sdai Posted June 15, 2009 Share #61 Posted June 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wonder if and how many R users decide to invest into Leica final Swan Song the S system. To all those people who are contemplating it, do your homework first and be more cautious in your decision, Most people will just wait and see in the first 2 years IMO, it took Hassy more than a couple of years to convert the CF users and in the digital transition they've lost a sizable count of photographers to Phase. It would be extremely hard for Leica if they don't find another major income source to subsidize their venture even if the S2 turns out to be a sensational product. Forum member Ian Watts ("wattsy") posted that they still owe 20 million Euros to Panasonic which is due in 2011. If true, this alone will wipe out their profit if there's any. It is a gamble in which the S2 itself may have the chance turning out to be a technology marvel but in the mean time creates a financial disaster to the company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2009 Posted June 15, 2009 Hi sdai, Take a look here R10 RIP, but... . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted June 15, 2009 Share #62 Posted June 15, 2009 What if it proves as reliable as the M8 when it launched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 15, 2009 Share #63 Posted June 15, 2009 Did they make any money off the R8 or R9? I don't know, but for sure they weren't 'competing' with Nikon or Canon even back in the 90's. I don't understand why they would be better placed now that they have to deal with the sensor as well. IMHO the R cameras are more of a niche market than the M. The S2 makes perfect sense to me if they manage to sell it, an R10 even if it was as good as the D3 risks becoming a very expensive mistake. Leica should've come out with the R10 when the made the DMR. Sure, that's my hindsight speaking. My feeling is that a lot of folks jumped the R ship, because Leica didn't have a DSLR. As pathetic and shrinking as it was, Leica did have a customer base for an R10 --ll those folks who own R lenses. It would be very easy to purchase an R10 when there are the existing lenses on your shelf to justify that purchase. My gut tells me that the S2 is the bigger gamble, given its' price and limited market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 15, 2009 Share #64 Posted June 15, 2009 Leica should've come out with the R10 when the made the DMR. Sure, that's my hindsight speaking. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.... They should have made an SLR in 1955-1958. They should have had TTL metering in 1964. They should have had a more comprehensive SLR system than Nikon's from the beginning. They should have had AF lenses in 1989. They should have had IS technology some time ago. They should have had a full frame 11+ megapixel DSLR camera in 2002-2003. This would all have been possible if they had been a leader in the field. There's a lot to catch up to now, resources are tight and the economy is a mess. And they should have a FF AF IS EVF 24+ megapixel competitively priced camera system as soon as possible even if it is made by Panasonic... if they want to get any traction in the marketplace. It's too late for them to make yesterday's camera system. Maybe this can be their future. But it is a gamble and a big maybe. How many times can you miss the boat and still get to your destination in time? Oh... adding live view and a clip on EVF to the M8 will sell more cameras and lenses too. They can use the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #65 Posted June 15, 2009 Leica should've come out with the R10 when the made the DMR. Sure, that's my hindsight speaking. My feeling is that a lot of folks jumped the R ship, because Leica didn't have a DSLR. As pathetic and shrinking as it was, Leica did have a customer base for an R10 --ll those folks who own R lenses. Would that customer base have been large enough to justify developing something that could compete with he Japanese offerings? I think the R&D costs per camera alone would have been higher than the price of a high-end Japanese DSLR. Add the production costs and hopefully a profit margin to that and it would have been triple that price. Nobody would have bought it. Even the DMR was a slow burner for a run of 4000, and that was the price of two Canon 1D cameras without the body, which the owner was supposed to have had besides the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #66 Posted June 15, 2009 Woulda, shoulda, coulda.... They should have made an SLR in 1955-1958. They should have had TTL metering in 1964. They should have had a more comprehensive SLR system than Nikon's from the beginning. They should have had AF lenses in 1989. They should have had IS technology some time ago. They should have had a full frame 11+ megapixel DSLR camera in 2002-2003. This would all have been possible if they had been a leader in the field. There's a lot to catch up to now, resources are tight and the economy is a mess. And they should have a FF AF IS EVF 24+ megapixel competitively priced camera system as soon as possible even if it is made by Panasonic... if they want to get any traction in the marketplace. It's too late for them to make yesterday's camera system. Maybe this can be their future. But it is a gamble and a big maybe. How many times can you miss the boat and still get to your destination in time? Oh... adding live view and a clip on EVF to the M8 will sell more cameras and lenses too. They can use the money. And they would have been as large as Canon. Maybe they should move their whole company to Tokyo and start producing printers as well:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #67 Posted June 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A right question, but a serious answer is impossible... S2 isn't yet in the market, so no data about its success, R10 is/was even less real... the only speculations to answer your questions are necessarly based on some important, but roughly guessed, numbers: - Projected S2 sales in 2009-2010 ? Hereby "10.000 units" has appeared as a Leica target (I do not know if it's a real Company figure) : to me it seems a large number... but does anyone have an idea of the MF Digital market (units/year) in recent years ? The official view at Leica is " The market for the S2 is 10.000 customers" Presumably for the whole run and hopefully actual customers, not the customer base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #68 Posted June 15, 2009 Because a full frame M won't probably be launched before the FF G1 or whatever new R compatible camera.Edit: Then M lenses for the M9, noblesse oblige, and R + new PanaLeica lenses for the FF G1. Just a guess of course. Incorrect; Stefan Daniel said: First the S2, then the M and then the R solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #69 Posted June 15, 2009 This makes NO sense. It sounds a bit revisionist, if you ask me. How on earth did Leica singlehandedly develop the Digilux 2...even though the LC1 was released beforehand? Even as a marketer, you'd want your product out first and not compete DIRECTLY with a less expensive model. (Edit: the Digilux 2 was announced three months before the LC1 was) I (still) call marketing BS on this. Surprising Leica doesn't want to take credit on the D-Lux 3 and 4. This is nonsense . It was just a remark when Stefan privately was asked about the amount of Leica input in Panaleicas and Panaleica lenses.Btw, iIt was confirmed to me last breakfast by a Zeiss employee I happened to meet in the hotel.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #70 Posted June 15, 2009 I think Leica has to clear some things up with official, written statements! Lot's of confusion is going on, like "there will be no R10 from Leica" reads to some: "we won't build the R10, somebody else will"... This is basically correct. The "solution" will not be built at Wetzlar, but by a third party. It is unknown what the sticker on the camera will say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndr Posted June 15, 2009 Share #71 Posted June 15, 2009 This is basically correct. The "solution" will not be built at Wetzlar, but by a third party. It is unknown what the sticker on the camera will say. Hello, can somebody confirm this information? Jaap did you hear this in the pulic session or did Mr. Daniel give you the information at the table afterwards? Regards, Bernd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 15, 2009 Share #72 Posted June 15, 2009 Leica should've come out with the R10 when the made the DMR. Sure, that's my hindsight speaking. It’s not even true in hindsight. If the R10 was to be a state-of-the-art DSLR with AF and everything, the simple truth is that at that time they couldn’t. Now it would have been feasible to build something like an R9D, i.e. basically an R9 but with an integrated, non-detachable DMR. But who would have bought an expensive DSLR without AF? The only real market Leica had was the die-hard R afficionados, and for those, the DMR was the ideal solution. They could leverage what equipment they already owned, and they could still shoot film if they wanted to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #73 Posted June 15, 2009 Hello, can somebody confirm this information? Jaap did you hear this in the pulic session or did Mr. Daniel give you the information at the table afterwards? Regards, Bernd. As far as I remember I picked it up in the public session, some others did as well. I seem to remember ( I did not think it a very weighty at the time), that it kind of slipped into a sentence. Quite apart from my ear-memory coordination, as the technology is something Leica will have to buy on the open market anyway, as is the sensor, it does seem to be inevitable way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #74 Posted June 15, 2009 What if it proves as reliable as the M8 when it launched. It won't be built by Leica:D:p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted June 15, 2009 Share #75 Posted June 15, 2009 It won't be built by Leica:D:p I think Rob was referring to the S2 (replying to a comment in the previous post) Jaap;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #76 Posted June 15, 2009 I think Rob was referring to the S2 (replying to a comment in the previous post) Jaap;). Ok - in that case, let's wait and see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 15, 2009 Share #77 Posted June 15, 2009 Would that customer base have been large enough to justify developing something that could compete with he Japanese offerings? I think the R&D costs per camera alone would have been higher than the price of a high-end Japanese DSLR. Add the production costs and hopefully a profit margin to that and it would have been triple that price. Nobody would have bought it. Even the DMR was a slow burner for a run of 4000, and that was the price of two Canon 1D cameras without the body, which the owner was supposed to have had besides the lenses. Yes, those are legitimate questions. But with this S2 Leica is entering into a market where they'll have to build a customer base from near zero. I qualify that by admitting I know nothing of the MF market. As far as the DMR, it was very innovative, but very impractical. A R9 with a DMR was almost as big as my forearm. I think Leica would've been better served to come out with a DSLR at that time, even if it was a rebadged camera like the R3, because that would've kept R users in the fold. That only reason I thought the S2 was a remotely good idea, is because they said the technology developed in creating it would lead to something more affordable. That still may be the case -- a S2 Jr. -- but I see Leica's 'bread and butter' as the amateur who has the money to pay for the tradition, the quality, the optics. But I don't think that person will buy into the S2 systems, because of the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted June 15, 2009 Share #78 Posted June 15, 2009 Now the DMR did interest me, it was simply brilliant, but I could not convince myself or justify the price of it, though I loved the concept. On another point could Leica interpret a Digital R as a threat and undermine their ambitious plans with the S system, Deciding to can the R10 was dissapointing after all the DMR with it's R Lenses produced excellent images On which many members on this forum stated that DMR's Digital output was superior to the M8. Wouldn't it be funny if Hassleblad picked up the R system, after all Leica wants to move into their realm. Yeah I know, It's all a dream. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted June 15, 2009 Share #79 Posted June 15, 2009 It’s not even true in hindsight. If the R10 was to be a state-of-the-art DSLR with AF and everything, the simple truth is that at that time they couldn’t. Now it would have been feasible to build something like an R9D, i.e. basically an R9 but with an integrated, non-detachable DMR. But who would have bought an expensive DSLR without AF? The only real market Leica had was the die-hard R afficionados, and for those, the DMR was the ideal solution. They could leverage what equipment they already owned, and they could still shoot film if they wanted to. Your points are well-taken. The DMR never seemed like much of a practical solution to me. Innovated, but not practical. Believe it or not, I don't think Leica needed to come up with a 'state-of-the-art DSLR with AF' to satisfy their existing R customer base. And maybe if the DMR continued this would all be a moot point. Leica doesn't have the resources to keep coming up with new products. Their products need to have a long service life. The DMR sure seemed to be like a flash in the pan. Was it the sensor they could no longer get? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2009 Author Share #80 Posted June 15, 2009 No- there was a limited series planned and built - and that was it. Fewer than 5000. It is a pretty rare bird. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.