earleygallery Posted March 4, 2015 Share #61 Posted March 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So it's a marketing flop, rather than something inherently wrong with the camera. I have the T and I like it - it's the perfect companion to my more "manual" M cameras - it has AF, it does video, it has a zoom, it can be a point and shoot, and it takes my M lenses. The image quality is very good, it uses a high quality 16MP Sony sensor. What's not to like? In terms of market failure, I think Leica has done pretty much everything to make it stand out, other than using its CMSOSIS full frame sensor. It has a distinctive body, it has the luxury appeal Leica likes to push and it is very innovative in the user interface (which is really very good) - only problems, snobbish comments about an "average" sensor and, of course, the price. I suspect the problem is the price ... I've never been a fan of the T. I think it's simply overpriced and underwhelming. I'm sure it's fun to use and takes nice pictures, but so does the Canon M I bought last year (of which I will write more later). Yes Leica's are more expensive than other brands, but if you buy a Leica M you're buying something unique. The T doesn't offer anything over the many other APS-C mirrorless cameras out there, apart from a designer label and bling body - for some that's enough to justify buying and that's fine, but I never believed that there were enough of those people to make the T a viable long term product line for Leica. I was told I was very wrong - but it seems maybe not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here New Leica CEO?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 5, 2015 Share #62 Posted March 5, 2015 Well, designer label, bling body and a rather innovative interface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted March 5, 2015 Share #63 Posted March 5, 2015 Leica needs to add something more than the bling bling to justify the price. The T main faults are imo no ff and no incorporated EVF. The added features to the M are a distraction but the model that needs a few extras does not have them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
planner Posted March 5, 2015 Share #64 Posted March 5, 2015 I hope that the good doctor will raise Leica functionality closer to the level of Leica magic without destroying the latter - if this is indeed possible. I note that his start date is April Fools Day. Hopefully, this is not prophetic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dáithí Posted March 5, 2015 Share #65 Posted March 5, 2015 It appears that the new CEO's background is in computers, not precision optical products. I find myself hoping that this will not be like the fiasco at J.C Penney a large mid-market retail chain in the US (If you are British think Marks and Spencer). JCP decided to bring in Ron Johnson as a new CEO as he was allegedly a marketing genius who had created the Apple Stores for Apple. Johnson proceeded to try to turn each store into a store filled with individual shops organized by brand or designer. He also dropped a several of the long term house brands of JCPenney clothing. he did not attract new customers and worse he alienated the large customer base of long term customers who simply wanted quality shirts, slacks etc that looked good and fit. JCPenney fired Ron Johnson after 17 months but are still having great difficulty bringing the regular long term customers back into the stores. Financially the firm still has problems As a long time Leica owner I am concerned. I like the idea of getting a digital body that will work with my collection of fine M lenses but am holding off until I can be sure that I will not be buying a product that will be orphaned shortly after I buy it. Leica products tend to last a long time. I still sometimes use the Leica D (Leica II) that my dad bought new in 1936 for B&W if I also want to use my MP for color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted March 5, 2015 Share #66 Posted March 5, 2015 i think incoming CEO Oliver Ketzlar is quite well aware & informed about the big pair of boots left by Alfred Schopf & which he has to fill. we wish you all the very best & thank you to you both! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2015 Share #67 Posted March 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've never been a fan of the T. I think it's simply overpriced and underwhelming. For me, compared to the M(240), the T is in the right place. It's an electronic camera - innovative interface and does all the electronic things well in practise. And yes, it takes nice pictures. I agree it's over-priced, but comparing it to a CaNikSony isn't the point. That argument applies to any Leica camera. The D810 does way more than the M(240), 36MP, etc etc. if you want a Canon, Sony, Nikon, get one. Many millions of people are happy with them. I want a small, state of the art camera that plays nicely with my M lenses and complements my M cameras. The T does that very well and is a totally different package to the competition. The Sonys I've had failed miserably in that respect. I like the camera and I like the images it produces. I use it a lot. You prefer something else, that's fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 5, 2015 Share #68 Posted March 5, 2015 I agree it's over-priced, but comparing it to a CaNikSony isn't the point. That argument applies to any Leica camera. The D810 does way more than the M(240), 36MP, etc etc. if you want a Canon, Sony, Nikon, get one. Many millions of people are happy with them. I disagree - the M cameras are the only 35mm or digital rangefinders on the market. The M is not a competitor to a Canon or Nikon DSLR it's a totally different type of camera, as I'm sure you're aware. The T however has competition from just about every other camera manufacturer out there, most of whom provide more innovative, and less expensive alternatives, if you can live without the polished body and red dot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted March 5, 2015 Share #69 Posted March 5, 2015 Please restore the R series. I can only wish, I will quickly dump my M240 for a Digital SL or R10. The M240 is a beautiful camera but I have always prefered the reflex system. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2015 Share #70 Posted March 5, 2015 So why don't you use Leitaxed R lenses on a Nikon or Sony? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted March 5, 2015 Share #71 Posted March 5, 2015 the Apple Stores for Apple I wonder about the Leica Stores, is there enough foot traffic to sustain them? Or are they just a Brand Building exercise? Perhaps is makes sense if you integrate a Service element, and offer other products such as printing and even developing. I struggle to find a place to develop color film, other than the supermarket, a mail in service with a known brand would be wonderful. They have a very powerful Brand, its too expensive perhaps, but it does not have to be that way. The lower end cameras, from Panasonic, represent great value these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted March 5, 2015 Share #72 Posted March 5, 2015 I wonder about the Leica Stores, is there enough foot traffic to sustain them? Or are they just a Brand Building exercise? The ones I know of in the US, appear to be a collaboration between a local dealer and Leica, with the dealer running the operation. The San Francisco and New Yok-SoHo branches are actually Camera West and Kurland Camera, respectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 5, 2015 Share #73 Posted March 5, 2015 E. Puts recently posted this article re: Leica's future, with more to come. Not a pretty picture for the new CEO. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2015 Share #74 Posted March 5, 2015 Yes, that is what Erwin has been saying for some years now. I think it is an astute analysis, lacking one thing: a vision of the future. Looking at the Porsche analogy, it may be sobering to consider Volvo and Jaguar. Both managed to divert the direction of the company from traditional to contemporary , but both orphaned their traditional customer base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted March 5, 2015 Share #75 Posted March 5, 2015 So did Saab and look what happened to them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2015 Share #76 Posted March 5, 2015 Well, they did not manage to make the transition and lost both there core customer base and the future one. I mean, if we are looking for examples we have Rover losing direction and Morgan surviving by being stubbornly traditionalist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted March 5, 2015 Share #77 Posted March 5, 2015 I wonder about the Leica Stores, is there enough foot traffic to sustain them? Or are they just a Brand Building exercise? Perhaps is makes sense if you integrate a Service element, and offer other products such as printing and even developing. I struggle to find a place to develop color film, other than the supermarket, a mail in service with a known brand would be wonderful. They have a very powerful Brand, its too expensive perhaps, but it does not have to be that way. The lower end cameras, from Panasonic, represent great value these days. The Leica Stores is a part of a global strategy in which the products, and the prices, are the other pieces of the puzzle. The idea, very similar to Apple's strategy, is to focus on high margins products. Mass electronic products are not in Leica's radar. That is correct. Apple has a small share of the smartphones market but 90% of all the profits in that market! But the idea may work for Apple and not for Leica, due to diverse reasons. Leica does not build sensors of processors, but Apple does not either. The problem is in the type of products. Apple manufactures in Taiwan and China, and sell products for which people want to pay high prices, for the moment. Leica tries to do the same, but they sell cameras manufactured in Europe, and cameras are being replaced by smartphones for snapshot use. The camera industry is sinking. Not to disappear, but to the marginal role it had before the digital revolution. Only true aficionados will buy a camera. Cameras are not trendy anymore. It does not matter if the camera is reflex, mirrorless or rangefinder. For 10 years, from 2000, cameras were mass electronic products. Many people never interested in photography bought one or more cameras in that decade. That is gone forever. This has an impact on T and M expected sales. The professional segment is banishing too, for different reasons. Professional photography was linked to paper journals and magazines. The ubiquity and immediacy of digital photography and the slow sinking of paper-based publications is affecting photography as a profession. This affects S sales. The S system best change was to offer a medium format system at prices competitive with the professional offerings of Canon and Nikon. But Leica adopted instead as a reference Hasselblad and super wealthy aficionados. I think is difficult to sell a T camera or a S camera to somebody out of a Leica Store. But Leica Stores are a filter. People going there with money in the wallet for buying a camera is very special people. They don't care about discounts, megapixels, etc. They want exclusivity, luxury, maybe reliability, etc. This is the point in which Leica's strategy is failing, assuming it is failing. They cannot attract enough people to those boutiques. Maybe there is not enough people willing to buy a complex, old-fashioned $8,000 camera or a big reflex-like $26,000 camera. And the potential target is the same people who expends $6,000 in a purse or a watch, or much more than that in a car. Maybe cameras are not fashionable items anymore. Maybe rich people don't want to have a camera with them, but they buy gold phones and gold watches. Anyway, selling Leica cameras at regular stores is difficult due to the prices. The prices are insane. The reliability and subpar technologies (sensor cleaning is a major problem in digital photography) are important problems, but not the reason of low sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 5, 2015 Share #78 Posted March 5, 2015 Yes, that is what Erwin has been saying for some years now. I think it is an astute analysis, lacking one thing: a vision of the future. Looking at the Porsche analogy, it may be sobering to consider Volvo and Jaguar. Both managed to divert the direction of the company from traditional to contemporary , but both orphaned their traditional customer base. Not so Jaguar - they were always a progressive company. The E type was groundbraking, as were the Mk11 and the later XJ saloon. The E type was replaced with the XJS, a strikingly different design when it was introduced in the mid 70's (and which drew much criticism at the time). Jaguar's design team rested on their laurels of the superb XJ saloon and after an initially more 'modern' squarer design for the XJ40 they reverted back mimicking the XJ Series lll for subsequent models, and even the MKll for the S type saloon, but their position in the market started to slip, until (after some ownership changes along the way) they released the new XJ/XF/XK/F ranges. Jaguar have harked back to the E type for styling cues in the F type but it's a very modern sports car. The latest XJ is a unique new design (well, new-ish now!). Leica's charm is also it's problem. If the Leica M were a new Jaguar, it would be a 1960's design MKll but fitted with radial tyres, power steering and sat nav. A minority would love it, but for the majority of buyers it would be too old fashioned to compete with the latest BMW's and Mercedes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 5, 2015 Share #79 Posted March 5, 2015 Well, they did not manage to make the transition and lost both there core customer base and the future one. I mean, if we are looking for examples we have Rover losing direction and Morgan surviving by being stubbornly traditionalist. I like the car analogies Rover and Morgan are both good examples of where Leica could end up, unless they dare to tread a different path. They could plaster the Leica brand on everything (as Rover did, calling an Austin Metro a Rover!) just to get sales, churn out underwhelming products in the hope that the brand name sells them (Leica T) and rely on made over outdated designs (more M editions) without investment in new design/innovation, falling further and further behind in the market until the inevitable happens. The alternative is to stick to a very niche core product (the Leica M range) and rely on a very small customer base of die hard enthusiasts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted March 5, 2015 Share #80 Posted March 5, 2015 That's what I wonder about. Apple is one thing, their stuff does cost more, and it is better (electronically), but its still affordable. Leica has that too with the Panasonic stuff ... and the T was reasonable priced too. But what do people really want? The failed X-Vario marketing (mini-m) and M-60 positive response would suggest that people just want an affordable camera. Not a digital camera, just a camera, that takes photos. Leica can do that too, its nothing to do with German costs ... its where they have placed the brand. IMO Leica is caring too much about being exclusive and not caring enough about what people want; a good quality camera that will last 10 years and take photos. Something closer to a BMW than a Porsche. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.