L-system - Why poor sales?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Peters said:

One thing that I've noticed: the majority of Leica users are of the more mature demographic. This is probably to be expected, since they are perhaps more in tune with Leica's history, and at the same time have a greater affinity for the more simple and mechanical feel of its cameras. However, this demographic is naturally getting on a bit, and the older you are the less patience you will have for big, heavy equipment, which many would argue is against Leica's ethos of producing small and high quality cameras.

While I'm sure you're right about older creakier people having issues with heavy SLs (and eyesight issues with rangefinders), I think you have missed one factor - price: I certainly could not have afforded a new Leica when I was young: I got a 27 year old M3 when I was 28, but didn't buy a new one, a M9, till I was 58, when I had the income to justify it. Given that 'aspirational' is a term used for Leicas, I am sure there are plenty of younger photographers who will buy one when they are older and richer.

Edited June 13, 2022 by LocalHero1953
Correcting dates and arithmetic

[Advertisement]

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

[Peters]

Yes, very true. But those who will eventually be able to afford a Leica in 10 years time may not have the same aspiration to do so. Speaking to young photographers in their late teens / early to mid 20s and they are not so familiar with Leica's history, which is a massive part of the appeal. If the history dies with the older generation, then their will be no more sales for the next generation who may not choose to invest...

[frame-it]

38 minutes ago, Peters said:

Speaking to young photographers in their late teens / early to mid 20s and they are not so familiar with Leica's history

also depends on which region youre talking about

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes. I am in my forties, and I know many photographers my age and younger who are well aware of Leica, and may even be lucky enough to own a limited number of cameras and lenses...such as an M6 and two lenses, or even a digital M and a few lenses, but the issue is largely one of cost. The current generation of people younger than the baby boomer generation is less wealthy and less secure than those born in the post war period. At the same time, the prices for Leicas have increased enormously in that time, making Leicas more inaccessible. This has been driven by the rise of the newly wealthy in Asia, the Middle East and Russia, whose tastes are at times different and reasons for buying sometimes different as well. I think Leica also went down this path as a way to try to find a path out of trouble during the early phases of the digital transition when they did not have a good solution for the market. The overall trend of people of my generation and younger being poorer and Leicas being more expensive has not helped the take up of especially the S and SL systems, where the cost of entry is extremely high. The M is a lot easier, as there are so many older lenses available on the used market, as well as options like Voigtlander, Canon RF lenses etc. The S is particularly inaccessible, and the SL has only recently had lower cost options in the SL2S and Sigma/Panasonic lenses. For younger photographers who are not as flush, it seems that Fuji and Sony draw the most customers...most of the pro or practicing artists I know will get a Fuji G series setup if they can swing it, otherwise they use the Alpha bodies. Some stick with Canon and Nikon as well, but it seems like Fuji and Sony are the most popular among my peers.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Peters]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes. I am in my forties, and I know many photographers my age and younger who are well aware of Leica, and may even be lucky enough to own a limited number of cameras and lenses...such as an M6 and two lenses, or even a digital M and a few lenses, but the issue is largely one of cost. The current generation of people younger than the baby boomer generation is less wealthy and less secure than those born in the post war period. At the same time, the prices for Leicas have increased enormously in that time, making Leicas more inaccessible. This has been driven by the rise of the newly wealthy in Asia, the Middle East and Russia, whose tastes are at times different and reasons for buying sometimes different as well. I think Leica also went down this path as a way to try to find a path out of trouble during the early phases of the digital transition when they did not have a good solution for the market. The overall trend of people of my generation and younger being poorer and Leicas being more expensive has not helped the take up of especially the S and SL systems, where the cost of entry is extremely high. The M is a lot easier, as there are so many older lenses available on the used market, as well as options like Voigtlander, Canon RF lenses etc. The S is particularly inaccessible, and the SL has only recently had lower cost options in the SL2S and Sigma/Panasonic lenses. For younger photographers who are not as flush, it seems that Fuji and Sony draw the most customers...most of the pro or practicing artists I know will get a Fuji G series setup if they can swing it, otherwise they use the Alpha bodies. Some stick with Canon and Nikon as well, but it seems like Fuji and Sony are the most popular among my peers.

I certainly think that Leica's are generally overpriced, and by some distance, though that has been a prohibiting factor for the mass market since the M3. This hasn't stopped Leica from making sales in the past or indeed present. The M11 entry price of close to USD 9k is just ridiculous, and yet Leica are unable to meet the current demand. I sincerely doubt this demand will be the same in 20 years time when today's 20 year olds reach 40, unless there's a change in marketing strategy. 

Of course, it is difficult to compare when the M is a niche camera. The SL 601 was quite novel when it first came out in 2015, and the SL2 improved the design as well as the price, coming in at around USD 2k less than its predecessor. However, the SL2 is no longer niche, and post-2016 cameras, regardless of brand, are capable of extremely high quality, gallery-grade outputs, in relatively small and, as you say, affordable packages, with the average person unable to distinguish differences in quality between systems. Leica could certainly do with a price reduction, but they also need to consider a size reduction and aperture speed increase.

The main point is this: Leica's strategy to pursue maximum quality at no compromise to size and price is no longer relevant in 2022. The Leica L lenses have moved well beyond the point of diminishing returns, particularly when Sony and Sigma are able to produce faster, cheaper, and smaller lenses at a fraction of the cost and at a very similar level of quality. 

This is why I really think Leica needs to breath its M ethos into the L line. In the early 20th century Leica was never the pinnacle of quality. In fact that Barack and the M cameras where a compromise in themselves, being of lesser quality than the medium format cameras. What made Leica stand out from the rest was its ability to deliver not just craftsmanship but high image quality in the smallest package possible. The Q follows this tradition and is extremely popular for that reason, despite being very expensive. If Leica can find a way to reduce the size of the SL3 and deliver on a set of 1.4 (or 1.2) L lenses that, may not be as perfect as the APO series, but are nevertheless of high quality and much smaller than Canon's and Sony's offerings, (and hopefully cheaper than the APOs), then I believe it will make the system much more competitive. 

[MakinMemories]

While a smaller, lighter SL system might be nice...I for one would not want sacrifice one iota of quality, durability, performance, selection of build materials, 'Leica's premium feel', fit & finish or ability to customize controls in order to accomplish said size/weight reduction. As for cost, Leica is a premium / luxury brand and just as a Porsche will cost more than a Subaru, a Leica will cost more than a Canon...

 

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Peters said:

I certainly think that Leica's are generally overpriced, and by some distance, though that has been a prohibiting factor for the mass market since the M3. This hasn't stopped Leica from making sales in the past or indeed present. The M11 entry price of close to USD 9k is just ridiculous, and yet Leica are unable to meet the current demand. I sincerely doubt this demand will be the same in 20 years time when today's 20 year olds reach 40, unless there's a change in marketing strategy. 

Of course, it is difficult to compare when the M is a niche camera. The SL 601 was quite novel when it first came out in 2015, and the SL2 improved the design as well as the price, coming in at around USD 2k less than its predecessor. However, the SL2 is no longer niche, and post-2016 cameras, regardless of brand, are capable of extremely high quality, gallery-grade outputs, in relatively small and, as you say, affordable packages, with the average person unable to distinguish differences in quality between systems. Leica could certainly do with a price reduction, but they also need to consider a size reduction and aperture speed increase.

The main point is this: Leica's strategy to pursue maximum quality at no compromise to size and price is no longer relevant in 2022. The Leica L lenses have moved well beyond the point of diminishing returns, particularly when Sony and Sigma are able to produce faster, cheaper, and smaller lenses at a fraction of the cost and at a very similar level of quality. 

This is why I really think Leica needs to breath its M ethos into the L line. In the early 20th century Leica was never the pinnacle of quality. In fact that Barack and the M cameras where a compromise in themselves, being of lesser quality than the medium format cameras. What made Leica stand out from the rest was its ability to deliver not just craftsmanship but high image quality in the smallest package possible. The Q follows this tradition and is extremely popular for that reason, despite being very expensive. If Leica can find a way to reduce the size of the SL3 and deliver on a set of 1.4 (or 1.2) L lenses that, may not be as perfect as the APO series, but are nevertheless of high quality and much smaller than Canon's and Sony's offerings, (and hopefully cheaper than the APOs), then I believe it will make the system much more competitive. 

Regarding SL lens size I believe you will see some validation of the current approach with the next 1-2 generations of higher resolution sensors. What may be over-built for today's 50-60 MP cameras may be the new required quality to benefit from 100MP+ sensors ... Peter Karbe spoke about that I believe in one of the APO 35 interviews? Having acknowledged that there are no shortcuts in optics, I would still love to see Leica take advantage of innovations like phase fresnel lenses esp. to reduce the size of there telephoto optics; I still have not bought the 90-280 only because of size/weight - everything else would have been perfect.

All that lower end of the market with less perfect optics will likely succumb to ever improving smartphones and computational photography. It is not clear to me that HCB could not have replicated much of his work on a current generation iPhone.

[Jürgen]

The SL Summicron (I have the SL35mm and SL90mm) lenses are simply perfect and not too big for me. I like also my 90-280, which I used often this year in Namibia - it it also not to big and very sharp with the image stabilization. I hope for the SL24 and SL21 - and for a SL3 with the same sensor as my fantastic M11. What I don't like at my SL2 is that this camera has no extra closure, so the sensor by changing the lens is free accessible. The M11 solution is much better.  

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, Peters said:

The main point is this: Leica's strategy to pursue maximum quality at no compromise to size and price is no longer relevant in 2022. The Leica L lenses have moved well beyond the point of diminishing returns, particularly when Sony and Sigma are able to produce faster, cheaper, and smaller lenses at a fraction of the cost and at a very similar level of quality. 

 

I don't really agree with you here. As you said yourself, it seems to be working very well for Leica, particularly in the M line. The most recent lenses of note that Leica has released have all been mega-priced optically superior lenses like the 35mm APO, 75mm Noctilux, and 90mm Summilux. Most of these lenses are so popular that they are hard to find at any price. 

As for the SL lenses, I certainly would not say "well beyond the point of diminishing returns". I bought Sigma lenses and tried the Leicas and saw enough improvement to buy the APO Summicrons (in the 35 and 50mm focal length). For me the returns are very worth it...the lenses are noticeably sharper at every aperture until diffraction takes over and have far fewer aberrations. This makes a big difference for my work, especially since I shoot a lot in low light landscapes. The Sigma lenses I have used (24mm DG DN, 35mm DG DN and 45mm DG DN) are all somewhat soft wide open and show chromatic aberration and LOCA. They cannot resolve sharply edge to edge at wider apertures. The APO Summicrons are sharper than those Sigma lenses at f2. They are likely sharper at f2 than the Sigmas are at f5.6. The APO Summicrons are not very big in my book...67mm filters, and they are great to use as they have the same size and handling. I would not really want the SL2 to be any smaller. Perhaps a bit lighter. That said, I would be happy if there was an additional camera that was more focused on being smaller and lighter. I would agree that in some cases they have gone a bit off the rails in the size and weight (like with the 50mm 1.4 SL), but I think the APO Summicrons are pretty ideal. If they could make them smaller and keep the optical performance, then by all means, but it does not seem like they can. Just look at the 35mm APO Summicron M and the 35mm APO Summicron SL...the SL lens performs better, is AF, weather-sealed and is 3100 dollars cheaper. If anything, making them smaller will make them cost even more. I think the main issue is how important the optical quality is to you. If it is not that critical, then using the Sony or Sigma lenses is a better choice all around. That is actually another advantage of the L mount. You don't even HAVE to use the Leica lenses...you can use a sub 1000 dollar Sigma or Panasonic lens and get good results. I hope, however, that Leica will continue to make their optically perfect lenses.

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, Peters said:

Speaking to young photographers in their late teens / early to mid 20s and they are not so familiar with Leica's history, which is a massive part of the appeal. If the history dies with the older generation, then their will be no more sales for the next generation who may not choose to invest...

As it stands, the Leica M6 underwent a substantial price hike during Covid. The market has dried up. I'm not convinced that all the buyers were 50+ older men. I firmly believe many went to millennials, hipsters with some affection for film and a longing for the purity of good old times. I know from the horse's mouth (film students) that Leica is still THE brand when it comes to photography despite Sony's A1 or Nikon's latest offering.

Can they afford a Leica? Mostly not. Do they care about IQ in terms of corner sharpness? No. That's what older men do, the people with strong GAS, lounging in camera shops, testing the latest and greatest offerings, thinking of tons of excuses for buying that new brilliant lens with that fabulous MFT (mostly they argue with print and matching sensor resolutions).
The younger folks care more about soul, the look, and the user experience. They tend to shoot moody pictures that reflects their social life rather than shooting super sharp landscapes. It's not only about Instagram, it's often about sharing experiences, attentiveness, and diversity. That's why they care much more about life-work balance than older generations. It's not all about performance and career. Priorities are different. And they are damn right.  

The fact that Leica also produces lenses to the highest standard shouldn't hide the fact that Leica is foremost about UX and the company's legendary history. 

I find the SL primes impressive for their sheer performance, but they lack soul and character. Leica recognised that and bundled with the SL2-S an L-to-M adapter. There's a reason why vintage M-lenses prices know only one way up. Soul/character, all the bad things testers complain about like flaring, ghosting, bend focus planes, and vignetting are, in reality, the stuff young creatives appreciate.

In 2019 I sold a Zeiss Super Speeds set from 1982 for 4 times the price I purchased it in 2008. in 2008 they were old cine primes. Today they are super thought-after vintage glass. And most of that stuff goes to young DOPs or rental houses who know their more youthful clientele. It's 2022. 1982 is 40 years ago.

6 hours ago, Peters said:

The M11 entry price of close to USD 9k is just ridiculous, and yet Leica are unable to meet the current demand. I sincerely doubt this demand will be the same in 20 years time when today's 20 year olds reach 40, unless there's a change in marketing strategy. 

Totally agree. The M will become an even more niche product, albeit indispensable to the brand and well-off clientele. The SL2-S is already an affordable-ish, brilliant entry camera for the Leica world. But it's a bit heavy for the vintage slash M lenses. I'm sure Leica will bring an SL mount camera with a smaller form factor. And it will do great video because that's what younger creators want. And it will be still expensive because you can't build/sell a Leica cheap. That's part of the game as well.

And if you/we don't believe that, check the average age of the forum members. Young people, especially female, don't enter a room full of silverbacks. The forum gives a heavily biased impression.

Edited June 13, 2022 by hansvons

[hansvons]

9 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes. I am in my forties, and I know many photographers my age and younger who are well aware of Leica, and may even be lucky enough to own a limited number of cameras and lenses...such as an M6 and two lenses, or even a digital M and a few lenses, but the issue is largely one of cost. The current generation of people younger than the baby boomer generation is less wealthy and less secure than those born in the post war period. At the same time, the prices for Leicas have increased enormously in that time, making Leicas more inaccessible. This has been driven by the rise of the newly wealthy in Asia, the Middle East and Russia, whose tastes are at times different and reasons for buying sometimes different as well. I think Leica also went down this path as a way to try to find a path out of trouble during the early phases of the digital transition when they did not have a good solution for the market. The overall trend of people of my generation and younger being poorer and Leicas being more expensive has not helped the take up of especially the S and SL systems, where the cost of entry is extremely high. The M is a lot easier, as there are so many older lenses available on the used market, as well as options like Voigtlander, Canon RF lenses etc. The S is particularly inaccessible, and the SL has only recently had lower cost options in the SL2S and Sigma/Panasonic lenses. For younger photographers who are not as flush, it seems that Fuji and Sony draw the most customers...most of the pro or practicing artists I know will get a Fuji G series setup if they can swing it, otherwise they use the Alpha bodies. Some stick with Canon and Nikon as well, but it seems like Fuji and Sony are the most popular among my peers.

Absolutely agree. Well-thought-out view on Leica's path in the last 20 years. Despite Sony's and Fuji's appealing offerings, Leica remains a legend to the younger generation. And when they make a killing, they switch. 

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

I find the SL primes impressive for their sheer performance, but they lack soul and character. Leica recognised that and bundled with the SL2-S an L-to-M adapter. There's a reason why vintage M-lenses prices know only one way up. Soul/character, all the bad things testers complain about like flaring, ghosting, bend focus planes, and vignetting are, in reality, the stuff young creatives appreciate.

 

I agree with you with a lot of things, but I don't agree with you here. I think there is a time and a place for lenses that assert their own character onto a photo, and a time for lenses that step back and do nothing to degrade the image you are trying to make. Which kind of lens you choose depends more on what kind of photographer you are. These clinically sharp lenses without aberrations can create beautiful art when used correctly. But if the image itself is inartful, then they will not help. I love the SL lenses precisely because they don't intrude. I love Stephen Shore, but he also screwed us over for giving us 40 years of a certain kind of photographer taking massively resolved perfect landscapes of total banality. Shore and others have made outstanding images in this genre, but there are so many pale imitations. He is not alone, of course...for every great photographer there are thousands of images made in their style that are as dull as dishwater...the HCB street photogs, Edward Weston pepper abusers, Ansel Adams Yosemite rangers, Bruce Gilden freak hunters, Cindy Sherman self-portraiteers, Nan Goldin overshare-ers, Alec Soth Americana collectors, let alone the insta-repeat fodder on that platform. I also work as a teacher, as well as a printer, and I have met my fair share of tech obsessed younger people too, but in balance I do think you are right. But I think that is driven mostly by the aesthetics of the internet, instagram (now, but more importantly early on when it was primarily about mobile phones and filters) and lomography. With digital as it is now a certain degree of technical perfection is very easy, so many younger photographers pull away from that. Personally, I find these kind of images more boring than the technically perfect ones in a lot of cases, because usually it is just offsetting the photographers own lack of any authentic aesthetic...in place of a clarity of artistic vision, they just buy a holga or shoot an aero ektar wide open and voila, they're an artist!

Or it could just be that I am grumpy because I work all day long printing for artists and reading students' artist statements, many of whom are as full of hot air as my Jobo mistral is when set on high drying some e6....

Edited June 14, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[frame-it]

6 hours ago, hansvons said:

Leica remains a legend to the younger generation. And when they make a killing, they switch. 

saw a teenager in a bus this morning with a leica minilux..on the other hand, a few months back i bumped into a guy on the street, he said he had just got his first leica, it was an M3 variant and the lens was the latest noctisex 50mm f1.2...

 

both around the same age, one obviously had loads of cash the other didn't, but both were thrilled to bits

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Shore and others have made outstanding images in this genre, but there are so many pale imitations. He is not alone, of course...for every great photographer there are thousands of images made in their style that are as dull as dishwater...the HCB street photogs, Edward Weston pepper abusers, Ansel Adams Yosemite rangers, Bruce Gilden freak hunters, Cindy Sherman self-portraiteers, Nan Goldin overshare-ers, Alec Soth Americana collectors, let alone the insta-repeat fodder on that platform.

Love that!!

 

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

These clinically sharp lenses without aberrations can create beautiful art when used correctly. But if the image itself is inartful, then they will not help. I love the SL lenses precisely because they don't intrude.

Good thought. And I do exactly that in my line of work when a packshot must be shot in the most precise manner or if a film sequence is supposed to be as brilliant and vivid as possible. I use for that kind of work rented Zeiss Master Primes. They are in the same league as the SL primes. There's soul, but it's deeply buried under their perfectness.

But usually, I prefer lenses with character over perfect lenses. I need a companion who talks to me because photography can be quite lonesome. Perfect lenses don't speak. They are there but in-apparent. I'd say that even the SL primes talk to some extent, and so does my super perfect 24-90 zoom. Although it doesn't motivate me much, it's a brilliant team mate to finish a job.

I own a Cooke 20-100 cine zoom. That's the one which filmed Apocalypse Now (my copy wasn't in Coppola's hands, though). It's a super intriguing lens. It has so many quirks you can't list them. But its dimensionality and flaring are breathtaking. Looking actively for that dimensionality and triggering it by finding the right angle and focal length is super joyous. 
But it comes with 8 Kilograms. That's why it stays most of the time in its case. 

Quirks motivate me. I like to see the flaws later in the post. I enjoy the flatness an old Summicron 50mm renders on portraits (and I think that adds to the genre considerably). I like to deal with the bent focal plane of early 35mm lenses, especially the R lenses. You can use that to your advantage when you realise what it does. 

All of that adds some playfulness to the question: does that motif matter? This brings me to your post about irrelevant copycats. Art is always about the extraordinary. You can't copy uniqueness. That must be invented over and over again (Andy Warhol said, I like to do things over and over again). And that's perhaps a reason why vintage lenses are so popular among young creatives. They give them a sense of uniqueness new lenses don't provide. Which, of course, is a delusion.

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by hansvons

[Malabito]

Not sure if it has low sells or not, but if it does, i guess it could be due to the following:

- m system has no competition in the market, (perhaps fuji xpro and the new french camera), but overall it's the only rangefinder system in the market

- sl system is an overcrowded market, with a much stronger competition, offering better autofocus, inmense line of lenses, (especially if you go sony, which also includes Voigtlanders designed for sony), great image quality, etc, etc.... so basically, in this segment there is no reason to go for a sl, besides subjective areas, (you like better the handling and the color). SL is mostly geared towards already m users.

I am an m10 and sl2s user. I have the sl given i am already an m user and like the handling and colors of the sl (subjective), if i was 100% making a living of photography, i wouldn't have gone Sl, this due to high cost of lenses, limited used market and horrible autofocus compared to the competition. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Malabito

[profus]

8 minutes ago, Malabito said:

(perhaps fuji xpro and the new french camera)

New french camera??

[willeica]

5 hours ago, frame-it said:

saw a teenager in a bus this morning with a leica minilux..on the other hand, a few months back i bumped into a guy on the street, he said he had just got his first leica, it was an M3 variant and the lens was the latest noctisex 50mm f1.2...

 

both around the same age, one obviously had loads of cash the other didn't, but both were thrilled to bits

Sitting in the Leitz Cafe in Wetzlar just after the auction last Saturday I could not but notice that all of the older people had digital cameras (mainly Leicas given the location) whereas most of the younger people had film cameras, some of which were Leicas. This is now becoming pretty universal. For most young people, the cost of a film Leica is a big ask, but that is what many of them aspire to. Digital photography is what they do on their phones, whereas for 'real photography' they want something completely different and more tactile.

I was with Stefan Daniel who was hedging his bets and he had an M11 and an M5 with him. Leica must be noticing this generational trend. 

William 

[frame-it]

24 minutes ago, willeica said:

all of the older people had digital cameras (mainly Leicas given the location) whereas most of the younger people had film cameras, some of which were Leicas. This is now becoming pretty universal.

yes, i see the same almost everyday.....and over here, the younger people actually use their cameras, unlike the older ones who just like to show off their latest and greatest

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[frame-it]

40 minutes ago, profus said:

New french camera??

pixii

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Which kind of lens you choose depends more on what kind of photographer you are.

...and what kind of image you are working on. None of this is new, of course. Do you prefer broad paint strokes, or fine details? Perhaps you have favourites in both categories, I know I do.

 

One of the great appeals of this camera system is that you can have both: APO-Summicrons for fine detail and low flare, and 100 years of other Leica lenses, each with their own look.