Erwin Puts on Leicas future

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica needs to lower the cost of the camera substantially and introduce a tiered pricing system, like every other manufacturer in the market.

The only reason that Leica did and does survive is that they are not like every other manufacturer in the market.

[Advertisement]

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

[stephan_w]

Leica needs to offer high quality goods at a fair or realistic price. That's what they sued to do and they were very successful. Take a look at Porsche. They got it right.

 

I don't understand your comparison with Porsche. Porsche build their cars for about twice the price of comparable mass market prices, and the cars don't go faster because of this. It's their reputation, their very expensive GT-models and their marketing that make the difference. Once Porsche will start to build a car at the price of a Nissan, they will loose.

 

The more and more I read all those comments about Leica, I see that people don't want to see the options of the Leica company, but their needs to buy cheaper Leica stuff.

 

And onther thing: Leica is not responsible for the decline of the american currency. If European craftsmanship is no longer in the reach of american customers today, this is mainly because of some homemade financial problems in America.

[thrid]

To reduce prices to get a bigger part of the market is a typical american reaction, that leads directly to bancrupthy. If someone doesn't know this economic rule, he may study the history of american car builders, and where they are today with this strategy. The market leader on this planet is the company who raised the quality of the products instead of giving discounts: Toyota.

 

No, one is talking about producing the cheapest possible piece of crap that can be pawned off on the public.

 

Take your example of Toyota. Not the cheapest cars on the road but a lot of value for your money. People are happy to buy a Toyota, because they deliver the value perceived, for the cost. That's what Leica needs.

 

Pricing yourself out of the market is suicide. $6000 for a Noctilux? $3600 for a 35 Lux ASPH? Get real. Unless you are rolling in cash, these prices are not realistic for 90% of the buying public. I could afford to go out and drop the $3500 for a 50 Lux ASPH today, but you know what? I'm not doing it, because although it may be the best 50 on the planet, it offers a poor price/performance ratio.

 

I've purchased plenty of Leica gear new, so I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, but I'm also no sucker. The Noct is good, but it's not worth $6000 dollars.

 

Of course, this is not exactly the best comparison, but imagine a M8 + 35 lens for about 3000 us$. It is still inferior from a technologial point of view (pixels, AF, live-view etc.) compared to a Niko D300. So why should there be a reason to buy it?

 

Because at $3000 that bundle would deliver a price / performance ratio that is acceptable to most people. But make the same comparison with real prices, between an M8/35mm and a D3/with the new 24-70 zoom and it's a whole different story. The Leica is actually more expensive and suddenly in comparison the bang for your buck doesn't look so good anymore.

 

 

The Leicas are bought for their unique and valuable technical concept and first class customer support, not for the results in photographic reproduction. And this has always been so.

 

I'm a photographer and buy Leica, because they have the best lenses money can buy, are built to last and are the best tool for what I do. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Speenth]

> snipped ...Leica needs to offer high quality goods at a fair or realistic price. That's what they used to do and they were very successful. Take a look at Porsche. They got it right.

 

I agree absolutely about the Porsche example, but perhaps not in the way that you intended - Porsche once doggedly made the same old car every year - the 911. It tried a few tired-looking alternatives, even a badged-up volkswagen and then it hit on a great idea - appeal to the common man. The result was about as far as you can get from the Porsche ethic - a hulking great ugly, pretentious beast of a family tractor called the Cayenne which of course, now outsells everything else from the Porsche stable and gives them the dosh they need to make high-end masterpieces for the true enthusiast.

 

Leica needs a Cayenne and it needs it fast!

[Guest stnami]

be it Granddad's teak-handled chisel, or my Leica M8

.,,,except Granddad's chisel can compete with a new chisel on equal terms

[ade909]

I think the Porsche analogy would be to look at the Boxter's success in Europe, and (from what I'm told) the Cayman's success in the US. Neither is a 911, but as far as they go, both have found acclaim as "drivers' cars" in their particular segment (and segment is the important word here). Ironically, both compete with the Nissan 350Z in one form or another...

 

It's an interesting parallel for Leica in my view.

 

Ade

[Speenth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.,,,except Granddad's chisel can compete with a new chisel on equal terms

 

Hmmm ... that's very true. Mr Kaufmann please take note.

[lct]

...As for the rangefinder being dead, maybe Erwin's right, maybe he's not, but I'm sure people were saying exactly the same thing in the 60s when the Japanese selling SLRs in large numbers...

As i recall it the Nikon F looked pretty impressive indeed but Leica's fortes were yet compactness, quieteness, ergonomy, accuracy, reliability, and of course IQ superiority. Some of those fortes have been forgotten since then so the question is how to regain them ASAP. All the rest is litterature IMHO.

[thrid]

I don't understand your comparison with Porsche. Porsche build their cars for about twice the price of comparable mass market prices, and the cars don't go faster because of this. It's their reputation, their very expensive GT-models and their marketing that make the difference. Once Porsche will start to build a car at the price of a Nissan, they will loose.

 

Porsche has a tiered product line. You can get one of their low end models at a reasonable cost or spend yourself silly with the exotics. At either end of the spectrum you get very good value for your money.

 

Porsche did this without sacrificing quality, selling themselves out or moving production out of the country. They do not have the resources of the big auto makes, but remain on the cutting edge of technology, because the company is run very smartly.

 

Apple is probably a better example. Look at their product like. Or that of Canon or Nikon, if you limit it to SLR bodies.

 

 

And onther thing: Leica is not responsible for the decline of the american currency. If European craftsmanship is no longer in the reach of american customers today, this is mainly because of some homemade financial problems in America.

 

Of course Leica is not responsible for the decline of the dollar. The dollar is tanking for various poor economic choices in the US and abroad, but at the same time it's not all roses in Germany either.

 

There recently was an article in Der Spiegel (yes, this drooling American speaks fluent German) about the increasing loss of manufacturing jobs in Germany, due to competition from Asia and the high costs of doing business in the country. Apparently Germany loses several thousand jobs per month, due to this.

 

All of Europe and the US is feeling the squeeze from the east. Even the Japanese have moved a lot of manufacturing outside of the country. It is very difficult to compete with China, who is turning out high quality goods, but paying a fraction of the wages found elsewhere in the world.

[thrid]

I agree absolutely about the Porsche example, but perhaps not in the way that you intended - Porsche once doggedly made the same old car every year - the 911. It tried a few tired-looking alternatives, even a badged-up volkswagen and then it hit on a great idea - appeal to the common man. The result was about as far as you can get from the Porsche ethic - a hulking great ugly, pretentious beast of a family tractor called the Cayenne which of course, now outsells everything else from the Porsche stable and gives them the dosh they need to make high-end masterpieces for the true enthusiast.

 

Leica needs a Cayenne and it needs it fast!

 

 

In a similar vein Nikon makes the D300, that sells in the millions, which allows them to make cameras like the D3.

[Craftsman]

To reduce prices to get a bigger part of the market is a typical american reaction, that leads directly to bancrupthy. If someone doesn't know this economic rule, he may study the history of american car builders, and where they are today with this strategy. The market leader on this planet is the company who raised the quality of the products instead of giving discounts: Toyota.

 

Of course, this is not exactly the best comparison, but imagine a M8 + 35 lens for about 3000 us$. It is still inferior from a technologial point of view (pixels, AF, live-view etc.) compared to a Niko D300. So why should there be a reason to buy it?

 

The Leicas are bought for their unique and valuable technical concept and first class customer support, not for the results in photographic reproduction. And this has always been so.

 

 

 

Is that why Ford beat Toyota in J.D. Powers reliability survey in 2007? I owned a Toyota pickup and now a Ford F350 diesel, ones a toy ones a truck. Guess which one is which?The Toyota is a truck for people who don't really need a truck but just want that look. Ford Fseries outsells anything Toyota puts out. Some preceptions have a life of there own.

[earleygallery]

I think EP makes some very valid points.

 

Leica has a very loyal customer base, very strong brand and image.

 

However, their lower end digital products don't have mainstream appeal to the traditional customers, and aren't unique enought to attract new customers, whilst their flagship digital product has a niche market - and mostly existing/previous Leica users.

 

The R system is effectively discontinued at present - we all wait to see what an R10 system looks like. What it needs to be IMO is a Full Frame (or larger?!) DSLR with AF.

 

Although it's not the product which I necessarily want, the M line needs to evolve, and again AF is probably essential to attract new customers.

 

When most students/hobbyists are using AF compacts, the AF SLR systems, as they trade up are they generally willing at any point to ditch the AF (or TTL multi zone metering, dedicated flash etc).

 

I have seen/heard of many people who turn to Leica at some point in their photographic journey, being the camera used by some of the most famous photographers, they want to find out what it's all about. 'Real' photography if you will. But that isn't a big enought market in itself (and most buy s/h anyway).

 

Leica almost need to do something akin to what they did with the original 35mm camera and create a new concept to take them forward.

 

The M8 is superb, no doubt, but rather like Jaguar found with the S type, they can't keep harking back to the past, when the very product they hark back to was in its time a revolution itself.

[sdai]

If the rangefinder concept really is on it's last legs as he implies why do Cosina and Zeiss continue to develop and manufacture new lenses?

 

Cosina/Zeiss can do any POS if there's money to make, ZM, ZF, ZK ... I'm sure it's only a matter of time when we'll see some ZR lenses.

 

Zeiss is different, they're in the "name" business.

[Photoskeptic]

Several things hit me after reading Puts opinion. You know what they say about opinions...

I believe the RF style is still viable due to the quality of the lenses and the size of the overall package. What's killing Leica at the moment is the price of the M8 and value for money. A sad fact of globilization is cheap labor. Someday China will rule the world due to their cheap labor force. The United States has lost productivity and sold off most of it's well known brands to Asian work forces because companies are only interested in the bottom line. This is simply 21st century economics. Sadly the Hermes connection led to Leica becoming a fashion accessory for the very wealthy. There is this large niche market, ie: Ferrari and even more expensive marques for the well-heeled. But this sort of thing only goes so far. However, it seems to me that if Leica is to survive it will be through Panasonic and it's Asian work force.

[sdai]

I recall that at one time, Dr. Kaufmann has said that Leica will continue to build the M7/MP as long as there's a profit to make ... which is not the case, now.

 

I guess the same applies to the M8, if there's no money to make from it ... why will he bother with it?

[sdai]

The only reason that Leica did and does survive is that they are not like every other manufacturer in the market.

 

That's a great point, Michael.

 

To be frank, I don't think Leica has an advantage in technology nor marketing when being compared to its competitors, especially when digital cameras, like computers, has become a commodity in today's market.

 

Leica should focus on industrial design, the offices in Solms and/or Wetzlar should be filled with designers, programmers, marketing persons instead of workers standing along the assembly line, they don't even need a warehouse.

 

If they could have one thing, just ONE thing ... close to the ipod - which doesn't have to be a high end product, doesn't need to be technology advanced either ... they can sit on years' of massive profit.

 

Then they can use the profit gathered from popular products on some status symbol products ... and they don't need to worry whether people will buy it or not - a flagship product which gets people to talk and their name brand polished.

 

They could make something like the Ricoh GR ... Sigma DP1 ... dump it into the market, and drive people nuts.

 

And they don't even have to make it ... who cares if the MacBook, ipod, iphone are American built or not?

 

Electronics and labor costs are NOT Leica's forte ... forget it, now that is a losing battle ... they've only have to make ONE right decision.

[Thomas Edwards]

Several things hit me after reading Puts opinion. You know what they say about opinions...

I believe the RF style is still viable due to the quality of the lenses and the size of the overall package. What's killing Leica at the moment is the price of the M8 and value for money. A sad fact of globilization is cheap labor. Someday China will rule the world due to their cheap labor force. The United States has lost productivity and sold off most of it's well known brands to Asian work forces because companies are only interested in the bottom line. This is simply 21st century economics. Sadly the Hermes connection led to Leica becoming a fashion accessory for the very wealthy. There is this large niche market, ie: Ferrari and even more expensive marques for the well-heeled. But this sort of thing only goes so far. However, it seems to me that if Leica is to survive it will be through Panasonic and it's Asian work force.

 

...makes one wonder how much leica really earns through its panasonic association, whether panasonic makes the entire lens (including the glass components), and whether leica would be willing to supply german-made lenses to panasonic and other brands (a la sigma, canon l-series, etc.)...

[harryzet]

who cares what this Putz-guy says? He doest`nt know more than the average consumer and his lens-tests are a joke.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[redfalo]

I do not buy Puts general "rangefinder is dead" argument. dSLRs do have autofocus, as had those film SLRs since the late 80s. And in those days M bodies relative to SLR bodies were even more expensive than the M8 relative to professional dSLR bodies now. I do not see why should this should kill RF photography now and Puts does not deliver very striking reasons. From my point of view an importan pro-RF-argument is that todays professional dSLRs become bulkier and bulkier while the digital M is small and handy. The success of the M8 which happend in spite of all the inital technical problems and complaints shows this quite impressivly.

I really appreciates Puts books on Leica. But to me the point he makes in his blog seems as stupid as those "you cannot buy film in x years" argument.

Yours

Olaf

[Ivar B]

I guess the most important question is: Has Leica been able to attract new customers with the M8? With new customers I mean someone who did not own a Leica before, somone not like many of us who have bought the M8 because we have a large investment in lenses.It may seem that the answer to this question is no. If a manufacturer can dig into a pool of existing customers, it is easy to obtain phenomenal growth for a fairly short period of say a couple of years, and then it dies off. If the flow of new customers is low or nonexistent, you have a problem.

 

When the R10 arrives (I guess we all feel it will), how many will buy just because we have a nice set of lenses? If we did not have the lenses, what might this model have to offer which Nikon or Canon does not already have, at a fraction of the cost?

 

The question why Zeiss and Voigtlander/Cosina have not launched a digital rangefinder (except the Epson) is an interesting one. Are they not capable of producing one technologically? Sure they are. Is the reason that this is not seen as a viable product commercially? I don`t know.