jaapv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #101 Posted March 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So you are saying S sales goes very well... above expectations... right?No - wrong. I am saying they went well, far above expectations over the past years. How they are going now I do not know, nor you, only Leica does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here New Leica CEO?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
peterv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #102 Posted March 6, 2015 The S is apparently used mostly by amateurs. Hi James, That may very well be true, but the same holds true for every other camera out there. From Phase/Hassy to CaNikon. Every 'pro' cam needs amateur-based clientele to sustain the product line. On the interweb, the amateurs are also the most vocal. Pro's have work to do: S-League Actually, I think Jaap is right and Leica sold more S stuff than they'd anticipated. And yes, they sold more to amateurs than Leica expected. If S sales were slow the last couple of months it may be because of the PK'14 announcement. But, the biggest problem for the S - which is a fantastic system that lots of pro's would like to own - is it's price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #103 Posted March 6, 2015 Leica's excuse for not developing a digital R camera was that they wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of Nikon and Canon. But then they release the T which competes with just about every manufacturer, but offers less in terms of functionality than pretty much every other option out there. Their strategy does, in hindsight, seem rather confused. Indeed, the problem with the T as I see it, is that it brings nothing to the table that other APS-C stuff cannot do, or indeed do better. Besides user experience, perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted March 6, 2015 Share #104 Posted March 6, 2015 Indeed, the problem with the T as I see it, is that it brings nothing to the table that other APS-C stuff cannot do, or indeed do better. Besides user experience, perhaps. The T is a great little camera. Lovely to use and produces stunning images. Contax produced far better cameras than Leica once but Leica still managed to do just fine, but then everyone purchased cameras.... Photography nowadays is going the same way as home audio. Most people use their iphone/iPod etc and only a very few pony up for a nice system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #105 Posted March 6, 2015 Hi James, That may very well be true, but the same holds true for every other camera out there. From Phase/Hassy to CaNikon. Every 'pro' cam needs amateur-based clientele to sustain the product line. On the interweb, the amateurs are also the most vocal. Pro's have work to do: S-League Actually, I think Jaap is right and Leica sold more S stuff than they'd anticipated. And yes, they sold more to amateurs than Leica expected. If S sales were slow the last couple of months it may be because of the PK'14 announcement. But, the biggest problem for the S - which is a fantastic system that lots of pro's would like to own - is it's price. The sales expectation at the introduction was 1000 units per year. Leica representaives in interviews repeatedly said that a multiple was sold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #106 Posted March 6, 2015 Yes, Jaap, that's the info we got during the past years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2015 Share #107 Posted March 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just responding to #93, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 6, 2015 Share #108 Posted March 6, 2015 It seems that all Leica sales, X, T, M & S have gone flat recently. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that any particular product line is a flop, when everything seems to be moving slowly. My view is that the S is always going to be unobtainable for most. Having held one and read the specs, I thought it was hugely impressive, and huge ... The M(240) is a completely confused puppy to me. It's neither fish nor fowl, and perceived as being technologically mediocre (eg, EVF), expensive, troubled with QC and lacking clarity (Leica's much touted Essentials). This, despite its apparent strengths of good sensor (for M lenses) and fabulous viewfinder and traditional form factor. The T as a purely electronic camera, and the best such camera with M lenses, does its job very well. From a market segment, I think it is the right camera for Leica to fill the gap, but it should have been full frame. I disagree with most of the criticism of the camera here - it's more appealing than the Fuji and Sony alternatives, but lacks the technological advantage of a superior sensor. The one it has is very good in practice, but it's the same as cheaper alternatives. Cameras like the M9 (full frame), Monochrom, M60 and M-A set Leica apart. I think they need that clarity and perfection. The elephant in the room is that selling fabulous bodies with indifferent electronics at huge prices doesn't really work, despite the wonderful glass that goes with it. The T lenses aren't in the same league as their M cousins, yet they cost a bomb. Conversely, the Zeiss lenses made for Canon, Nikon and Sony are very appealing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted March 6, 2015 Share #109 Posted March 6, 2015 The T lenses aren't in the same league as their M cousins, yet they cost a bomb. Conversely, the Zeiss lenses made for Canon, Nikon and Sony are very appealing. I might have given the T a go if only it's lenses ( which I believe are made by either Sigma or Panasonic ) were not in the same price class as M lenses. Also $1950 for the T 23/2 yet the X-113 body inc. 23/1.7 lens is $2295. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted March 6, 2015 Share #110 Posted March 6, 2015 I might have given the T a go if only it's lenses ( which I believe are made by either Sigma or Panasonic ) were not in the same price class as M lenses. Also $1950 for the T 23/2 yet the X-113 body inc. 23/1.7 lens is $2295. ... and you have a slow T zoom for APS-C format which requieres software corrections, made in Asia, for 1500 euros. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2015 Share #111 Posted March 7, 2015 It seems that all Leica sales, X, T, M & S have gone flat recently. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that any particular product line is a flop, when everything seems to be moving slowly. My view is that the S is always going to be unobtainable for most. Having held one and read the specs, I thought it was hugely impressive, and huge ... The M(240) is a completely confused puppy to me. It's neither fish nor fowl, and perceived as being technologically mediocre (eg, EVF), expensive, troubled with QC and lacking clarity (Leica's much touted Essentials). This, despite its apparent strengths of good sensor (for M lenses) and fabulous viewfinder and traditional form factor. The T as a purely electronic camera, and the best such camera with M lenses, does its job very well. From a market segment, I think it is the right camera for Leica to fill the gap, but it should have been full frame. I disagree with most of the criticism of the camera here - it's more appealing than the Fuji and Sony alternatives, but lacks the technological advantage of a superior sensor. The one it has is very good in practice, but it's the same as cheaper alternatives. Cameras like the M9 (full frame), Monochrom, M60 and M-A set Leica apart. I think they need that clarity and perfection. The elephant in the room is that selling fabulous bodies with indifferent electronics at huge prices doesn't really work, despite the wonderful glass that goes with it. The T lenses aren't in the same league as their M cousins, yet they cost a bomb. Conversely, the Zeiss lenses made for Canon, Nikon and Sony are very appealing. I do not agree that the M is confused. It is clear to me: The standard M rangefinder camera, with a good sensor and improved rangefinder/viewfinder, equipped with some auxiliary features thrown in which may or may not appeal but do get out of the way for the traditional user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2015 Share #112 Posted March 7, 2015 Ah, but you have one. Indifferent video, poor EVF, live view focus peaking not particularly good. It probably does the basics as well, if not better than the M9 and my M60, but it's confused with half-assed additional features. That's why I don't want one - I see it has neither fish nor foul. For me, Leica means doing less things really well. PS - actually, only the M-P does the basics as well as my M60 [emoji16] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 7, 2015 Share #113 Posted March 7, 2015 PS - actually, only the M-P does the basics as well as my M60 The M-P is a dressed up M240 with a larger buffer for people who need the extra capacity. The M 240 is IMO the most refined digital RF camera Leica has made. LV and video are disabled with one simple setting, and from there it exceeds M8 and M9 as a 'traditional' RF camera, in build quality (far fewer issues), battery life, quieter operation, smoother shutter release, better weather sealing, better RF mechanism, better frame lines, better tripod connection and faster processor. And the IQ is exceptional….identical in fact to your M60, assuming you can determine how to control color, etc, without the screen. Ah, but you have one. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2015 Share #114 Posted March 7, 2015 Depends. For me the EVF could be better, but was market leader stick-on EVF at introduction, I have seen impressive professional videos taken with the M, focus peaking the best I have seen by a wide margin if used as intended*, I think you are talking it down because you do not like the presence of these extras. *It allows me to focus my long lenses to the cm, better than the R9, which is all I ask. For shorter lenses Leica provides the superior OVF/RF and peaking is nonsense for wideangles anyway. Opposed to the in-your-face peaking of other systems it does require a learning curve, that is true, but those other systems are inaccurate to the point of painting the whole viewfinder red with busy subjects, even at the lowest setting. Easy to use for the uncritical owner though. On my Sony it even accentuates high-ISO noise red. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delcredere Posted March 7, 2015 Share #115 Posted March 7, 2015 Err....He should fire himself? Well spotted:) - it was partly a joke. But I meant it about premature announcements and preposterous delays... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 7, 2015 Share #116 Posted March 7, 2015 Also, regarding the EVF for the M240, one should recognize that it's an optional accessory, not even part of the standard camera purchase. Nobody is forced to buy a Visoflex for any other M either…except the EVF is tiny and convenient if desired. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted March 7, 2015 Share #117 Posted March 7, 2015 Ah, but you have one. Indifferent video, poor EVF, live view focus peaking not particularly good. It probably does the basics as well, if not better than the M9 and my M60, but it's confused with half-assed additional features. That's why I don't want one - I see it has neither fish nor foul. For me, Leica means doing less things really well. PS - actually, only the M-P does the basics as well as my M60 [emoji16] . Leica's future cannot be in the (non existent) professional market. Their future is in the high margins aficionados and luxury markets (not the same). High margins means high prices relative to costs. Luxury means "value for money" equation does not hold. You get image or brand recognition for money. The problem is: 1), the prices are too high for the market target; 2), the costs are too high for the margins target considering point 1; 3) there is no significant market for digital cameras at those margins. An explanation of 2) is the German manufacture or the Leica Stores. The problem number 3) doesn't have solutions. If the point 3) is true, Leica as we know it is condemned and Zeiss was right and their strategy was correct in the long term. I think it is a mix of the two problems: Leica did something wrong in the implementation of the strategy (costs, prices, product portfolio), and the market opportunities in the camera industry are banishing in all segments. I like the M240, but I use it as a M60. There are many functions, buttons and menu options distracting and useless to me. My opinion is that you cannot combine all possibilities in one camera and make it simple. Leica should offer different models of M cameras: simple model like the M60, and more modern model (EVF, video and so on) for a different public or applications. Special edition models HAS NOTHING TO DO with Leica's problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2015 Share #118 Posted March 7, 2015 Jaap, you've said a few times that the EVF on the M(240) was state of the art on release. I'm afraid that's simply not true. The Sony version at the time had a higher resolution and refresh rate. Yet Leica used an Olympus EVF which was superseded almost as soon as Leica released its overpriced version, and there was no ability to upgrade to the improved version. This is an important point. The M(240) is an expensive camera, yet an important option was a rebadged piece of electronics that had nothing Leica to it, other than a sticker. I've seen fabulous images taken with film. What are we talking about here? The quality of the photographer or the quality of the product? Leica made its name by taking the available technology with the M3 and refining it. With the M(240), Leica has taken available technology and put a Leica sticker on it and whacked on a massive margin. You simply cannot say the Leica EVF was state of the art when Olympus released an improved version while Leica was still struggling to fill the first orders ... PS - I can't take your focus peaking comments serious. I think Tim Ashley's review on his blog highlights the issue clearly. Yep, focus peaking works well, provided you're not in poor lighting, you focus with considerable care wide open, then stop down. If you get it dead right (focus bracketing) it will almost be as good as the fabulous optical rangefinder. As I recall, even Stefan Daniel acknowledged that peaking was a disappointment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted March 7, 2015 Share #119 Posted March 7, 2015 Also, regarding the EVF for the M240, one should recognize that it's an optional accessory, not even part of the standard camera purchase. Nobody is forced to buy a Visoflex for any other M either…except the EVF is tiny and convenient if desired. Jeff Given that you either use a hot show viewfinder for WA lenses and the hassle of framing after focus, or an EVF, 'optional' isn't quite right, especially after the M240 was touted to be the long-awaited R solution. The EVF may have been state-of-the-art when the M was in the design stage but electronics have the lifespan of fruit flies. You plan the device with excess computing power, not 'just enough' for the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 7, 2015 Share #120 Posted March 7, 2015 Given that you either use a hot show viewfinder for WA lenses and the hassle of framing after focus, or an EVF, 'optional' isn't quite right, especially after the M240 was touted to be the long-awaited R solution. The EVF may have been state-of-the-art when the M was in the design stage but electronics have the lifespan of fruit flies. You plan the device with excess computing power, not 'just enough' for the moment. I use the M240 as a traditional M RF camera, so the EVF is totally optional for me. The camera cost was the same as a new M9 at time of release, yet it is significantly improved in ways I noted. I had the choice to buy it or not, and it does all I bought it for….very well. YMMV. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.