Really, new cheap(er) film M in 2021 ?

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

 

- I suppose also that the training film M workers is part of the equation

 

- I can think of "Gillette Style Marketing", make/sell M bodies at lost to sell more lenses ( why not ? )

You're seriously suggesting Leica would introduce a new, cheaper M camera in order to train their staff in how to manufacture Leica film cameras and then sell the new M camera at a loss  in order to increase sales of Leica lenses?

 I'd like to be intrigued by your idea of a business model.    Unfortunately, I think you've lost the plot.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Ouroboros

[a.noctilux]

Why unfortunately ?

Ouroboros,

Just "plot/print" then don't get me wrong, those are "suppositions" 🙃.

😄 as said, I just imagine some possible tracks ...to offer or NOT this film M business.

 

In my thread title "Really ...?" can suggest my doubt on this coming M.

 

Anyway, if you had read what I wrote formerly, post #5, I have no interest buying these "to come cheap Leica M".

I'm happy with what I use now and for years to come.

Edited January 3, 2021 by a.noctilux

[frame-it]

9 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Dark rumor.

Last time Leica Camera AG went with factory which used to made film Zenit cameras for re-branded M240, the M240 was gone for good shortly after it. 

it was a joke

[adan]

23 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

A less complex rangefinder assembly (fewer frame lines perhaps?).

The only problem with that is that the framelines are "the hole in the doughnut." Metal removed to allow light to pass. They are now also (I think) laser-cut, so not much labor savings in reducing their number. In either case, pop a bit of sheet-metal into the cutter, and pop it out again in a few seconds. Although it may help distinguish the M-A from the "cheaper version."

Seems to me the obvious path to a less-expensive M (leaving aside a willingness to reduce profit margins on a "loss-leader" to sell lenses) is to follow the example of the M4-2 (or the Ford Model T, or the Cosina "Voigtlander/Zeiss-Ikon," or the Konica Hexar RF, or even the M digitals).

It is a little tricky, since the rumor suggests an "M6 revival" - which would not be that much cheaper to make than an M-A today.

So "think different."

1) Not made in Germany, possibly not even in EU. Not even token assembly to earn the "Made in Germany" label. Proudly stamp it "Made in Thailand/Singapore/China." Canada, alas, is probably not that much cheaper than Germany, now.

2) "Any color you want, so long as it's black!" Plating or painting - whichever is cheapest.

3) cast-metal top/bottom covers with stamped markings. Possibly simplifed by removing the frameline illumination window cutout and using an LED, a la M(240)/M10.

4) more molded plastic in non-structural parts (maybe the frameline stencils? Shutter dial? Frame selector lver (if it is not just simply deleted).

5) vertical "off the shelf" Seiko/whoever blade shutter - as the M10-P shows, those are getting pretty silent.

6) Hot shoe - Leica Ms didn't have them until 1977. Anyone seen a Cartier-Bresson flash picture?

7) rangefinders - somebody besides Leica (presumably in Japan) made long-base RFs for the Konica RF and Zeiss Ikon 35. They don't have to be Leica-made (although, again, with 66 years of "sunk costs" in the design, and production already in progress, maybe not worth changing).

Or going really off the wall - the rather nice RF/VF of the Canon P (the only M39 RF camera that has ever seriously appealed to me).

Semi-silvered reflective (rather than trans-illuminated) lines for 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm - all visible at once. Shorter base length, but with 1.00x (life-size) magnification. Parallax correction by sliding the whole plate of glass the lines are on, down and to the right with focusing. Very elegant - in the engineering sense of "minimal parts to do the job." Only real defect was that the RF patch was a fuzzy circle rather than a crisp rectangle, but I imagine Leica could fix than with a mask and lens somewhere inside.

Some may say "But, but, but - then it wouldn't be A LEICA!" Or complain about some other missing functionality in my suggestions (I might, also).

To which the answer is "Sure. You want a Leica (or those features), pay the $5000. You want a cheaper RF that natively takes M lenses (and is backed by Leica) - this is what you get."

Anyway, just some ideas to toss around.

[Ouroboros]

28 minutes ago, adan said:

To which the answer is "Sure. You want a Leica (or those features), pay the $5000. You want a cheaper RF that natively takes M lenses (and is backed by Leica) - this is what you get."

Anyway, just some ideas to toss around.

Cosina tried it (I already made that point).

Try to come up with something different.....like a fixed lens rangefinder canera.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Ouroboros

[RayD28]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

I think you need to forget the M-A and imagine starting from scratch.

As I said earlier in the thread, a die cast body or moulded body should cost less. A bought in shutter (metal focal plane) will be less costly and quicker to assemble than the cloth shutter of the M-A. A less complex rangefinder assembly (fewer frame lines perhaps?). They would seem the obvious areas to cut costs, cost of materials, cost of production. Use of third party manufacturers with final assembly in Germany as with some of their other products?

Understood, James.  I believe you and I get to the same place. New film camera, less expensive retail price, less expensive manufacturing costs, and lower profit per unit.

Here is where we diverge.  I believe a decline in perceived quality is much greater than the actual cost savings for many Leica features.  Strictly my personal opinion.  I just don't think the price point where value and profitability meet for a large buying market is possible.        

Footnote: I proudly use my Leica Midland Canada 50 2.0.  

[Erato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica is well-known because of its rigorous build quality throughout the current product line and ecosystems.

If build quality, QoI, and QoE is the price to pay, I may choose to give up Leica in the future.

It's all about the total sell-out volume of max production.

IMHO, the easiest way to increase the revenue stream without(or minor) R&D efforts would be to clone existing success versus a well-balanced discount level against market share growth upon a mature product line.

For instance, 

Scenario 1. planning for 1,000 units MP and 1,000 units M-A max-production in 2021, the revenue stream won't make any difference while comparing with the year 2020.

Scenario 2. planning for 10,000 units MP and 10,000 units M-A max-production in 2021, the revenue stream will be ten times(against playscript scenario 1.)  The ROI ratio shall be very pleasant even Leica AG agreed to make a tremendous discount over MP/MA.

The bright side(advantages/benefits) is the additional revenue stream(lenses) comes with predictable market share expansion and potential incomes on the accessories(bags, viewfinder., etc. Or even a series of co-branding Leica Film with Kodak, ILFORD, Fujifilm or else) and recurrent pay-services such as FOTOS or else.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Erato

[adan]

59 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Cosina tried it (I already made that point).

Try to come up with something different.....like a fixed lens rangefinder canera.

Depends - the Cosina (and the Minolta CLE, and the Konica RF, and the Zeiss Ikon) did not have a red dot on the front, nor the Leica name.

Sadly, that makes a difference to quite a few customers.

2 minutes ago, Erato said:

Scenario 2. planning for 10,000 units MP and 10,000 units M-A max-production in 2021, the revenue stream will be ten times(against playscript scenario 1.)  The ROI ratio shall be very pleasant even Leica AG agreed to make a tremendous discount over MP/MA.

Revenue comes from sales, not production. I think you would have to demonstrate to me (and to Dr. Kaufman) that there is a likelihood of 20,000 MP/M-A sales in 2021. Not 2000 revenue sales, and a capital-absorbing warehouse full of 18,000 non-revenue-producing cameras.

Back in 1977,  Leitz had already announced the end of the M system.

ELCAN CEO Walter Kluck persuaded Leitz management rescind that order by going to (old) Wetzlar with firm order slips in hand for 1200 M4-2s.

Come up with actual orders in hand for 20,000 MP/M-As - and then maybe you have a business case.

_________________

BTW - that near-death experience for the M system is often blamed (perhaps unfairly) on Leica trying to make - a cheaper, less capable M-mount camera. The original (Minolta-built-in-Japan) film CL with C lenses.

Which was not itself a failure - but cannibalized the sales of the full-price M5 and the M lenses to the extent that the M system became economically unsustainable. Again, a significant proportion of customers were happy just getting the name and the lens mount (no red dot back then).

Leica M5 sales 1971-75 - ~34000
Leica CL sales 1973-76 - 65000 (not clear if that includes the LEITZ/Minoltas sold in Japan.)

The previous "disabled, bargain-basement" Leica M was the M2 - which is basically an M-A with three less framelines, and removable-spool loading. There is just.....not......that.......much.....left in the M-A to simplify - it is as basic and limited a camera as they come (even by 1960 standards). Except for the milled-brass quotient.

[harmen]

Does it have to be an M?  Leica crafted film cameras before they integrated viewfinder and rangefinder.  It would allow for some serious differentiation with the M-A and MP.  Then there is the added nostalgia.  Maybe an m-mount and modern film take-up would be helpful.  Which model should they base it on?

Edited January 4, 2021 by harmen

[Erato]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Depends - the Cosina (and the Minolta CLE, and the Konica RF, and the Zeiss Ikon) did not have a red dot on the front, nor the Leica name.

Sadly, that makes a difference to quite a few customers.

Revenue comes from sales, not production. I think you would have to demonstrate to me (and to Dr. Kaufman) that there is a likelihood of 20,000 MP/M-A sales in 2021. Not 2000 revenue sales, and a capital-absorbing warehouse full of 18,000 non-revenue-producing cameras.

Back in 1977,  Leitz had already announced the end of the M system.

ELCAN CEO Walter Kluck persuaded Leitz management rescind that order by going to (old) Wetzlar with firm order slips in hand for 1200 M4-2s.

Come up with actual orders in hand for 20,000 MP/M-As - and then maybe you have a business case.

_________________

BTW - that near-death experience for the M system is often blamed (perhaps unfairly) on Leica trying to make - a cheaper, less capable M-mount camera. The original (Minolta-built-in-Japan) film CL with C lenses.

Which was not itself a failure - but cannibalized the sales of the full-price M5 and the M lenses to the extent that the M system became economically unsustainable. Again, a significant proportion of customers were happy just getting the name and the lens mount (no red dot back then).

Leica M5 sales 1971-75 - ~34000
Leica CL sales 1973-76 - 65000 (not clear if that includes the LEITZ/Minoltas sold in Japan.)

The previous "disabled, bargain-basement" Leica M was the M2 - which is basically an M-A with three less framelines, and removable-spool loading. There is just.....not......that.......much.....left in the M-A to simplify - it is as basic and limited a camera as they come (even by 1960 standards). Except for the milled-brass quotient.

Well, I won't be able to obtain Leica's internal report in detail for further analysis, and with all the respect, I'm not supposed to take over their jobs from the sales operation team.

Make it simple. What is your core business? Camera or lenses?

One camera brings at least one lens, and usually, people will purchase more.

If your core value is optical lenses, then increase the "hosts" becomes a reasonable must-have.

And the follow-up enigma is "how do we make it happen"? 

 

My 2 cents, FYR.

I observed a variation approach for increasing revenue stream recently, and it works but it seems all the feedback and challenges are from existing users. And only a few feedback from new customers.

It looks like that you're increasing a burden for the R&D team, and it seems that the contribution(return) is not as good enough as expected.

Jump out of the box. If Leica AG is looking for more revenue streams from the core business, which is optical business, then you should tear down the barrier or transform.

And the possible ways perhaps could be(in terms of the analog camera, for instance, just FYR, you'll need to ignore my opinions for further brainstorming)...
1. a low price analog camera(100% MP/M-A) without compromise towards loyalty program for existing digital users as an encouragement.

2. a trade-in program for competitive users market

3. upgrade program from decades of loyal users

Edited January 4, 2021 by Erato

[Ouroboros]

5 hours ago, adan said:

Sadly, that makes a difference to quite a few customers.

 

Of course it does, which is one of the reasons why an MC(heapo) makes  little sense to me!

I can see a place for a lower cost, no concessions on quality 28mm, 35mm or 50mm fixed lens M-style rangefinder camera, which is completely different to a regurgitation of what has been done before by Cosina & Minolta etc.

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Ouroboros

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

I can see a place for a lower cost, no concessions on quality 28mm, 35mm or 50mm fixed lens M-style rangefinder camera, which is completely different to a regurgitation of what has been done before by Cosina & Minolta etc.

Do you mean without interchangeable lens? If so, what features would you put then? Because presented like this, I do not really see the point nor the target audience... I am no expert but how would that come up cheaper? 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Aryel
Typo

[Ouroboros]

34 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Do you mean without interchangeable lens? If so, what features would you put then? Because presented like this, I do not really see the point nor the target audience... I am no expert but how would that come up cheaper? 

In that case you probably don’t see the point of the Q/Q2 either. 
 

[willeica]

There is a lot of discussion here about large amounts of money, which is an obsession with many people. You can buy a working film Leica for much lower prices than are being discussed here. I have about 40 film Leicas in my collection and most of them work very well. I mainly go for the LTM models as I find them more interesting than the Ms, although I have about 8 or 9 film Ms in my collection. Leica is looking at the film market seriously again and this makes sense with a younger demographic such as the readership of Silvergrain Classics (a quality German published film photography magazine on a par with LFI). Most younger people use second hand cheaper cameras from Japan and I sometimes get requests for advice such as last Saturday when a young woman asked me for advice about a Mamiyaflex Junior, which is a rare camera made in Occupied Japan in 1948. Leica AG needs to tap into this movement and a cheaper entry film Leica would be just the way to go about this. They are also opening a vintage Leica Store in Wetzlar.  Readers here who are still confused about all of this should check out the very successful Camera Rescue business in Finland. There is life still outside the 'digital bubble'. 

William

Edited January 4, 2021 by willeica

[250swb]

4 hours ago, harmen said:

Does it have to be an M?  Leica crafted film cameras before they integrated viewfinder and rangefinder.  It would allow for some serious differentiation with the M-A and MP.  Then there is the added nostalgia.  Maybe an m-mount and modern film take-up would be helpful.  Which model should they base it on?

A cheaper M could have just three framelines like the M2 perhaps? But it depends on what else can be shaved. Cosina showed that reliability and simplicity can be had in a rangefinder for not much money so maybe Cosina should build it for Leica? And Leica should make a big deal of modern materials, ABS being tougher than brass etc. Add a few weather seals and it could be called the 'M2-A Tough', and instead of promoting it with designers or arty types have Chuck Norris crashing through a brick wall holding it in his teeth. 

Nostalgia is yesterday (so is Chuck Norris but that's beside the point), and most people in this thread are trying desperately hark back to something. Leica need to build a cheaper camera that can't be compared with anything that has gone before, then the petty arguments stop, then it becomes a unique item where price comparisons are moot. It can still be a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses, but it can also look forward and not backward.

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

In that case you probably don’t see the point of the Q/Q2 either. 
 

Well a Q/Q2 is a point and shoot in my book (this is by all mean not negative). In this case, yes I totally see the point (cf very first reply) but this would be very different than what you are discussing...  

In any case, we wait and see if anything comes out 😂.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Aryel

[Ouroboros]

49 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Well a Q/Q2 is a point and shoot in my book (this is by all mean not negative). In this case, yes I totally see the point (cf very first reply) but this would be very different than what you are discussing...  

In any case, we wait and see if anything comes out 😂.

How would a new fixed lens rangefinder film camera that could compliment the MP/M-A be any different in principle to the Q/Q2 as a complimentary option to digital rangefinder cameras?

Apart from autofocus, the principle is similar. It certainly is not my idea of a point and shoot camera.

I could see how a simplified and lower cost, though not low quality, fixed lens rangefinder camera could appeal to existing film M users as well as new Leica owners. 
As I’ve said throughout, I can’t see how  a new low cost, quality-compromised M  can be a very promising commercial prospect.

No one had suggested here how or where cost-cutting can be made in any way that convinces me that the concept is a commercially sensible one.

 

[earleygallery]

Ultimately our thoughts are pretty worthless - if a rumour has got out, and it's based on an element of truth, then Leica have already decided what this new camera is going to be. We just have to wait and see!

Edited January 4, 2021 by earleygallery

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

How would a new fixed lens rangefinder film camera that could compliment the MP/M-A be any different in principle to the Q/Q2 as a complimentary option to digital rangefinder cameras?

Apart from autofocus, the principle is similar. It certainly is not my idea of a point and shoot camera.

I could see how a simplified and lower cost, though not low quality, fixed lens rangefinder camera could appeal to existing film M users as well as new Leica owners. 
As I’ve said throughout, I can’t see how  a new low cost, quality-compromised M  can be a very promising commercial prospect.

No one had suggested here how or where cost-cutting can be made in any way that convinces me that the concept is a commercially sensible one.

 

You can call Leica to let them know. In the mean time, I'll wait and see. No matter what, if they do end up making a new film camera, I hope it will be successful.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Aryel
Typos

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

22 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

No one had suggested here how or where cost-cutting can be made in any way that convinces me that the concept is a commercially sensible one.

You could be right.

OTOH, had someone suggested, out of thin air, that the idea of covering a camera in red snakeskin and gold plating was a commercially sensible one, how many would have agreed? Until Leica did it.

In any case, an outside source (leicarumors.com) promoted a rumor of a less expensive film M on the horizon (or possibly a revived M6 - the rumor is a bit confused on that point). We are just discussing how that might be possible (or why it isn't). As an interesting thought experiment.

But in the final analysis (to steal from earlygallery), the only opinions about whether it is commercially viable, that will matter, are those of Andreas Kaufmann and perhaps Stefan Daniel. Everything else is just background noise.

One data point: A Leica CEO said - within the past 20 years or so - that "the low-priced, entry-level Leica already exists - it is called a used Leica."

Every one of Leica's current M lenses will fit and function on any M ever built. So Leica can sell new lenses to used-camera buyers (if the goal is selling more lenses).

Although I'm not persuaded that is really the primary goal anymore. On the plus side, Leica lenses can be used on far more cameras than in the past (thanks to adapters and mirrorless bodies). On the minus side, there are far more options for non-Leica M lenses than in the past (C/V, 7A, some others I can't keep up with).

I kinda think someone who can't afford an MP/M-A probably doesn't have a lot of cash to buy new Leica lenses either. But if Leica now sees it differently - more power to them.