AlanJW Posted September 14, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) We had many posts here -- for more than two years -- complaining that notwithstanding the technological challenge, Leica was too slow in bringing out a FF M camera. Now we have people complaining that they were too fast bringing out a FF M camera, not because Leica did not solve the technological challenge, but because some posters would have solved other issues as well, added features, etc. The only consistency here is the complaining part. To me the comments about Leica rushing the M9 to market are presumptuous at best. The apparent demand for M9's appears to prove that Leica has indeed met consumer demand and it looks like it will be a good business decision. One reference point here is Nikon, which for years lacked a FF sensor and lost ground to Canon for the high end DSLRs. I think Nikon was a bit too late, though they may yet gain ground. Better to be a bit early than a bit late when meeting consumer demand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here Leica's future rides on M9 (and S2). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
reven Posted September 14, 2009 Share #62 Posted September 14, 2009 I really don't get the anger about a pretty clear fact. The m9 was rushed. It is a great little camera, I have placed my order and will pick it up in a week, That does NOT change the facts. Leica is nearly broke and needs money, not in 2010 but NOW, so when the m9 was announced I was already quite sure that is was more an evolution of the m8. - No new Sensor design, just a modified and larger version from the m8 - No new electronics, just the A/D read out part was re designed - No real new features, NOTHING that could not have been done with a m8 I really hoped for more: - New screen, with higher res, - completely new sensor design (different sandwiching the IR Filter) - In-House design of the rest. - and a few more, but how cares, perhaps we see it in a year in a m10 on the 10/10/10 :-P Until than let's enjoy the m9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 14, 2009 It's clear that you have a subjective opinion. Well done. Some will agree with you, no doubt, others, including me, will disagree. Such is life. Fact is, the CL sold better than anyone expected and the consequences are a matter of history, not conjecture. Regards, Bill The CL may have sold well, but is it a fact that it took sales away from the M5? Or is that your subjective opinion? I'm not sure that the cause and effect have been established. If the M5 would have been a poor seller anyway, then any sales of the CL would have been a good thing. It seems to me that many M8, M8.2 and M9 owners on this forum would buy a digital CL in addition to their more expensive cameras, as a backup and as a smaller travel camera. Further -- in my opinion -- it's likely that many photographers would buy a digital CL who would not otherwise buy a Leica at all. Thus, they would not be diminishing M9 sales, but rather increasing M-lens sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 14, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 14, 2009 Andy I recognise that. However manufacturers do make the same thing and sell it at different prices by blocking or allowing some functionality via a software enable function or internally by shorting appropriate pins. I don't think that Leica have much margin to offer a product that costs them the same to build as an M9, but at M8 prices. OK, they have priced it at what the market will stand without bleating too much, but there's probably not a lot of leeway in there I thought that you wanted Leica to be a sustainable, profitable company? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 14, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 14, 2009 ...on this forum... We are not a representative sample of the Leica market. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 14, 2009 I greatly admire Leica for what it has been able to accomplish, but I don't understand this strategy of making the secondhand market be the lower price entry point for the company's products. I was struck by Stefan Daniel's explanation of this point in the video interview recently posted. He said something to the effect that, "As with the Porsche 911, your first one is a use one". However, as far as I know, Porsche and other high end car companies offer models in a very broad price range. None of them are cheap, but they do offer models for diverse price points. Don't they fear that their lower priced Boxster will eat into sales of their higher priced 911? It is always possible that a buyer will choose the cheaper car; after all, each car has 4 wheels and an engine and can drive fast. But looking at the big picture, they may sell several Boxsters for every 911, and they make as much or more profit on the Boxsters than on the 911's. It seems to me that the fundamental problem with letting the secondhand market be the company's lower price entry point is that the company doesn't sell any of those secondhand cameras. And yet, those secondhand cameras continuously compete with new camera sales. If the problem is that a new lower priced camera (like a digital CL) would eat into new M sales, then you have to ask, how do the secondhand M's not eat into new M sales? Of course they do, as any photographer can choose between a used one and a new one, and will choose according to his/her needs & budget. It's the same with Summarit lenses -- don't they eat into sales of Summilux lenses? Not! More likely, they eat into sales of secondhand lenses, if anything. If the secondhand market eats into new M sales, why not sell a lower priced camera rather than let the second hand market fill that price point. Why not offer an attractive new $4K camera as an alternative to a used $2K M8 or used $4K M8.2? As things stand now, Leica offers nothing between the $2K X1 and the $7K M9. It seems to me there are one or two attractive price points between $2K and $7K that could be filled with new digital M-mount camera. If Leica feels that it can make a profit on a $2K camera like the X1, then why can't it also make a profit on $4K or $5K less-than-full-frame cameras that attract more buyers to the M system of lenses? If Leica is at all like other camera companies, then it makes more money on lens sales than camera body sales. And if that's the case, then it would make good business sense to offer a range of body prices as doorways to the profitable lens system. That would attract more and younger buyers who, once in the system, would become long-term upgraders and buyers of lenses over the course of their lives. My view exactly. I hope leica are listening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoody Posted September 14, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is how it works in business sometimes when times are tough: 1. Start by figuring out the most they can charge and still have existing customers upgrade (I think they hit it right with $7000 USD). So start by setting the target price point. 2. Figure out what is mandatory vs. optional from an upgrade perspective (what gets added above and beyond the M8) and do not implement any optional upgrades that have a per-camera cost. Doing that gives Leica more profit per camera. 3. Figure out things that cost almost nothing to implement and have no extra per-camera cost, but if added, give the user a warm and fuzzy feeling. This would include firmware features, slight changes to mechanical mechanisms that are net-net the same cost in production, etc. It seems to me that the mandatory requirements that have an impact on per-camera production costs -- above and beyond the M8 features -- were: - a full frame sensor - a better IR cut filter - a slight improvement in high ISO noise (just has to be a little bit better for people to feel better) The first two being the biggies, of course. The first three were handled by Kodak. And all the guts had to be redesigned to accommodate the full-frame sensor and the associated circuitry, which costs Leica money. There are others (easier access to ISO settings, manual selection of lenses, etc.) that have a one-time cost, but not a per-camera cost. Those are mostly just software updates. And those features didn't really have to be in there except that they knew they needed new functionality that users could see and touch because they know that the M9 is going to be competing against already-paid-for M8s for current users and used M8s for new users and there has to be *just enough* reasons for people to chose an M9 over an M8, but no more than necessary. One of the things that makes me think this is Leica's response that they cannot add manual specification of lens type in the M8 series. It seems to me that it would be easy to have the firmware in the m8 simply ignore the lens coding for the "off" feature or override it with a user preference for the manual selection feature (ie - "IF there is a user selected lens number stored in ram AND the mode is 'manual' THEN ignore the coding on the lens if it is coded"). But, to add that feature to the M8 series would keep some number of people from upgrading to the M9 -- I suspect there are a lot of people on the fence between the M8 series and the M9 series and sometimes one less or more feature can tilt them to one side or the other. So, is a lower-resolution LCD a deal breaker? No. Weather Sealing? No. In-camera IS? No. So, why put them in the camera if the future of your company is at stake? If they were in a stronger position from a financial perspective, I think we might have seen some of those features in the camera (higher resolution LCD perhaps). I suspect, but do not have any proof, that the development of the S2 cost a lot more than they anticipated and that cut into the M9 budget. I would also speculate (just for fun) that they're holding off on the shipping of the X1 until December either because a) they need to make some money from the other two cameras before it can go into production or they ('they' being 'the board of directors') can decide to cancel the X1 all together if there isn't enough interest from consumers in the next few weeks thus reducing their losses on the project. I guess it could also be c) none of the above -- that's just how long it'll take from a logistical perspective. :-) This is all guesswork, so take it or leave it. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 14, 2009 I wouldn't mention the cockster if you paid me; Porsche and Mercedes are volume manufacturers and not relevant to this discussion. Users would spend money on the glass, and buy the cheaper body - M9 sales would be cannibalised. That is what happened with the CL. Many would buy the cheaper body and not "upgrade" - it would be sufficient for their needs, and would probably exceed their talents. The X1 target demographic does not leech sales from the M9 any more than the Minilux/CM leeched sales from the M6/M7. It is a smart move by Leica. In the recent video interview, Leica's Stefan Daniel explicitly mentioned Porsche in his explanation of why there is no digital CL. Thus, it does seem that a Porsche comparison is relevant to this discussion. Really, pointing to anything that's been the status quo as "a smart move by Leica" is questionable when that status quo results in a company in financial difficulty. The status quo may as likely be a lesson in what not to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 14, 2009 The CL may have sold well, but is it a fact that it took sales away from the M5? Or is that your subjective opinion? I'm not sure that the cause and effect have been established. If the M5 would have been a poor seller anyway, then any sales of the CL would have been a good thing. It seems to me that many M8, M8.2 and M9 owners on this forum would buy a digital CL in addition to their more expensive cameras, as a backup and as a smaller travel camera. Further -- in my opinion -- it's likely that many photographers would buy a digital CL who would not otherwise buy a Leica at all. Thus, they would not be diminishing M9 sales, but rather increasing M-lens sales. I agree completely. I would buy a Digital CL for my wife and possibly then use it myself for rough travel usage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 14, 2009 We are not a representative sample of the Leica market. You know this for a fact? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #71 Posted September 14, 2009 My view exactly. I hope leica are listening. Thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 14, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 14, 2009 You know this for a fact? Oh come on... 1. We are self-selecting 2. We are internet-savvy 3. We speak and write in English 4. We have the time to participate here 5. We have hardly any Japanese or Chinese members ...shall I go on...? "Sick people ride in ambulances; don't ride in an ambulance and you won't get sick." No statistician would regard this as a representative sample. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 14, 2009 Share #73 Posted September 14, 2009 You know this for a fact? That's not something that anyone could ever answer, but most Leica users do not use this forum, and it is highly unlikely that the views expressed here are representative of those people who are happy using their cameras, without feeling the need to debate their pros and cons all the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 14, 2009 Share #74 Posted September 14, 2009 The lower price entry point for Leica has always been the secondhand market. The only exception to this was when the CL was introduced, which cannibalised new M sales at the time... The M5 was a flop and the CL saved Leica if memory serves. See what Howard wrote here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/473987-post134.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted September 14, 2009 Share #75 Posted September 14, 2009 I really don't get the anger about a pretty clear fact. The m9 was rushed. It is a great little camera, I have placed my order and will pick it up in a week, That does NOT change the facts. Leica is nearly broke and needs money, not in 2010 but NOW, so when the m9 was announced I was already quite sure that is was more an evolution of the m8. - No new Sensor design, just a modified and larger version from the m8 - No new electronics, just the A/D read out part was re designed - No real new features, NOTHING that could not have been done with a m8 I really hoped for more: - New screen, with higher res, - completely new sensor design (different sandwiching the IR Filter) - In-House design of the rest. - and a few more, but how cares, perhaps we see it in a year in a m10 on the 10/10/10 :-P Until than let's enjoy the m9 In one sense, yes, it was rushed. But that's what you have to do to be competitive in the digital imaging market - permanently rush. I think they got the M9 exactly right - price is ok, and the image quality is at least comparable with Nikon/Canon (ok, high ISO, not, but that's not disastrous). If Leica waited for an "M9+" with more bells and whistles, in six months time, where does that leave Leica? - well, with only a few months of sales till the next generation of near 30 MP cameras come out and drown them out of the market. You can persuade people to buy a camera that doesn't have autofocus, etc, etc if the image quality is there. This way Leica are in the market competitively in terms of image quality for say 9 months. That's pretty good, and the M10 can use a next generation sensor in 2011 sometime. I also think they got the S2 as wrong as they got the M9 right, but time will tell. I mean, beautiful camera, but not enough potential buyers. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #76 Posted September 14, 2009 But many of those liquidated M8 bodies will also provide the funds for the previous brand-loyal owners to trade up and acquire the higher margin M9 - in which case, Leica is after all generating revenue from the secondhand channel. Yes, that's true in a way. A healthy secondhand market helps the sale of new products. That's true in many markets. If people couldn't ever sell their old homes or cars, they would have much more difficulty buying new ones. However, that doesn't disprove the point that Leica could gain new buyers and generate additional profit by selling cameras at price points between the X1 and M9 and competitive with the second hand market for the M8 and M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted September 14, 2009 Share #77 Posted September 14, 2009 In one sense, yes, it was rushed. But that's what you have to do to be competitive in the digital imaging market - permanently rush. I think they got the M9 exactly right - price is ok, and the image quality is at least comparable with Nikon/Canon (ok, high ISO, not, but that's not disastrous). If Leica waited for an "M9+" with more bells and whistles, in six months time, where does that leave Leica? - well, with only a few months of sales till the next generation of near 30 MP cameras come out and drown them out of the market. You can persuade people to buy a camera that doesn't have autofocus, etc, etc if the image quality is there. This way Leica are in the market competitively in terms of image quality for say 9 months. That's pretty good, and the M10 can use a next generation sensor in 2011 sometime. I also think they got the S2 as wrong as they got the M9 right, but time will tell. I mean, beautiful camera, but not enough potential buyers. Sandy I agree with your comments on M9 to drive sales NOW and S2 may or may not happen. If it does happen then it will also be a great technology driver (Maestro chip etc) for M10. ...that hopefully will become real on 10/10/10 !! Now that is probably something I would personally be interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 14, 2009 Share #78 Posted September 14, 2009 Oh come on... 1. We are self-selecting 2. We are internet-savvy 3. We speak and write in English 4. We have the time to participate here 5. We have hardly any Japanese or Chinese members ...shall I go on...? "Sick people ride in ambulances; don't ride in an ambulance and you won't get sick." No statistician would regard this as a representative sample. Regards, Bill My view is that many "members of this forum" would buy a digital CL in addition to their current digital M cameras. I could as well have said that many "Leica owners" would buy a digital CL. I referenced this forum simply because people here buy a lot of Leica cameras, as evidenced many threads and by Leica's own interest in this forum. Your response is that people on this forum aren't representative of Leica's market. OK ... so most people in Leica's market aren't on this forum. That's TRUE! But that says nothing about their willingness to buy a digital CL. If your "representative sample" is a set of people who are not on this forum but who buy a lot of Leicas and are thus representative of Leica's market -- what inference can you make about their likelihood of buying a digital CL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 14, 2009 Share #79 Posted September 14, 2009 My view is that many "members of this forum" would buy a digital CL in addition to their current digital M cameras. I could as well have said that many "Leica owners" would buy a digital CL. I referenced this forum simply because people here buy a lot of Leica cameras, as evidenced many threads and by Leica's own interest in this forum. Your response is that people on this forum aren't representative of Leica's market. OK ... so most people in Leica's market aren't on this forum. That's TRUE! But that says nothing about their willingness to buy a digital CL. If your "representative sample" is a set of people who are not on this forum but who buy a lot of Leicas and are thus representative of Leica's market -- what inference can you make about their likelihood of buying a digital CL? You're really not a statistician, are you? I'm not the one making inferences. My point was simply that this group is unrepresentative and to argue otherwise is unrealistic. Any conclusions drawn from the behaviour of this self-selecting sample of a much larger population should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioalessi Posted September 14, 2009 Share #80 Posted September 14, 2009 Porsche really isnt the same as Mercedes. Perhaps BMW. After all up until recently Porsche was the only privately owned major automotive manufacturer. With a niche market and a niche product, and they came out with new and unique vehicle, the Boxster, which saved the company and pissed off the few loyal people, who didn't buy enough to keep the company afloat without the Boxster. Leica is probably pretty close to being in a similar position as Porsche was. In this day and age of fast paced technology, what isn't rushed? We as consumers as a whole, demand it. Then we complain as a society when it isn't perfect or flaw free. I think its more or a reflection upon our need to someone live for ever. We don't accept flaws or inconveniences in our selves or others. We think that our needs somehow are the correct needs for everyone. I'd love for the M9 to cost less, but not at the expense of the company going out of business, and also not at the expense of suddenly this forum having 50,000 members overnight. There is a price to pay with exclusivity and elitism, but also the the close nature of such can be comforting as well. But in all fairness I could probably go get a part time job instead of watching TV and buy an M9 with the money in about 6 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.