Understanding the effect of the 'Red Spot' logo

[Paul Wright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

_{There are khaki-green variants as well, mostly on accessories fron the 1950ies-1960ies}

This is the first time i have come across this variant, i will look into this also. Thnak you.

[Advertisement]

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

[Paul Wright]

Same branding/labeling issue exists across many product lines....cars, blue jeans, etc, etc.  There will always be some who want to exhibit the label, and others who will pay extra to take the label off, e.g. for 'de-badging' a Mercedes or other car.

 

Some anecdotal history regarding the red dot.....the M6's made in Wetzlar had the word 'Leitz' on the dot, and after a move to Solms in 1988, it was changed to 'Leica'.  The black version of the M8.2 came with a standard black dot (the silver version stayed red), apparently much to the chagrin of Leica management, presumably never to be repeated.  Some third party services, e.g., DAG, will supply black dots for various M models, while Leica will not other than for those black M8.2s (if they're even still available).

 

Leica milks these cosmetic preferences to the max by initially issuing M models with the red dot, then charging a small fortune for removing the logo and possibly adding a few other small twists (script on top plate, sapphire screen, etc).  This only serves to feed the obsession...and the debate.

 

Jeff

Hi Jeff, this is very interesting. The de-badging issues you have mentioned are there also, but are different to to the Leica example. With cars for instance, de- agding can happen on VW Beatle, Mini, etc as well as your example of Mercedes. But these are instant recognisable weather they have badges or not, so it appears people remove solely for a cosmetic value.

 

 

 

With clothing i am reminded of a conversation I had with a product rep at Gant. They have (or had, going back to around 2011) 3 distinct product ranges lets use jumpers as an example, Entry price, which had Gant emblazoned on the front, mid range which had the very small logo embroided above the heart and the top of the range which had Gant not written anywhere at all not even the label, the reason he gave was because everyone will just know it is Gant  by looking at it.

 

 

 

People seem to have different reasons here for Leica logo, removing is not about making a 'Gant' statement, it seems to be more cosmetic not liking the red but still want the Leica there or to not show at all for the opposite reason of 'Gant'. The Leica example is the only one i can find like this and what i am trying to understand.

 

[Paul Wright]

First M with a red dot was the M4-2 if memory serves. Mine looked like that and the red dot could be unstuck from the vulcanite so it went to the bin right after unpacking in 1979. Made me miss my M4 but a motor winder could be used with the M4-2 so i kept it until now.

 

leica_M4-2_nullseries_mod_web.jpg

Thank you for this.....

[wildlightphoto]

Do you find that people also reconignise the make of camera because of the red dot even if they don't have camera?

 

Some do.

[Paul Wright]

There is a book called "Views of Brand Culture - Leica" by Volker Albus and Achim Heine, that may be helpful to you.  Publisher was "Nicolai". 2004, © 2004 Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, Berlin.  I have a signed copy but am unwilling to give it up.

 

B/r,

John

Thank you, i have ordered this and look forward to reading it. If anyone else is interested it is here http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Culture-German-English-Edition/dp/3875841069

[Paul Wright]

Some do.

Are you ever tempted to get one of the 'just as good half the price' cameras instead so that you can just take pictures because of this issue?

[Paul Wright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually the Leica Dot is owned by Leica Microsystems, not by Leica Camera, who leases the rights,and they objected to the black colour. 

So Leica camera wanted the different colour dot? Do you think they wanted with a different colour dot for cosmetic value, customer pressure or just for a 'PR stunt'?

[Paul Wright]

I love my all Leica equipment whether it has the Red/Black logo.. it's the tools/quality that count..

My Rolex, Tissot Touch. Dodge Challenger, iMac's, MacBook Pro, iPads, iPhone's & many other high end pieces of equipment All have a Logo..

"I'm a Member" -- Brand Awareness & Loyalty..   I would happily give up the Logo's -- but the manufacturers insist they advertise on my property.. 

I wish you well in your task -- L

In these examples that is very true. I feel Apple would probably be the most compariable, a simple logo but Apple users don't feel the need to hide it because you have Windows users saying this is cheaper and just as good. I would say that maybe it is the nature of the photogaphy world but i am looking for something that i would need to base that on to say it.

[Jeff S]

 

People seem to have different reasons here for Leica logo, removing is not about making a 'Gant' statement, it seems to be more cosmetic not liking the red but still want the Leica there or to not show at all for the opposite reason of 'Gant'. The Leica example is the only one i can find like this and what i am trying to understand.

You're limiting the examples of why people want or don't want labels.  For instance, Gant is hardly the only clothing model...I might like an Izod polo shirt, but I might not like having an alligator on my chest....maybe because of looks....maybe not to advertise Izod (without the label, it would just be another shirt).  Some people de-badge exotic cars, e.g., Mercedes, not to hide that it's a Mercedes, but to try to stay exclusive by hiding the model of Mercedes (engine size, etc).....and/or because they like the clean look.  (I refuse to buy an expensive car with a dealer emblem....don't like the cosmetics or the advertisement.)  People differ.

 

Some folks hide the Leica dot for cosmetic reasons....(I change it to black for cosmetic reasons)....others want the exclusivity of the 'P' series (that delete dot and add script) or special editions that Leica predictably makes 'cool' by its marketing and higher prices....others tape over the dot because they think that it makes them more discreet in public or less target for theft....others like the advertising (prestige, assuming people will recognize the dot)....others figure people don't know about dots and such and are just happy with the camera....and on and on.  The forum is full of threads that you can search to see these and many other examples.

 

As I wrote earlier, people like or dislike labels for many reasons.....across brands.  This is true even while they disagree whether others recognize those brands or not....including Leica.

 

Jeff

[wildlightphoto]

Are you ever tempted to get one of the 'just as good half the price' cameras instead so that you can just take pictures because of this issue?

 

I have a non-Leica camera for situations where the risk of loss or damage is higher.  It's not just as good but it allows me to pay more attention to light and subject where with the Leica I'd pay more attention to risks.  As long as the 'attention' the camera receives from others isn't threatening I use the Leica for its image quality.

Edited September 14, 2015 by wildlightphoto

[pico]

Hi Jeff, this is very interesting. The de-badging issues you have mentioned are there also, but are different to to the Leica example. With cars for instance, de- agding can happen on VW Beatle, Mini, etc as well as your example of Mercedes. But these are instant recognisable weather they have badges or not, so it appears people remove solely for a cosmetic value.

 

An associate bought a Volkswagen Phaeton and just like her friends, she immediately sent it to Italy to have the badges removed. It was a common practice. Conversely, this car later had VW badges added because, well, it was a VW.

 

There were other cameras with a red dot-like badge, for example a Petri F1.9 rangefinder. In fact it was my first RF camera around the first half of the previous century. Does the red dot add value? Best response so far here.

 

Red Dot is a compelling design idea.

Another red dot camera.

More than one red dot displayed.

Even Olympus pulled it off by coloring their sight red.

[adan]

Just for the record, the red-dot logo on M bodies was introduced during the M4-2 production run - some have it, but most do not**. The M4-P was the first M body to have the logo on all cameras produced - on the vulcanite lower front.

 

The M6 moved the logo to the more prominent top-center location, to cover the access hole for the RF vertical adjustment screw, and make room in the old location for the battery compartment cover. Where it has remained ever since (if used at all).

 

http://mkoptics.net/m/images/8678.JPG

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/12/03/11387611/M4-2-Safari-PR.png

http://br.collection.pagesperso-orange.fr/leica/images/M4P.jpg

http://leicaphilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/m6-black.jpg

 

The motor winder for the M4-2 et seq. also had the red-dot logo. http://br.collection.pagesperso-orange.fr/leica/images/M4-2_2.jpg

 

...or didn't: http://p2.la-img.com/427/9432/1948652_1_l.jpg

 

Blacking out Leica "branding" has been around since long before before the red logo:

 

http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/images/Leitz-Leica-KE-7A-%28M4-2%29.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e1/21/c9/e121c9744672aed2ec8ca721427c2e2f.jpg

 

On the Leitz SLRs, the wording "Leitz Wetzlar" appeared on the front shoulder (one side or the other) in about the same size, right from the the beginning, and by the time of the SL2, occasionally had a circle around it. But the full red-dot logo was introduced with the first camera built on a Minolta base - the R3.

 

http://basepath.com/images/PhotoArticles/medium/Leicaflex-1.jpg

http://www.summilux.net/r_system/SL2-bon-4.jpg

http://cdn.shutterbug.com/images/archivesart/0208street03.jpg

 

The logo was not used on Leitz/Leica camera lenses until the large 280 f/2.8 APO in the mid-1980s, and then appeared on some other lenses over time. Generally speaking, only larger telephotos/zooms with enough bare metal space to accomodate it.

 

http://www.reddotforum.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/6288=2536-L1001810.jpg

 

In short, the red-dot logo on photo equipment (as opposed to sports optics and lab equipment) was phased in between about 1977 and 1985. Inconsistently.

_______________

** There is some indication that the prototype M4-2s had red-dot logos, that were then deleted in production cameras (probably for cost reasons), and restored late in the run as the M4-P was introduced. Additionally, while most M4-2s were made in Canada, a few were made in Wetzlar, and perhaps the Wetzlar-made bodies had red logos. Frankly, in that era, Leica was thrashing around with product design from one year to the next - cf. the rapidly-redesigned barrel/tab cosmetics of the 75 Summilux, 90 Summicron, 35 Summicron, 28 Elmarit after introduction in/around 1980.

[lct]

Just for the record, the red-dot logo on M bodies was introduced during the M4-2 production run - some have it, but most do not**

 

** There is some indication that the prototype M4-2s had red-dot logos, that were then deleted in production cameras (probably for cost reasons), and restored late in the run as the M4-P was introduced. Additionally, while most M4-2s were made in Canada, a few were made in Wetzlar, and perhaps the Wetzlar-made bodies had red logos.

 

The logo was just stuck on the vulcanite so its cost was negligible and many users must have unstuck it like i did out of mine i suspect. At least the logo is printed in the M4-2 user's manual....

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[LocalHero1953]

A bit like the Rolex I bought on Sanur Beach (Bali) a while ago, for 5000 rupiah (a few pounds or dollars). The crown logo became detached inside a week and rattled around the face for a few months, before the bracelet disintegrated. These top brands aren't all they're cracked up to be. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[250swb]

So Leica camera wanted the different colour dot? Do you think they wanted with a different colour dot for cosmetic value, customer pressure or just for a 'PR stunt'?

 

'cosmetic value', 'customer pressure', 'PR stunt', don't you think that as a 'researcher' you are adding your own emotive bias to the discussion? What if whatever the colour Leica simply wanted a unifying logo that could be recognised from a distance and used conveniently in more types of advertising material? Practicality clearly isn't as sexy as 'value', 'pressure', or 'stunt', but I don't think you've got an effing clue about logo's or advertising and are just looking for some controversial statement to make Leica owners look like shallow wankers who ponce around pretending to be photographers (which is not to say that some don't, but hey, look at Nikon or Canon owners first).

 

Steve

Edited September 16, 2015 by 250swb