Jump from M6 to M (262)

[Guest JonathanP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It also seems to me that no-one is considering any licensing fees for video codec software. There may well be per-unit licensing that directly adds to the BOM cost for a M240 which could be saved on the M262. Without knowing the commercial agreements Leica have in place we will never know, but don't assume software is cost free to manufacture!

 

Jonathan

[Exodies]

One design, one production line will produce a camera with video that both video fanciers and stationary fanciers can use. To have two designs and two production lines and a consequent reduction in customer base for each would increase the cost for both factions way beyond the cost of a button and a menu option. This is the meaning of the claim that video doesn't cost anything.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

One design, one production line will produce a camera with video that both video fanciers and stationary fanciers can use. To have two designs and two production lines and a consequent reduction in customer base for each would increase the cost for both factions way beyond the cost of a button and a menu option. This is the meaning of the claim that video doesn't cost anything.

Please define what you think a production line is for a Leica M camera body.

[Exodies]

One component of it is drilling a hole in the case for the m button. 

[Bill Livingston]

Thanks Exodies... but I really think that there are some on here who simply don't understand modern manufacturing and the choices one makes during design and production engineering and the relative costs incurred.

 

Bocaburger, please don't patronise me. I spent 25 years at Linn Products involved in specialist mechanical and electronic manufacturing in the music and audio industry where we dealt with implementing analogue and digital electronics in the control systems of mechanical products and designing new products and new technologies on a day to day basis. 

 

You can argue all you like... but the bottom line is, in the scheme of things, the cost of implementing video is absolutely negligible. Seriously, if you still wish to argue about it, then argue into thin air as I, quite frankly, can't be bothered any more.

 

I tried to be polite, helpful and courteous, but clearly I was wasting my time, all you can manage in return is sarcasm and an inaccurate counter-argument that simply confirms you have no understanding of the points being made.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Bill Livingston

[jdlaing]

One component of it is drilling a hole in the case for the m button. 

Perfect. We will use that hole as an example. It costs nothing extra, for a run of cameras, to drill that hole.

You still haven't answered my question.

Edited November 29, 2015 by jdlaing

[Bill Livingston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please define what you think a production line is for a Leica M camera body.

 

 

Nobody runs a 'production line' in the way they did a hundred years ago. Modern manufacturing tends to be the assembly of sub assemblies produced by people who specialise in the building of those sub assemblies. The idea of one person putting on one screw and then passing it down the line is SO dated it is beyond belief.

 

By specialising in an important aspect (such as perhaps the rangefinder assy) it was discovered that workers gained more satisfaction, more input in the manufacturing process itself, quality improved and so did output. One the other hand, true 'single station build' which is one person building one thing, complete, from the ground up, was actually, in the modern era, just as likely to result in poor quality and low output levels as 'production line' assembly back in the mid last century.

 

Modern manufacturing at the highest quality level is largely a team exercise, with specialists involved in distinct areas of the product and then the whole thing coming together in a final assembly.

 

People refer to the whole process as a 'Production Line', and I think you will find that jdlaing understands completely the concept of modern manufacturing processes and uses the term the same way we do today... referring to various sub assemblies being brought together in a final assembly, with individuals within that team responsible for skill and 'knowledge specific' areas.

 

There is no such thing as a 'production line' in the way you are thinking of it Exodies, at this level of manufacturing, just the same as there is no such thing as an individual making the entire product from scratch. (Actually, strictly speaking, manufacturing anything requiring more than two or three parts by one individual from basic raw materials hasn't really happened since the industrial age.

 

Well, maybe cane fishing rods and specialised craft work like that is slightly different... any anyway, there are always exceptions if you want to continue to argue. Leica isn't one of exceptions though. Go to Wetzlar and see for yourself... 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Bill Livingston

[jdlaing]

Nobody runs a 'production line' in the way they did a hundred years ago. Modern manufacturing tends to be the assembly of sub assemblies produced by people who specialise in the building of those sub assemblies. The idea of one person putting on one screw and then passing it down the line is SO dated it is beyond belief.

 

By specialising in an important aspect (such as perhaps the rangefinder assy) it was discovered that workers gained more satisfaction, more input in the manufacturing process itself, quality improved and so did output. One the other hand, true 'single station build' which is one person building one thing, complete, from the ground up, was actually, in the modern era, just as likely to result in poor quality and low output levels as 'production line' assembly back in the mid last century.

 

Modern manufacturing at the highest quality level is largely a team exercise, with specialists involved in distinct areas of the product and then the whole thing coming together in a final assembly.

 

People refer to the whole process as a 'Production Line', and I think you will find that jdlaing understands completely the concept of modern manufacturing processes and uses the term the same way we do today... referring to various sub assemblies being brought together in a final assembly, with individuals within that team responsible for skill and 'knowledge specific' areas.

 

There is no such thing as a 'production line' in the way you are thinking of it Exodies, at this level of manufacturing, just the same as there is no such thing as an individual making the entire product from scratch. (Actually, strictly speaking, manufacturing anything requiring more than two or three parts by one individual from basic raw materials hasn't really happened since the industrial age.

 

Well, maybe cane fishing rods and specialised craft work like that is slightly different... any anyway, there are always exceptions if you want to continue to argue. Leica isn't one of exceptions though. Go to Wetzlar and see for yourself... 

That's almost correct. Some production lines are still in use but highly automated. Automobiles, appliances, (refrigerators, air conditioners, heaters, dishwashers) railroad cars, televisions, radios, toys  and the like are still produced on the assembly lines. Leica cameras and lenses are definitely not. Leica orders 'x' numbers of top plates from the fabricator with or without a hole drilled for a button and it is the same price per cover with or without the hole. The button and associated switches and electronics activators that fill that hole are another matter.

[Bill Livingston]

Actually, it is entirely correct. 

 

There is no 'production' line as such anywhere... there never has been. There are 'assembly lines' though. Some parts are assembled robotically, some by hand, but very few are actually assembled in a long line of workers as in the distant past.

 

Go to China and see a TV being manufactured. They have 'lines' as such, but actually, in the main, they are simple one, two or three stage builds of sub assemblies... just lots of them, all sitting together. No-one puts in one part and passes in on down the line... its too time consuming and too costly. 

 

Most Chinese hitec manufacturing is completely robotic assembly in a computer controlled clean room with very few, if any, human workers in there at all. It's not just labour costs that make the Chinese low cost manufacturers... its the high levels of investment they have made in modern and cutting edge production technology that accounts for that.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Bill Livingston

[Exodies]

Perfect. We will use that hole as an example. It costs nothing extra, for a run of cameras, to drill that hole.

You still haven't answered my question.

I'm not very good with questions. Perhaps you could rephrase it as an answer.

[jdlaing]

Please define what you think is the Leica production line for M digital cameras.

[bocaburger]

 I spent 25 years at Linn Products involved in specialist mechanical and electronic manufacturing in the music and audio industry where we dealt with implementing analogue and digital electronics in the control systems of mechanical products and designing new products and new technologies on a day to day basis. 

I've never heard of that company.  Now if you said you worked for Leica for 25 years maybe I would be impressed if not intimidated by your creds    But I am curious, if live view and video cost Leica nothing to implement, then what in your expert opinion accounts for them being able to reduce the price by 1000 euros which by your logic would therefore come entirely out of their profit?  Or would you assert that an anodized aluminum top plate costs them 1000 euros less to produce than a brass one? ( And before you cite the M-E, recall that it reverted to a plastic LCD cover from the very expensive sapphire; and deleted the entire frame-preview linkage plus USB x-fer and its port).

Edited November 30, 2015 by bocaburger

[pop]

I've never heard of that company.  Now if you said you worked for Leica for 25 years maybe I would be impressed if not intimidated by your creds    But I am curious, if live view and video cost Leica nothing to implement, then what in your expert opinion accounts for them being able to reduce the price by 1000 euros which by your logic would therefore come entirely out of their profit?  Or would you assert that an anodized aluminum top plate costs them 1000 euros less to produce than a brass one? ( And before you cite the M-E, recall that it reverted to a plastic LCD cover from the very expensive sapphire; and deleted the entire frame-preview linkage plus USB x-fer and its port).

Bocaburger, I've asked you already to cut down on the personal remarks.

 

When Leica introduced the M-E with some reduction of the feature set and a price reduction they said they were able to reduce the price because the tools and the development had been written off by that time. 

[Bill Livingston]

Really?

 

Its very well known company in the audio industry which is very Leica like... or rather, it was, until marketing became more important than engineering. I suggest you look it up.

 

I think marketing has got the better of you, too, if you think the price of the 262 is really everything to do with the removal of features and nothing to do with extending the sales life of a current platform.

 

Seriously, I didn't think anyone was that naive any more.

[Steve Ricoh]

Oh yes, I remember Linn very well, their audio products were considered the finest for music reproduction, featured in many reviews e.g. What Hi Fi.

The intrinsic cost to manufacture (ex works, so all up costs) and RRP do not necessarily have a straight line relationship, it's up to the company based on what they think the market will tolerate. It's part of product differentiation tactics.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Steve Ricoh

[robert blu]

Many years ago when I was working in the marketing one of the first lesson from my boss was that the selling price of a good has nothing to do with the cost to produce it.

 

Selling price is the amount of money a consumer is ready to pay to have the benefits of the purchased good.

 

In this case Leica had to fins a way to revitalize the sales of the M240 when many potential clients are waiting for the new model which we think should hit the market in 2016 and the price reduction of 262 compared to 240 is nothing more than this, a marketing operation to extend the customer basis. I guess the sales of 240s already covered the basic of R&D, development etc.

 

I appreciate that and I'm serious considering it.

 

robert

[Steve Ricoh]

Spot on Robert!

[MarkP]

I spent 25 years at Linn Products involved in specialist mechanical and electronic manufacturing in the music and audio industry where we dealt with implementing analogue and digital electronics in the control systems of mechanical products and designing new products and new technologies on a day to day basis.

 

I miss my Linn Sondek!

[Bill Livingston]

I miss mine too... I've gone over to HiDef streaming, but there was something truly special about the LINN Sondek and a decent collection of vinyl.

 

Linn has now fully embraced the digital age, in fact have been at the vanguard of many of the changes in audio at home that we see today, but the LP12 is still made and still supported - very much in the same way Leica continue to support film cameras.

 

There really is quite a lot of similarity in terms of price, quality, customer type and company history. Like Leica, LINN was always a premium product aimed at the most discerning customers.

 

Thanks Mark...appreciate the post...

Edited November 30, 2015 by Bill Livingston

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

Linn has a peerless reputation. The credentials of anyone who has worked at Linn for any length of time are worthy of high respect.