Here we go again: Q40/50

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Regarding ROI, we can ask the same for the SL3: how many people will upgrade if it only offers 60mp? 
 

I'm not sure I would consider it an "upgrade" but I'd get the SL3 if it could come close to the low light performance of my SL2-S with higher resolution to give me more flexibility in cropping.  I loved the high resolution of the SL2 for high contrast and microcontrast in monochrome images but I do a lot of low light photography so the SL2-S was the better choice (for me).

[Olaf_ZG]

3 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

I'm not sure I would consider it an "upgrade" but I'd get the SL3 if it could come close to the low light performance of my SL2-S with higher resolution to give me more flexibility in cropping.  I loved the high resolution of the SL2 for high contrast and microcontrast in monochrome images but I do a lot of low light photography so the SL2-S was the better choice (for me).

Here the question is if a SL3 has equal (or better) low light abilities as the 2s, in which it would be worth it, but that is a totally different topic.

[Dr. G]

25 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

The fact that nobody knows, is , how many people don’t bought a q3/2/1 cause it is only 28mm? 
how much sales did Leica lost?

 

I can say that when the original Q was released I chose a Sony Rx1r II because I preferred 35mm - so Leica lost one back then.  Being that Sony hasn't released an updated RX1r camera the Leica is my choice - but if the choice was between a new Rx1r III with a 35mm lens or a Q with a 40/50mm lens, I would still take the Leica.  The Sony would undoubtedly have better AF and Eye AF, but Leica colors are far better and much easier to manage in post.  The Zeiss lens on the RX1r II is incredible, though.  

[Le Chef]

You are answering your own questions "they lost my sales on both 28 & 40" 

7 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I also assume they could get sales figures from Ricoh, so a projection could be made if the want.

Different price point - easier to afford both: $2K vs a minimum of $12K

8 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Ricoh isn’t for me (tried it)

So your real option is the Fuji X100 which is 23mm or 35mm FF equivalent.

How do any of these personal points of view build a business case for Leica to grow sales and margin?

[bobtodrick]

3 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I guess we should ask Ricoh.

sales would come from people like me…

Big difference between the amount of people who spend $1300 for a GIIIx and those who would spend $9000 for a Q with a different lens.

As others have pointed out it could be done…would it be profitable?  Pretty sure if the answer was a resounding YES, Leica would make it.

[Olaf_ZG]

20 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

You are answering your own questions "they lost my sales on both 28 & 40" 

Different price point - easier to afford both: $2K vs a minimum of $12K

So your real option is the Fuji X100 which is 23mm or 35mm FF equivalent.

How do any of these personal points of view build a business case for Leica to grow sales and margin?

Sadly, there is no other real option, as there is no FF compact with 40/50mm.

And Leica lost my sales: no Q3, no Q40/50, but I switch brands.

My personal view isn’t a business case for Leica, but I don’t believe I am so insane unique, so I believe I am not the only one hoping for another Q.

How can you be so sure that Leica made/tested a business case? I am not aware of it. All I believe is that there is a significant sales potential, R&D should be less than the orignal Q, as only lens integration is new, so break-even point most probably could be much lower. With same price, profits might be higher. But then, once again, I am not a business analyst working for Leica, nor have any intention to be.

 I am just a customer willing to spend money. I am not even rich, just willing to sacrifice certain money for my hobby. And I will spend it, Leica, Fuji, or whomever.

And I still hope for the Q40/50, cause it will be great, and it will be perfect to me. An EDC portrait machine… 

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And on a more personal note towards @Le Chef (but without any disrespect towards you are your images), you see hunger in a bridal party whereas I see love for the future. Realism vs hope.

Once again, without disrespect, just a different approach to a same situation.

[bobtodrick]

10 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

And on a more personal note towards @Le Chef (but without any disrespect towards you are your images), you see hunger in a bridal party whereas I see love for the future. Realism vs hope.

Once again, without disrespect, just a different approach to a same situation.

Let me come from a different perspective.  I’ve been in the photographic supply industry for 40 years.  I remember a comment made by a Minolta R&D tech about 2005 (a year or two before they left the camera biz).  As he said in the film days they could design a camera and count on a lifespan of 10-12 years.   With digital this became 2-3 years…and that costs money.

Plus for every camera they introduced there was likely one or two that they spent R&D dollars on…only to have someone beat them to the punch with a better camera…and the design hit the garbage.

It killed Minolta…very near killed Pentax, who would be gone if not for Ricoh’s money..,which by the way mostly comes from their copier division.

Economical it isn’t just a case of…gee, a few people are asking for this let’s make it…a couple wrong steps can kill a photographic company.

If Leica was getting countless letters/emails asking for what you want…they’d definitely consider it.

I’d say they likely aren’t.

[FrozenInTime]

3 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

.If Leica was getting countless letters/emails asking for what you want…they’d definitely consider it.

I would suggest that is how the Ricoh GR IIIX came into being - multiple requests over the years for a complimentary body to the 28mm GR.

Adding 40mm bought in additional sales from both loyal and new customers, for a minimal R&D effort ( same software and electronics ).

Some time back it was reported that the 28/1.7 was chosen for the Q  to fit the largest available leaf shutter. A 40/2.4 is a lot less appealing than a 40/2. However at that time the Q concept was unproven; but now than it is a known success, spend on a new shutter would be easier to justify.

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, FrozenInTime said:

I would suggest that is how the Ricoh GR IIIX came into being - multiple requests over the years for a complimentary body to the 28mm GR.

Adding 40mm bought in additional sales from both loyal and new customers, for a minimal R&D effort ( same software and electronics ).

Some time back it was reported that the 28/1.7 was chosen for the Q  to fit the largest available leaf shutter. A 40/2.4 is a lot less appealing than a 40/2. However at that time the Q concept was unproven; but now than it is a known success, spend on a new shutter would be easier to justify.

Okay…how about the Canon 5ds R.  A camera based on the very successful Canon 5D MkIV with a bigger sensor that some people were ‘clamouring’ for.  So Canon made it…took a bath on it and we cleared out what stock we had at below cost.  Guaranteed Cannon has more money to throw at things than Leica!

Again…they have market analysts who are likely far better you and I as to what to throw money at.

Edited November 29, 2023 by bobtodrick

[Miltz]

Actually I would want a Q 20mm. I would definitely not buy a 45mm Q camera. 

[M11 for me]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

Honestly the only things the M and Q have in common is the sensor

Unfortunately this is not true. The M11 is a different beast except for the 60 MPix.

[M11 for me]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

What is the point if buying a 6000€ camera if the vast majority of your photos are cropped?

Here I agree. When above I said that with 28mm we can crop that statement makes little sense if you really plan to crop all the time. What I love to shoot when I go outside is landscape. And 28mm suits perfectly well. And if needed then I can crop. So this is now a bit more precise.

On the other hand I imagine that often you are out with 50mm because that is what you are used to. I was a full 50mm guy in the 60ies and 70ies with my Voigtländer with its fix 50mm. When I started with Canon 5er series in 2006 I had a 50mm f/1.8 as my first lens. Later I got a 35mm and did not like it at all. It was so different and I was not used to it. Then came the time with the heavy zoom lenses that I have well behind me. Only when I started with Leica M10 I got the 28mm and 50mm as my first 2 lenses. Later came 21mm. Today my mist used lens is the 28mm. Thats the fical length that I have always on. 35mm and 50mm (or 75mm) I use very rarely. When I ho out I grap my camera (most time M11) and I use the lens thats on it. And in 99% of the cases its the 28mm. 

A last remark: I prefer the M11 to my Q3 as the colours of the M are much nicer to me habd easier to work on in LR Classic). I prefer the M with 28mm to the Q3 by far. And for landscape or architecture I need no AF nor image stabilisation.

[bill_murray]

@Olaf_ZG  A Hasselblad X1DII or X2D with an XCD 55v lens (has a 43mm equiv) would give you a compact and lightweight set and MF to boot.... but I can't recall of you bought and then sold this set this already? 

Edited November 29, 2023 by bill_murray

[Qwertynm]

If you bring the X2D to the table why not any MILC that is big and heavy? The only viable option that is comparable in size to a Q would be the Sony A7CR with a 40 2.5 or a 50 2.5. everything else is either APS-C or not light and compact. OP already has an SL and a 50 I assume the X2D would just be another camera that does the same as the gear he already owns. 

[idusidusi]

Would it be sacriledge to envisage or even possible for the Q3 + to have removable lenses? That would solve the ongoing love by some for more than 28mm. I am happy with the 28mm.

[Qwertynm]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb idusidusi:

Would it be sacriledge to envisage or even possible for the Q3 + to have removable lenses?

It’s not possible in the current form

[Simone_DF]

15 hours ago, Le Chef said:

The risk of cannibalization would be higher. In addition once I have a Q I don't buy additional lenses: it's a one and done purchase. With an M or SL I almost invariably will buy more lenses which will gain Leica more profit and also ties me into a form of loyalty. 

Cannibalization of what, the SL? It's two completely different concept. If you're not interested in a Q, that doesn't mean you will buy a SL and viceversa. Look at the 28mm APO for the SL, doesn't that cannibalize the Q? Apparently, it doesn't. People that want the ultimate quality of the APO will buy the APO, people that want the portability of the Q will buy the Q. And some people have both, because of different use cases.

The Q and the SL are like the iPhone and the iPad. You buy one, or the other, or both. But one doesn't really replace the other, as each one has different use cases, strengths and weaknesses.

Also, this never gets old:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Simone_DF]

15 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Why not ask this forum that question and see how they respond?

This is actually a good idea - will create a survey in the next days

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Simone_DF]

14 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You are answering your own questions "they lost my sales on both 28 & 40" 

Different price point - easier to afford both: $2K vs a minimum of $12K

And since when price is a problem for Leica users? A M11-P body with one lens is 8950 + 4950 for a 28mm ASPH, that's 13900€.

A SL2 is 6800 + 5000€ for a 28mm APO, total 11800€.

It'd still be a bargain to get both a Q28 and a Q50. You'd even have two batteries!