Erwin on Leicas future

[veraikon]

There is an article by the well know Leica defender Erwin Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photo/viewpoint/the_question_no_one_dares_t.html
about Leicas future .

The Handelsblatt (German journal for economic affairs) article that is mentioned in, is called “"Der leidenschaftliche Leica-Liebhaber"
http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Karriere/Koepfe/_pv/_p/200811/_t/ft/_b/1395248/default.aspx/der-leidenschaftliche-leica-liebhaber.html

[digitalintrigue]

Or, the Leica RF is at the end at the prices they currently are trying to sell them.

[Ken Ford]

Whoa. Doom and gloom.

But I have mine, and I'm confident B&W film will be available for my lifetime. I may have to buy it at an art supply store, but the medium will exist.

[Hacker]

Cold hard fact:

"The latest move at PMA to ask attention for two lenses that are in production for several years is a weak marketing move. It may indicate Leica’s desperation for attention in the market."

[hlockwood]

There is an article by the well know Leica defender Erwin Puts
http://www.imx.nl/photo/viewpoint/the_question_no_one_dares_t.html
about Leicas future .

The Handelsblatt (German journal for economic affairs) article that is mentioned in, is called “"Der leidenschaftliche Leica-Liebhaber"
http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Karriere/Koepfe/_pv/_p/200811/_t/ft/_b/1395248/default.aspx/der-leidenschaftliche-leica-liebhaber.html

When I was at my local shop a couple of days ago, the owner told me that he is trying to sell out his Leica stock because nothing is moving off the shelves. Sales of MP/M7 and M8 are dead. He suggested he would offer an "incentive" toward the sale of Leica M products.

This seems to confirm Puts's analysis at the local level. Very disheartening.

Harry

[ferider]

How can you even adress Leica's operational success (or lack thereof)
without considering Leica's pricing policy ?

CV and Zeiss demonstrate that RFs are not dead. The problem is somewhere
else (if there is one).

[Frank Petronio]

I think there are plenty of new Leica users -- young photographers love them -- but they are buying used Leicas. Until they start making more retired dentists and lawyers, their aren't going to be many new customers who will buy new Leicas.

If I want to use 35mm there's a huge supply of used Leicas to buy, and it would be hard for them to further improve on the film camera design... so...

[Mark Wood]

Sensibly guarded comments about the M System's future from Leica themselves:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_issues_statement_on_M8_future_news_184829.ht ml

[digitalintrigue]

Firing Mr. Lee isn't going to change anything.

It's a tough market out there, they are competing against far larger companies with immense technical advantages, and their number one market has a currency valuation problem.

I don't think RF is dead by any means; that said, the manufacturing cost of the products needs to be severely reduced, so they can be sold at reasonable prices.

Is this possible? Perhaps not.

As I said in another thread, Nikon needs to buy Leica. But, this would have to be more than just a sentimental purchase. What does Leica have that anyone else needs? Perhaps some optical technology? But if it's optical technology that can't be manufactured at price where the technology will sell, is there any value at all?

[back alley]

reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated...

welcome to rangefinder forum...maybe you have heard of us?

joe

[kully]

Or, the Leica RF is at the end at the prices they currently are trying to sell them.

Indeed, I completely disagree with him on the 'RF concept' being dead - I'm 28, I started thinking about my photo snapping two years ago and came to RFs anything else. Looking at forum users there are teenagers coming to RFs now.

However, the 'Leica RF' I can see going, there are so many old bodies in circulation that you can pick up an M6 for 1/3 the price of an MP/M7. They're [m7/m8] not unaffordable, but the difference in feel vs. price is hard to justify for many (including me).

If they are, I hope Leica stops listening to the photo geeks and taps into the the 'cachet' of their name, making _the_ most expensive cameras for rich people to wear as 'bling', perhaps a heavy, brass bodied, well finished AF digital compact the shape and size of a barnack?. Then, hopefully, they could keep the M-series alive as a side business.

[parsec1]

I have mine, I love using them,most of my better pics were/are shot on them and they will still be useable long after my demise so Who gives a shxt.

[sooner]

I hesitate to comment on yet another negative thread. I mean, jeez, why are WE of all people constantly beating the drum of the death of all things rangefinder and film? Hey, look up in the sky, is that a star or really a huge asteroid hurling towards an apocalypse on earth? But seriously, I find it mysterious to talk about the demise of Leica when they insist on pricing their product way out of the realm of users like myself. It's like complaining that toasters are obsolete because no one wants to buy premium toasters for $999. Unless the Leica allure is purely socio-economic, like a Jaguar car (face it, nobody buys a Jag 'cause it's a great car), I would think some improved pricing would help sales.

[digitalintrigue]

Leica has to go completely digital, and keep improving the product, so that customers have incentive to buy new models. That's the way all the other camera makers have to do it, to guarantee continuing cash flow. Gotta get on the product development treadmill. If that treadmill stops, well, I don't need to say more.

The RF is not dead by any means. There are millions of cameras being sold every year that have optical viewfinders. None of them are manual focus, and none of them sell for $3695.

For Leica to survive they have to update the RF to something modern (i.e. imagine a digital RF with Live View and autofocus) but I'm not sure they have the engineering ability or enough money to make it happen. That requires a huge investment, they'd have to redesign all their lenses, not just the bodies.

And at the same time, they'd have to cut manufacturing costs drastically. I'm not sure this can be done by Leica alone, they need to be acquired by a company that has enough muscle.

[Ade-oh]

I think he's absolutely right. Leica can survive if they make interesting, innovative cameras that people want to buy, but they won't be rangefinders, they need to be something new. In a perfect world, they would continue to produce small numbers of M rangefinders and lenses (mainly to keep me happy:o) alongside whatever product it is that restores their fortunes but they will not re-establish themselves by making manual focus rangefinder cameras, digital or analogue.

[digitalintrigue]

Well put, Fred.

The question is, does Leica have the technical ability and the load of cash necessary to modernize the RF concept. And manufacture it so it's an $1800 D300 alternative, not $5500.

[icebear]

....It's like complaining that toasters are obsolete because no one wants to buy premium toasters for $999.... .

ROFL - my wife scored a 4 slot Dualit toaster slightly dented for $69 some years ago in a Williams Sonoma outlet - you can call that a user :D . New it's something like $400.

[digitalintrigue]

No, history is not enough. That's being proven out.

Passionate defenders? Possibly. They'd have to do it like Apple does. That takes cash (Apple has 18 billion of that) and vision (there aren't many Steve Jobs.)

And absolutely, emra, they'd have to put money into the service end, too.

[icebear]

Hi folks,

there was an interesting article in the NYT Feb.26,2008 (yesterday) on closing doors :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/science/26tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
Hope the link works (othewise go to NYT : science section " Advantage of closing doors")

It's about focussing on some important options/projects and shutting down others in order to free capacity. Making decisions on priorities and follow the decisions consequently. There is a number of test designs that shows how reluctant the human mind is to let go of options because this is perceived as a loss.

Leica should let go of MP/M7, maybe finish production runs with stock material and than close that door and LOCK IT UP. That's it end of this raod after half a century. Move on.

I think this might be an option to survive. Many will mourn and cry but hey who gives sh... do these go into the shop and order a NEW M7/MP - no they don't. :p

[navilluspm]

I do not shoot Leica because I can not afford it. There is one way Leica can breath life into the M system: Have Panasonic develop a digital M-Mount RFcamera for under $1000 with the M8 sized sensor.

If this were to ever happen, I bet your bottom dollar that interest in RFs would soar! There are people who are interested in pocketable quality for an affordable price.

[digitalintrigue]

It's about focussing on some important options/projects and shutting down others in order to free capacity. Making decisions on priorities and follow the decisions consequently. There is a number of test designs that shows how reluctant the human mind is to let go of options because this is perceived as a loss.

Indeed.

Case in point, Apple again. Newton, LaserWriters, etc. Ditched by Jobs when he came back to Apple, so the company could focus on the core. It took a year for the new products to hit the market (iMac) and the subsequent ten years speak for themselves.

[sooner]

Sitemistic, as you point out, we don't actually know how well CV or Zeiss is doing with sales, so I don't see why you would imply that CV is NOT selling well. I guess I prefer to describe the glass as half full. And my point isn't so much that Leica would sell millions of Leicas if they just dropped their price, but rather that more of the rangefinder niche market (like me) could afford their product. In other words, better pricing means better penetration of their niche market, whereas now they leave at least hundreds of guys like me craving their product but unable to spend that kind of money. And as you point out, in a small market can they afford to leave some hundreds of thousands of dollars of product unsold?

[nextreme]

Sitemistic, as you point out, we don't actually know how well CV or Zeiss is doing with sales, so I don't see why you would imply that CV is NOT selling well. I guess I prefer to describe the glass as half full. And my point isn't so much that Leica would sell millions of Leicas if they just dropped their price, but rather that more of the rangefinder niche market (like me) could afford their product. In other words, better pricing means better penetration of their niche market, whereas now they leave at least hundreds of guys like me craving their product but unable to spend that kind of money. And as you point out, in a small market can they afford to leave some hundreds of thousands of dollars of product unsold?

I agree here - there is definitely a market for a mid priced digital rangefinder.

[digitalintrigue]

Yes, I suggested Nkon buy Leica in another thread.

Does Leica have intellectual property that Nikon could use? Unknown, but possibly. Leica isn't worth much to Nikon in terms of the potential for profit with the current product line, so it would only be worth the name, and whatever IP.

But I disagree that Leica should just be put on a conventional digital camera. There are already loads of those.

The key is to revamp the rangefinder concept into something modern, and manufacture it at a price where it can be sold as a true alternative to the dslr. It can be done...maybe not by Leica themselves.

As far as CV goes, they don't have the dealer base to sell big numbers. This is something else Nikon brings, a worldwide distribution channel. They also have the history of doing unusual things, like the S3 and SP rangefinder re-issues, which is why I use them as the example. Panasonic may have engineering and money but they don't have the name cachet or the channels.

Of course, if Nikon wanted to design a modern RF, they wouldn't need to buy Leica to do it.

[FPjohn]

Just a note. A local , Madison WI, camera store told me they do sell M8s with ease and that they reorder to fill the demand.

yours
FPJ

[digitalintrigue]

Autofocus would be a necessity. Could this be done with an M-mount? I don't know the answer to that.

[trittium]

If they are ending the Leica M line soon, now is the time to invest in gear. There will alway be a stong intreset in Leica equipement. No production = less supply. Less supply means more $ for gear. Just look at the RD1 and Nikon RF line.

[nextreme]

What would be the market for a mid-priced digital rangefinder? Would it be 50,000? 100,000? What would R&D cost to make one?

Hmm, good question. I think we could say, maybe with the proper marketing, a certain percentage of the mid priced dslr market would either purchase a digital rf in addition to, or instead of that dslr. Conservative estimate, 3-4% of mid priced dslr consumers.

[digitalintrigue]

Whether the cognescenti would swallow it is a different matter ....

That's not the group that will grow Leica, though.

[Olsen]

True. But what I'm saying is, the people are unaware that Ford have an updated Mustang thats available (that has the styling of the 1969 model) but with modern amenities.

Fact of the matter is, I can agree with some of what the article says. Where it goes wrong is, comparing an RF with a dslr. Two different beasts. I have both (but not a Leica). I use them at different times.
Can I compare your Mustang to a 1969 VW Beetle ? Both are cars. Both are tools to get you from point A to point B. I bet you can agree, they each have their place in your transportation arsenal.


The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...

[Trigeek]

I am not convinced rangefinder is dead either. But the pricing certianly is. What eaiser way to kill a product than to price the body at $5K and then the lenses somewhere around $2K+ each. That really restricts the portion of the population that wants to buy one. A non starter for the vast majority of the camera buying public.
One direction would be a modernized camera, auto focus & auto exposure... not sure I can add anything here, but one component needs to be an entry vehicle. Start with a camera designed in Solms, made in the far east (body and lens) that is competitive with the DSLR's out there, and then allow a path via upgrades to a full blown M. This would attract the starving student but give them choices to step up to a level they can afford. All of these steps would co-exist... mix and match. Just off the top pf my head... 3 bodies $1.0-$1.5K entry --> $2.5-3K intermediate --> 5K full blown. Lenses that start at $500 Summacheap (Oh - My - Gawd), intermediate Summarit, then the others... but figure out a way to make them cheaper. I mean, I have money (not made of it) but cannot bring myself to $3.5K for a 28 summicron. That is why I buy used... excuse me, pre-owned.

I do not buy that this approach would hurt Leica's quality at the low end... CV's are very good lenses... add to it some Leica IP and my feeling is you could end up with a pretty decent lens.

Anyway... just my 2cents.

[digitalintrigue]

The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...

And they sell a lot of them.

[fbf]

I don't think there is anything "wrong" about mf RF camera. The price tag is certainly not for everyone but it does make sense if considering the quality and workmanship of leica optics. IMHO, the problem is how to get into consumer market. Canon lost huge chunk of market lto Nikon last year mainly due to it somehow ignored consumer market. Same thing to leica.

[keithwms]

I don't think digital and RF are antithetical at all. Back in the early part of the 1900's there was this brand new, revolutionary recording technology... roll film...and Leica embraced it and ran with it. And contributed enormously to its success, obviously. I see no reason why Leica couldn't similarly embrace new technology while maintaining strong ties to its past. But IMHO Leica needs to think much further out of the [velvet] box than they have been. They need a Steven Jobs-like vision.

How far out of the box does Leica need to be thinking? I would say waaay out of the box. Just awkwardly shoving new technology into a traditional concept is not going to lift them out of a very small niche. Yes I realize that there are traditionalists who want to shoot the same they've been shooting for the last century, fine, I do that as well. These people (and I) need to realize that there is tradition and then there is corporate survival. I want Leica to stay alive. They can sell horses but they need to sell cars too.

My own predictions of what lies ahead: well first of all, I think the viewfinder concept has to go and will go within a decade. With it, the SLR concept will also vanish. There are already high res LCD screens that are far better than what is one the market now, which make high-def look quite poor. At some point, people will realize that these displays will achieve "transparency" in the sense that the photographer will be as comfortable looking at them as looking at the scene. Sound like sci fi but it is doable. Obviously, with that prospect comes a lot of new options that will not be of interest to RF traditionalists, but which will radically change the way photography is done at all levels. Above all, the SLR concept will completely disappear and be replaced by a more compact, less mechanical, rangefinder-like style.

That is my prediction, and I think it is ~10 years away. And yes, people will still happily be shooting manual focus M3s in ten years, good for them! But Leica cannot survive on camera technology that was introduced and refined in the last century; they will go down like a lead brick in shallow water if they don't realize this now.

I am in the business of working on optical/sensor/electronic technologies that are many decades out, and I tell you, the digital field is in its early infancy. Stay tuned. Camera companies that settle on any particular status quo will be driven out of the market very quickly.

[nextreme]

The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...

By stiff rear axle, I think you mean a limited slip differential, which provides drive to both rear tires by locking the axle, which is a good thing for drag racing, which is a good feature for mustang owners, i gather. But I don't really know a lot about car mechanics, the plant where Ford builds mustangs nor it's emission levels.

The point of the analogy wasn't the virtues of the new mustang.

[Platinum RF]

Leica is following Polaroid, soon will be doomed.

[jarski]

hot hot hot.. pls remember neither of Leica, Cosina or Zeiss rely only on M-mount cameras or lenses.

[kevin m]

Back in the early part of the 1900's there was this brand new, revolutionary recording technology... roll film...and Leica embraced it and ran with it.

And they need to do the same today!

The spirit of the Barnack Leica has to be embraced while letting go of its physical form if Leica is to survive. I'd like to have a digital M-mount body to give a platform for the 80 year's worth of lenses that are out there. But the rangefinder could go; the shape could go; all that is holy and sacred to the Leica faithful can go.

All the interest in cameras like the Ricoh GR-D and the new Sigma show there's a market out there for a good-quality digital camera that's NOT an SLR.

I didn't know I wanted an i-Mac until I saw the thing; I'd buy a camera that made me react the same way no matter who makes it.

[digitalintrigue]

How many M8s have been sold?

[tomasis]

I sensed deja-vu recently.

I rather see Leica company die before they consider AF for M bodies and AF M-mount lenses. nooo

I don't think I'd suffer much myself if Leica company goes away. I see M3 as camera which cannot improved better more. Especially ergonomics. I guess I need buy all Leitz lenses I need to try so I don't worry anymore about Leica or anything. Digital and SLR don't appeal anything ever at smallest. Fuji F30 is better way to go for my photography if I want some play with digital.

If Leica want to sell some cameras, they could consider a cheaper low end R camera with aps sensor from Panasonic. We know a lot people prefer automatic things.So sell some plastic crap with brand name for them and let real photographers continue using antic M cameras.

I would be more glad if Leica turned out to only lens manufacter like CV and Zeiss (with some exceptions for film bodies) if the competition with other players is too hard for selling bodies. Then after fifty years I can remember how Leica lived and can continue use lenses as usual.

No worries :angel:

[kevin m]

By stiff rear axle, I think you mean a limited slip differential, which provides drive to both rear tires by locking the axle,

No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.

[Olsen]

No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.

I sold my last car with 'solid rear axle' in 1983, a 1978 model Opel. Have never had it since. They are uncomfortable and dangerous in certain situations.

[kevin m]

You are entitled to your oipinion about the death of RF, I don't agree.

Well, some people still think global warming is a myth, so there you go... :D

This site is full of diehard, true-believer enthusiasts, and that's great, but it doesn't mean much in the big scheme of things. Here's the crucial bit of info that makes all the difference: there is almost zero pro use of the M8. There was a small, but influential group of M-body users in the film days, but that's no longer true. Even among the pros who own one, the M8 is largely a 'hobby' camera; one they pick up for their own use, or to accompany the Canikon cameras that earn their livings.

Leica has no future unless they embrace digital and make innovative products that fill consumer needs. As others have said, if you want the "rangefinder experience" you can get that with a $500 M2 just as readily as a $3,000 MP or a $5,000 M8.

[CameraQuest]

How many M8s have been sold?

about 14,000 M8's.

Stephen

[kevin m]

I sold my last car with 'solid rear axle' in 1983, a 1978 model Opel. Have never had it since. They are uncomfortable and dangerous in certain situations.

The Mustang is still using some chassis architecture from the 1979 model. Which is a shame because their OHC V8's are beauties. The engines rival BMW and Mercedes, too bad the chassis is stuck in the 1970's... :bang:

[tomasis]

I don't imagine Mustang GT or Shelby having solid rear axle.

I cannot believe that also cheapest modern Mustangs has such axles. If it is true, then I don't know what to say.. probably of chock

[back alley]

are we talking about the demise of leica or the demise of rangefinder cameras?

i don't see them as being the same thing.

[nextreme]

No, he meant a "solid rear axle" which means that both rear wheels are connected to the same axle. When one wheel moves, so does the other. A solid rear axle makes for a good drag racer, but a lousy road car on all but the smoothest pavement.

Boy this is off topic ! But are the new mustangs sold with solid rear axles and not limited slip differentials ? And, would some people not find having a solid rear axle desirable ?

[kshapero]

I like reading Erwin Puts for amusement purposes mostly. Witness the renaissance of RF's of late. CV, Zeiss, even Leica. They have prophesied the death of Saab for years, but I still drive them. These things are Always a niche and always a risk. A life I choose.

[dazedgonebye]

about 14,000 M8's.

Stephen

I think that's an encouraging number.
How many would they sell at half the price?

[Olsen]

I don't imagine Mustang GT or Shelby having solid rear axle.

I cannot believe that also cheapest modern Mustangs has such axles. If it is true, then I don't know what to say.. probably of chock

They have. I have even test driven one.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Whoa. Doom and gloom.
Erwin's grammatically-challenged musings aren't the gospel for me. He may be knowledgeable on some things, but he speaks the truth about anything as much as Dr. Phil on the topic of Treasury Bond exchange (making him the "authority" on something doesn't by osmosis make him the authority on the other)

[kevin m]

Originally Posted by tomasis
I don't imagine Mustang GT or Shelby having solid rear axle.

I cannot believe that also cheapest modern Mustangs has such axles. If it is true, then I don't know what to say.. probably of chock

Well, it's true. 500hp and a solid rear axle. :(

To give Ford some credit, they DID put an independent rear suspension on one of their high powered Mustangs in the 1990's. but many buyers put an aftermarket solid rear axle back in. :bang:

A solid rear axle and a limited slip axle aren't the same thing, BTW. A limited slip refers to the differential unit and not the suspension. :)

[Uncle Bill]

I would not kill the M7/MP there is just too much mystique tied into that platform, besides the tooling has paid for itself ages ago. I would keep it around as a legacy platform.

I think Leica made a huge mistake by putting all it's R&D Euros on the M8 I would have developed a digital R10 DSLR and make it so current R lenses can be used. I would then also make Leica branded lenses lenses in EOS, K Mount Nikkor F mount and Olympus 4/3 mount.

Leica is already selling re-engineered Panasonic products and I think it's a hard proposition because they look too much like Panasonic products. The real problem is they do not have the R&D budget like Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. The other fact you are manufacturing product in Germany, a high cost juristiction does not help plus with the US dollar down the toilet for the forseeable future, their biggest market can't afford the product. Re-open the plant in Midland Ontario perhaps?

[Gabriel M.A.]

Nikon is making camera bodies in Thailand and lenses in China to get the costs down.
What makes me nervous about businesses' temptation of the "cheap China" dogma is that it's such a Wild West of Industry that many things that are made there don't last.

While many would think that digital cameras are "disposable", some companies don't think of their products that way. It's not cheap to make things right and well, which is a number of notches above "good enough".

[keithwms]

If I may be so bold... I think that some here are applying the logic that if Leica could produce a high-end film camera, and people would buy it at high cost because of its reputation and capabilities, then Leica must therefore be able to do the same in the digital sector.

I am afraid that this logic is completely wrong, and it goes ot the core of why some people like me -who actually like digital and film too- resent what the digital arms race has done to the camera marketplace. On the digital side, the upfront research / fab / tooling costs are enormous; they dwarf the research costs that used to go into bringing out a new film body. The sensor research alone is such an enormous undertaking that only a few companies like Sony can front that kind of capital. Defect tolerance has to be extremely high on these sensors, the architecture is very unforgiving.

If you break down the cost of the components in the M8, I will bet that the sensor eats up most of the profit. A sale of 14000 cameras is a colossal flop, sorry but it is so. At the very best you are looking at $50m raw profit from sales, but then subtract research costs and the expense of setting up the fabrication / tooling and then marketing... I wouldn't be surprised if the M8 was a net drain on the company. I am truly sorry to say it, but 14000 is a shockingly small number. If these were film cameras then they could eke out a profit from that (e.g. look at Cosina), but digital doesn't work that way.

Just imagine how much more expensive it would have been for Leica to bring out their first M-series RFs if they had to pay for all the film research that Kodak did when bringing out roll film! Kodak was a BIG company with massive quantities of cash to spend, that's why they could support groundbreaking research and push out new products.

[nextreme]

sitemistic, i'm curious, out of the total market of flagship model cameras (Nikon + Canon) what do you think 7000 units represents ?

[digitalintrigue]

Yes, Canon is the winner; they are sufficient size to realize maximum cost efficiencies. Leica is at the extreme other end of the curve...

[Tuolumne]

How many people buy cheap D300s?

The D300 is cheap - for what you get. I mean the same price only buys a fraction of an M8 - a slow, quiet shutter and an LCD screen cover. Can't shoot many pictures with just those parts. :D

/T

[digitalintrigue]

The D300 is cheap - for what you get. I mean the same price only buys a fraction of an M8 - a slow, quiet shutter and an LCD screen cover. Can't shoot many pictures with just those parts. :D

/T

:) Don't forget outbound and return shipping and 2 more years of warranty.

For reference, over a 16 year span, 132,000 M6s were sold. That's 8250/year...the M8 is ahead of that pace.

[Shac]

Well while I would agree with many of you that Leica as is (incl. An M9) has an extremely doubtful future, however, I also believe that there is still a market for a high quality APS or larger sensor “P&S” – like the Sigma DP1 but with a high quality zoom. The price can’t be over the top though.
Both Mike Johnston and Thom Hogan have previously discussed this kind of camera more effectively and I agree with their takes.
I do have several/too many Leicas & enjoy using most of them by the way.
David

[Tuolumne]

:) Don't forget outbound and return shipping and 2 more years of warranty.

For reference, over a 16 year span, 132,000 M6s were sold. That's 8250/year...the M8 is ahead of that pace.

Yeah, but the M8 has probably already shot its wad. Most people who wanted one already have one, certainly after the price increases were announced. I think the volumes are all down hill from here. Remember, relative to other cameras of the time, the M6 took just as good pictures in year 6 as it did in year 1. Relative to digital cameras 6 years hence, the M8 will be a paper weight.

/T

[Toby]

Next topic for discussion: The Titanic - how would have you arranged the deckchairs?

Followed by live streaming video of two bald men fighting over a comb:D

[sherm]

Perhaps Leica devotees would avoid such a camera as unworthy, but would the rest of the buying public avoid it because it says "Leica" on the front?

If Epson came out with a RD-2 with such a spec people would buy it, but if Leica builds it people won't?


It seems that is already the case.... in Erwin's article he reports that one of the reasons that Lee may have been let go is the dismal performance of the new mid-priced summarit line. These are not the products, nor will they be the products that devotees or for that matter the rest of us will purchase.

I would agree with much of what Kevin wrote earlier, they'll have to abandon all of what Leica holds dearly and holy if they are to move forward.

[Ade-oh]

It seems that is already the case.... in Erwin's article he reports that one of the reasons that Lee may have been let go is the dismal performance of the new mid-priced summarit line. These are not the products, nor will they be the products that devotees or for that matter the rest of us will purchase.

I would agree with much of what Kevin wrote earlier, they'll have to abandon all of what Leica holds dearly and holy if they are to move forward.

Introducing new manual RF lenses of admittedly lower quality than the premium lenses is very much re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if you haven't got some kind of cash-cow to support them while they establish their niche in the very, very limited RF market. That really was throwing money down the drain.

[digitalintrigue]

That's it...does he have the money, and does he want to spend it?

Are there any buyers for the name and IP?

Time will tell.

[digitalintrigue]

Introducing new manual RF lenses of admittedly lower quality than the premium lenses is very much re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if you haven't got some kind of cash-cow to support them while they establish their niche in the very, very limited RF market. That really was throwing money down the drain.


I thought that to be a curious product release. Anyone that wants a cheaper and/or slower M mount lens can already buy that from two other suppliers, for considerably less.

[Socke]

That's it...does he have the money, and does he want to spend it?

Are there any buyers for the name and IP?

Time will tell.


The name has a value, but what IP?

[varjag]

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.

[digitalintrigue]

Assuming they have various optical patents, etc.

The name has a value, but what IP?

[digitalintrigue]

heh.

Perhaps more like "Leica's got their work cut out for them."

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.

[Ade-oh]

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.

The lesson is that a company selling consumer technology which fails to innovate is doomed to failure, however good their original product was.

[jbf]

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.

Um... yeah. You didn't know? We're changing the forum name to "CANON L337 g34r us3rs."


So yeah. That's pretty much it.

[Frank Petronio]

Building better dslr lenses is pretty obvious. Guys who pay $8K for a 23mp Canon won't mind paying $3-5K for decent wide angle or a Noctilux type lens.

[giellaleafapmu]

"...Leica has to convince new users that the RF concept is exciting and a true alternative to the dSLR concept in terms of image quality and image production."


...to convince new users THAT the RF concept is a true alternative to DSLR? One should first make the statement true and then convince people it is. At the moment I my opinion it is not, for half the price of a Leica M8 you can get one of several cameras which produce better pictures (I means just optics and sensor, not the fact that possibly it is more difficult to take a given shot with a small silent camera rather than with a large one). Leica should start producing something new if the want to survive...

GLF

[infrequent]

canon? don't they make copy machines?!

[joachim]

Introducing new manual RF lenses of admittedly lower quality than the premium lenses is very much re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if you haven't got some kind of cash-cow to support them while they establish their niche in the very, very limited RF market. That really was throwing money down the drain.


If Leica had offered these lenses in 2000, I am sure they would have sold. Cosina ate that lunch. Now in 2008 most people want digital at a price they can afford and no-one is offering a digital body these lenses are needed for - why buy these lenses :eek:

[Tuolumne]

If Leica had offered these lenses in 2000, I am sure they would have sold. Cosina ate that lunch. Now in 2008 most people want digital at a price they can afford and no-one is offering a digital body these lenses are needed for - why buy these lenses :eek:

I put them on my R-D1. ;)

/T

[varjag]

Oh please. The assumption here is that Leica should outdo Canon or at least Nikon, like it was some self-justifying goal and criteria for camera perfection.

You all seem to want a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and short lifecycle. Well then you have them already: stick to your DSLRs, and be proud of it.

[Tom A]

The glory days of rangefinder shooting were over in the 60's. There are still shooters who use them, but they are far and few between. What we have now are "amateaurs" who are using the rangefinder because they like it , not for commercial work. Film is not dead , but it is on a bit of life support!
Leicas main problem is that they have always been a historically important camera - it was the true first commercially succesful rangefinder (and yes, Contax was a close 2nd for a while). This created a demand that is still there - the collectors, hoarding small boxes filled with either obscure accessories or mintish cameras. This is also a reason why there is a substantial amount of these cameras left in functioning form. This also means that for an aspiring photographers who want to go retro - there are good, functioning cameras around at 1/2 or 1/4 price of a new Leica film camera. There is also a support network with service and parts to keep these artifacts operating long beyond a "normal" lifespan. The older Leica M's are well built and there is rarely a problem with them, so how do you convince the guy who bought his M3/M2 in the 50's to change for something that is marginally better and considerably more $ (even though he probably paid the eqivalent amount in 1957).
As for lenses. any M-lens from 1954 on does a credible job, sometimes it enhances the "retro" look but sometimes it is pretty close to the latest offerings. Why change?
For just about anything, digital is a good solution. You want to take pictures and either print or look at them on a screen. Digital is better. You shoot color - digital allows you far more leeway in correcting. Even monochrome images can be done with half decent quality!
However, there is a new wave of photographers emerging, usually digitally very savy, but also bored with a medium that is very much "hands off". You are not taking pictures- you allow the camera to perform a multitask operation and get good pictures (provided you have plowed through the 440 pages manual). These shooters want something that is "fun" and different. What interest me is that these shooters are interested in bl/w. It might be the "magic" of seeing a print coming up in the developer or holding a strip of film in their hand and looking at these reversed images.
The problem is that these are shooters who are doing digital photography for a fee. The rangefinder is for enjoyment and occasionally for a historical interest. They cant justify a $4000 body and $10 000 for a couple of lenses, however good these pieces are. They buy used or they go to CV or Zeiss for their lenses.
Mr Kobayashi very much revitalized this market 10 years ago. He produced a wide range of cameras and lenses that could be justified. Both his cameras and the lenses are selling well, not huge amounts but certainly not in dribs and drabs either. He has also recognized the "gear head" among us. Keep making new and interesting lenses and bodies at prices that we can afford and we will buy them. In less than 10 year he has produced lenses from 12/f 5.6 to 90/3,5 - he hasen't hit the 1mm between each lens, but he is pretty close! Zeiss followed suit with more expensive but still affordable premium optics and a great balance between price and performance. Leica kept shuffling their feet and came up with the F4 WATE for $5000!
Leica needs to a/do some house cleaning and reinvent itself. Yes the M8 answered the call for a camera that would have been a dream for many -IF it had been priced right. It also is a camera that was pushed out too fast - there were basic things with it that should have been fixed at production - not as a warranty repair.
B/ Leica needs to look at what the rest of the world is doing. The market for film based rangefinders is small, in fact it is miniscule - but it is there! Yes. a new expensive large sensor M9 would be a feather in the cap for Leica, but I think that the cost of developing it would obviate any profits made from it.
Will Leica survive - most likely as Dr Kaufmann seems determined to make a go of it, but it will require a new, improved and buyer attractive product line and they are going to have to deal with competition and recoginize that their day as the sole "premium rangefinder builder" are over.
Cameras like the Zi with its brillant rangefinder, the Bessa R4M with its 21/25/28 finder, lenses like the 35/1,2, 21/4,5 ZM and the new 35/1,4 SC shows that there is a market out there, but it is also a smart group of buyer. Why pay 5-6 times more for something that might be equal to what the other guy is selling!
Yes. Leica has made two absolute stunning lenses in the last decade - the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Summicron and it will not be easy to improve upon these two, but for the rest of the line-up, I rather spend less and get more from the other guys and a $4000 MP is not in my books. I have enough M's to last several lifetimes and if I spend money on a Leica product again - it will have to have one hell of a WOW factor to go with it (and that does not include a 50mm f0.9 lens either).
Long live M2's
Tom

[chikne]

Nikon is making camera bodies in Thailand and lenses in China to get the costs down. There is no reason that Leica can't do the same thing.


Oh my!!! What a horrible and repugnant thing to say.

[kshapero]

There are alot of people on this thread who have way too much time on their hands. present company included.

[digitalintrigue]

Very well said, as usual, Tom. :)

And therein lies the issue...there just aren't enough buyers for new Leica glass, when there is plenty of inventory of used, and an economical alternative like CV, and a middle-price line by Zeiss.

They have no choice but to get the manufacturing costs down significantly. This may be repugnant to some, but this is about survival. (How about building in North America? At least they'd be on the other side of the currency exchange problem.)

What would make people buy new Leica glass? They'd first have to re-invent the rangefinder (miracle number one) and they'd have to have a new line of autofocus lenses at reasonable prices (miracle number two.)

Will Kaufmann open his check book, or will he simply decide it can't be done and get value for the name and whatever IP?

[BillBingham2]

Leica's key lies in focusing on what they do best and stop trying to be like everyone else. What they do best is glass, follow that with a real digital M.

> Bring out a wide range of Leica glass in Nikon, Canon and 4/3s mounts. Keep it manual focus to reduce the cost of retooling. Do not go autofocus, it is not a strength right now.

> Kill the R body line but keep parts around.

>Make a digital M with five controls on it. Shutter Speed Dial, Shutter Release, ISO Dial, On/Off and JPG or RAW/JPG. Have a meter like say the M6ttl and make the body strong. Bring out finders that challenge Pres K, ZI and Nikon. Forget the rest of the electronics, do the rest on a PC or a Mac. Make the camera simple and elegant to use but last 10 years of real heavy use. You can price this camera at $2500 because people will buy it. The M8 does too much in camera making it way to fancy and hard to produce. Match the output of your sensor to real film.

The M8 is trying to fight the DSLR solutions on their own playing field (features that could be done on a PC/Mac) and loosing. Move the fight if you want to win. Simple and elegant is a fight the others are not ready for. Nikon could fight it, but Canon will not, they are too mass market focused. Let Nikon fight it, there is enough market. Tom is right, the rangefinder's day was long ago. The Nikon F trounced it for many reasons. BUT, that does not mean that there is no market for Elegant Simplicity. That my friends is why the M2 will live forever.

B2 (;->

[Tuolumne]

Leica's key lies in focusing on what they do best and stop trying to be like everyone else. What they do best is glass, follow that with a real digital M.

> Bring out a wide range of Leica glass in Nikon, Canon and 4/3s mounts. Keep it manual focus to reduce the cost of retooling. Do not go autofocus, it is not a strength right now.

> Kill the R body line but keep parts around.

>Make a digital M with five controls on it. Shutter Speed Dial, Shutter Release, ISO Dial, On/Off and JPG or RAW/JPG. Have a meter like say the M6ttl and make the body strong. Bring out finders that challenge Pres K, ZI and Nikon. Forget the rest of the electronics, do the rest on a PC or a Mac. Make the camera simple and elegant to use but last 10 years of real heavy use. You can price this camera at $2500 because people will buy it. The M8 does too much in camera making it way to fancy and hard to produce. Match the output of your sensor to real film.

The M8 is trying to fight the DSLR solutions on their own playing field (features that could be done on a PC/Mac) and loosing. Move the fight if you want to win. Simple and elegant is a fight the others are not ready for. Nikon could fight it, but Canon will not, they are too mass market focused. Let Nikon fight it, there is enough market. Tom is right, the rangefinder's day was long ago. The Nikon F trounced it for many reasons. BUT, that does not mean that there is no market for Elegant Simplicity. That my friends is why the M2 will live forever.

B2 (;->

I like the simplicity, but it really must have an LCD. Chimping is one of the main advantages of digital. I know there are a few people here who think otherwise, but there are so few that you would just kill off a good idea with a bad implementation.

/T

[Tom A]

I should add that part of Leicas problem was that their cameras were simply too well built. They did fix that problem with the M8!

[chikne]

Um... yeah. You didn't know? We're changing the forum name to "CANON L337 g34r us3rs."


So yeah. That's pretty much it.

1337 H8xx0r ;)

[larmarv916]

Let's talk about other major issue that Leica seems to have totally missed the boat on.....supporting the creative passion of it's customer base. Now Iam not talking about a few hand chosen "pro's" that the editors or art directors of Leica own publications including the failed "Leia World". There are 2 or 3 groups of people who ascribe to dramaticly different assement of Leica's problems.

But a common thread is that Leica has not really embraced the common average users creative enjoyment that produces "prints" per say. I spent several hours talking to Leica staff on several levels and much of the frustration that "they" the workers in the marketing & sales seem to represnt is that to much of Leica marketing is controlled by or directed by the Advertising Agencies outside Leica.

Large amounts of money clearly appeared to have been wasted on preaching to the Leica "Chior" and not on attracting new converts, regardless of what level Digital or Film. If my memory is correct Chiat & Day most recently came up with another wasted advertsing concept. The Leica magazines got almost no distribution and yet they are on every news stand in germany. A marketwhere Leica is failing badly.

Yet to hear marketing people in Solms talk the major focus is on the North American market ??? These same people when confronted with how do they account for why every program they launch fails to reverse the declining trend.
Just are not sure. Iam not going to put out the names of people I talked to in September 07. But the internal production people are really making every cost saving effort and really embrassed by the M8 problems.

I watched as they repriced unsold inverntory that would be shipping the USA and listened to the explaination of how even with repricing they were losing profit margin.

Inside any company there are accounting games that get played but at the end of the day......if you are not selling enough units. Your losing money.

Back to the Lack of Customer interest.

Leica should have and still needs to demonstrate to prospective buyers that anyone can produce better images and enjoy a more rewarding life long relationship.

Leica's idea to make "bling" cameras at the behest of Hermes was a disaster.

Also that Leica will support the growth and development of it's customers similar to how APPLE has recreated it's customer interaction. The only bright spots on the retail front for Leica are at the new concept Berlin and Tokyo stores.

I personally suggested that they go to ALL direct or company owned stores like APPLE. More service and training seminars and also they could actually drop sales prices......and still keep the current profit margin that they factory has when it ships. As the dealer mark up has never benefited Leica's bottom line.

If you do not think that having the factory go to direct sales like Apple,,,you only need to look at what a success one our friends in the automotive industry is gaining. Ferrari began this program when the dealers were not getting the job done and has stronger sales and also much better customer confidence.

Yes Leica needs to keep developing new products but better interaction and support of clients also gives people a way to allow "prospects" to get a hands on apperciation of Leica and know that it is just not a "good luck charlie" mass market relationship.


Sadly there is a glass wall between the internal staff , workers and the "Alpha" class members of Leica's management. The top tier do not want to have any data or information or discussion that does not agree with the iscolated view of the world....a Commom problem in many compaines , but very typical of OLD EUROPE business people.

Best Regards to ALL......Laurance

[kipkeston]

Cool. I just stopped by. I read Tom's big post. His description was exactly accurate for me. I'm 23, tired of the dslr, read the new yorker, wanted something new, fell in love with b/w, couldn't see why I'd spend cash on new leica when the m6 and Zi are readily available. Anything new from leica is completely inconceivable for me considering the options.

[Olsen]

...to convince new users THAT the RF concept is a true alternative to DSLR? One should first make the statement true and then convince people it is. At the moment I my opinion it is not, for half the price of a Leica M8 you can get one of several cameras which produce better pictures (I means just optics and sensor, not the fact that possibly it is more difficult to take a given shot with a small silent camera rather than with a large one). Leica should start producing something new if the want to survive...

GLF

....which cameras w/optics at half the price of the M8 produces 'better pictures....?

My experience is that the M8/WATE combo is better (sharper) than Canon's 1Ds II/16-35 mm 2,8L II - two combos costing about the same.

1)
It is the experienced photographer, amateur or pro, that 'finds out' that the rangefinder system makes sharper pictures. This because AF does not and modern SLR cameras has not good enough focusing screens for exact manual focusing anymore.

2)
No camera system has such a wide range of 'excellent optics' as the Leica M system. Now that we all can click ourselves all the way to 100% in PS we are all optical experts with the tools to explore just this.

3)
The M8 is a very light, compact and descrete camera system compared to the 'real' competitors, of which most of them, can't produce the excellent results resolution-wise, anyway.

[Sonnar2]

Look back 50 years. LEICA is making mainly the same products as they did then. So the main competitor of new Leicas are old Leicas, and this is their main problem.
What was making CANON and NIKON fifty years back, and what do they now? They recognized how the markets have changed, moreover, they drove the markets to change. And they have the funds to do so (money for R&D). LEICA rode the retro-wave since they started the M4-2 in the seventies. They did it to survive, whereas Nikon relaunched their S3/SP just for fun, tradition and marketing. Just to show it's still possible.
Will Leica will survive with the same strategy the next 50 years? No. If no radical change in products can be done, they will not survive for five years, because CV and Zeiss are also grazing on the "traditional" market niche. One of the less radical changes that needs to be done is ceasing production of film cameras.
With some rights it can be stated that the last real innovative product of Leica was the M3/M2. Perhaps Leica is the only company in the world who could survive 50 years without true innovation. At the price of bad shrinking...

-Frank-

[Olsen]

Look back 50 years. LEICA is making mainly the same products as they did then. So the main competitor of new Leicas are old Leicas, and this is their main problem.
What was making CANON and NIKON fifty years back, and what do they now? They recognized how the markets have changed, moreover, they drove the markets to change. And they have the funds to do so (money for R&D). LEICA rode the retro-wave since they started the M4-2 in the seventies. They did it to survive, whereas Nikon relaunched their S3/SP just for fun, tradition and marketing. Just to show it's still possible.
Will Leica will survive with the same strategy the next 50 years? No. If no radical change in products can be done, they will not survive for five years, because CV and Zeiss are also grazing on the "traditional" market niche. One of the less radical changes that needs to be done is ceasing production of film cameras.
With some rights it can be stated that the last real innovative product of Leica was the M3/M2. Perhaps Leica is the only company in the world who could survive 50 years without true innovation. At the price of bad shrinking...

-Frank-

Frank,

Look at the Canon 5D. Isnt that 'practically the same product' as the EF of 1970...?

[Tuolumne]

Frank,

Look at the Canon 5D. Isnt that 'practically the same product' as the EF of 1970...?

Well, in that sense isn't it the same as the camera obscura Vermeer used in cerating his paintings? Sheesh...you guys! :bang:

/T

[Olsen]

Well, in that sense isn't it the same as the camera obscura Vermeer used in cerating his paintings? Sheesh...you guys! :bang:

/T

ha, ha, ha!

[aizan]

how about that, i am completely in agreement with mr. puts.

[Sonnar2]

Frank,

Look at the Canon 5D. Isnt that 'practically the same product' as the EF of 1970...?

Yes, at least they have the same color ;-)

As far as I remember it took LEICA 30 years longer to integrate AE into a camera with electronical controlled shutter. Can you imagine another industry where you can survive with a leeway of this length ? Not in China but in a country which once had some of the highest wages in the world?

As for TTL metering, Canon just was 15 years ahead (this was at the time the M5 started). So the leeway increases with time. So it can be expected they can build a camera similar to the 5D in 2055...

[RIVI1969]

[QUOTE=Olsen]....which cameras w/optics at half the price of the M8 produces 'better pictures....?

Olsen,

There are better cameras, but if we are talking about only those who cost half the price including optics then these gears could do it:

1. Canon 5D + 24-70mm 2.8 + 3 primes = 4000dlls
2. Nikon D300 + 24-70mm 2.8 + 3 primes = 4500dlls

(even my D80 with its primes lenses can hold its own at a 1/4rd of the price)

[Olsen]

how about that, i am completely in agreement with mr. puts.

I don't. Edwin Puts should stay off the Jägermeister for a while.

[anselwannab]

It is kind of a shame that while dSLRs were gearing up that RFs couldn't make a run of it. I think too many people have dSLRs now to try to switch them over.

To be economically viable, you have to have AF and sophiticated metering system in a camera. People won't tolerate missed shots and crappy results. Luckily, I the answer is staring us in the face in the form of the D300. Use the sensor as the autofocus module, and I assume you can use the sensor as an expsoure checker too.

Tie that info into a AF M mount lens system, that would allow the use of old M glass, but with the AF (obviuosly) or the metering.

The AF M mount lenses are the key. With out them, your camera will never approach mainstream appeal, and you need new lens sales to cover costs.

You could even keep the M mount cameras for film and digital as your high end exclusive cameras.

Leica made their way due to changing the paradigm and doing it with unrivaled quality. They have to change the paradigm again.

Maybe they need to leverage their cool, hipness factor with more a integrated community after the sale. Kind of a Rff for the new D Leicas. Keep the sense of community together. Canon and Nikon sell you a camera and send you on your way.

[Tom A]

[QUOTE=Olsen]....which cameras w/optics at half the price of the M8 produces 'better pictures....?


2)
No camera system has such a wide range of 'excellent optics' as the Leica M system. Now that we all can click ourselves all the way to 100% in PS we are all optical experts with the tools to explore just this.


I disagree here. As I stated before, there are two premium lenses in the current Leica line-up, the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75/2 Summicron. The rest of the Leica line-up is either old technology or plain weird (Wate and the collapsible 90 Macro). The WATE is not optically bad, but I can buy a 15/4,5 Heliar, a 18f4 Distagon ZM and the 21/4,5 Biogon ZM for less tan 1/2 that price and each of these lenses are either equal to or better than the WATE.
Today Leica has a very large complement of excellent lenses, most of which are made by the competition! Leica is still resting on the laurels of past glory - The Noctilux is getting on in years (40+), the Summicron 50 is even older and it shows, the 21 and 24 are very good lenses, but the ZM 21/25 f2.8 are right up there with them. The 35/2 Asph is good, but the Biogon 35 ZM at less than 1/2 price is again right there. The 35/1,4 Asph is one of the best 35's - but it is flare prone and the VC 35/1.2 is faster and virtually flare proof and a 1/4 of the price.
Optics like the 12/5,6 and the 15/4,5 from VC (about $1300 for BOTH of them) is something that Leica never thought off. Highly specalized optics at affordable prices!
I sometimes get the feeling that if ir wasn't for VC/Zeiss/Konica/Kobalux - Leica would still be plodding along and announcing "new lenshoods" on old lenses as the big news!
The Summarit line was a step in the right direction, but priced out of line. The new 28f2.8 Asph is another good idea, but it seems to have died at the inception - none around!
From the stand point of a Rf user - we have never had it better when it comes to choice of lenses and cameras ,but that was in spite of Leica rather thanks to them!

[giellaleafapmu]

....which cameras w/optics at half the price of the M8 produces 'better pictures....?

Well, I was thinking to the EOS 5D for example.


My experience is that the M8/WATE combo is better (sharper) than Canon's 1Ds II/16-35 mm 2,8L II - two combos costing about the same.


Cannot judge this as I don't have the 1Ds II but even if true this does not prove much, I did not say that no camera is more expensive and produce worst pictures...


It is the experienced photographer, amateur or pro, that 'finds out' that the rangefinder system makes sharper pictures. This because AF does not and modern SLR cameras has not good enough focusing screens for exact manual focusing anymore.


Mmmmh, I don't have a proof but in real life I don't see a difference you can sell. You are probably right if you speak lines per mm about one of the picture you can get with both system still both can produce pictures which are even too good for most application and for the other (still-life, products, food) I wouldn't use any of the two systems anyway.


No camera system has such a wide range of 'excellent optics' as the Leica M system. Now that we all can click ourselves all the way to 100% in PS we are all optical experts with the tools to explore just this.
3)
The M8 is a very light, compact and descrete camera system compared to the 'real' competitors, of which most of them, can't produce the excellent results resolution-wise, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I like rangefinders and I do like the M8, still it is a retrofit which might be all-right but not at the price...again real life is a proof of that.

GLF

[ferider]

Completely different thought:

CEO gone, new marketing head, field marketing (Puts) announces dooms day for Leica, even though the numbers are good compared to 2 years ago ........... does that sounds like an acquisition in progress to anyone ? :angel:

[BillBingham2]

I like the simplicity, but it really must have an LCD. Chimping is one of the main advantages of digital. I know there are a few people here who think otherwise, but there are so few that you would just kill off a good idea with a bad implementation.

/T

T,

I love Chimping, part of my respect for the TLR is being able to hold it over my head and see the picture I am getting, it's way cool. Chimping gives me that too. LCDs add value, but I disagree that they are a major reason why someone would switch from an M6 lets say. Our market his is the film/rangefinder user getting them to move to digital. If we give them an easy camera to use, one that will be robust, digital has other sirens that will bring them over than just an LCD. Digital is fast, it will bring the bodies into the mainstream PJ types as they can use the same workflow as they have for their DSLRs. It's low cost so folks who do not want the wet darkroom can have a dry light room to work their images. No film to soup and scan, no expensive scanners to buy and keep VERY CLEAN. I think it was Keith who shot the other day with an M8 the party made a great point, the M8 is small and easy get lost with. DSLRs look like a tank.

Keep the camera manual focus, use the old lenses, keep the cost low and make some money. With less features in the camera you both lower cost of manufacturing as well as quicker time to market (less testing). There are lots of options for PC and Mac (and Linux) software to do your after shooting processing, give away the raw filters to EVERYONE.

Leica must make a rock solid product and make it easy for people to move over to it and not forget their previous investment in old glass. Simple Elegance with a image quality equal to the D300. I believe that this is a big enough market that Nikon could walk into and own within one year of giving the project a go. Issue some new M mount glass, a digital SP body and then you could close the doors on Leica. Just fold up the pieces and sell the parts to Don and Sherry.

B2 (;->

[aizan]

let's say leica goes belly up. what happens then?

[jack palmer]

The new Mustang is 'modern'? Don't you have modern cars over there? It has a stiff rear axle! It is a simple pick-up with a fastback design. It's an old fashioned car made at a factory with 70'-80' technology. In 2010 it will not meet EU emision standards...


A pickup that will kick the ass of some European sports cars costing ten times as much and you don't have to have a spare while ones in the shop like the European exotics........ and the M8.

[Jamie Pillers]

Let's think differently for a moment.

I have no interest in $5000 camera bodies and $3000 lenses... period! There is NOT enough difference in the way a Leica-produced print and, say a Voigtlander-produced print, at ANY size looks to justify such a purchase... in my opinion, of course.

However, over the past year or so I've been trying out a lot of cameras... old Yashica Electros, new DSLRs, a new Voigtlander R4, a couple of modern little P&S digital cameras. I ended this process liking the Yashica and the Voigtlander best. Why? Because they both took me back to what I loved about photographing when I started in the 60s. I love that moment of "focus, snap, wind". No shutter lag, no LCD menu to deliberate with... all in a nice little jewel-like body that's a pleasure to hold. And of course, a lens that produces clear, well-rendered line and color.

So... it appears to me that the camera companies continue to dance around the digital camera design MANY of us are looking for. Maybe Leica will figure it out (but I doubt it... their egos won't let them), maybe Voigtlander, or maybe Ricoh! I swear... if Ricoh could figure out a way to put an APS-C size sensor in their GX-100 or in their GR-D cameras... they'd have a camera capable of winning over a huge number of young street photographers looking for something that produces serious results but doesn't require a $5000 body and $3000 lenses!!!

[sunsworth]

[QUOTE=Olsen]As I stated before, there are two premium lenses in the current Leica line-up, the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75/2 Summicron. The rest of the Leica line-up is either old technology or plain weird...

For once Tom I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 24mm Elmarit is a totally outstanding lens, one of the best I own, anything but old or weird - and yes I own the 75mm Summicron.

As for the 15mm Voigtlander, it's great value for money, but don't ever pretend that's it's comparable in image quality terms to the 24 or 75mm Leica lenses.

[sunsworth]

Well, I was thinking to the EOS 5D for example.

I have a 5D and an M8. The M8 is the better camera IMHO.

[digitalintrigue]

'A great value for the money' is what is making things difficult for Leica.

The patent expired on the M mount, and Leica didn't anticipate the flood of cheaper lenses, and were even slower to react once they hit the market.

I have a book on my shelf titled "It's not the Big that Eat the Small, it's the Fast that eat the Slow."

Leica is just plain slow, this is the first thing that must change. If they can't start anticipating instead of reacting, then it's a fait accompli.

[myoptic3]

I think Leica has gotten to where they are today, and it may be debated as to exactly where they are today, by updating an older design over many decades. It is obviously at the end of that design capability. If they decide to become more cost competitive their quality will drop drastically, so they wouldn't be Leica anymore. I do not think they can compete w/ Nikon or Canon engineering, as they haven't been making technologically advanced cameras. They have been updating an old RF design. The Japanese are many, many years ahead in R&D, not to mention actual products in the market place. So Leica has pretty much backed themselves into a corner. If their reputation has been based on doing the same thing over and over, and doing it well, what happens if they change their concept?

I like RF film cameras, but I am very much in the consumer minority. And I, like most people, don't buy new Leicas as they cost too much. The older models cost much less and have nearly all the features of the new ones. So Leica doesn't make a dime off me and the vast majority of Leica shooters. This cannot continue. The company will have to change, somehow. Right now they are in the position of being the best damn horse and buggy manufacturer in the world when the world is moving to horseless buggies.

Canon, Pentax, Nikon etc made their fortunes selling not only pro cameras, but by selling vastly popular and innovate cameras for the enthusiast at great prices. Leica's strategy and product have always been different from this model. They are not going to be able to compete w/ these guys. I think the only choice for them, other than becoming a smaller niche manufacturer w/ static product development, is to offer what I want. A small fast, high quality RF-like camera w/ interchangeable lenses and the capability to be used in AF or MF mode w/ few compromises. I am not a fan of digital, but I think this camera would have to be digital, and it would have to have a different sensor. One that could provide more exposure latitude and tonal range than the current sensors. It would have to look more film like for lack of a better word. They could still produce the film RF's for their aging, ever shrinking film shooter market.

I really don't think they currently have the digital engineers to do this, nor the money to hire them, so they will have to merge (be bought) by a deep pocket company.

[kevin m]

A pickup that will kick the ass of some European sports cars costing ten times as much...

Not on wet, narrow, bumpy roads it won't. I grew up a red-blooded midwestern kid and my first five cars were Mustangs. Three 66's, a 68 Fastback (just like Bullit!) and the last an '83 GT that I took to Greece and damn near died driving there. That lasted until I bought a VW GTI, a humble FWD hatchback that would run circles around the Mustangs of that era on real roads.

Funny, we're talking about Leica's possible demise, and here we've brought another dinosaur into the discussion: The V8 American "pony" car.

[anselwannab]

I just can't get into my Canon G9. I don't have a M8 to compare to, but in form it reminds me of my CL. The shutter lag and all the other stuff going on is just too much. Shooting the G9 is like trying to shoot skeet with a ping-pong gun, you have to be way ahead of any kind of action shot. That and it reall is, to me, a 6mp camera that gets upsized to 12mp. At anything beyond iso80 it is blurring everything.

Maybe two possible avenues. Fixed lens prime cameras, 35, 50, 90. Or real zooms for the M mount. Didn't some of the Canon RFs have variable zoom rangefinders?

[sunsworth]

The patent expired on the M mount, and Leica didn't anticipate the flood of cheaper lenses, and were even slower to react once they hit the market.

Flood? A couple of Konica that never really sold, one or two Voigtlander, and the same number of Voigtlander/Zeiss? Hardly a flood. Sure Gandy sells most of those, but not Leicas. I don't personally think Leica have been hit by the 'alternatives'.

[back alley]

I just can't get into my Canon G9. I don't have a M8 to compare to, but in form it reminds me of my CL. The shutter lag and all the other stuff going on is just too much. Shooting the G9 is like trying to shoot skeet with a ping-pong gun, you have to be way ahead of any kind of action shot. That and it reall is, to me, a 6mp camera that gets upsized to 12mp. At anything beyond iso80 it is blurring everything.

Maybe two possible avenues. Fixed lens prime cameras, 35, 50, 90. Or real zooms for the M mount. Didn't some of the Canon RFs have variable zoom rangefinders?

try the grd in snap mode...no lag.

[digitalintrigue]

Well, there certainly a lot more than 'one or two Voigtlander' although most were thread mount.

They started with the 15mm, for about $350. What did Leica do? Nothing

Then it was the 12mm. What did Leica do? Nothing.

Then there were the 21, 25, multiple 28s, multiple 35s, 40, multiple 50s, 75....how many more are needed before it becomes a flood?

How many posts are there in the 35/1.4 Nokton thread? Over 550! How many threads are there, comparing Biogons to Summicrons?

You can't tell me people aren't attracted to a 35/1.4 for $559 when the equivalent Leica is 6 times as much...

Meanwhile, Leica can't seem to ship the 28/2.8 at all...but they do offer the WATE for what, 5 grand?

Finally, about 9 years after the first Cosina, they decide to respond with the Summarit line. And Lee gets canned for the flop.

Need I say more?

[Athos6]

Just to chime in, I'm in Leica's target audience, and I would never buy one when, for the price of one Leica and lens, I can get 4 or 5 Bessa's and Lenses over time, as they come out with new models or when one breaks down (or I break it :) ). Not even mentioning that when placed on a wall, my D200 will produce a picture as good as a M8. Basically, for what they bring to the table, I would only pay a slight premium over what I would pay to get a Leica. I think the Contax G2 was something I'd look into before the M8. IMO

[BillBingham2]

I would have to agree. The one large Leica dealer I know personally seems to have not been impacted at all by the CV lens "flood." He is much more concerned with DSLRs.

There is a group of people, more than just us here I think that want Leica. I believe that if Leica copied the CV effort (SL II Lenses) they would be able to generate some cash. I bet the folks at ZI are doing a fine business with thier SLR lenses.

Leica needs to buy time with cash flow from somewhere while they go back to their roots. I believe that there is enough market out there in the DSLR space that they could stay alive just on that cash for many years.

B2 (;->

[digitalintrigue]

Nothing, brand name would be go to another company, or revert to Leica Microsystems, depending on how the licensee agreement was written. The exact terms seem to be a matter of speculation, I have never seen the agreement explained except as noted below. (anybody know?)

Wow. That's scary, if you are Kaufmann. He may not even have clear rights to the name if he wanted to sell it...all depends on that license agreement.

[digitalintrigue]

My guess is as long as the company is intact the name is the property of the company. The company is not private, in the sense it not a corporation, the stock is just no longer publicly traded.

So the ownership of the company can be sold. What is not clear to me, is if the company is forced into sale through complete bankruptcy, does the license agreement become just another asset, so that the brand could be acquired by anyone? Does Leica Microsystems have any control over the brand?

Hopefully they do. Or we could see "Leica" on Nestle bars. It has happened to other brands.

Or worse, a potential buyer may have nothing to buy...

[BillBingham2]

Fred,

Never buy a Sony computer for the same reason. They are very consumer oriented and sssslllllooooowwww!

emraphoto,

Please do not get me wrong, there are LOTS of stuff that right now is wrong with Leica. Some parts of the Leica service/sales group around the world are sub optimal. Service costs way too much, often takes way to long and has spotty quality.

I do not know if they have anything like NPS used to be, perhaps still is but Leica needs it. They need to support the folks who will plunk down globs of money for great stuff and make money with it. Some of the M8 upgrade was moving towards that.

B2 (;->

[Tom A]

[QUOTE=Tom A]

For once Tom I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 24mm Elmarit is a totally outstanding lens, one of the best I own, anything but old or weird - and yes I own the 75mm Summicron.

As for the 15mm Voigtlander, it's great value for money, but don't ever pretend that's it's comparable in image quality terms to the 24 or 75mm Leica lenses.

Steve, I am not saying that the 21 or 24 are bad lenses, I had both of them for about 8 years. I never warmed to the 24 although it is a very sharp and contrasty lens and in my opinion better than the 21 Asph. What I am saying is that leica never took these lenses further. They are now "old" and some of the problems that has plaqued the Leica Asphericals are still there. Prone to flare, big and heavy and of course ludicriously expensive. Once I got the 21/25 ZM lenses i got rid of the Leica counterparts. No drop in quality and less "Out damn flare spot, out".
I have friends at Leica and we have talked about these things. They bemoan the slow process in adopting new technology, the design delays and the highly conservative attitude among the decision makers.
We should also remember that probably 70-75% of all Leica lens sales are used - the new sales are not that "hot". Lenses like the Noctilux sells in quantities of maybe 200-250/year and that ain't much sales.
The Zeiss and VC line of lenses is not huge by mass market sales standard, but they outsell Leica by a considerable volume. Some of the buyers of these lenses would have bought used Leica lenses, but for the same amount or even less money they get brand new, modern optics with the latest in glass and design.
Leica is a "luxury" brand and there will always be people who buy these products. It is the same for cars, watches, "vintage wines" etc. As long as the economy hums along all is fine, but if we are headed for a recession, this will affect it.
Leica has to recognize that the big market is in the used market and if they can tap into that with an effective service and refurbish of used items and the resell them. If I could get a rebuilt, warrantied M2 converted to black paint at the factory for $1700-1800 I would snap it up. If the Elmarit 21/2,8 with the scuffed front element could be revitalized for $ 200-250 It would go there.
The fact that it took them 4-5 month to ackowledge that my first 35/1,4 Asph had serious problem and even after they fixed it, it still was not a $2-2200 lens - it was barely a $200/ lens. In the end they gave me another one and though it flared less than the first one. I never trusted it and got rid of it.
Initially the Zeiss/CV/Konica were trying to catch up to Leica, both in volume and quality. The situation is now reversed and Leica is scrambling to hang in there!

[Tom A]

I would have to agree. The one large Leica dealer I know personally seems to have not been impacted at all by the CV lens "flood." He is much more concerned with DSLRs.

Fred, it is easier to know what you sell than to know what you could have sold. If the customer goes somwhere else he would not know!

[Gabriel M.A.]

The lesson is that a company selling consumer technology which fails to innovate is doomed to failure, however good their original product was.
So, Microsoft's days are numbered, eh? They haven't come up with an innovation since...well, the let's-buy-them-out-because-we-don't-have-the-brains-to-compete-from-scratch strategy.

[Gabriel M.A.]

So to sum up the thread so far: Leica is not Canon and thus deserves to die.
Correction: Leica is not Nikon and thus deserves to die. :rolleyes:

[Ade-oh]

So, Microsoft's days are numbered, eh? They haven't come up with an innovation since...well, the let's-buy-them-out-because-we-don't-have-the-brains-to-compete-from-scratch strategy.

Well let's see what happens to them in 50 years if they still haven't come up with anything new.

On a related note, why do people take these discussions about Leica so personally? Just because it's a failing company with a bad business model, doesn't mean the cameras aren't good or that people are stupid for buying them. I'm a Leica fan, but times change and business moves on and there's no special reason why Leica should survive if it can't or won't compete.

Oddly enough, having just done a quick mental tally, the only camera I own which is in current production - including my DSLR and p & s - is a Leica MP. Who'd a thunk it?

[Ronald_H]

This situation has been going on for decades now. Leica missed the boat in SLRs, auto-focus, and digital.

The M8 is a wonderful technical tour de force, but it will be obsolete in 2 years. If there are enough people out there who want to buy $$$ for sensor upgrades to keep Leice afloat is debatable.

Rebranding Panasonics, no matter how good they may be is not the solution. Going into the marketplace battling Canon and Nikon is not very likely either.

So what's left? Personally I think Leica must rethink EVERYTHING they do.

The camera I miss most in this day and age, is a compact with a low noise sensor and a decent (interchangable) lens. You simple cannot buy one anymore. The Fuji -31fd was a great compromise but has succumed to the megapixel race.

But the new kid on the block, the Sigma DP1? Now THAT's a promising camera. But Sigma is a niche player. Leica is too, but on another level.

Leica and Sigma should share the development of a DP1 based, APS-C sensored compact with interchangeable lenses. Not an SLR, not a rangefinder, no matter how much the purists will howl. A good screen with zoom functionality (Nikon D3/D300) and interchangable optical (zoom)finders will do the trick. What they shouldn't do is making a Sigma version and a much more expensive but no more capable Leica. What they COULD do is making a capable Sigma version (maybe with a fixed lens only), and a more capable Leica, with metal body, weatherproofing and the like. Style it like a Leica A if you must.

THAT would be a Leica for the new Millenium. Small, inobtrusive and capable of really good results, as Leica's are, but not f*cking expensive and obsolete. And for God's sake, manufacture it in such a way that you can price it sensibly. I was thinking about the prices you would pay for a mid range SLR and primes. If it says 'made in China' on the bottom, do you REALLY care? My Nikon D200 was made in Thailand after all.

That I would buy and I think that would sell. There isn't anything like that on the market right now.

[PJRiley]

I prefer to stay away from these type of threads, but I'll offer my opinion. I just received my beautiful M6TTL. It is in mint condition. I am a pro photographer by trade but, I've never handled anything like this camera.
That said, when I took the plunge and bought the M6, I also bought a Voightlander lens. Leica lenses will never be within my budget and I accepted that from the beginning. But, having heard all my shooting life that the lenses are more important than the camera body (in any format), I have often wondered how Leica has survived with the obscene price of their glass.
For me, RF photography is about stepping back from the 'get the shot right now' premise of digital (with all its wonders, for sure) and improving my 'craft' as a photographer. But, digital is here to stay, and Leica needs to realize it is what has made almost everyone on the planet take up 'photography.'
A footnote: My Leica arrived securely packed in a box, shipped from the US. The box had a huge bash in the side as if someone stomped on it. I opened it, dumped out the packing material and opened the Leica box. The plastic display box had a piece snapped off. I was certainly apprehensive, because pre-sale photos showed no damage to the box. I knew this was an in-tansit episode.
Took out the camera. Tested everything I could think of. Everything works.
God only knows what happened during shipping. But, the camera is fine.
That is Leica.

[Toby]

Small dealers really live on cameras like Leica, Hasselblad etc. One Hasselblad digital at 25k, or two, a month means far more to a small dealer than 100 Canon G9s. They depend on the buyer who is spending 25k on a camera not wanting it mail order, or from behind a counter at B&H. I am not sure these guys can survive.

Back to the CV stuff, it really is a special case, the only CV stuff that is in my friend's store is the Zeiss equipment.

My local dealer told me he makes £4.60 from each Eos 400d he sells. That's a pretty minscule mark up on a £400 camera. He told me he makes more on the memory card and a camera bag. I'm amazed there are any local camera shops in business

[Ade-oh]

My local dealer told me he makes £4.60 from each Eos 400d he sells. That's a pretty minscule mark up on a £400 camera. He told me he makes more on the memory card and a camera bag. I'm amazed there are any local camera shops in business

Me too, and it's a great shame. I'm lucky in that I live in central London, so it isn't too difficult to find the specialist dealers for Nikon and Leica and so on, but there's nowhere particularly close to me which sells a wide range of film or developing materials so I buy almost all of that stuff online.

[chikne]

They have NEVER come up with an innovation, but they just keep buying up everyone anyway. Some of us (I guess mostly Mac and Unix users) have been screaming from the sidelines for years, but people just keep buying PCs.

We are dumbfounded.

Unix runs on PCs....

[peripatetic]

They have NEVER come up with an innovation, but they just keep buying up everyone anyway. Some of us (I guess mostly Mac and Unix users) have been screaming from the sidelines for years, but people just keep buying PCs.

We are dumbfounded.

Erm, not to start a completely off-topic war, but MS have come up with plenty of innovations. Some of them very important to users - consider DirectX grahics for example. MS office too, particularly word. But it's really on the business side they have been very aggressive and most importantly for developers they have had many innovations. And even where they didn't invent stuff they were making available for free or very cheap products that the competition were charging huge amounts for.

MS are not stupid and some of their products are truly excellent. I am a .NET programmer for a living.

Don't get me wrong: at home I use Macs, I advise everyone I know to buy Macs. I love Macs. MacOSX is a better operating system in every way than XP or Vista but if you don't understand what MS do well then you are doomed to believing that all their success is based on nefarious activities and consipiracies - which is not true.

[giellaleafapmu]

I have a 5D and an M8. The M8 is the better camera IMHO.

Maybe, still I don't think there is really a clear difference for most real life use and a EOS 5D + 50mm lens costs 2100US$ + 310US$ = 2410US$, where a Leica M8 body only costs
5500 US$ and a Leitz lens is no cheaper than some 1500 US$ (I don't want to go check precisely but I guess 28mm lens goes for some 1600US$ and 35mm for just a tad less than 1500US$), for that difference in price one would expecty a bit more...

Also, I don't have the M8 (still I have seen pictures taken with the camera) but I heard a lot of different opinions from different people and all seem to agree that if a difference exists it is small (either way) and that both produce pictures which are already too good for most (all?) applications. Again not quite enough for a product which costs more than three times more than the EOS 5D.

I guess that similar analysis based on top of the line Nikons would be similar.

GLF

PS
Of course I like Leicas and I hope they will survive but a look to their strategy let me think otherwise.

[BillBingham2]

Erm, not to start a completely off-topic war, but MS have come up with plenty of innovations. Some of them very important to users - consider DirectX grahics for example.......

The IT industry is riddled with carcasses of great products that were innovative but were squashed by MS (e.g. Banyan Vines) in marketing that MS learned from IBM and took to a new level. DirectX pales in comparison to the graphics engine in Pink, the almost OS that never saw the light of day. Tablet PCs came from ideas started at Wang Labs and other places they have raided for patents. Do not confuse open source for access to some of the APIs. Microsoft is against open anything other than our pocket books.

MS has innovated something, in the same way Al G. created the Internet, MS has created the Open Source movement.

Just for the record, on my Intel MacMini I run the Mac OSX, Windows 2000 and XP and Linux. VMware Fusion ROCKS!

B2 (;->

[nemjo]

Hi there...

That semileica (to the left) brought me here to RFF.
I think it's still a good camera - and a pity, that both Panasonic and Leica abandoned that way. (The 4/3 L1/Digilux3 are different)

BTW are there any 2/3 sensor cameras on the market?

nemjo

[giellaleafapmu]

Oh please. The assumption here is that Leica should outdo Canon or at least Nikon, like it was some self-justifying goal and criteria for camera perfection.

You all seem to want a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and short lifecycle. Well then you have them already: stick to your DSLRs, and be proud of it.

No, it is just a discussion on whether one of the top brand of the type of camera to which this forum is devoted has any chance to survive.

As for wanting a camera with AF, plastics, high FPS and a short lifecycle I don't think anyone wants that. However the short life is now a fact due to the continuous advance of technology and within the short life one would like to have a camera capable of producing images of better quality than a camera which costs 1/3 of the price...

In any case, it is not this forum which will do anything. If, as it is probable, Leica will keep their line with no changes as they did in the last...uh...40 years at least, put on the market overpriced products and give a bad service to their clients then almost certainly the company will not survive. We shall perhaps be a bit sad for a day or two, then go out with our screw mount camera made 70 years ago and have fun while anyone who needs a camera for a living will carry on doing what almost certainly does now: use a plastic DSLR (plastic? top line DSLR are not plastic!) with 20pt autofocus able to take 11FPS to take consistently pictures which pay their bills.

GLF

[digitalintrigue]

Back to Erwin's conclusion: "Current market trends do indicate that the RF concept is doomed. "

I agree that the RF concept is doomed, but only in terms of how Leica is approaching it.

The question is, does Leica have the (a) funding and (b) desire to change their long-standing mindset and (c) the vision to re-invent the RF into something more modern, as an alternative to the dslr?

Nikon and Canon are adding a gazillion bells and whistles to their products in an effort to constantly one-up each other. I believe there is a market for products that go light on bells and whistles, so people can get back to photography instead of having to read a 400 page manual to figure out their new gadget.

The product probably can't be made of an M-style magnesium shell with brass top and bottom plates. It would have to be composite material. Maybe the shell is made in Asia, and assembled/tested in Germany, to get the costs down.

No, we don't need 6 frames per second, Active-D lighthing, etc. I wouldn't even care if the camera produced JPEGs in-camera; just give me RAW. But autofocus is probably required.

It will take a Steve Jobs-like visioneer to decide which bells are required, and which are not.

If this can be done, and for a reasonable price (i.e., under $2k) I think Leica is back on the road to profitability.

[Olsen]

A pickup that will kick the ass of some European sports cars costing ten times as much and you don't have to have a spare while ones in the shop like the European exotics........ and the M8.

But it does'nt.

My car, - to take just one example - a Audi Quattro 2,0T - five door station wagon, has just as much power - 200 HP DIN - as the small engine Mustang, with half the engine displacement, less CO2 emissions, four wheel drive (continous), 4 wheel independant suspension, electronic stabilisation, the most advanced ABS on the market, 6 airbags, 6 shift manual gearbox, and - electrical adjustable leather seats, DVD navigation, computerized maintanance etc. etc. - goes just as fast and is cheaper.

[Tuolumne]

But it does'nt.

My car, - to take just one example - a Audi Quattro 2,0T - five door station wagon, has just as much power - 200 HP DIN - as the small engine Mustang, with half the engine displacement, less CO2 emissions, four wheel drive (continous), 4 wheel independant suspension, electronic stabilisation, the most advanced ABS on the market, 6 airbags, 6 shift manual gearbox, and - electrical adjustable leather seats, DVD navigation, computerized maintanance etc. etc. - goes just as fast and is cheaper.

And you think all that makes it better? I'll take a stick shift, hard ridin', gas-guzzling, chest impaling Good ole' American Hot Rod over your effete, auto-everyting, no thinking, sissy protected, European do-everything-but-steer automobile any day!

/T

[Olsen]

Cannot judge this as I don't have the 1Ds II but even if true this does not prove much, I did not say that no camera is more expensive and produce worst pictures...

- But I have. And I have compared the 1Ds II with 16-35 mm 2,8L v the M8 w/WATE. The Leica is far better!



Mmmmh, I don't have a proof but in real life I don't see a difference you can sell. You are probably right if you speak lines per mm about one of the picture you can get with both system still both can produce pictures which are even too good for most application and for the other (still-life, products, food) I wouldn't use any of the two systems anyway.

The difference is significant and can be seen at lesser blow ups than 100% in PS.

Don't get me wrong, I like rangefinders and I do like the M8, still it is a retrofit which might be all-right but not at the price...again real life is a proof of that.

GLF

The price of the M8 - in dollars - is a problem. - Much thanks to the democratically elected US government. That can't be blamed the Leica managment...

[ferider]

Still two wheels too many, /T ! :D

[Gabriel M.A.]

I agree that the RF concept is doomed <snip>

Nikon and Canon <snip>
Check, please.

[giellaleafapmu]

The price of the M8 - in dollars - is a problem. - Much thanks to the democratically elected US government. That can't be blamed the Leica managment...

Here I might agree with you and add that most countries have strange policies in that sense. From where I live (Somewhere in South America) it is more convenient to travel to the US, stay in a hotel a couple days, buy a Canon EOS 5D or EOS ID mark something or a Leica M8 and come back that go to the shop and buy the same product from the only official dealer. Still some people buy cameras here...

Just taking again the example of the EOS 5D, the difference in price between US and here is almost 1500 US$! A two way flight is less than 800US$ and with 700US$ you can definitively have a good time for a few days almost everywhere.

The good news if one travels and/or have friends who do is that we can try almost any product we like (except perhaps the most exotic ones) and still sell it here for more than we paid for if we don't like it.

GLF

[tomasis]

And you think all that makes it better? I'll take a stick shift, hard ridin', gas-guzzling, chest impaling Good ole' American Hot Rod over your effete, auto-everyting, no thinking, sissy protected, European do-everything-but-steer automobile any day!

/T

Even old porsche make anything of american cars to eat dust at corners :D

[Olsen]

Here I might agree with you and add that most countries have strange policies in that sense. From where I live (Somewhere in South America) it is more convenient to travel to the US, stay in a hotel a couple days, buy a Canon EOS 5D or EOS ID mark something or a Leica M8 and come back that go to the shop and buy the same product from the only official dealer. Still some people buy cameras here...

Just taking again the example of the EOS 5D, the difference in price between US and here is almost 1500 US$! A two way flight is less than 800US$ and with 700US$ you can definitively have a good time for a few days almost everywhere.

The good news if one travels and/or have friends who do is that we can try almost any product we like (except perhaps the most exotic ones) and still sell it here for more than we paid for if we don't like it.

GLF

Most Europeans are obliged to pay a hefty sales tax (Germany 19%, Norway 20% etc.), so it is common to buy expensive camera equipment when going abroad on business trips or vactions. With the sudden dollar fall last automn a group of amateur photographers from the Oslo area (Oslo Kameraklubb) went to NY to empty the shelves at B&H. Each saved more than the airfair & weekend hotel fair of some 1,200 $, they said. They saved up to 35 - 40% on the prices in the shops here in Oslo (20% VAT pluss 15% 'currency fall' and 5% 'rebates' more agressive US pricing)

[giellaleafapmu]

Most Europeans are obliged to pay a hefty sales tax (Germany 19%, Norway 20% etc.), so it is common to buy expensive camera equipment when going abroad on business trips or vactions. With the sudden dollar fall last automn a group of amateur photographers from the Oslo area (Oslo Kameraklubb) went to NY to empty the shelves at B&H. Each saved more than the airfair & weekend hotel fair of some 1,200 $, they said. They saved up to 35 - 40% on the prices in the shops here in Oslo (20% VAT pluss 15% 'currency fall' and 5% 'rebates' more agressive US pricing)

I have never lived in Norway but I lived many years in Finland and I know what you mean...

Still, I felt not so bad to pay high taxes in a country with little or no corruption (even though I often wondered whether they used public money in the best way, but that is another story), here I am not always sure what am I paying for...

GLF

[dazedgonebye]

Most Europeans are obliged to pay a hefty sales tax (Germany 19%, Norway 20% etc.), so it is common to buy expensive camera equipment when going abroad on business trips or vactions. With the sudden dollar fall last automn a group of amateur photographers from the Oslo area (Oslo Kameraklubb) went to NY to empty the shelves at B&H. Each saved more than the airfair & weekend hotel fair of some 1,200 $, they said. They saved up to 35 - 40% on the prices in the shops here in Oslo (20% VAT pluss 15% 'currency fall' and 5% 'rebates' more agressive US pricing)

Do you mean to tell me that, as much as everyone loves the shared benefits "paid for by government," people actually go out of their way to avoid giving the government its due?

Shocking.

[Tuolumne]

Most Europeans are obliged to pay a hefty sales tax (Germany 19%, Norway 20% etc.), so it is common to buy expensive camera equipment when going abroad on business trips or vactions. With the sudden dollar fall last automn a group of amateur photographers from the Oslo area (Oslo Kameraklubb) went to NY to empty the shelves at B&H. Each saved more than the airfair & weekend hotel fair of some 1,200 $, they said. They saved up to 35 - 40% on the prices in the shops here in Oslo (20% VAT pluss 15% 'currency fall' and 5% 'rebates' more agressive US pricing)

Well, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen when one currency falls greatly with respect to another. It's nice to know the laws of economics are still working. You're welcome here to spend money any time you wish to visit! :)

/T

[jjovin]

I actually do not think that Puts go it right even this time.
The problem is not the range finder concept. I like it and many others do.
The problem is the Leica prices! People buy used Leica because it is so much cheeper
than a new one. Perhaps Puts can not admit to himself that Zeiss Ikon
and Voigtlander Bessa are also range finder cameras.
Hence (for him) the range finder concept will go down with Leica.

[Tuolumne]

I actually do not think that Puts go it right even this time.
The problem is not the range finder concept. I like it and many others do.
The problem is the Leica prices! People buy used Leica because it is so much cheeper
than a new one. Perhaps Puts can not admit to himself that Zeiss Ikon
and Voigtlander Bessa are also range finder cameras.
Hence (for him) the range finder concept will go down with Leica.

I have bought one new Leica body - an LHSA MP3. To tell the truth, my M3, M4 and M5 feel better made and operate more smoothly and quietly. I can't figure out why I keep the MP3. I am not a collector.

/T

[DelDavis]

And you think all that makes it better? I'll take a stick shift, hard ridin', gas-guzzling, chest impaling Good ole' American Hot Rod over your effete, auto-everyting, no thinking, sissy protected, European do-everything-but-steer automobile any day!

/T

Wow.

And why, exactly, would you do that?

[dazedgonebye]

Wow.

And why, exactly, would you do that?

Not that I can answer for Tuolumne, but for my part I'd say because characteristics like smooth, safe, well rounded and versitile can be a heck of a lot less interesting/exciting than something that kicks a$$...even with serious flaws.

[larmarv916]

Just to chime in, I'm in Leica's target audience, and I would never buy one when, for the price of one Leica and lens, I can get 4 or 5 Bessa's and Lenses over time, as they come out with new models or when one breaks down (or I break it :) ). Not even mentioning that when placed on a wall, my D200 will produce a picture as good as a M8. Basically, for what they bring to the table, I would only pay a slight premium over what I would pay to get a Leica. I think the Contax G2 was something I'd look into before the M8. IMO

Yes Athos....is in reality hitting the exposed nerve that is the source of Leica's root problem with the current or new gereration of consumers. But the flip side to tha coin is deep at the very heart of Leica's senior management and board is a massive case of Denial....They really keep telling themselves...people donot understand what we are offering.

And consumers can only vote with their "Wallets" and cash....so Leica's refusal to meet the needs and changing needs of the customers meas that the tide of money and cusomers has stranded Leica hihg and dry.

Also what LEICA has refused to deal with is that they are alwyas late to the market with event the products they promise. Dealers are refusing to reorder becasue they can not get promised delivery times.

In the end if you can get better quaity or the same quality at a lower price then every consumer switches brands.....The best Proof of this is the battle between MER-Benz and LEXUS. Lexus is only a Toyota. Yet TOYOTA is is eating MBenz's lunch.

So Nikon and Canon are now in control of the marketpplace and have a brand tha is stroinger in the eyes of more customers. Zeiss has figured out that they must develop way to ADD VALUE to a NIKON and they do that with the Lenses they now make. Leica could have done this but chose to play HARDBALL and force people to BUY the Leica R products.

What happened.....They walked away to products that were lower cost and quality was deemed as EQUAL in the eyes of professionals and other consumers.

The very best example of Hard Ball marketing was...the British motorcycle industry....Refused to put a statrer switch on it's bikes. As the trademark of a real motorcycle was a kick start. God what a pain. Honda overnight wipped out the Brits with just a electric starter!!

This "our way or the Highway" in business has and will always fail.

[stubbie]

Having moved from SLR's (both digital and film) to rangefinders in recent years, my initial feeling was one of 'slight disappointment'. I didn't see the tangible benefits that were often touted of RF's like lighter weight, smaller, increased reliability etc. I could always seem to find an equivalent 35mm SLR that matched the RF for those perceived benefits. But a funny thing started happening... I just enjoyed using the RF more. It was fun, simple, and my photography improved. I started to feel conspicuous holding a DSLR with a big lens. People would shy away, and I felt like some intruder on people's lives. I got sick of people asking how many megapixels my camera had - "oh only 8...".

I had an opportunity to use a D3 the other day... lovely camera, excellent results but no... I'd have a Bessa/Leica/Zeiss any day (even if I could afford the entry fee). But I also acknowledge many/most photographers just HAVE to have one for their type of work.

So whilst I can understand where the article came from, I just don't agree that it's a osund analysis of Leica's future. Hey I am 36 (so not young anymore!) but one day I would LOVE to own a Leica. And hey, if I could ever afford it, I'd buy four.

Why do people still buy vinyl/turntables, swiss watches, steel rigid mountain bikes? Why do we climb a mountain when there's a road going up? Gee, it's not nostalgia that's for sure. They're just cooler, more fun, interesting... and that's enough. And hey in Leica's case, the results I have seen from an M3 or MP (or an M8 for that matter) are as good or better than anything I have ever seen before.

But business is business, and of course I hope they sort things out!

[Tuolumne]

Wow.

And why, exactly, would you do that?

For the same reason that someone might buy an M8 (or R-D1) instead of a Nikon D3. Isn't that what this thread is about? :)

/T

[Olsen]

Do you mean to tell me that, as much as everyone loves the shared benefits "paid for by government," people actually go out of their way to avoid giving the government its due?

Shocking.

Most people in Europe pay hefty taxes. Myself, I pay about 40% off my sallary, plus 20% VAT, special taxes on cars, petrol, sigaretttes, alcohol etc. Still I believe that it is worth it. In most European countries you get services back like education through university, health care for all and a lavish and safe pension funds that you Americans can only dream of.

Sure, people cheat on the system. Tax evation is far more common in Europe compared to USA. Among ordinary people the possibilities of cheating large sums is minimal. For the super rich there is huge posibilities. - Like stuffing your money away in Lichtenstein - which German police now is unravelling.

Buying cameras etc. tax free when on vacations is tax free up untill 10.000 NOK (2,000 dollars) per person here in Norway, but customs look through their fingers even when discovering purchases far larger. Customs will rather spend time on illegal imports of tax free cars, smuggling of alcohol and drugs which are for sale.

[DelDavis]

Not that I can answer for Tuolumne, but for my part I'd say because characteristics like smooth, safe, well rounded and versitile can be a heck of a lot less interesting/exciting than something that kicks a$$...even with serious flaws.

Well, I'd be willing to bet that the stock Audi would beat a stock Mustang (GT?) around a track. Never drove either, just vaguely know the specs, so it would be a gamble.

[dazedgonebye]

Most people in Europe pay hefty taxes. Myself, I pay about 40% off my sallary, plus 20% VAT, special taxes on cars, petrol, sigaretttes, alcohol etc. Still I believe that it is worth it. In most European countries you get services back like education through university, health care for all and a lavish and safe pension funds that you Americans can only dream of.

Sure, people cheat on the system. Tax evation is far more common in Europe compared to USA. Among ordinary people the possibilities of cheating large sums is minimal. For the super rich there is huge posibilities. - Like stuffing your money away in Lichtenstein - which German police now is unravelling.

Buying cameras etc. tax free when on vacations is tax free up untill 10.000 NOK (2,000 dollars) per person here in Norway, but customs look through their fingers even when discovering purchases far larger. Customs will rather spend time on illegal imports of tax free cars, smuggling of alcohol and drugs which are for sale.

No doubt the tax cheats think the taxes are worth it too.
When most people say they are willing to pay for something "worth it" with taxes, they generally hope it means someone else's taxes.
In any case, NY State appreciates any taxes shifted from Norway to their coffers, I'm sure.
In the early 80s, I left a couple of paychecks in a town called Bergen, mostly in cigarette and liquor taxes.
Glad I could help.
We are already so wildly off topic that i won't go in to my feelings toward complicated tax structures that motivate lying, cheating, stealing and bad business practices in the name of tax avoidance.

[dazedgonebye]

Well, I'd be willing to bet that the stock Audi would beat a stock Mustang (GT?) around a track. Never drove either, just vaguely know the specs, so it would be a gamble.

I wouldn't begin to make statements about performance or better or best when it comes to cars...or most other things.
I was only speaking about the relative experience and how much a matter of preference that is.

I guess I could actually tie that back to the original topic by relating it to camera choices...but that sounds like too much work.

[Tuolumne]

Since all of the companies that now make rangefinder bodies are either private, or do not break out their RF numbers, no one here has any facts to base their arguments on. In fact, I don't understand how even CV makes money on rangefinders, and neither does anyone else, becuase they aren't saying. So, everything we say here is just speculation. Given that, I don't see why one man's speculation is any better or worse than another's. So, go for it guys - have fun!

/T

[nextreme]

Since all of the companies that now make rangefinder bodies are either private, or do not break out their RF numbers, no one here has any facts to base their arguments on. In fact, I don't understand how even CV makes money on rangefinders, and neither does anyone else, becuase they aren't saying. So, everything we say here is just speculation. Given that, I don't see why one man's speculation is any better or worse than another's. So, go for it guys - have fun!

/T
Well I speculated that 3-4% of potential mid priced dslr buyers would either opt for a digital rf in the same price range, or eventually own both, in response to sitemistic's request for quantitative numbers of a market size. There was no response.

[jack palmer]

Well, I'd be willing to bet that the stock Audi would beat a stock Mustang (GT?) around a track. Never drove either, just vaguely know the specs, so it would be a gamble.


The Audi wouldn't make it to the first turn, it would be in the pits for repairs, like the M8. The Mustang would blow it off the road. :D

[Tuolumne]

I always figured it was a cross between a hobby, and hoping to interest companies like Zeiss, which seems to have happened. I do not think all that much of the early efforts (they just OK) but look forward to the next ZI with great interest. The ZI is only lacking in quality control, and a few small flaws. It is a pretty amazing effort on the part of Zeiss and Cosina. If they keep at it, they could replace Leica easily. Certainly their quality control is no worse than the M8. Their lens line is much more ambitious.

Mr. Kobiyashi is a business man. I don't think he is playing hobbyist with his company. Very few people can do that for long.

/T

[back alley]

you wont win with sitemistic.

smug is as smug does...

[digitalintrigue]

you wont win with sitemistic.

smug is as smug does...

Yes, I should have exited this thread like I did the DrLeo thread. Or the M8 shutter re-use thread. Still waiting for a reply to that one!

[nextreme]

you wont win with sitemistic.

smug is as smug does...
I thought I did. :D

[Edit]
I'm not trying to "win". Just trying to figure out why he seems to bash the M8 & Leica.

[digitalintrigue]

Nextreme, your point is a good one. Apple lived on 3-4% market share for a long time. The media painted it as Everyone Else 97, Apple 3. They all preferred to paint doom and gloom about Apple, because it was chic.

The real story was that Everyone Else consisted of several players, most of which were no bigger than Apple was, or not much bigger.

If 3-4% is conservative, say 6-10 may be the real figure. That's pretty significant. It would be difficult for one maker to grow their business by that much, by taking away business from others. But in theory it could be done, if one had a product no one else had...the Magic Modern RF. Then one wouldn't be growing by chipping away at your compeitors by adding megapixels or fps or other bells and whistles but by offering something entirely different.

None of this is about 'winning' per se. But it sure would be nice to at least have a fair discussion where comments aren't twisted out of context in an attempt to justify one's own position. Leave that to the politicians.

[nextreme]

Nextreme, Apple lived on 3-4% market share for a long time. The media painted it as Everyone Else 97, Apple 3. They all preferred to paint doom and gloom about Apple, because it was chic.

The real story was that Everyone Else consisted of several players, most of which were no bigger than Apple was, or not much bigger.

If 3-4% is conservative, say 6-10 may be the real figure. That's pretty significant. It would be difficult for one maker to grow their business by that much, by taking away business from others. But in theory it could be done, if one had a product no one else had...the Magic Modern RF. Then one wouldn't be growing by chipping away at your compeitors by adding megapixels or fps or other bells and whistles but by offering something entirely different.

None of this is about 'winning' per se. But it sure would be nice to at least have a fair discussion where comments aren't twisted out of context in an attempt to justify one's own position. Leave that to the politicians.

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers !

[DelDavis]

I guess I could actually tie that back to the original topic by relating it to camera choices...but that sounds like too much work.

And I guess my initial question to Tuolomne was more an attempt to elicit some kind of internal reflection about his vaguely hostile characterization of a particular vehicle, and by extension its driver. I have no interest in comparing performance of automobiles.

[digitalintrigue]

There must be some sort of industry trade magazine or something that tracks unit sales, so all this can be put into perspective.

Assuming the 14,000 figure for the M8 is accurate, it would be nice to know how many D2x (or any $5k dSLR) were sold in a given time frame, for reference.

But raw numbers only tell part of the story. Porsche comes to mind...they sold about 100,000 cars in 2006 and made over 7 billion euros. GM sold nearly ten million units in 2007 and lost money.

[Tuolumne]

And I guess my initial question to Tuolomne was more an attempt to elicit some kind of internal reflection about his vaguely hostile characterization of a particular vehicle, and by extension its driver. I have no interest in comparing performance of automobiles.
You people are a riot. My comment was entirely a joke. Entirely. Let me say that again - entirely.

/T
P.S. And what are you? The RFF thought police? (joke...joke...joke)

[Tuolumne]

There must be some sort of industry trade magazine or something that tracks unit sales, so all this can be put into perspective.

Assuming the 14,000 figure for the M8 is accurate, it would be nice to know how many D2x (or any $5k dSLR) were sold in a given time frame, for reference.

But raw numbers only tell part of the story. Porsche comes to mind...they sold about 100,000 cars in 2006 and made over 7 billion euros. GM sold nearly ten million units in 2007 and lost money.

There is. I can't remember the name. Some mention of it was made of it recently when it was reported that they had stopped tracking the number of film cameras sold. That's right - they don't track film cameras anymore. The numbers are too small to matter. hahahahahahaha...

/T

[Tuolumne]

It is pretty clear that he is not doing it just for business, too quirky. Like Steve Jobs he may actually like what he is manufacturing.

Well, if he's doing it like Steve Jobs he is making a ton of money doing it.

/T

[digitalintrigue]

Tamarkin says they sold 190 last year. The local Austin dealer told me he sells about one or two a month.

[Tuolumne]

dSLR market numbers from IDC (2006 unit volume):


Canon: 2.46 million
Nikon: 1.74 million
Sony: 326,000
Samsung: 43,000
Panasonic: 36,000

Total unit volume for dSLRs in 2006: 5.27 million

Total unit volume for compact digital cameras in 2006: 100.4 million units
Canon unit volume of compact digital cameras in 2006: 17.3 million units

Total WW digital camera market in 2006: 105.7 million units

http://www.news.com/SLRs-lead-digital-camera-sales-surge/2100-1041_3-6173084.html

/T

[digitalintrigue]

That's a good start...there must be some sort of number showing the breakdown of models, though. A $600 D40 will sell a lot more units than a $5000 D3.

[Tuolumne]

That's a good start...there must be some sort of number showing the breakdown of models, though. A $600 D40 will sell a lot more units than a $5000 D3.
I'm sure there is. But that report will probably cost you $20K. Anybody want to spring for that and forego buying 4 M8's? :)

/T

[digitalintrigue]

You are probably right, maybe even more... :)

Geez...20 million units for Canon. Amazing.

[Tuolumne]

You are probably right, maybe even more... :)

Geez...20 million units for Canon. Amazing.

Kind of shows you what the small fish like Leica are up against. Like...the wall. :bang:

/T

[Tuolumne]

You are probably right, maybe even more... :)

Geez...20 million units for Canon. Amazing.
And to put this into a more intuitive perspective: that's 55,000 cameras per day, every day of the year. And that was in 2006!

Or put it like this: Canon sells as many cameras in 2.5 hours of the day as the number of M8s Leica sells per year (assuming they've sold 14,000 in two years.)

Sitemistic, where are you when we need you?

/T

[Gray Fox]

Thom Hogan always seems to have the inside track on Nikon financials. Somone might drop him a note when he returns from the training session next week.

[aizan]

what's crystal clear is that no camera company makes bank with their top of the line models. the money comes in from their entry-level gear (yes, the unwashed masses). the flagship is there for prestige and some professionals and rich amateurs. so if leica made a ff camera that "nobody" could buy, it would still pay off—if they made an entry-level or prosumer camera that people could afford. i've got my fingers crossed for a fixed lens DMD, which makes the most sense as an accompaniment to a dslr.

[xayraa33]

yes Leica will be no more.
yes Leica will be no more.
yes Leica will be no more.
yes Leica will be no more.
ah.. this is getting tiresome.

[BillBingham2]

It is pretty clear that he is not doing it just for business, too quirky. Like Steve Jobs he may actually like what he is manufacturing.

When Steve came back to Apple he did not use a Mac Notebook till they made one he liked. I kind of remember stories about him carrying around a Toshiba. Not sure what OS he was running on it, but it was Mac. I think you're right Fred (Right Said Fred?), Pres K is like Steve Jobs. He is making a product that he wants to use.

This is what Leica needs to breath life back into the name. Someone to knows what has made Leica different and can find a way to move the battle to the grounds where Leica can win. Fighting the DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Sony on their current battle field will do no go. There is no way to win, same way as years ago with the Nikon F, the Fat lady sung pretty early on. They need to move to Robust, Simple and Elegant, that is a fight that only Nikon might be able to come close to winning against Leica. Olympus perhaps next closest, but no one else has enough passion about photography to know how to do it.

B2 (:->

[digitalintrigue]

Is there an echo in here? :)

[aizan]

they used to be able to.

so leica isn't making much money right now. everybody knows that. it doesn't mean they can't in the future.

[aizan]

that's what i'm saying. no expensive camera sells in great numbers. all leica needs is to make a cheaper camera that lots of people will buy.

[digitalintrigue]

Porsche.

They don't sell millions of anything, they don't have cheap entry level models, and they are very profitable.

They don't have to be the only company that can do this.

It's time to move on, guys. :)

[Ken Ford]

Hey, how did sitemistic's piss get into my Wheaties?

[newsgrunt]

Don't know too many of my colleagues working at mid sized papers who would want/use a digital rf for work but I know some at large market dailies that would jump on one. Got a buddy at a large wire that begins with R who uses an Rd-1 but would go Leica if they had 24x36 and not so expensive.

For those who travel on assignment, having a small, discreet camera that doesn't scream "big honkin' dslr" is not a minor matter. If I had one when I was in China, I wouldn't have had to use my coolpix in a few spots. I don't want people to notice me and a dslr just asks for attention in some quarters.

It's not about going toe to toe with a 5d/D3 etc..It's about the right tool and for some, a ff digital M camera would be the right tool. Nothing more than that really.

[trev2401]

Hey, how did sitemistic's piss get into my Wheaties?

haahah good one there..

[MikeL]

Hey, how did sitemistic's piss get into my Wheaties?:p
.........

[Olsen]

But when you figure in the cost of flying back and forth between New York City and Norway every few months to visit your family, or go to the doctor in Norway, it really starts to add up.

It really is cheaper just to live here and get citizenship.

::
::::
::::::

My neigbour (american, from Dallas, Texas) works for a Norwegian company, - periodically he works in New York and visits his old parents in Dallas. To fly across the Atlantic is cheap.

[M. Valdemar]

It's ridiculous to think that any digital camera built today is going to have any "longevity" as a serious tool in the timeframe of ten or even five years. In twenty years, today's digital cameras will be taken as seriously as disposable cameras are now.

Today's cameras will be usable as a curiosity or something for hobbyists, but you or I cannot even imagine the advances that will be built into digital image making machines in a decade or so.

I'm not even sure they will look like "cameras" anymore. I think they'll capture not only still images but full video streams with startling resolution, dynamic range, and other embedded information that will be seen as basic requirements.

"Viewfinders" might be implanted in your head or will track your eyeballs.

Also, digital files, methods of compression and transmission and other factors will be totally different.

The processing power in an image device will rival or surpass mainframe computers of today.

The train has already left the station.


Leica does not need to sell as many cameras as Canon, will not happen. Canon is building cameras that will be replaced in two to five years. Part of the Leica mystique is robustness, a camera that will take a licking and keep on ticking for years. What Leica must do is sell a camera that is built to last. These sales must generate enough money to return to it's owner enough money so he is happy to keep Leica being Leica and keep the people employed. Leica Camera is much smaller than Canon.

I believe that the second hand digital rangefinder market would be quite happy with 12mp five years down the road, perhaps even ten.

Robust + Simple + Elegant = Leica

More Features + More Features + More Features = Canon

B2

[NB23]

My neigbour (american, from Dallas, Texas) works for a Norwegian company, - periodically he works in New York and visits his old parents in Dallas. To fly across the Atlantic is cheap.

My neighbor is Bill Gates. He wipes his back with 1000$ dollar bills and he likes to play golf with Noctilux lenses instead of Golf Balls.

Don't be fooled people, Noctiluxes are cheap.

[BillBingham2]

It's ridiculous to think that any digital camera built today is going to have any "longevity" as a serious tool in the timeframe of ten or even five years. In twenty years, today's digital cameras will be taken as seriously as disposable cameras are now.

I still have the first digital camera an Epson Photo PC, maxxed out with all the memory she would hold. It's in a box as I was hoping that Epson would offer a trade in on the R1D, ugh. My second digital camera I got is a D-100/C1 that I use as my EvilBay/Classified camera. It works fine and will continue for many years I hope.

I would point out that the Kodak DCS and Nikon DX (single digit) lines are holding their value quite well five years or more. A good digital camera will last 5 to 10 years. Many of the point and shoot digitals seem to last two years. A few (read very few) like the Ricoh GR-D I feel like they will last a lot longer (10 years I hope). I do not expect a digital Leica to last they way my old M6 will (it too has some electronics). But I do expect it to last as well as long as most Nikon D2s have and a bit longer

Today's cameras will be usable as a curiosity or something for hobbyists, but you or I cannot even imagine the advances that will be built into digital image making machines in a decade or so.

I'm not even sure they will look like "cameras" anymore. I think they'll capture not only still images but full video streams with startling resolution, dynamic range, and other embedded information that will be seen as basic requirements.

"Viewfinders" might be implanted in your head or will track your eyeballs.

Also, digital files, methods of compression and transmission and other factors will be totally different.

The processing power in an image device will rival or surpass mainframe computers of today.

The train has already left the station.

I have enough problem with cell phone antennas being so close to my head (N9QFR says .... ..). While I know I am not the one who will imagine the next generation of stuff, there is no reason the old stuff should not be easier to work and last longer. I remember talking with chip engineers about how hard it was going to be to design motherboards when we crossed the 1 GHz barrier, not an issue fifteen years later. I was at the Apple Developers conference back in 1989 talking about wearable computers with folks in ATG (Advanced Technology Group). The iTouch iPod is much better than she dreamed and we've had wearable computers in some industries for over seven years.

I'm not a big fan of the swiss army knife approach to technology. While I hate my belt making me look too much like Batman, but having had a pager, phone, email system die really does put one in the dark. Bluetooth and WiFi seem to provide a lot in interesting capabilities for discrete devices working in harmony on a task rather than a single device with millions of functions to test and configure.

While I got rid of my falsie a few years back and got an implant (front tooth) that's as far as I want to go for fun. Just because we can does not mean we should.

B2 (;->

[dazedgonebye]

Gezzz really!!!

When you drive a Porsche over 50 (or bald, or overweight, etc) you just look silly to women, but a camera... even at 60.

You may look silly, but they're thinking, "Hmmm. Gots money...can't live much longer...sounds like a deal!"

[M. Valdemar]

Ben Franklin is over 50, bald and overweight, but he looks GREAT to women.

The more portraits of him you show women, the more they like you.

[dazedgonebye]

To this day, ol' Ben is getting more chicks than me!
Dang.

[NB23]

Still cheaper to just spend $3500 a year and buy health insurance.

Not that Norway is not a lovely place, but there are so few Puertorriqueños and there are almost no Yemenis owned Bodegas. Drove me crazy when I was in Italy. Sometimes I hate NYC, but just could not stand the "calm" elsewhere.

It seems you're describing Paris...

[novum]

rangefinders are and always have been a specialty camera, appealing to a rabid few who will accept their limitations to achieve the incredible images (seen in the M series lenses).

You must be a young 'un. RFs were not specialty cameras in the '50s and much of the '60s.

[novum]

Erwin's grammatically-challenged musings aren't the gospel for me. He may be knowledgeable on some things, but he speaks the truth about anything as much as Dr. Phil on the topic of Treasury Bond exchange (making him the "authority" on something doesn't by osmosis make him the authority on the other)

Agreed. I think he's Dutch, and though he writes English infinitely better than I write Nederlands, dat weet ik wel, I can't help but think "pompous ass" when I read his ramblings.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hey, how did sitemistic's piss get into my Wheaties?
Whatchatakinabot, Ken? ;)

[Gabriel M.A.]

It seems you're describing Paris...
It depends; whether you're a Republican or not a Republican. :cool:

[FX trading]

Still also believe that a big part of the solution for Leica would be to provide digital backs for the M series, thereby injecting fresh viability and life across the whole M product range. There will definitely be continuing demand for such a product as well as M photography, especially as digital advances into new delivery formats (eg mobile phones).

[whitecat]

They wanted (and I paid) $55.00 for a cap for my 35mm. There might be 3 cents of plastic there.

[Olsen]

Still cheaper to just spend $3500 a year and buy health insurance.

Not that Norway is not a lovely place, but there are so few Puertorriqueños and there are almost no Yemenis owned Bodegas. Drove me crazy when I was in Italy. Sometimes I hate NYC, but just could not stand the "calm" elsewhere.

It can't be much of a health care coverage you can buy for 3,500 $.

[digitalintrigue]

Dear God, save me (us) from any discussions of $3,000 mediocre digital backs. Amen.

[Olsen]

Dear God, save me (us) from any discussions of $3,000 mediocre digital backs. Amen.

Keep prayers to yourself and save yourself by keeping out of the discussion.

[digitalintrigue]

Olsen, I guess you didn't see that particular thread. ;)

[cmogi10]

http://worldanimalfoundation.homestead.com/000802_c824_0023_csls.jpg

[dazedgonebye]

Keep prayers to yourself and save yourself by keeping out of the discussion.

Wow...is this one of those times when I'm failing to notice the sarcasm behind the good natured response?

[Vics]

Sorry I couldn't read the whole thread. I hope I'm not being redundant. It is indeed a tough market out there! Ask your local car dealer how he's doing. The dollar is in the dumper. Oil sells for $100/barrel. Nice people are losing their homes, and the dominoes from that mess just keep falling. Not very many folks have the disposable income for the M7/MP/M8, but we'll see better times. I think Leica should hunker down and ride it out. Hell, didn't Erwin say they showed a profit last quarter? The people I work for would trade places with them in a heartbeat.
VS

[MikeCassidy]

I love film and I love my M3 but if I ever get around to shoot color it will be digital.
Its hard to make decisions on this; I do not want to give up B&W; I like developing film and I love [wet] printing; I LOVE the compactness of my M3 and the beautiful glass that produces very sharp images, but if I ran Leica I do not know if I'd make rangefinders.

[MikeCassidy]

A follow up. If I'm going to carry this big bulky thingie why not go 4x5 or 8x10?

[FX trading]

They should also make a more determined effort to expand their presence dramatically in China- their peformance there actually leaves a lot to be desired. It is also an ideal "positional" market to replace the traditional doctors and dentists of yore.

Start thinking of a new and more sophisticated strategy which capitalizes on the aspirational "needs" of local consumers!

[FX trading]

Add to the product range, but keep M models as a niche, custom-made product. What is required is the LVMH business model, not the Pierre Cardin one.

[nextreme]

Don't know too many of my colleagues working at mid sized papers who would want/use a digital rf for work but I know some at large market dailies that would jump on one. Got a buddy at a large wire that begins with R who uses an Rd-1 but would go Leica if they had 24x36 and not so expensive.

For those who travel on assignment, having a small, discreet camera that doesn't scream "big honkin' dslr" is not a minor matter. If I had one when I was in China, I wouldn't have had to use my coolpix in a few spots. I don't want people to notice me and a dslr just asks for attention in some quarters.

It's not about going toe to toe with a 5d/D3 etc..It's about the right tool and for some, a ff digital M camera would be the right tool. Nothing more than that really.
newsgrunt, that was exactly my thinking (or imagining, I'm not a pro so I can only guess on appropriateness). I was surprised by sitemistic's response, I would think it would be the tool of choice if a newspaper was sending their photojournalist to cover any sort of tragedy, where discreetness would be paramount (and civilized).

[infrequent]

explain to me how the falling dollar only affects leica's prices but apparently the japanese makers of boxy, feature rich, slapping mirror devices are not affected at all? if anything their prices are falling.

[digitalintrigue]

The yen vs dollar has been oscillating around 105-120 for the last five years or so (or even longer) as opposed to the euro vs dollar, which has steadily risen from about 0.8 to 1.5 during a similar period.

[Olsen]

Olsen, I guess you didn't see that particular thread. ;)

No, I didn't. Sorry. (Over here it is late night and we have had a beer already)

[nextreme]

IAWTC

Check James Nachtwey, for example, that guy is strictly Canon.

Now, that said, I'm sure Mr Nachtwey is using equipment that has, effectively, been given to him.

I'd like to see (or know) who Leica is giving the M8 to (i.e. not you guys here who are using it and had to fork over your hard earned $$$$ for it) for use in "the field".

The concept that you need a "quiet camera" that is "discreet" is something from the 1940's (or earlier).

We now live in a world where EVERYTHING is a camera. Answer your cell phone; it's a camera. Your laptop has a camera in it. I seem to recall Casio, at some point, making a watch with a camera in it. Look up on the lamp post; that's a camera up there! Even your Sony Playstation can be, with some rigging, have a camera added to it. Add to that the fact that everyone knows that there are cameras everywhere and in everything and that just makes the concept even more archaic.

There is no "discreetness" in this world anymore.

Being discreet is a lost art.

Take a look around - anything and everything is, as they say, "in your face"

I would think the only place you're going to have to be discreet with your camera is if you're intent on sneaking photos at a funeral.

Dave
Funny, I was thinking "funeral" and you posted that !
Well, maybe you're right. Everything is "in your face". And we are a society of sheep, so lets follow the crowd mentality and do as everyone does.
The point I'm trying to make is, surely there are times when a 5D isn't necessary. I mean, I'm nothing more than a hobbyist, and I myself prefer to walk around town with a rangefinder. If I'm trying to photograph wildlife or landscapes, I prefer an slr.

[dcsang]

Funny, I was thinking "funeral" and you posted that !
Well, maybe you're right. Everything is "in your face". And we are a society of sheep, so lets follow the crowd mentality and do as everyone does.
The point I'm trying to make is, surely there are times when a 5D isn't necessary. I mean, I'm nothing more than a hobbyist, and I myself prefer to walk around town with a rangefinder. If I'm trying to photograph wildlife or landscapes, I prefer an slr.

I completely agree that there are many times when a large SLR is not necessary - and , as you said, if you're just shooting for yourself, then use whatever camera system you feel best suits your needs (and, depending on who you are, your pocketbook).

I've got nothing against RF's (look at the gear I have) but I always, for some reason, have this problem with the concept that if I use my Leica M system (or any RF for that matter) I'm suddenly camouflaged and less noticeable to everyone.

As I've said before here, the moment you bring that camera up to take a photo, someone, somewhere, notices the fact that you're taking an image. It may not be the subject but regardless, you're not as hidden as you may think you are.

With everyone in our world being so twitchy (and even more so in North America and parts of Europe) when it comes to terrorism; a guy standing quietly on the corner trying to look discreet is usually anything but. :)

Cheers
Dave

[Leicabug]

I agree with Erwin. As I said in another thread, It's only a matter of time for Leica to go under. I don't believe anyone can save Leica. Enjoy Leica while we can. Hopefully Dr. Kaufmann has a lot money to burn so Leica can survive a few more years.

[nextreme]

True.

Unless of course one has the "time" to do such things as you said - the only thing that I can think of is magazine articles or such - or a book that will be published.

Day-to-day news folks demand speed in today's world - that sometimes means WiFi links from the camera itself - that may be a sad reality to some but a reality all the same.

Dave
Ok, so that fact completely obliterates the RF camera form (and Leica by association) ? Thats what Erwin Puts is saying right ? That RF has done it's time ?
I think it's quite the opposite and in fact, there's an opportunity in the market right now for a mid-priced digital rangefinder. No one is playing that game !

[newsgrunt]

...I've got nothing against RF's (look at the gear I have) but I always, for some reason, have this problem with the concept that if I use my Leica M system (or any RF for that matter) I'm suddenly camouflaged and less noticeable to everyone.

My personal experiences. People do notice the difference between a dslr and something small (rf or p&s). Back to China again, street shooting along the Bund in Shanghai, the D2's got enough stares but the coolpix didn't on another day. This was what I observed and why I had something small.

Beijing, during the national holidays, working amongst the masses in front of the the Forbidden City and Tian'anmen Sq, I was questioned quite persistently by a pair of young women. They probably had a clue I was not a casual tourist and wanted to know what I was going to do with the photos. We played this game for several minutes before they gave up when I kept shrugging my shoulders. I had a single D2 and a Domke F2 bag. Everyone else either had an old beater film camera/ cameraphone or p&s. The only people with pro dslr's were the news shooters.

[infrequent]

Not sure I follow you there -- do you imagine they only cover colds and flu at that price?

you see these so called "free" health coverage are not exactly free. they cost real money and come from our pockets in ways of exorbitant taxes. and whenever a govt is involved in any enterprise, the cost just balloons and simple care is expensive.

we have the same thing here in australia. "free" coverage here means my mother has to wait 18 months to see a specialist.

[infrequent]

there's an opportunity in the market right now for a mid-priced digital rangefinder. No one is playing that game!

comeon nikon!

[digitalintrigue]

Hey, there's another echo in here. Nikon? Did someone say Nikon?

I think it's quite the opposite and in fact, there's an opportunity in the market right now for a mid-priced digital rangefinder. No one is playing that game !


Yes, it's an opportunity! It looks pretty obvious to you and me (and others.) Curious as to why Puts, who studies this market as closely as anyone, chose his position. Perhaps he's assuming that it's simply impossible for Leica to build a mid-price RF (due to their cultural aversion to risk) or perhaps he thinks that there is no issue with their current pricing.

[digitalintrigue]

Someone should post a poll:

Would you buy or not buy a modern digital RF under the following scenario?

List a bunch of modern features of a digital RF (autofocus, live view viewfinder, but not 6fps, not even full frame etc.) and put the retail price at say $2500. It's made by Leica or Nikon or another big name. It's got a range of lenses, dominated by fast primes, and maybe even zooms.

I'd certainly sign up...

[digitalintrigue]

I think at the economies of scale that Nikon has, it could be done profitably, and the price targets could be hit.

I have my doubts about Leica being able to change personality to get it done, unfortunately. They'd have to adopt a completely different mindset, which supposedly Mr. Lee brought...and yet he was sacked.

Would you buy one, mistic?

[novum]

I want Nikon to make a camera that occupies the space between the Ricoh GR-D and the Epson RD-1. Tough, fast, interchangeable lenses (Nikon mount is fine with me), FF sensor--all for about $1K. Greedy me. Naive, too.:rolleyes:

[dcsang]

Ok, so that fact completely obliterates the RF camera form (and Leica by association) ? Thats what Erwin Puts is saying right ? That RF has done it's time ?
I think it's quite the opposite and in fact, there's an opportunity in the market right now for a mid-priced digital rangefinder. No one is playing that game !

Ya.. but the corollary to that is - there's a reason why no one is playing that game.

What that reason is, I certainly don't know (or claim to know) but there must be a reason or there would be a bunch of players out there doing it :)

Dave

[RF-Addict]

I am (almost) with sitemistic. I owned a RD-1 for about 9 months or so and while it worked really well, I just never got into it. Whenever I wanted to use a digital camera, I just grabbed my 5D and off I went. When i wanted a rangefinder, I would take my Bessa R2a - the RD-1 really saw minimal use. One of the reasons for that was the stupid crop factor. I hate the fact that my lenses are not what they are with film RFs. When the DSLR craze started I waited until a FF DSLR was available - and bought the 5D. No matter what others say, it is a PITA to use crop bodies. All of a sudden you have to get lenses that are even wider than what you already have. If you want a fast normal lens you have to fork out a lot more money, etc, etc.

So, unless a medium prized digital RF is fullframe, I will pass on it, no matter who makes it and no matter what it costs.

[digitalintrigue]

There are many possible reasons why no one is filling it, some may only be relevant internally.

When it comes to Leica I don't think they have much of a choice, assuming the funds and expertise and fundamental drive to succeed, not to mention visionary leadership can be put in place.

[cmedin]

They have NEVER come up with an innovation, but they just keep buying up everyone anyway. Some of us (I guess mostly Mac and Unix users) have been screaming from the sidelines for years, but people just keep buying PCs.

We are dumbfounded.

Oh FFS, I know it's popular to diss Microsoft, but give me a f-in break.

Show me a piece of software that even comes CLOSE to Biztalk 2006 R2 and its capabilities.

I'll be waiting here...

[nextreme]

There are many possible reasons why no one is filling it, some may only be relevant internally.

When it comes to Leica I don't think they have much of a choice, assuming the funds and expertise and fundamental drive to succeed, not to mention visionary leadership can be put in place.
I fear Nikon is too busy in the dslr race with Canon. And now with Sony in the game, who is a match in size to Canon and they have clearly stated their intention to occupy the #1 position, well Nikon might not be willing to let their resources work on such a project.
Its an interesting question though. Who would be in the best position to build a digital RF for the enthusiasts market (priced accordingly) ?

[dcsang]

There are many possible reasons why no one is filling it, some may only be relevant internally.

When it comes to Leica I don't think they have much of a choice, assuming the funds and expertise and fundamental drive to succeed, not to mention visionary leadership can be put in place.

I never stated that it's an opportunity for Leica (or anyone else for that matter) just that, a "midrange priced digital RF" is not being made by any company right now. If there was that much of a market, someone, somewhere, should have/would have noted it and filled it.

The M8 is hardly "midrange priced". . . well, maybe for Leica's demographic it's "midrange priced" :D - but for the rest of us working stiffs it's an expensive piece of equipment.

Dave

[ferider]

Dave,

I think it's not there yet because the necessary technology has only recently become available (deep affordable large sensors). Give it a few months.

Roland.

[dcsang]

Dave,

I think it's not there yet because the necessary technology has only recently become available (deep affordable large sensors). Give it a few months.

Roland.

Roland.. you really think so?
I mean, I'd be all for it - heck; a reasonably priced M mount digital RF (reasonable to me is $2000-2500) would be great.
I just don't know if it could have that many people behind it - I mean, all of us here would like it but you think it can appeal to the youth that, perhaps, are not as "keen" on cameras?

I mean, most younger folks know all about Canons and Nikons but mention the word "range finder" and they look at you dumbfounded.

Dave

[aizan]

how hard could it be to make it ourselves? we'd need a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, software engineer, optical designer, industrial designer...

[nextreme]

how hard could it be to make it ourselves? we'd need a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, software engineer, optical designer, industrial designer...
venture capitalist....

[digitalintrigue]

If one looks at the historical sales figures, Leica has not sold all that many cameras over the years. It stands to reason they wouldn't have to sell zillions of a reasonably priced (2k-2.5k) digital RF to be profitable.

Is it technically feasible? Most likely, if not definitely. Can Leica change their mentality to tackle the project? I have my doubts...they'd have to make decisions that are counter-culture for them.

[BillBingham2]

Angel Capitalist please. Venture folks want money too quickly.

B2 (;->

[digitalintrigue]

venture capitalist....

That person already exists, and he has access to the brand name and engineering too.

Will he do it, is the question...

[ferider]

I do, Dave. :)

The question is not if the camera will compete with the huge brand SLRs.
The question is if you can satisfy a niche market with a limited run profitably. Like the
Nikon RF remakes that were profitable in the end. Or the (film) Bessas and CV lenses.

There is a niche market for sure. There is RFF after all :)

To be affordable, you need a sensor that is mass-produced.

Any custom-made sensor is too expensive. Few people know this,
but chips get MUCH cheaper with high fab throughput. As soon
as you do something specific (like leave away the IR filter layer
as Leica/Kodak did, together with their manufacturer),
it gets very, very expensive. Because for a few thousand chips you
have to configure an entire manufacturing line ... I am sure the
M8 sensor was US 1k or more, just the die, not integrated in the
camera yet.

So to have an affordable camera, you need a sensor that is manufactured
in large quantities.

To build an M-mount RF, your sensor needs at least 16bit per color, per pixel,
to be able to correct vignetting.

Put this together and you'll see: these chips did not exist before,
but do since recently.

Roland.

[BillBingham2]

Oh FFS, I know it's popular to diss Microsoft, but give me a f-in break.

Show me a piece of software that even comes CLOSE to Biztalk 2006 R2 and its capabilities.

I'll be waiting here...

With all due respect, that's not innovation, that's execution. Microsoft is very good at execution, but out side of the fact that one division writes the OS and Messaging that is utilized by another in this application IMHO does not qualify as innovation. SAP and others have much the same function, not the flexibility, higher price point, several other PAINFUL parts too. Even they are standing on the toes of MacPac (AA&Co manufacturing package from years back) and JD Edwards. RFID, they just set a standard and push it to squash everything else.

Being the 800 pound guerilla warrior helps win, not innovate.

B2 (;->

[digitalintrigue]

Ferider: Exactly.

I'm designing a product as we speak using a single-sourced semiconductor component, but it's also a component that is manufactured for Dell.

Ergo: we can piggy-back off Dell's production.

If we couldn't do this, there is no way we could build a product at the price the market would bear.

Ditto for the theoretical $2K modern digital RF.

[aizan]

you'd think leica could survive off of their fervent believers, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

[ferider]

I never said it would be Leica :) Only that the opportunity existed.

Think about BMW building a few thousand Z8. This is how you
should look at it. Profitable niche market, prestige, and technical
feasibility will make it happen, IMO.

Let's just say either Canon or Nikon came out with a digital FF RF,
IN ADDITION to their flagships. Would it add to their competitive edge ?

Roland.

[BillBingham2]

No, but it might keep some engineers busy during a slow time. It might help the workers pride in Nikon. It might break even at first, but lens sales would help make a profit.

The Mercedes G500 is another example. More sold around here than anywhere else, pure prestige.

B2 (;->