View Full Version : The question no one dares to pose
johnastovall
02-27-2008, 06:52
Erwin Puts's thoughts on the future of Leica. (http://www.imx.nl/photo/viewpoint/the_question_no_one_dares_t.html)
"The basic question now is: is it possible to evolve the rangefinder concept into a new concept fitting fro the digital world. "
I agree with about 90% of what Erwin said in his two most recent essays. But I don't see why the rangefinder concept is any less suitable to digital capture than film capture. The rangefinder fell by the wayside to the SLR eons ago, and into its own little niche. I agree completely with Erwin when he says Leica products sell well for 2 years and then fall flat. But I strongly believe that if Leica dropped the price of the M8, unmodified just as it is, to just under $3K, they would sell at least another 25,000 of them along with a slew of Summarit lenses. I think there's a large un-tapped market demand for a digital rangefinder and Leica's main stumbling block is they've priced themselves into an even smaller niche than they were already in.
giellaleafapmu
02-27-2008, 07:51
Look at the price of Canon 1DMkIII and no lens. They are selling very well even with unfixed problems...
I love rangefinder cameras but I think it is a wrong example as the EOS 1D Mk whatever are today Nikon F's: complete systems profs use for almost everything, from underwater shots to macro works to still-life with tilt-shift lenses, whatever rangefinder has a much more limited use (that's why they were no longer used as soon as SLR's arrived).
GLF
Look at the price of Canon 1DMkIII and no lens. They are selling very well even with unfixed problems...
...but they are selling to 1DMkII owners mostly, along with upgraders from the X0D level. That is already a "tapped" market.
I think the question is not just whether the RF concept works for a digital medium, but whether one can introduce a manual focus system to the world of AF! a harder sell IMHO. I love my DRF and sold my DSLRs, but I am not the untapped market:o
Tuolumne
02-27-2008, 10:52
Ok, I'll bite: What do you think the "rangefinder concept" is?
/T
POINT OF VIEW
02-27-2008, 11:17
Erwin Puts's thoughts on the future of Leica. (http://www.imx.nl/photo/viewpoint/the_question_no_one_dares_t.html)
"The basic question now is: is it possible to evolve the rangefinder concept into a new concept fitting fro the digital world. "
If you’re a minimalist and you enjoy shooting with a classic RF format and you like total control over your photo, than you buy the DRF that suits you.
If you like fat cameras that you can close your eyes and get a good shot, than you buy a DSLR.
Leica does not force you to buy a M8, if you don’t like it who cares, but don’t pose a irrelevant question suggesting the only DRF camera in the world, doesn’t exist.
I care, but what does it matter?
I for one think there is a market for Leica, even if it is priced too high for the majority. It might just be too slim a market to sustain what is now mainly a sofware / hardware based R&D lab.
Their new web site encapsulates all things bad with the current (past now?) Leica mentality. It's a hark back to the days they were owned by Hermes and were purely a lifestyle / brag item not unlike a Luis V. handbag. At the end of the day a camera is a tool. Sure the great majority of people buy into gadgets and techno speak, but real photographers, people who actually use their cameras, appreciate a well made, reliable cameras with great optics. A RF is not for macro, but then again not everyone want to shoot flowers.
The price of a new M8 and 28mm Summicron to mount on it is too rich for me, as it is for most people I imagine, but that's not set in stone. There are many stratagies Leica could take to bring the prices down to a level where people can afford them. We should just wait a few days to find out the first steps they make towards meeting this wish.
giellaleafapmu
02-27-2008, 11:53
If memory serves, when the Canon 5D came out and for quite a while afterward, it cost $3300, and the most popular lens people bought for it, the 24-105L/IS, cost roughly $1200. I have a sneaking suspicion Canon sold way more of those $4500 combos than the paltry 25,000 more I said I felt Leica could squeeze out of the M8 by dropping the price to $3K.
You can buy now a 5D + 24-105L/IS for less than 2800US$, some well known e-seller has a rebate on top of that which would cover the cost a battery grip more or less. That's about half the price of a Leica for a full frame camera and they are indeed selling quite well for what I understand. Really not surprising. If then one consider that one of the strongest point of rangefinder cameras (ultrawide non-retrofocus designs) cannot be used on a digital Leica one can easily see why they are having a hard time (and they will even more in the future, I believe) and why Canon and other producer of evil DSLR's are strongest than ever.
As I mentioned in another post what could be an answer to all this (in my opinion of course) is a completely new design. New lenses, no noise, small size but I doubt Leica has the know-how for that at the moment...
GLF
Tuolumne
02-27-2008, 11:59
You can buy now a 5D + 24-105L/IS for less than 2800US$, some well known e-seller has a rebate on top of that which would cover the cost a battery grip more or less. That's about half the price of a Leica for a full frame camera and they are indeed selling quite well for what I understand. Really not surprising. If then one consider that one of the strongest point of rangefinder cameras (ultrawide non-retrofocus designs) cannot be used on a digital Leica one can easily see why they are having a hard time (and they will even more in the future, I believe) and why Canon and other producer of evil DSLR's are strongest than ever.
As I mentioned in another post what could be an answer to all this (in my opinion of course) is a completely new design. New lenses, no noise, small size but I doubt Leica has the know-how for that at the moment...
GLF
Or the capital. Huge investment there.
/T
I would personally love an M8, but if I had the money to buy one I'd go for DSLR! Why, because it's a proven item. If I get a modern Canon or Nikon I know it'll work perfectly until I can afford a new one. Can the same be said about the M8? Not from what I read.
Is there a market for Leica? I don't know, not if they keep charging what they do I expect. Leica is almost in the same position Apple was 10-15 years ago. They need a Steve Jobs to come along with a vision which works.
General users want a simple, easy, quality product for between £150 and £500. Leica, I don't think, can do this.
Maybe Apple should buy them. :)
giellaleafapmu
02-27-2008, 12:14
Or the capital. Huge investment there.
/T
Yep, that is also a problem. Not that I really care of camera makers (I mean...at the end one look at the picture and doesn't really care which camera got it!) but perhaps the only real hope for a company like Leica would be to be absorbed by a large company like Nikon or Canon or to work together (really together not like now) with an electronics company.
GLF
giellaleafapmu
02-27-2008, 12:22
Is there a market for Leica? I don't know, not if they keep charging what they do I expect. Leica is almost in the same position Apple was 10-15 years ago. They need a Steve Jobs to come along with a vision which works.
Mmmh, not completely true, Apple has always been a very innovative company. When they could no longer get what they wanted from Motorola processors they changed to Intel, when their original system (which was itself very innovative) become obsolete they switched to some Linux like thing but they apparently considered first other option like BEos. If only Leitz was half that innovative...
GLF
Dektol Dan
02-27-2008, 12:35
Quality may not matter, utility may not matter, but gadgets and accessories do.
What made SLRs happen way back when was the affordable unending options of accessories and lenses.
Rangefinders are sh*t for long lenses, macro, microscopes, telescopes etc.
The average amateur always goes for a long lens as his second to the normal 50mm. On the other hand, pros prefer to go wide, which is the glory of rangefinders (except sport photographers, of course).
SLRs are hard to focus and dim to see through with any lens slower than a 3.5.
So, auto focus saves their bacon and the rangefinder is doomed. Even though rangefinders are a snap to focus as mentioned in this thread previously, not having to focusing at all (so all cameras are back to being point and shoots) rules the day with the amateur.
Amateurs control the market, the masses are where the money is and amateurs don't want to take the time to learn the craft of photography.
Rangefinders will be around as a niche market, but boy it's going to be expensive.
Whether rangefinders are digital or not is the issue, but rather will amateurs live with a manual camera with restricted choice of options that are expensive.
trittium
02-27-2008, 12:38
Leica should advertise if they want to shift units. The general consumer does not even know of Leica. If anything, they probably think they are owned by panasonic. Leica needs to sell the rangefinder on it's compact size. New technology should make things smaller, yet DSLR's are gigantic. Sell the fact that it is easy to use; you only have 3 settings; shutter, aperture, and focus, and with these setting the consumer can take any type of photo. No messing with portrait mode, mountain mode, programing your own mode, etc. A good product can convince the consumer that they need it. They need to sell themselves as the original, the best, and the easiest.
As for the macro thing, just give it a good full frame sensor, build a digital zoom into the software package, and your done.
Tuolumne
02-27-2008, 12:54
No, the pitch has to be it is challenging but more rewarding. And you become an "artist", whatever that is. It certainly is a proposition that many would buy into with the right marketing. I mean, people still use fountain pens, too.
/T
Sitemistic, don't you think that if you're routinely contributing half the posts on a given topic you ought to give it a rest? :confused:
You can buy now a 5D + 24-105L/IS for less than 2800US$, some well known e-seller has a rebate on top of that which would cover the cost a battery grip more or less. That's about half the price of a Leica for a full frame camera and they are indeed selling quite well for what I understand. Really not surprising. If then one consider that one of the strongest point of rangefinder cameras (ultrawide non-retrofocus designs) cannot be used on a digital Leica one can easily see why they are having a hard time (and they will even more in the future, I believe) and why Canon and other producer of evil DSLR's are strongest than ever.
As I mentioned in another post what could be an answer to all this (in my opinion of course) is a completely new design. New lenses, no noise, small size but I doubt Leica has the know-how for that at the moment...
GLF
But you are not getting the same for 2,800US$ as what a M8 and a WATE can produce. Far from it. My m8 is off to Solms for fixing and I miss it very much. I shoot a lot with my 1Ds II w/16-35 mm 2,8L, these days, - which I bought at the same time as the M8/WATE, back in April last year. The Canon combo is far from as good as the Leica combo, it turns out. The Canon has soft corners even at aparture 8. The WATE is perfect at full aparture. When I get my M8 back I will try to do some systematic comparisons.
And that is how the photo world has always been. You pay five times as much just for an additional aparture stop. Etc.
I agree with someone who said Leica is bringing a pocket knife to a gun fight. It lacks the financial resources to compete on the same terms with the biggies and needs to carve out its own niche and value proposition. (Again)
In the digital world the thing that keeps the biggies going is time to market. New products have to come out of the research labs and development rooms to churn off the production line at monotonous regularity or they go broke as they have squillions invested and this has to be paid for somehow. In the film camera world Leica's value proposition has been somewhat different. Its like the De Beers "Diamonds are Forever" slogan. Except in their case its "Your Leica is forever" - even when everyone knows its not really as even Leica owners will like to upgrade eventually. To justify paying so much for an (admittedly nice ) camera they have to promote the idea that you can buy a Leica and hang onto it -which to be fair you can. Knowing that the Leitz company (a) cannot fund rapid upgrades and technological developments and (b) do not want to if if they are going to follow their time tested formula, they market on the basis of selling a high quality product to a niche market while staying behind the mass market pack in terms of technology but ahead (above?) it in terms of quality and only producing new versions less frequently.
The big question is will this work in the digital world. It seems to me that getting a full frame sensor is probably central to the strategy as once you have a full frame sensor that is of adequate resolution you should be able to forget about further sensor innovations to some extent and concentrate on other things. (i.e. one of the main things to be driving the market over the past X years since the digital revolution has started is sensor size and resolution. Once a certain point is reached, further developments on this front are likely to be of little interest to the market.) Its a bit like "thru the lens" metering. TTL was the big NEW thing in the late 1960s early 1970s. Once every camera manufacturer (well except Leica ) had it it was no longer a selling point. It was a foundation requirement and people forgot about it for about 15 - 20 years till matrix metering came along which had its moment in the sun and became the next big metering / marketing revolution.
So - will Leica's strategy of infrequent innovation but high quality work in the digital world? I suspect it still appeals to the same demographic and it will if it gets the fundamentals right. How much it thrives is another question as I don't know enough about the economics of camera manufacturing. But in one respect it should. Today much innovation in cameras is in software not hardware and maybe this allows Leica to stick with a base model and offer new features. I am not sure how well that sits with a quality product however. The real selling point has to be (a) their point of difference - a smaller rangefinder camera and (b) quality lenses. Whether a software based innovation route alters the value proposition in the eyes of the consumer remains to be seen. It may be too much like turning Leica into just any other camera.
PS I am talking about camera bodies here. They do seem to innovate quite regularly with lenses as they have a competitive advantage here within a certain market niche and can sell new lenses to even die hard Leica nuts who do not wish to upgrade their camera body.
Tuolumne
02-27-2008, 13:23
Leave SM alone. I like his posts.
/T
Tuolumne
02-27-2008, 13:26
Combine auto and manual focus on a small fixed lens dCL RF type camera with at least a 1.3 or larger sensor. A fixed lens will allow the engineers to design a system to compensate for the angle of light for a single fixed focal length lens. The IQ should be unmatched by any other camera with a changeable lens system utilizing a comparable sized sensor.
Let the old romantics buy the expensive M series of dRF’s along with their expensive manual focus lenses.
Leica needs to innovate their middle market offering.
Could you make this font a bit smaller? I can't quite fit in on the head of pin yet.
/T
DougFord
02-27-2008, 13:29
better?
Combine auto and manual focus on a small fixed lens dCL RF type camera with at least a 1.3 or larger sensor. A fixed lens will allow the engineers to design a system to compensate for the angle of light for a single permanent focal length lens. The IQ should be unmatched by any other camera with a changeable lens system utilizing a comparable sized sensor.
Let the old romantics buy the expensive M series of dRF’s along with their expensive manual focus lenses.
Leica needs to innovate their middle market offering.
I don't even know what that is?
/T
Don't ask, don't tell.
George S.
02-27-2008, 19:55
Let's see... Leica is supposed to invest a few million $ in a camera that will cost twice the price of a Canon or Nikon DSLR system- [ whos camera systems already completely dominate the market ] - and in all likelihood have less features, AND they're going to convince enough people that this is a good idea how?
You're not going to change the balance of power of the market share at this point, especially with a rangefinder, especially at these prices.
Thanks to whoever posted a picture of a bush hog. Years ago a girl I knew in college wrote me a while after we graduated that her father had been killed by a bush hog rolling over on him. Being a suburban/city kid I thought it was some species of wild pig (seriously, not kidding). I got engaged and married not long after, and we lost touch. I'd forgotten about it until I read this post. Now I finally know it was a tractor. Makes a lot more sense.
what the **** ! :confused: didnt I just reply to this tread couple times yesterday, or was it day before :eek: deja vu anyway :p
well the Summarit auction I've been checking is closing soon (I mention that in the deja vu world :confused: ). sorry OT.
oops sorry for babling :o there was "Erwin on Leicas future" in Leica M part...
giellaleafapmu
02-28-2008, 10:47
But you are not getting the same for 2,800US$ as what a M8 and a WATE can produce. Far from it. My m8 is off to Solms for fixing and I miss it very much. I shoot a lot with my 1Ds II w/16-35 mm 2,8L, these days, - which I bought at the same time as the M8/WATE, back in April last year. The Canon combo is far from as good as the Leica combo, it turns out. The Canon has soft corners even at aparture 8. The WATE is perfect at full aparture. When I get my M8 back I will try to do some systematic comparisons.
And that is how the photo world has always been. You pay five times as much just for an additional aparture stop. Etc.
You are comparing lenses now. Have you tried the same camera with a fix 50mm or 35mm lens?
GLF
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.