Survey: Leica M EV1 – Future or mistake?

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jonoslack said:

In the LSI these days there are lots of younger members (30s and 40s) and they buy the cameras for exactly the same reasons - and boy do they have disposable income! These are the future users. 

 

Having disposable income doesn't automatically mean willingness to spend $9K on such camera - even younger people are aware of maybe better investment alternatives what to do with this money. The money might not be suffering from depreciation in case when vesting it on a camera. Just one example!

IMO it would have been a much better strategy to price the camera between a traditional M and the Q2 for about $4K initially to attract new M users. Still expensive but also still in line with Leica's luxury brand alignment (if we like it or not). 

[Anonautico]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb JNK100:

Why do you say Leica lives off its myth, whatever you mean by that

Leica justifies its current position and development in all public publications with the history of its own company. All new products refer to this tradition and state that all new developments are based on this tradition and history of the company itself.

I have never heard or read that Leica owes its current economic position to its technological superiority over other camera manufacturers. If it has nothing to do with history and tradition ("myth"), what is the reason that Leica is able to survive so well in this niche?

vor 37 Minuten schrieb JNK100:

and wonder why you would post that comment here?

I wrote this because it is my opinion. I apologize if differing opinions are not allowed here. In that case, I will of course refrain from doing so.

[JNK100]

4 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

Leica justifies its current position and development in all public publications with the history of its own company. All new products refer to this tradition and state that all new developments are based on this tradition and history of the company itself.

I have never heard or read that Leica owes its current economic position to its technological superiority over other camera manufacturers. If it has nothing to do with history and tradition ("myth"), what is the reason that Leica is able to survive so well in this niche?

I wrote this because it is my opinion. I apologize if differing opinions are not allowed here. In that case, I will of course refrain from doing so.

I agree that tradition and history are part of Leica but there is no "myth" here in my view.

Of course differing opinions are welcome but perhaps I misunderstood the reason behind your post. If so, I apologise.

[LocalHero1953]

4 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

I have never heard or read that Leica owes its current economic position to its technological superiority over other camera manufacturers. If it has nothing to do with history and tradition ("myth"), what is the reason that Leica is able to survive so well in this niche?

Entirely personally, it's because of the combination of usability, image quality and construction quality. Essentially a Leica gets out of the way when I'm taking photographs, it produces excellent results, and it puts up with whatever I do to it. Some other cameras do some of these things well. None of them do them in as well balanced a way for my wants/needs.

YMMV - a common acronym, but too often forgotten in discussions like these - displaced by the certainty that what suits us must suit everyone else, and what we don't like is bad for everyone else.

[Anonautico]

vor 1 Minute schrieb JNK100:

I agree that tradition and history are part of Leica but there is no "myth" here in my view.

Perhaps this is a translation error on my part. In my language, "myth" does not have a negative connotation, but rather a positive one in this context. By "myth," I meant Leica's long tradition and history.

[BernardC]

34 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

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!

Source: CIPA data

Ignore the green and blue lines. Those are point-and-shoot and disposable cameras. CIPA ignores phones. If they didn't, the green and blue lines would go up, not down.

The red line is Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC), which is the market that most Leicas are in (except the Q and D-Lux). That line is going up. Leica execs have repeatedly stated that the market is better than it's been in living memory: there's been a big shift from entry-level, low-margin cameras/lenses to higher-margin products. That's true for all brands, not just Leica.

 

Long story short: almost everybody has a phone with a decent camera in their pocket. This increases the number of photographers. A good number of these people who grew-up with phone cameras are stepping-up to interchangeable lens cameras.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is Leica the only one to trade on myth and tradition? A quote from Nikon's website: the first line of their 'About Nikon' section:

"Nikon is a world-leading provider of imaging products and services. Its innovative optics technology – from consumer to professional cameras, lenses to system accessories – is powered by over 100 years of experience."

Ditto Canon:

"We’re a leading technology company, founded in Japan in 1937, and we’re dedicated to helping people reimagine and push the boundaries of what is possible through imaging."

And Leica, from it's Corporate Information section, the nearest equivalent I could find:

"Leica Camera AG is an international premium manufacturer of cameras, lenses and sports optics products with over 150 years of company history." 

Apart from the dates and ages, not a lot of difference.

[Anonautico]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

Entirely personally, it's because of the combination of usability, image quality and construction quality.

I can understand that, of course, and everyone has their own individual reasons for choosing a particular product. I don't disagree when it comes to user-friendliness or usability.

But when it comes to image quality and construction quality, I've unfortunately had different experiences, which is why I parted ways with my digital M again. The colors on the M11 never seemed quite right to me and didn't match the quality of my SL3, and much of what I bought from Leica has already been serviced in Wetzlar. This has never happened to me once in the last 20 years with my Canons and Sonys, which I still own, and I use them much more extensively for professional reasons than my Leica equipment, which I only use for private purposes.

[Martin B]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Entirely personally, it's because of the combination of usability, image quality and construction quality. Essentially a Leica gets out of the way when I'm taking photographs, it produces excellent results, and it puts up with whatever I do to it. Some other cameras do some of these things well. None of them do them in as well balanced a way for my wants/needs.

YMMV - a common acronym, but too often forgotten in discussions like these - displaced by the certainty that what suits us must suit everyone else, and what we don't like is bad for everyone else.

I wouldn't consider myself a Leica enthusiast nor collector even I currently have six M cameras (four film, two digital ones). I have bought everything used so far. Why Leica? There is a logical and an emotional aspect to it. Logically, I like the camera and M lens form size ideal for day trips and travel. I also prefer manual focus over autofocus. Plus rangefinder focusing is faster than with any other tool I tried using third party mirrorless cameras. The cameras allow me to take handheld photos up to 1/15th of a second - no other camera I used can do the same. Emotionally, I like M cameras - I kind of bonded with them. It is like a hammer tool which sits just right in my hand. 

Where I couldn't care less about is if my M camera plate is made of brass, black paint etc etc. This is IMO overhyped - it is of interest to collectors and purists. I am none of them. The history of Leica cameras - certainly very fascinating, I read up on it. But it is totally separate from why I use M cameras. I also don't care about "Das Wesentliche" - actually I am fine if digital cameras offer more functions than I use - I simple select not to use them but enjoy having them just in case - assuming the menu to select options from is not too cluttered. For example I enjoy to have video function in my two M 240 based cameras - I rarely use it, but I see it as good-to-have. 

But all is very subjective. I think we might all agree that we have the largest options to choose our "tools" from ever in photo history. How we use the tool and what makes us most comfortable using it is in the eye of the beholder.  

[JNK100]

22 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

Perhaps this is a translation error on my part. In my language, "myth" does not have a negative connotation, but rather a positive one in this context. By "myth," I meant Leica's long tradition and history.

That explains it - all good and thanks for the clarification!

[Pixeleater]

1 hour ago, JNK100 said:

I think this is unduly pessimistic. Of course, smartphones have taken the entry-level camera business - this is well-known.

Maybe children in the film days laughed at people with SLRs?

If, as you say, the photography market sells no more cameras and lenses than in the '70s that is a great achievement when the rise of phones is taken into account.

Where do your numbers come from out of interest?

I do not believe most Japanese cameras are bought solely because of their video-capability either.

 

Why do you say Leica lives off its myth, whatever you mean by that and wonder why you would post that comment here?

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Pixeleater

[Pixeleater]

The experience economy is at play: increasingly, younger consumers value process and intentionality as much as (or more than) pure technological upgrade. A shift from latest megapixels to what’s the story, what’s the experience. Certainly, as Leica users we're familiar with and appreciate these aspects, whether in analog or digital format. 

From a financial and strategic standpoint, the EV1 is an example of premium niche gear that might find new opportunities with these younger consumers.

[SrMi]

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Is Leica the only one to trade on myth and tradition? A quote from Nikon's website: the first line of their 'About Nikon' section:

"Nikon is a world-leading provider of imaging products and services. Its innovative optics technology – from consumer to professional cameras, lenses to system accessories – is powered by over 100 years of experience."

Ditto Canon:

"We’re a leading technology company, founded in Japan in 1937, and we’re dedicated to helping people reimagine and push the boundaries of what is possible through imaging."

And Leica, from it's Corporate Information section, the nearest equivalent I could find:

"Leica Camera AG is an international premium manufacturer of cameras, lenses and sports optics products with over 150 years of company history." 

Apart from the dates and ages, not a lot of difference.

At least Hasselblad is not "trading on myth and tradition" ... oh wait 🤣

[Anonautico]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

Long story short: almost everybody has a phone with a decent camera in their pocket. This increases the number of photographers.

First of all, this does not increase the number of photographers, but only the number of snapshots. I understand photography to be something different from what I do with my pixel smartphone.

vor 24 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

A good number of these people who grew-up with phone cameras are stepping-up to interchangeable lens cameras.

Unfortunately, I haven't had that experience. Many people in my community who had a camera with interchangeable lenses just a few years ago have completely switched to smartphones because they are now more than satisfied with the quality of the results.

Unfortunately, local developments in my city do not reflect this trend. Thirty years ago, we had five or six photo shops in the city. Sadly, none of them have survived and this has nothing to do with people only buying online, because two of these photo retailers also had a thriving online business years ago, which no longer exists either.

I also don't believe that cameras in the price range we're talking about are something you just order online. New customers certainly don't do that. At least, I don't know anyone who would just order a Leica M with two lenses for €15,000 to €20,000 online without seeing it first, unless they do so from the Leica store they have known and trusted for years. But then these are not new customers who are switching from smartphones to ILCs.

On my last vacation, as someone interested in photography, I paid attention to what other people were using to take pictures. It was the usual smartphone snapping, and I saw a Canon, Sony, or Nikon, which I could count on one hand. I was the only one with a Leica.

And unfortunately, I had a very annoying experience just a few days ago: I wanted to sell one of my Leicas to help finance the purchase of a Hasselblad X2D II, but unfortunately, my dealer told me that he wasn't buying any cameras at the moment because his warehouse was full and sales hadn't been going so well for months. Oops.

Of course, he only told me this because we've known each other privately for a few years.

[Eoin]

Any M beyond the M10 platform is superfluous to my needs.

With regard to the poll, I can answer the first question with option 4 I'm not interested; I'll stick with the classic M.
The 2nd question, I'd be tempted to answer with option 3 To each his own – I'm fine with either the RF or Visoflex but not a dedicated EVF.

[charlesphoto99]

2 hours ago, Anonautico said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that. When you were young, times were different and the technical advantage of competitors was nowhere near as great as it is today.

Young people today all take photos with their smartphones and the opportunity to go to a camera store or even the idea of buying a camera is no longer a given for young people today.

The entire photography market has collapsed over the last 15 years, and today the entire photography industry sells no more cameras and lenses than it did in the 1970s. As a result, prices have risen enormously for all suppliers because sales volumes are so low, and there is no development in the market as a whole to support the assumption that this will change again. Most Japanese cameras today are only sold because of their video capabilities and not because anyone needs a new camera for taking pictures.

My own children laugh at me because I take pictures with a camera. 

Leica is lucky as long as it can live off its myth. Whenever it has offered comparable products in recent decades that did not have any special unique selling points, it did not work and the respective product category was discontinued sooner or later.

One of the recent trends with young people is using early period digital point and shoots. Many don't want 'better' photos than what their phones can take (which are pretty incredible when you think about it) but instead more 'interesting' photographs that hit differently than pristine digital. It's also why film, and especially film p&s's have made a resurgence. 

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, Anonautico said:

Perhaps this is a translation error on my part. In my language, "myth" does not have a negative connotation, but rather a positive one in this context. By "myth," I meant Leica's long tradition and history.

'Legacy' or 'legend' is I think what you were meaning. I got it. 

[BernardC]

14 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

Unfortunately, I haven't had that experience. Many people in my community who had a camera with interchangeable lenses just a few years ago have completely switched to smartphones because they are now more than satisfied with the quality of the results.

Unfortunately, local developments in my city do not reflect this trend. Thirty years ago, we had five or six photo shops in the city. Sadly, none of them have survived and this has nothing to do with people only buying online, because two of these photo retailers also had a thriving online business years ago, which no longer exists either.

That experience isn't universal. I know tons of "young" people who are creating still and video content, certainly a lot more than when I was in university.

Then as now, most photos are taken with basic cameras, like the ones in modern phones. However the number of people who "step up" to full-featured cameras is higher than it used to be. 

[willeica]

14 minutes ago, Anonautico said:

First of all, this does not increase the number of photographers, but only the number of snapshots. I understand photography to be something different from what I do with my pixel smartphone.

Your smartphone can take or make photographs. Denying that does not change the reality of the situation. Some of the best photographs ever taken were intended to be snapshots. You should read this book written by a good friend of mine.  

https://www.vitalsource.com/ie/products/an-illustrated-history-of-snapshot-photography-john-wade-v9781399079174?srsltid=AfmBOoq1E_2VAzMXru0wAf80MCBIEsNMtipkgTmar2kBslFBTpV4H7DX 

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[charlesphoto99]

9 minutes ago, BernardC said:

and video content

And this is where the EV1 stumbles with the 'younger set.' They like to be able to switch back and forth - one camera to do it all. So with the EV1 they still have to bring a dedicated video rig along (though video with manual focus M lenses kinda sucks and isn't easy) or use their phone. may as well just use their phone for everything.

I shoot with a low end Pixel 8a (sadly the 7 I Iost was better) and the results often blow me away. I shoot RAW, and then can process and print in Lightroom and Photoshop. They are no longer snaps at that point (though I do most often use the phone camera for just utilitarian purposes). 

Edited 6 hours ago by charlesphoto99