Wojtek Posted March 7, 2018 Share #1 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) This is as much about SL as about TL2. And about Q. Etc, etc. I often hear on this forums very rational reasons on why Leica products are not as good as they could be (but, and it's important - I believe very often they simply can't be). SL can't have bigger sensor until S does. TL2 has slow AF and can't work with external flashes so it won't cannibalise CL sales. Leica won't make pro-CL so it won't cannibalise SL. SL lenses are so big so it won't cannibalise M. Q is fixed 28 so it won't cannibalise M. And those are all good reasons. Except they're not. Here's a quote from FStoppers on a new "basic" Sony model The a7 III is likely going to be cannibalizing sales of the a7R III and possibly even some of the a9, not to mention the capable video here may even impact the future a7S III. This bold move by Sony is more than just selling any one camera though. It moves the entire full-frame Alpha product line forward as a whole, and shows that Sony understands that any sales that get more people using their cameras are good sales worth making. Whether a person spends $2,000 for an a7 III or $3,200 for the a7R III, Sony wins. They have their eyes far down the road and are steadily setting themselves up for a full-on takeover of the industry. Source Sometimes to not include a feature is a feature itself. It's Leica's philosophy. It's why those cameras have the best handling and operation in the world. But if a reason to not make a camera better would ever be a worry of "cannibalising sales" - I hope Leica will learn from Sony. Edited March 7, 2018 by Wojtek 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Hi Wojtek, Take a look here On cannibalising sales. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 7, 2018 Share #2 Posted March 7, 2018 What does a manufacturer care about cannibalizing sales within their own model palette? As long as they sell a product, it does not matter much which one it is. I don't see Sony taking over the industry. Their products are good, but not that good, especially in a market that is as diversified as the camera market is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted March 7, 2018 Share #3 Posted March 7, 2018 I don't see Sony taking over the industry. Their products are good, but not that good, especially in a market that is as diversified as the camera market is. Just wait. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 7, 2018 Share #4 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) What does a manufacturer care about cannibalizing sales within their own model palette? As long as they sell a product, it does not matter much which one it is. It can matter if a higher priced or more profitable system is cannibalised by a cheaper or less profitable one. For example, Leica might prefer to encourage sales of M or S lenses rather than cheaper and third party built TL lenses. Edited March 7, 2018 by wattsy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 7, 2018 Share #5 Posted March 7, 2018 I don't care whether Sony ever "takes over the industry." I'll never buy another Sony camera. I seriously disliked the last three of them I owned, and I kept buying them because I kept hoping that they'd produce something better. That train takes me nowhere so I got off their hamster wheel of progress. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojtek Posted March 7, 2018 Author Share #6 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) I didn’t mean this topic to be a “Leica vs Sony”, please let’s talk about the idea of cannibalising and general strategy. Sony is simply an example. But on taking over the industry - they do. They and Fuji. I don’t have exact stats at hand but I’m pretty sure it should be out of discussion now and taken as a fact. Edited March 7, 2018 by Wojtek 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 7, 2018 Share #7 Posted March 7, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't care whether Sony ever "takes over the industry." I'll never buy another Sony camera. I seriously disliked the last three of them I owned, and I kept buying them because I kept hoping that they'd produce something better. That train takes me nowhere so I got off their hamster wheel of progress. Sony is improving to be sure but they are still a consumer electronics company and not a camera company. I happen to hate the Sony ergonomics and, like many others, was not satisifed with results with Leica lenses. Nevertheless, Sony has become a force in photography and in the end we benefit even if we do not buy Sony cameras as competition is good for the end user. Even Leica needs to pay attention. So far they have, in their unique way, and I hope they continue to do so, without turning Leica cameras into Sonys with red dots. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2018 Share #8 Posted March 7, 2018 It can matter if a higher priced or more profitable system is cannibalised by a cheaper or less profitable one. For example, Leica might prefer to encourage sales of M or S lenses rather than cheaper and third party built TL lenses. That is basically true, but I would suggest that Leica can take good care of themselves in matters of pricing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mls1483 Posted March 7, 2018 Share #9 Posted March 7, 2018 As a customer I dislike market segmentation. The Sony alpha series has a whole bunch of products, that differ in one or the other aspect, but no camera can do it all: 1) A9: Fast (20 fps), very fast AF, very large and high res EVF, large battery, but 24 MP 2) A7R3: Not as fast as A9 (10 fps), not the same fast AF as in A9 (same sensor as A/R2), same large EVF as a9, large battery, 42 MP 3) A73: Not as fast as A9 (10 fps), same AF as A9, but only the small EVF, large battery, 24 MP 4) A7R2: Much slower as A9 and A7R3 (5 fps), slow AF, small EVF, but same 42 MP sensor as A7R35) A72: ...6) ATS2: .... There are of course also differences in high iso, dynamic range, color scheme (e.g. A7R3 vs. A7R2), body size, ergonomics, number and location of buttoms and wheels, menu systems, etc pp........... I much prefer a concept like the SL! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 7, 2018 Share #10 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) JMHO, but I don't think Leica needs to lose sleep over the possibility of Sony stealing huge chunks of M camera owners with the a7 cameras any more than Mercedes Benz needs to worry about Honda stealing huge chunks of S Class owners with the Civic or the Accord. Apples and oranges. Edited March 7, 2018 by Herr Barnack Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 7, 2018 Share #11 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) JMHO, but I don't think Leica needs to lose sleep over the possibility of Sony stealing huge chunks of M camera owners with the a7 cameras any more than Mercedes Benz needs to worry about Honda stealing huge chunks of S Class owners with the Civic or the Accord. Maybe but I think you have missed the point of the thread which is about companies "cannibalising" their own product lines not about competitors taking away sales. Edited March 7, 2018 by wattsy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 7, 2018 Share #12 Posted March 7, 2018 The example often quoted in these pages is whether Leica should (could?) introduce a full frame EVF M-sized body with a L-mount. To which a common response is that it would eat into M sales. While I am sure Leica would be happy to have another product that was in high demand from punters, such a body might reduce demand for M lenses - and I suspect that would worry them. They would have to replace an extensive series of relatively simple manual/mechanical lenses with more expensive AF and possibly IS lenses. So perhaps the answer to the question "how long will the M last?" is "as long as it takes for Leica to assemble a full range of L lenses". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2018 Share #13 Posted March 7, 2018 I'm not so sure.This seems to me to be a different case. The M is Leica's iconic flagship camera. It is more than a profit-turner, it is an essential emblem of the company. I guess Leica has a strong motivation to protect the position of the M in the line-up. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereophonie Posted March 7, 2018 Share #14 Posted March 7, 2018 "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will," Steve Jobs 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted March 7, 2018 Share #15 Posted March 7, 2018 Leica doesn't think like most companies, that could be their key to longevity, is there any company that is older than Leica and currently operating? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 7, 2018 Share #16 Posted March 7, 2018 Leica doesn't think like most companies, that could be their key to longevity, is there any company that is older than Leica and currently operating? Zeiss Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 7, 2018 Share #17 Posted March 7, 2018 Leica doesn't think like most companies, that could be their key to longevity, is there any company that is older than Leica and currently operating? Not even close if one considers all industries and businesses. See Japan. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2018 Share #18 Posted March 7, 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted March 7, 2018 Share #19 Posted March 7, 2018 Not even close if one considers all industries and businesses. See Japan. Jeff Ahh Jeff, I thought of putting photo industry in my post. Zeiss Zeiss, of course, I had forgotten about them, what a huge contribution they have made over the years, gotta love the sonnars, but sadly they also have abandoned camera manufacturing, maybe they'll return, like Alpa who appear to be thriving. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 7, 2018 Share #20 Posted March 7, 2018 I'm not so sure.This seems to me to be a different case. The M is Leica's iconic flagship camera. It is more than a profit-turner, it is an essential emblem of the company. I guess Leica has a strong motivation to protect the position of the M in the line-up. At one time the screw mount iiis were the flagship. Leica adapted. Kodachrome 10 was the flagship too. Kodak fiddled but failed to pivot on digital. Companies must adapt or they do not survive. Leica for sure has already adapted or we wouldn’t have an S, SL, CL, Q. Or a M10 either. I don’t think they would have made those cameras if they were fearful of cannibalization. At the same time the M has not stayed still. All this is good for we consumers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.