Leica's future rides on M9 (and S2)

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Sandy

 

Sandy I respect what you have done and most of your posts on this forum but Leica is the only game in town if you want a digital rangefinder camera. There was no need to rush, they had 3 years to redesign the electronics. And they simply didn't do it.

Now sensor tech has something to do with it but that doesn't mean you sit around doing nothing until the technology is available then rush a product to market.

 

Don't get me wrong I think the M9 will be a great camera and probably sell better then the M8 & M8.2 combined which will help Leica. Only god knows what the S2 will bring.

[andybarton]

I agree with your comments on M9 to drive sales NOW and S2 may or may not happen.

 

The S2 is happening next month

 

I thought that you were interested in an M9, not going to hang around for a potential M10...

[zlatkob]

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

 

You're not the one making inferences, except, of course, for all of the inferences you made in post #39 above:

 

"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"

 

So, you're making that statistical conclusion about a larger population (Leica's market) based on which statistical sample?

 

If the phrase "members of this forum" somehow diminishes my point, then please just replace it with "Leica owners" and disregard my mention of this forum.

[sandymc]

Leica is the only game in town if you want a digital rangefinder camera. There was no need to rush, they had 3 years to redesign the electronics. And they simply didn't do it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the basis of Leica's issues since - well I guess since the M3 - is that the number of people that will buy a particular camera just because its a rangefinder is steadily decreasing. The first camera I ever used was a RF, but for how many people today is that true? Leica have to compete in the broader market to survive, in my opinion. That's why the pannyleicas, the S2, the X1. I think (hope) the M9 is good enough that people that aren't RF enthusiasts will buy because it delivers things other than just being a rangefinder that appeal to them. E.g., on TOP Mike described its as the smallest FF you can buy. Now maybe not many people will spend $7k to buy the smallest FF out there, but I think some will, and that's what Leica needs.

 

Sandy

[zlatkob]

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

 

Thanks very much for the link. Some very interesting insights from someone who worked for Leitz at the time of the CL:

 

"... the CL saved them."

 

"The M5 flopped."

 

"...the CL actually had a higher margin than the other stuff."

 

"The CL was a brilliant escape from the hole they found themselves in."

 

Hmmm ... what does that teach about the potential for a digital CL? ;)

[NB23]

Thanks very much for the link. Some very interesting insights from someone who worked for Leitz at the time of the CL:

 

"... the CL saved them."

 

"The M5 flopped."

 

"...the CL actually had a higher margin than the other stuff."

 

"The CL was a brilliant escape from the hole they found themselves in."

 

Hmmm ... what does that teach about the potential for a digital CL? ;)

 

It teaches exactly what some people don't want to believe: The problem wasn't the CL, it was indeed the M5.

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The S2 is happening next month

 

I thought that you were interested in an M9, not going to hang around for a potential M10...

 

No I have said repeatedly that the M9 looks like a superb camera and seems to be a technological breakthrough etc. I believe they are flying off the shelves and Leica are wooing some people with it from DSLR high end cameras. ...superb news!

 

I also think there are some firmware features such as manual lens selection and auto bracketing that hopefully Leica will bring to the M8. I live in hope.

 

I admit that FF would be very nice to have, but I can essentially achieve that with a 15mm or WATE or 18mm lens as my widest lens is 21mm.

 

Frankly since I own a M8 I see the M9 at a price of £4800 (or about £2800 more than my new M8) as very expensive. Bluntly put: I ask what exactly am I getting for this extra money? Today I dont see it

 

Objectively:

I lose the frame counter and battery status display, and I do not have the option of a glass monitor cover upgrade. It seems that the electronics is much the same for both cameras. I am told that the sensor type and resultant pictures are similar for both cameras. I am also told that at 18MP shooting RAW it adds a significant overhead to the memory buffer which is arguably now on the small side and speed of taking several consecutive shots plus battery usage has become an issue

 

I plan to actually hold a M9 next week in London but reading the forum and various detailed reviews I have doubts that I shall buy it. I also pointed out previously that the current batches of M9 will most likely identify areas of firmware improvement and possibly hardware fixes. Remember it took nearly one year for the M8 to be sorted.

 

Andy already I have read that there are several sugestions that people feel would be an improvement for an M10....and my suspicion is that these could be incorporated within a year. On that basis I am likely to await that camera at which point I guess M9 prices will drop (special deals on new?).

 

In any case I have yet to use the M8 to its full extent....I believe I have still a lot to learn, especially with respect to proper colour balance in sunlight, followed by artificial lighting. Meanwhile I shall probably treat myself to a super wide angle lens, a side benefit being that my wife is less likely to spot that purchase.

[Guest BigSplash]

Thanks very much for the link. Some very interesting insights from someone who worked for Leitz at the time of the CL:

"... the CL saved them."

 

"The M5 flopped."

 

"...the CL actually had a higher margin than the other stuff."

 

"The CL was a brilliant escape from the hole they found themselves in."

Hmmm ... what does that teach about the potential for a digital CL? ;)

 

Absolutely agree! I also think that too often people in this forum look at cost and price as somehow related....they are not.

 

Price is driven by the market value it can sustain and is set by sales.

Cost is something that should be driven downwards relentlessly by people in operations.

 

The fact that CL had a higher margin than M5 speaks volumes.

[Olsen]

Olsen, isn't that typical of what?

What is it that you are criticising with your remark?

 

Typical of the times we are living in: Salary cuts. Managerial mishaps that the employees must pay for. This increases uncertainties and prolongs the crisis we are living in. I hadn't done all my major investments up through my life if I could not trust that my salary arrived every month, uncut. If Leica do not practice a fair employer policy, I am no longer a customer.

[Guest BigSplash]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the basis of Leica's issues since - well I guess since the M3 - is that the number of people that will buy a particular camera just because its a rangefinder is steadily decreasing. The first camera I ever used was a RF, but for how many people today is that true? Leica have to compete in the broader market to survive, in my opinion. That's why the pannyleicas, the S2, the X1. I think (hope) the M9 is good enough that people that aren't RF enthusiasts will buy because it delivers things other than just being a rangefinder that appeal to them. E.g., on TOP Mike described its as the smallest FF you can buy. Now maybe not many people will spend $7k to buy the smallest FF out there, but I think some will, and that's what Leica needs.

 

Sandy

 

Agree ....I do not believe people go out to buy a RF camera. People buy a camera that takes great pictures in FF and has world class glass to achieve this. The fact that the M9 is smaller, less obtrusive, queiter and cheaper than Canon 5DII and high end Nikon is already convincing people towards Leica. If Leica can now capitalise on this and maintain the momentum ...fantastic.

[jaapv]

Typical of the times we are living in: Salary cuts. Managerial mishaps that the employees must pay for. This increases uncertainties and prolongs the crisis we are living in. I hadn't done all my major investments up through my life if I could not trust that my salary arrived every month, uncut. If Leica do not practice a fair employer policy, I am no longer a customer.

I think you'll find that Leica as a company enjoys an excellent relationship between the management and the employees. One has only to visit the factory and that becomes clear to an outsider when feeling the atmosphere in the workshops. I am convinced that the "fair employer policy" may not be on the formal level you are suggesting, but most certainly is a reality. The invitation of Mr. Spiller for any employee to step into his office and examine the figures is not a hollow phrase. Such decision canot be taken without involvement of the "Betriebsrat"anyway.

[georg]

"If Leica do not practice a fair employer policy, I am no longer a customer."

 

I absolutely agree and we'll have to wait and see how they behave once the S/M/X started and the investments for the new system are done - is it really reinvested into the company or just an excuse to increase margins by scaring employees? I've seen the latter version quite often but I'm optimistic that Dr. Kaufman (as far as I understood it, he doesn't have unlimited access to families money but an inheritance so he still has to rely on banks - very risky) takes a different direction (they hired more new employees last year than Hasselblad has in Göteborg!).

 

But I can only afford a Leica because I'm not a slave to "globalization" (working in Eastern Europe for Western Europe-markets) myself - if they don't want to assure that for their workers, too, they won't get my money.

[bill]

Can we move this thread to the wannabe CEO sandbox now?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[zlatkob]

Can we move this thread to the wannabe CEO sandbox now?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Classic rhetorical technique ... when you have no rational argument, ridicule those who hold the opposing view.

 

So those who favor a digital CL or less expensive digital M are wannabe CEO's on a sandbox and those who oppose it are not? It seems to me that if someone is applauding Leica's business decisions and theorizing about their financial impact, they are just as much the wannabe CEO.

[bill]

So those who favor a digital CL or less expensive digital M are wannabe CEO's on a sandbox and those who oppose it are not? It seems to me that if someone is applauding Leica's business decisions and theorizing about their financial impact, they are just as much the wannabe CEO.

 

Did I say that?

 

I was reacting more to the usual suspects who subvert every thread into an "Advice to the Leica CEO" diatribe. I had no issue with your holding or expressing an opposing view to me.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[tomasis7]

It teaches exactly what some people don't want to believe: The problem wasn't the CL, it was indeed the M5.

 

naaah

 

the lack of m4 did kill leica almost.

 

m5 and cl killed the identity of leica

 

pretty dumb not sell a m4 sized body under time.. hilarious

 

not exactly.. what product line can do with people buying lust.. rangefinder people is quite limited quantity