Puts' S2 Article

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Calling it a fight on two fronts is putting an unnecessarily negative spin on Leica’s strategy. Fighting on two fronts suggests they were making it more difficult for themselves to succeed, when it is just the other way round: The S2 is supposed to draw from two pools of potential customers, namely photographers now working with either 35 mm or MF DSLRs. Increasing the number of potential customers to lure into your camp is a good thing, contrary to what the “two fronts” metaphor suggests.

 

As I said:)

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[glenerrolrd]

Maybe I am splitting hairs..but I think the point of the article is that Leica may have a opportunity for a game change(much in the way the original Leica was). I don t think this is about drawing from photographers that use DSLR or MF as much as providing a new choice. Like the first SUV s if the car analogy is appropriate.

 

If..... the value proposition of a camera with better IQ than the best DSLR(and comparable to MF) while maintaining the the handling and environmental protection of the professional DSLRs is compelling .....then Leica may have a winner.

 

Obviously they have to execute better than the experience with the M8 and they have to establish a professional support system .

 

My read of Puts article is about positioning the product with an effective marketing campaign.....seems like he is concerned about whether this will happen.

 

Nobody seems to talking about the form and handling ...a major factor in why people love the M series.

[mgcd]

Maybe I am splitting hairs..but I think the point of the article is that Leica may have a opportunity for a game change(much in the way the original Leica was). I don t think this is about drawing from photographers that use DSLR or MF as much as providing a new choice. Like the first SUV s if the car analogy is appropriate.

 

If..... the value proposition of a camera with better IQ than the best DSLR(and comparable to MF) while maintaining the the handling and environmental protection of the professional DSLRs is compelling .....then Leica may have a winner.

 

Obviously they have to execute better than the experience with the M8 and they have to establish a professional support system .

 

My read of Puts article is about positioning the product with an effective marketing campaign.....seems like he is concerned about whether this will happen.

 

Nobody seems to talking about the form and handling ...a major factor in why people love the M series.

 

Totally agree.

[mgcd]

It's here: Leica S2: its significance

 

Good article, BTW, although it doesn't really come to a conclusion.

 

Sandy

 

Thanks Sandy!

[grillo]

There was a trend for gigantinc canvas in the abstract expressionists... That is true of Pollock and many works of Rothko (we have in Madrid, in the Thyssen, a wonderful and really large Rothko painting). It is also true in the paintings of George Mathieu, which I like very much.

 

Also in Madrid there is a painting to shame Gursky: Saint John the Baptist Beheaded, by Bartholomäus Strobel. But that was the XVII century, and before photography... It's a shame they placed it by the elevators.

 

--J.

[rosuna]

Calling it a fight on two fronts is putting an unnecessarily negative spin on Leica’s strategy. Fighting on two fronts suggests they were making it more difficult for themselves to succeed, when it is just the other way round: The S2 is supposed to draw from two pools of potential customers, namely photographers now working with either 35 mm or MF DSLRs. Increasing the number of potential customers to lure into your camp is a good thing, contrary to what the “two fronts” metaphor suggests.

 

That is right. "in the middle" variants is the only way of avoid a price war. It is a basic result of microeconomic theory. Thinking on a watch, if some company offers the even numbers the only way of disputing 50% of the market is offering the odd numbers, this is, the intermediate variants.

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is right. "in the middle" variants is the only way of avoid a price war. It is a basic result of microeconomic theory.

 

Yes, but the S2 is "in the middle" in terms of sensor size, but equal or greater in price than the MF competitors. A successful "in the middle" strategy generally demands an "in the middle price" as well.

 

Sandy

[ptomsu]

As long as the S2 stay priced like today, it will never become a big seller

 

They need to get it in between MF and 35mm otherwise it will stay a niche product. But maybe this is what they intended

[rosuna]

Yes, but the S2 is "in the middle" in terms of sensor size, but equal or greater in price than the MF competitors. A successful "in the middle" strategy generally demands an "in the middle price" as well.

 

Sandy

 

Sensor size isn't the only characteristic of a camera, and the price isn't a direct function of sensor size either. It is just different in many ways, from 35mm format (larger sensor and resolution) and to MF family (mainly, eye level operation...And the sensor is similar to that of many MF cameras).

[wildlightphoto]

... It is just different in many ways, from ... MF family (mainly, eye level operation..).

 

I see weather sealing as another significant distinction between this camera and the existing MF cameras.

[Jeff S]

Thanks Sandy!

 

For future reference so you won't need to request link on other Puts' commentaries...Home

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

Ok so it makes a bigger file and more quality. The question is do clients need more quality than N or C can deliver?

 

If so, then is a field type or eye level camera the best for those client demanded pics. Pentax 6x7 never really did so well. This is just the digi version.

 

Now if you buy into it, will Leica last and will it offer the items that make it a true system camera. If it fails, you have a $28,000 orphan and more if buy a couple of lenses.

 

Where you need weather sealing, do you need mf quality.

 

It may sell, it may not, but they can`t plug along with the M8 or MP and survive.

[stunsworth]

Ok so it makes a bigger file and more quality. The question is do clients need more quality than N or C can deliver?

 

Yes. Isn't that the basic reason for the existence of MF digital cameras?

[RRJackson]

If so, then is a field type or eye level camera the best for those client demanded pics. Pentax 6x7 never really did so well. This is just the digi version.

 

I had a Pentax 67II. When you tripped the shutter it sounded like someone dropping a pack of playing cards on a table. And reloading it was a both-hands-and-cooperative-surroundings kind of event. Not the most practical of examples.

 

Hopefully the mirror-slap of the S2 won't be as bad as the Pentax.

[rosuna]

Yes, but the S2 is "in the middle" in terms of sensor size, but equal or greater in price than the MF competitors. A successful "in the middle" strategy generally demands an "in the middle price" as well.

 

Sandy

 

I would like to be more specific. Your are right in your reasoning. You know, marketing defines a market, selects the characteristics of a product and a price. The S2 is a well designed product, but the target market and price (narrowly linked) aren't so well defined, in my opinion. The price is too high for the best market segment for a camera like the S2. This product is something in the middle, and it could capture users from the high end of the 35mm format and from the MF markets. This is pure professional photography. The S2 brings something new, combining the best from 35mm format and the best from MF. Therefore, the price should be interesting for the two potential buyers. However, Leica has priced the S2 at the high end of the MF market. This is too dangerous: this section of the MF market will suffer with the future 35mm format competition; there already are competition on it (Mamiya, Hasselblad). Erwin Puts is right pointing to a marketing problem with the S2. But marketing is not just advertising. I think the distribution and support costs are much higher than Leica initially expected.

 

To sum up, due to price the S2 is aimed at a very small submarket, and probably decreasing. MF market will expand only if the MF brands approach their prices to 35mm "pro" cameras, and also approach several key features.

 

The M8 is alone in a niche market, but they need an update for capturing new customers for the rangefinder cameras (many people see the M8 as an outdated camera, considering the electronic-related specifications, particularly noise and resolution), or for encouraging aditional investments from current M users (additional bodies, new lenses...).

 

Leica did the right thing cancelling the R10 project. It is impossible to be competitive there, and it will be more than impossible in a few months. The prospects of future products for the 35mm midpriced segment looks terrible (the Sony A850 scares even Nikon and Canon).

 

The micro 4/3 is tempting, but people perceives rebranded Panasonic products like non-true-Leica products. It could be profitable in the short term though, and Leica needs sales in the short term at this moment. They know better what to do.

 

The projector market may be interesting, but small. On the other hand, the digital camera video/cine market will be deeply transformed in a few months, due to the development of high resolution RAW recorders based on just one CMOS bayer sensor, with interchangeable AF lenses. This brings a lot of possibilities for new players, for Leica cameras or lenses, with partners...

 

So, looking at the global strategy of Leica, I see positive and negative signs. It is positive that they address the right niches with well designed products. It is negative that they cannot focus (punch intended) properly the specific target markets and set more agressive prices, and, also, the correct timing for product introduction (they have to move faster...).

 

They are doing things in all fronts (product development, technology development, distribution, worldwide support, professional support, retailing...). All that is very complex, and expensive. It is difficult for a small company like Leica, just in the middle of a huge economic crisis!

 

I wish them good luck, and I will buy the products I can afford...

[sdai]

I read Erwin's article again just a few minutes ago and the hints he gave out seems to be quite clear to me, and it's pretty much every gadget freak has known for quite some time.

 

Even the Internet experts are all recognizing there are only that much one can do on a 36x24 chip now, do you really think that Nikon/Canon don't see it earlier and better?

 

Once Japanese companies start adopting sensor sizes larger than traditional 35mm format, either 30x45 or 36x48 ... Leica's niche (again) will disappear.

 

Perhaps Erwin also smelt something coming at the next Kina ... I've certainly heard rumors about Canon's new mount since 2005 perhaps even earlier (and I can't really remember). I'm sure you've read about the "Nikon MX" as well.

 

By the time Nikon/Canon hit the 30x45 or 36x48 mark, it's the judgment day of all MF companies.

 

Hassy/Phase et al may survive, but like Sinar ... their best chances are to offer very specialized solutions in extremely focused areas.

[stunsworth]

Once Japanese companies start adopting sensor sizes larger than traditional 35mm format, either 30x45 or 36x48 ... Leica's niche (again) will disappear.

 

But how many people are going to ditch their perfectly adequate cameras and lenses and buy not just a new (larger and heavier) body, but a new set of lenses? It may work for Leica who are a niche player and proposing a low volume system, but Canon and Nikon?

[sandymc]

So, looking at the global strategy of Leica, I see positive and negative signs. It is positive that they address the right niches with well designed products. It is negative that they cannot focus (punch intended) properly the specific target markets and set more agressive prices, and, also, the correct timing for product introduction (they have to move faster...).

 

Yes. The thing is, I'm reminded of Swiss Air in the old days. They (helped by the guys at McKinsey - and whatever you may say about McK, they are the gold standard in strategy consulting), identified that in a world of global airlines, Swiss Air had no chance of survival as a world class airline. So they developed a strategy of buying up smaller regional airlines, to try to compete. Technically, quite correct - there was no other strategy that could possibly result in Swiss remaining a global player - every other strategy led to niche status, which just wasn't acceptable to Swiss.

 

Problem was, the "buy up local airlines" strategy wasn't actually implementable - not even slightly - they just ended up buying trash. And went bankrupt.

 

Which is a long way of saying that I'm concerned that Leica have adopted a strategy that in theory could make them a serious player in the MF Pro market rather than a niche player in the bigger consumer market, but in practice just can't be implemented. I hope it can, but I can't see how the S2 pricing allows a survivable market positioning in the long term. But hopefully when the specs and some sample images come out, they blow everybody (myself included) away.

 

Sandy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

But how many people are going to ditch their perfectly adequate cameras and lenses and buy not just a new (larger and heavier) body, but a new set of lenses? It may work for Leica who are a niche player and proposing a low volume system, but Canon and Nikon?

 

People may need to buy a new set of lenses, but the new bodies don't have to be bigger and heavier because Leica has just showed to the Japanese companies how to make it happen and I'm sure they'll make it even better.

 

Japanese lenses are cheap, right? it will certainly make the decision a lot easier.

 

Canon and Nikon controls every key component of their cameras - end to end, and they're mass production experts in the mean time. If you let them build the S2, it probably will never cost more than 10 grand US per unit, everybody on this forum will be happy.

 

Dealers will be happy too because they earn more from selling more.

[mjh]

Even the Internet experts are all recognizing there are only that much one can do on a 36x24 chip now, do you really think that Nikon/Canon don't see it earlier and better?

 

Once Japanese companies start adopting sensor sizes larger than traditional 35mm format, either 30x45 or 36x48 ... Leica's niche (again) will disappear.

I don’t believe either Canon or Nikon would enter the MF market. Yes, you can make the case for MF; that’s why MF exists. But is there anything for Canon or Nikon to gain from introducing a new MF system?

 

Both vendors have highly sucessful 35 mm/APS-C DSLR systems. For most photographers, especially amateurs, models like the D3X or EOS-1Ds Mark III define high-end photography. When you buy a lowly EOS 1000D or D5000, you feel like you’ve joined the same club that professional photographers working with the top-of-the-line cameras are members of. That’s a huge selling point, and it helps Canon and Nikon raking in cash, more than sales of the EOS-1Ds Mark III or D3X as such do.

 

If Canon or Nikon would introduce MF DSLRs, what net effect would that have on their revenue? Compared to the 35 mm and APS-C DSLR market, the MF market is negligible. It is a market where relatively small vendors like Hasselblad or Phase One can survive, but for the likes of Canon or Nikon it wouldn’t make much of a difference even if they got 50 percent of it each.

 

On the other hand, such a move would send a clear signal to their existing customers: 35 mm DSLRs don’t cut it anymore. If you think an EOS-1Ds Mark III or D3X are truly high-end, think again. And if you have just bought an entry-level DSLR and believe you could, in principle anyway, slowly work your way up, buying a couple of lenses now, a new body then, still more lenses later, and so on until you own one of the top-of-the-line professional models – well, you can’t get there from here. True high-end cameras are part of a different and incompatible system, sorry ’bout that.

 

So I don’t think Canon or Nikon would go there. For them, there’s not really that much to gain, but a lot to lose.