OhOh, future of CL?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And where do sales come from? Customers. 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And where do sales come from? Customers. 

Of course.  Any person selling a product or service should keep existing customers happy, but not by selling them what they have now, but what they want or need next; even if they don’t know what that is.  No company’s future is securely based on what they sell now - it’s what they have to sell tomorrow.

So, we come back a full circle.

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Okay, so let’s look at continuity - Leica III, M3, M4, M6 then the digital Ms.

Not so much the original SL, the R, the X cameras (X1, X2, XU, XV), the TL and CL … see where I’m going with this?  I also own a TL2.  Tell Leica that it should have continued the R system for its loyal R users.  Loyalty doesn’t make profits - sales do.  The more critical question is what will customers want - Apple under Steve Jobs was an exemplar in this respect.  Porsche reverting to the primacy of the 911, and Leica reverting to the primacy of the M system.

Is APS-C in Leica’s future?  Apparently not.  Continuity and loyalty would be little more than flushing money down the drain.  I suspect it was loyalty that almost broke Leica in the first place.

Steve Jobs did not listen to customers, he told them what they were going to get and that it would be good for them. Porsche expanded by adding Boxster, Cayman and most importantly Cayenne to survive and then prosper. Leica would appear to have poor business sense, be undercapitalized and all they have done is pulled up the drawbridge and retreated after not investing enough in supporting lines like the R and TL/CL to give them sustainable momentum. Why would owners be loyal to a company that can’t manage today properly, let alone it’s future. The uncertainties of poor management eventually create distrust amongst buyers. Emotional brand attachment by owners does not in the end buy unquestioned loyalty.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Le Chef

[cboy]

Luckily Sigma is still making ASPC lenses in L mount which can't be said for Leica. Sigma has a smaller FF camera than the CL and so it'll be unlikely they'll add a ASP-C camera. And Panasonic won't likely either as it will confuse their MFT line. So where is the ASP-C support? These days, other than allowing people to get more use out of their old APS-C lenses, there’s really no reason to continue it with full-frame prices dropping so much (and the used market flooded with cheap full-frame DSLRs).

[Enrique Santa]

Ok so APSC is finished by Leica. Some of us belive in a FF sucessor in a compact format with crop posibility...say a Q with L mount . This will never is going to hapen...a really bad decision that implies not only the end of the CL line but the end of Q line an SL line, and probably an important reduction in M sales.

APSC is here to stay, some of us feel absolutly fine with this format. The most equilibrated format I think. Some of us don't like bulky cams and big lens. Some os us just prefer hight IQ and COMPACT form factor in cams and lenses. What is the problem? Leica will have to ask us for more money for CL2?...Sure Leica always does it. With this money you could buy a FF Nikon or Canon???. Sure, but some of us will be fine with an expensive little Leica and with no other brand. So Leica open your ears: CL  has his place, there will be a big mistake to finish it.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Enrique Santa

[IkarusJohn]

15 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Steve Jobs did not listen to customers, he told them what they were going to get and that it would be good for them. Porsche expanded by adding Boxster, Cayman and most importantly Cayenne to survive and then prosper. Leica would appear to have poor business sense, be undercapitalized and all they have done is pulled up the drawbridge and retreated after not investing enough in supporting lines like the R and TL/CL to give them sustainable momentum. Why would owners be loyal to a company that can’t manage today properly, let alone it’s future. The uncertainties of poor management eventually create distrust amongst buyers. Emotional brand attachment by owners does not in the end buy unquestioned loyalty.

Well, strangely under Dr Kaufmann’s ownership and management, Leica is apparently profitable for the first time since the 1970s.  To be honest, there is insufficient public information for me to express any view on Leica’s management.  What we see in this forum is the reaction of a small, but very committed part of the photographic community, of which an even smaller part has expressed rage over the discontinuance of the R system, rage over every new M release (for varying reasons) and rage over the discontinuance of APS-C, if that is what it is.

Meanwhile, the S has outsold expectations (apparently); the SL is successful and the M likewise.  Apparently.

I don’t think loyalty is a good business model, unless is sells product.  I really don’t imagine Leica continuing to make cameras which are profitable and sell well, regardless how good they are.  Steve Jobs’ great skill was anticipating where the market was going (iPhone), or even having the following to push the market where he wanted it to go (iPad).

No one is dismissing the disappointment of happy CL and TL2 owners - I’m one of them.  But I don’t expect Leica would discontinue a product which is profitable …

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Well, strangely under Dr Kaufmann’s ownership and management, Leica is apparently profitable for the first time since the 1970s.  To be honest, there is insufficient public information for me to express any view on Leica’s management.  What we see in this forum is the reaction of a small, but very committed part of the photographic community, of which an even smaller part has expressed rage over the discontinuance of the R system, rage over every new M release (for varying reasons) and rage over the discontinuance of APS-C, if that is what it is.

Meanwhile, the S has outsold expectations (apparently); the SL is successful and the M likewise.  Apparently.

I don’t think loyalty is a good business model, unless is sells product.  I really don’t imagine Leica continuing to make cameras which are profitable and sell well, regardless how good they are.  Steve Jobs’ great skill was anticipating where the market was going (iPhone), or even having the following to push the market where he wanted it to go (iPad).

No one is dismissing the disappointment of happy CL and TL2 owners - I’m one of them.  But I don’t expect Leica would discontinue a product which is profitable …

You’re back to front: good product and good service create loyalty, not the other way round.

[IkarusJohn]

17 minutes ago, cboy said:

Luckily Sigma is still making ASPC lenses in L mount which can't be said for Leica. Sigma has a smaller FF camera than the CL and so it'll be unlikely they'll add a ASP-C camera. And Panasonic won't likely either as it will confuse their MFT line. So where is the ASP-C support? These days, other than allowing people to get more use out of their old APS-C lenses, there’s really no reason to continue it with full-frame prices dropping so much (and the used market flooded with cheap full-frame DSLRs).

I must have missed it - what APS-C L mount is Sigma making?  Its new FP & FP L are full frame, and the sd id a Sigma bayonet mount …

[IkarusJohn]

3 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

You’re back to front: good product and good service create loyalty, not the other way round.

You’ve lost me.  No profit, no future, bankruptcy.  No matter how good the profit, or how loyal the customer base, your can only make a loss for so long before you bale.

That aside, I have a suspicion that Leica has made a strategic decision that the future lies elsewhere than APS-C.  Its other L mount partners don’t seem to be making APS-C cameras for L mount and Leica isn’t rushing to maintain its advantage in that respect.  I’m sure something will come; just not sure it will be a CL2 - I hope I’m wrong.  We’ll have to disagree that loyalty is the commercial driver - it doesn’t appear that Leica agrees with you.

[Le Chef]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

You’ve lost me.  No profit, no future, bankruptcy.  No matter how good the profit, or how loyal the customer base, your can only make a loss for so long before you bale.

That aside, I have a suspicion that Leica has made a strategic decision that the future lies elsewhere than APS-C.  Its other L mount partners don’t seem to be making APS-C cameras for L mount and Leica isn’t rushing to maintain its advantage in that respect.  I’m sure something will come; just not sure it will be a CL2 - I hope I’m wrong.  We’ll have to disagree that loyalty is the commercial driver - it doesn’t appear that Leica agrees with you.

Most companies make more profit from repeat /retained customers than they do through acquisition: I t’s  such a basic business practice. And that’s why I wouldn’t invest in Leica, sadly.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Le Chef

[dkCambridgeshire]

Given Leica's relatively small % of total sales within the whole camera market, they appear to have too many different types of cameras i.e. M film, M digital, Q, SL, TL, S... plus the C-Lux, D-Lux V-lux small sensor 'pseudo-Leica' series ... and then consider all the ICL Leica cameras' lens types ... and the Monochrom versions of the M and Q ... and the special editions with fancy celebrity names ... and special paint jobs. Maybe Leica's resources (in the broadest sense) are spread too thinly over all their current products?

A marketing nightmare. 

[IkarusJohn]

9 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

And that’s why I wouldn’t invest in Leica, sadly.

Well, it’s a privately held company, so you can’t.

I was thinking about loss making products, and a number of cars came to mind (always a bad analogy, I know).  Apparently the Bugatti Veyron cost considerably more to make than the sticker price (according to a very unreliable source), and I seem to recall that the Carreera GT was also sold at minimal or no profit.  In those cases, they were statement products built to show that they could be made - they were prestige for the companies to boost the sales of their more mundane products.  Not sure the TL2 or CL fall into that category 😀

As for “investing” in the sense of buying their products, I don’t expect my SL to fall to bits or stop working because the SL2 was issued, or any other cameras to be any less good than when I bought them.  I bought into the TL system because I liked the camera, and it provided a small, quality camera that will take my M lenses and has a nice wide zoom.  It still does.

When I need to replace it, I have no doubt there will be an alternative - I would love it if the Leitz Phone 1 came with Apple iOS (I’m not holding my breath).  For myself, I will continue to “invest” in the M system as I like the camera, love the lenses, and I like to support Leica because I like what they do.  I won’t blame them if they discontinue the APS-C line, as I’m sure they have good reason to do so.  They also have to feed their families, and they are very loyal to the M system.

Edited November 18, 2021 by IkarusJohn

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, cboy said:

Luckily Sigma is still making ASPC lenses in L mount which can't be said for Leica. Sigma has a smaller FF camera than the CL and so it'll be unlikely they'll add a ASP-C camera. And Panasonic won't likely either as it will confuse their MFT line. So where is the ASP-C support? These days, other than allowing people to get more use out of their old APS-C lenses, there’s really no reason to continue it with full-frame prices dropping so much (and the used market flooded with cheap full-frame DSLRs).

Not quite true: CL body weighs 403g. The Sigma S5 weighs 714g.

[Boojay]

22 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Not quite true: CL body weighs 403g. The Sigma S5 weighs 714g.

Think you mean Panasonic S5.. Sigma Fp weighs 427g, until you have bolted on the evf of course😊.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Boojay

[Guest BlackBarn]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

don’t think loyalty is a good business model, unless is sells product.

‘Loyalty’ is only a business model because it sells products.

• Bain & Company and Harvard Business School report that "increasing customer retention rates by 5% increases profits by 25% to 95%."

• Research found that existing customers are 50% more likely to try new products and spend 31% more, on average, compared to new customers.

• New customer acquisition costs have increased by almost 50% in the past five years.

Full report here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/01/29/the-value-of-investing-in-loyal-customers/?sh=4dae2fe121f6
 

There seems to be an assumption that Leica is being run well by its management. There is a scenario - based on their lack of customer service and awareness of customer loyalty - that the opposite might be true. My opinion/suggestion is that by keeping their loyal customers in the dark over aspects which matter to those individuals is blinkered management more akin to management by arrogance. It doesn’t take much effort to keep loyal clients informed about the CL or whatever. 

 

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

Loyalty is all fine, but not so good if the products are loss making (no idea if the CL is loss making, but the R system is a case in point).  Loyalty is always historic - you’re loyal to a product you have, or have owned in the past.  There’s no loyalty to future products, only to the brand.  I’d say that there’s a lot of loyalty to the Leica brand.

@Le Chef wasn’t really referring to loyalty of customers, but loyalty of Leica to its customers …

Anyway, we just need to wait and see. I had a brief look at the Sigma fp - first glance, looks good.  Then - electronic shutter (no thanks - rolling shutter …); attachable EVF; lots of buttons … not thanks.  I prefer my SL and TL2.  I like the idea, but they lack Leica’s concentration on haptics, and on refining existing tech to give the best outcome.

[cpclee]

3 hours ago, Enrique Santa said:

Ok so APSC is finished by Leica. Some of us belive in a FF sucessor in a compact format with crop posibility...say a Q with L mount . This will never is going to hapen...a really bad decision that implies not only the end of the CL line but the end of Q line an SL line, and probably an important reduction in M sales.

APSC is here to stay, some of us feel absolutly fine with this format. The most equilibrated format I think. Some of us don't like bulky cams and big lens. Some os us just prefer hight IQ and COMPACT form factor in cams and lenses. What is the problem? Leica will have to ask us for more money for CL2?...Sure Leica always does it. With this money you could buy a FF Nikon or Canon???. Sure, but some of us will be fine with an expensive little Leica and with no other brand. So Leica open your ears: CL  has his place, there will be a big mistake to finish it.

Demise of APS-C bodies (if there is even a demise at all) does not imply demise of APS-C lenses.  It can be a strategy to no longer bifurcate the bodies but continue to bifurcate the lens lines.  If under such a strategy they can make a FF body that is compact enough, than the user experience of mounting APS-C lenses on such a body may not be so different than if they gave us a CL2.

If the SL2-S with its FF sensor, weather sealing/professional build and massive EVF is only $4999, you will have to ask whether a CL2 at $3000 is a sustainable given a future fullframe EVF camera around the size of a Q is almost inevitable.  And if you agree the latter is inevitable would they cram three bodies into a price band of $1999 or would they drop the CL2 and keep the other two?  I say it's very likely what they will do.

As much as I'm a fan of the CL line (I just bought my CL), an L mount Q sans lens would make a more competitively defensible product.  It has the very natural moat of allowing the mounting M lenses uncropped and that alone will fend off low cost competition in ways a CL2 never can.

It's natural for photogs to have wishes, but we shouldn't divorce our wishes from economic and competitive reality.  

Edited November 19, 2021 by cpclee

[Le Chef]

The reality is that Fuji and Sony make a nice living out of APSC cameras and lenses. It’s still a valid format that balances IQ and lightness against the significantly heavier full frame cameras and lenses.

Maybe Leica should never have gone there. I also question, with outstanding new full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon, what the real future for Leica looks like beyond the M.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Le Chef

[cpclee]

13 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

The reality is that Fuji and Sony make a nice living out of APSC cameras and lenses. It’s still a valid format that balances IQ and lightness against the significantly heavier full frame cameras and lenses.

Maybe Leica should never have gone there. I also question, with outstanding new full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon, what the real future for Leica looks like beyond the M.

Well it's precisely because Fuji and Sony making a nice living that is pricing out Leica.  Look at it this way.  The Leica X1 was a big seller because Leica was the only maker of APS-C point and shoot in 2009.  But by 2014 they left that market, with X Typ 113 being the last product in that line.  Why?  Because Ricoh came out with the GR and Fuji the X100, both APS-C point and shoots.  Leica's response was to move up-scale with the only FF point and shoot in town, the Q.

The reality is Leica has to go up the quality ladder whenever competition invades its segment with lower priced alternatives.  But as I said, a Q sans lens is more defensible in the long term because of what it can do for M lenses.  It's a product segment less likely for Leica to get chased out of just because the competition has come up with something at half the price.  M means heritage, M means microlenses to ensure performance near sensor periphery, M means special lens profiles, etc.   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[aksclix]

32 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

The reality is that Fuji and Sony make a nice living out of APSC cameras and lenses. It’s still a valid format that balances IQ and lightness against the significantly heavier full frame cameras and lenses.

Maybe Leica should never have gone there. I also question, with outstanding new full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon, what the real future for Leica looks like beyond the M.

I have 100s, R5, S1r, X1D, SL2, A1.. for pictures of people I really only use the SL2.. the 100s next.. the R5 next purely because I love the 28-70 f2... and the 100-500 as well.. 

if Leica were to make significant improvements in an SL3, I'd swap it for my SL2. I LOVE the IQ and the rich beautiful colors SOOC. I mean to use the GFX for portraits as well but its mainly my landscape camera and unfortunately I have not done a whole lot of landscape after getting my 100s.. due to life circumstances recently.. 

Canon and Nikon have really been the only 2 rulers in the SLR world in the pre-mirrorless era I guess.. I don't know if there was a Leica digital SLR (NOT Leica S)? was there? I've been a Leica user only since mid 2020 so I don't know much about their history.. Leica now has more users than ever before with their CL, T and SL series cameras.. so I'd say their future is very much alive and it would survive alongside other camera giants.. how many variants of M do they need? looks like they're only interested in retaining that legacy.. 
 

Edited November 19, 2021 by aksclix