to a circuit board failure in the power supply, the cost to try and repair it would easily exceed $600 if I could find someone that had the card as it is no longer manufactured and parts are nearly impossible to find. A new LCD 50" TV can be had for $600 and it has a warranty and many features that were not available back when I bought the Pioneer.

 

My point is that it requires a different way of thinking about products. People will pay a premium for what they perceive is a nicer design, higher quality product within limits because in the back of their head is the notion that in two or three years I will probably replace this with a better one.

 

Electronics and software performance along with sensor advances is what will drive the future market. This is where Leica has failed to a large extent. Whether it is the M240 or the Leica T, theya re like a company that has an idea but then becomes too timid or incapable of going all-in. For example, on the T they could have gone for a FF sensor (the throat is certainly big enough), they needed a much faster processor and the firmware could have been done better. Finally they could have built in an EVF or OVF to further differentiate the product. It appears that they were so trepid to dip their toes in the water that they were not willing to risk going a larger sensor and they didn't want to cover the cost of faster electronics even though they were charging a premium price. Just think what they could have done if they had gotten the Sony A7s sensor and the faster electronics that sony has, built in the same EVF that was externally mounted and kept their new interface with some minor tweaks. That camera would be flying off the shelves.

 

Lastly, they need to get the cost of their lenses down. Companies like Zeiss, and Sigma are producing lenses that match or exceed Leica performance in all but the most exotic lenses and doing it for a fraction of the cost and price.

 

Based on my observations around the Internet and talking to salespeople in the local camera stores, I would guess that Leica sales are down considerably and continuing to decline. Maybe sales are better in Europe or Asia but that is how it appears to me on the west coast in southern California. As they open more retail stores, their overhead increases and sales must increase and expand. Leica needs new products that are not plagued with issues and that outperform the competition to justify and demand a premium. I don't care which product thread you chose here, there are long threads on issues with the cameras and issues with service. The new potential customer coming to this site to decide whether to buy a new Leica is likely to leave with serious doubts and if they do go and buy a camera, they are quickly disappointed when they find the performance (not necessarily IQ) does not match the lesser priced camera they were also considering.

 

Time will tell...

[carbon_dragon]

I have used digitals including the Canon 5D, the Sony A350, and the Nex7 and what caused me to buy an M9 was a combination of the image quality and more importantly, the user interface. I do like the ability of an EVF to look at the taken image with higher quality, but easy manual control of the camera as well as good Aperture automation and a simple menuing system is what I really like about the M9. And perhaps modern premium lenses from Canon and Sony and Nikon can compete with Leica glass, but there is certainly nothing inferior about Leica glass and only the price to worry about.

 

I also have an iPhone and no camera has a worse user interface (for photography) than the iPhone. Yes it has a pretty decent image quality but I wouldn't put it up against even a small camera such as the Sony RX100 mk3 and remember that camera is about $800 and the iPhone is not that much less if you don't buy it on contract.l The people who use an iPhone to take pictures would never have been a candidate for a Leica (or a Canon or a Nikon). A good photographer can use an iPhone to produce a pretty good shot if he works hard enough at it but you'd have to be mentally damaged to give up a Leica M for an iPhone.

[Rick]

...if they do go and buy a camera(M), they are quickly disappointed when they find the performance (not necessarily IQ) does not match the lesser priced camera they were also considering.

 

Funny, I thought IQ was the final measure of performance?

[tntrue]

As a serious hobbyist for over 30 years, but as someone who's become a total Leica convert only in the past year, I probably have a different perspective from others in this forum.

 

The writings of Mr. Puts were what led me to first try R-mount lenses on mirrorless bodies a few years ago. I have a lot of respect for what he writes as well as the manner in which he writes. And I see nothing in his essay with which I disagree. Perhaps the "writing on the wall" is indeed portentous, but doesn't Leica have a long history of altering that "writing" for the better?

 

Having owned and ditched a number of mirrorless bodies over the past few years, it's practical considerations rather than myth that drew me to Leica. Go into the field with a 280mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R mounted (via Novoflex) on the "flexible" mount of a Sony A7r and you'll begin to understand my perspective. Watch the disproportionate incremental changes in "ISO" on a Fuji X-E1 as you change the aperture on your lens. Put a long lens on a micro 4/3 body and shoot it shutter priority/auto ISO under cloudy skies. Try the immediate foregoing with *any* of DXOmark's highly-rated sensors. Then do any of the above with an M, and maybe you'll understand why, in terms of both practicality and image quality, the writing on the wall is of not of concern to some shooters.

 

That said, any of the above-referenced bodies are all capable of superb images, especially when used in specific shooting circumstances in which they excel. Much of what I read in online fora nowadays has to do with what various pieces of gear *can't* do. For me, it's more pleasurable to see what a piece of gear *can* do well, and then exploit the hell out of its strong points. And for the kind of shooting I do, the M has plenty of those, yielding no cause for concern about the state of the industry in the immediate future.

[PeterD]

I'm not so sure what Puts means with the Leica myth. There are several special traits of Leitz and Leica camera and lens through decades:

- the smallest and fastest camera of the world

- a certain style of photography balancing between photojournalism and a surreal or special way of seeing in which HCB's work is central

- the best lenses

- the best lenses wide open

- the thinnest depth of field with high IQ

- a style of photography that could be described as anti-AUTO-everything

- the best Bo-keh lenses, lenses that give depth to the image, etc.

 

From an economic point of view Leica has suffered a lot in the past few years and it needs something that will address newer photogs' needs and desires in order to maintain its position in the photographer's psyche as the pre-eminent piece of photographic apparatus. It now has several other brands to cope with that can offer Leica quality (or near-Leica quality) at a fraction of the cost.

 

Higher prices may maintain margins for a while, but they shrink the market available to you in the long term. What Leica needs is to expand the uniqueness of its "way of seeing" to a new generation. Unfortunately their model doesn't permit it to adapt as rapidly as the new markets demand. Therefore there has to be some change.Without it there is a real possibility that Leica will not make another ten years. That is a very depressing thought.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ALD]

Leica will be making M cameras for many years still to come.

 

Technological leaps occur all the time and we still have a few of those ahead of us.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I'm not sure that a photo exhibition can foretell the future. The camera market is shrinking as a whole because more people are making photos with their phones, and finding that having a separate camera is less of a need. The phone represents the ultimate miniaturization of the camera in that it shrinks the entire camera into another device, and then creates new functions by virtue of that integration.

 

Leica and other camera makers don't make a camera that is primarily a phone, and so don't compete in that market. With fewer cameras being sold (or rather, more being sold integrated with phones), it is quite possible that we'll continue to see fewer camera makers. However, it seems equally clear that not everyone will be satisfied with a phone as a camera. So a non-phone camera market will continue, and within that market there will be various segments and niches.

 

Yes, the role of the Leica is being taken over by the smartphone, but the role of the Leica was largely taken over by many small cameras long before that, starting in about the 1960's. Leica survived a very long time during which there were a plethora of cheaper and easier to use alternatives. So it seems that being a niche product for cognoscenti is viable survival strategy.

 

Don't forget the new Panasonic CM1 camera phone with Leica spec. / designed lens … Leica Camera AG does diversify.

 

Panasonic DMC-CM1 smartphone/camera hybrid is heading to the UK | Expert Reviews

 

dunk