The Flying Pig

[Roger Hicks]

To quote an old friend, long in the photo business (film manufacture), "When people say, 'Why don't they make...?', they almost invariably mean, 'Why doesn't someone make it cheaper?'"

Usually, the answer to 'Why don't they make...?' is threefold. First, it's surprisingly often available anyway, at a price. You may not be able to afford a 21 or 24 Summilux (I can't), but it exists. The second answer is that many markets are very small. We may love RFs, but most people don't give a toss. The same is true of ultra-slow B+W film. Third, many specialist products are sufficiently expensive to make at all that there's little or no scope for making them cheaper. In fact, dividing the market might mean that both manufacturers have to stop making whatever it is because it's no longer commercially realistic.

So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?

Cheers,

R.

[Mcary]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

To quote an old friend, long in the photo business (film manufacture), "When people say, 'Why don't they make...?', they almost invariably mean, 'Why doesn't someone make it cheaper?'"

Usually, the answer to 'Why don't they make...?' is threefold. First, it's surprisingly often available anyway, at a price. You may not be able to afford a 21 or 24 Summilux (I can't), but it exists. The second answer is that many markets are very small. We may love RFs, but most people don't give a toss. The same is true of ultra-slow B+W film. Third, many specialist products are sufficiently expensive to make at all that there's little or no scope for making them cheaper. In fact, dividing the market might mean that both manufacturers have to stop making whatever it is because it's no longer commercially realistic.

So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?

Cheers,

R.

Rodger

For the same reason people fantasize about winning the Lottory or aliens abducting them and taking them to meet Elvis

[fergus]

Originally Posted by Mcary

For the same reason people fantasize about winning the Lottory or aliens abducting them and taking them to meet Elvis

What's to fantasise about? Elvis lives in my building.

Roger - we all like to dream. A 24 1.4 in my price range is a very fond wish.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by fergus

What's to fantasise about? Elvis lives in my building.

Roger - we all like to dream. A 24 1.4 in my price range is a very fond wish.

Yeah, I guess that is it Mr. Hicks; dreaming. Dreaming about a lens or camera, and affordable. I have those wishes myself, but don't expect them to come to pass.

[Pickett Wilson]

"So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?"

Because ever so often, a company like Cosina, out of the blue, and into an apparently non-existant market, decides to make inexpensive rangefinders.

Discerning the machinations or motivations of companies and the folks that run them is only slightly less difficult than enriching uranium.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

"So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?"

Because ever so often, a company like Cosina, out of the blue, and into an apparently non-existant market, decides to make inexpensive rangefinders.

Discerning the machinations or motivations of companies and the folks that run them is only slightly less difficult than enriching uranium.

Very true. Kobayashi-san's innovations are astonishing. But he used an existing SLR body, with significant compromises (most notably a very short RF base). Even the ZI uses no ground-breaking technology, and caters to a known (if small) market. The ideas that someone will make FF digital RFs at $2000 each, or films that hardly anyone wants, are rather different.

Also, you say 'a company like Cosina' but apart from them you have (a) tiny companies making things on small numbers, often at quite high prices, as with some screw-mount lenses, and (b) Nikon's 'commemorative' S-series. I can't quite think of another 'company like Cosina', but of course that may be simple oversight on my part.

Cheers,

R.

[Pickett Wilson]

I agree with you, Roger. Most of the time, as can be seen by the large number of folks using old RF lenses on cameras like the Olympus E-P2 when the lenses made for them (I own an E-P2) give excellent results, it's a matter of wanting something we can't afford. Many folks, for example, appear to stay with film only because they want to shoot an RF but can't afford a digital RF. Technology to the rescue. Now we buy EVIL cameras that really aren't the same thing at all.

The dream seems to be that technology will make the unaffordable, affordable. But, there is also the myopia that forums like this create, causing us to imagine that there is a large potential market for things that few really want.

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

The dream seems to be that technology will make the unaffordable, affordable. But, there is also the myopia that forums like this create, causing us to imagine that there is a large potential market for things that few really want.

Sometimes people seem to think "If I dream it, someone else can do it." Of course, that's not true. Little poodles might dream of being big Labradors, but it's not going to happen. It's fine to dream about a $2000 version of the M9. Few here, I suspect, would object to its arrival on the market. But, to blame that dream's lack of fulfillment on vendors who could, if only they would, make a $2000 M9 is a leap into unreason, for lack of a better word. If any of us know where to get full-frame sensors cheap enough to allow a camera to come in under $2000, maybe we ought to get into the camera-making business.

The myopia enabled by the net and other contemporary media is very real. Everyone is narrowcasting, and we can pick and choose sources that are in perfect and unchallenging accord with our own biases and proclivities. That creates a reality distortion field, to steal a phrase, because it is so easy to assume that the tiny slice of voices you listen to represent the rest of the people on the planet.

My own expectation? Digital technology in photography will continue to follow the same path as other digital products, albeit more slowly due to the smaller market. That is, we will see something like a bell curve, with very cheap products using older tech along the lower left side. Cutting edge high tech goodies at very steep prices will populate the lower right side. The top of the curve will be populated by products ordinary mortals will buy. The important thing is that prices will remain more or less steady at each point, while the technology available at those prices improves.

So, will we be able to buy a full-frame digital RF for less than $7000? Very probably, but who knows how much less. Will new technology, especially in sensors, EVF's, and autofocus, eventually make pining after a digital RF with a sensor as big as a 35mm frame just a bit passé? Almost certainly.

[damien.murphy]

Originally Posted by wgerrard

If any of us know where to get full-frame sensors cheap enough to allow a camera to come in under $2000, maybe we ought to get into the camera-making business.

Why not ask Nikon - they sell full-frame D700's for less than $2400 (B&H)

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

Why not ask Nikon - they sell full-frame D700's for less than $2400 (B&H)

I take the lack of a digital RF from Nikon as pretty good evidence that they've decided they can get a better return on their money by not making one, no matter what the sensor might cost them.

That's not Nikon being hostile to RF fans. It's Nikon going where it thinks the profit is.

[damien.murphy]

Originally Posted by wgerrard

I take the lack of a digital RF from Nikon as pretty good evidence that they've decided they can get a better return on their money by not making one, no matter what the sensor might cost them.

That's not Nikon being hostile to RF fans. It's Nikon going where it thinks the profit is.

A silly discussion, who knows why Nikon do what they do, as aside from Nikon. I'll leave that to Thom Hogan/ et al.

It does seem there is a disturbing attitude here among digital shooters to spend considerable time second-guessing what Leica can & can't do. It's amusing for a while (the former business analyst in me), but it seems more and more photographers these days seem to be acting like shareholders of Nikon/ Canon/ Leica/ et al.

Anywho, I'm off to more amusing pastures/ threads. There's no profit in it for me to speculate on low cost digital rangefinders

[Keith]

I'm not pointing the finger at you here Roger but I think a fair few digital M owners are quite smugly satisfied in knowing that they have the only game in town in their hot little hands regarding a decent digital rangefinder.

Not all but part of the reason for the clamoring throngs wanting another company to bring out a viable alternative is to cut these tall poppies down and level the playing field a little. It's human nature IMO.

And of course Leica actually caters to these types by offering them some garish looking limited edition special to stroke their egos even more effectively if the standard issue doesn't do it for them.

Im such a cynic!

[Brian Sweeney]

I've worked at a Research Lab for 32 years.

When I ask "Why doesn't someone make an xxx", it usually ends up being me to do it.

When explaining an idea, I often like to use the phrase "Just like on Star Trek".

And I saw Elvis. Quite a while ago, but I did see him.

[pvdhaar]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?

Good question Roger, but I simply can't stop fantasizing about the imaginary camera that makes me take that one perfect picture..

[aad]

My "why don't they" moments are never camera related. I do wish we could get more diesel cars in the US, affordable and reliable.

Mahindra is entering our market with a small, 4 wheel drive diesel pickup-automatic only. Argh.

[John Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?

Because facing reality is (usually) harder, more unpleasant and boring.

John

[damien.murphy]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

So why do so may people entertain so many fantasies that a few moments' thought will reveal as unrealistic?

Your argument assumes the market is a fixed size, and will never change. Perhaps some people see new products potentially growing the market, as opposed to cannibalising it.

Not that cannibalisation is not a bad thing in certain areas of the market, where some manufacturers have become quite complacent. For example, Paterson continue to churn out poorly designed and manufactured products, yet are the unchallenged market leader in their primary market segments.

Or perhaps I'm odd in wanting tanks that do not leak, reels that are user friendly, or timers that are designed to facilitate my film/ photo developing process, for example.

It's also a fact that some items are blatantly overpriced, like many items marketed to the 'photo market'. For example, on what planet do darkroom easel manufacturers assume people live on ? £450- £700 for a new decently built easel is absolutely ridiculous, and destroying whatever small market is left in this area.

I know my above examples are examples from the film market, but this to me would be a prime example of a low growth market you allude, which would either be damaged by competition or not big enough to take advantage of economies of scale to keep prices lower. I don't think your argument holds water in the higher growth photo markets, like digital for example.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

Your argument assumes the market is a fixed size, and will never change. Perhaps some people see new products potentially growing the market, as opposed to cannibalising it.

Dear Damien,

Not fixed, but (a) finite and (b) unlikely ever to be big enough to warrant the R+D, tooling, stock-holding and support (distribution, repairs, marketing) required.

Digi RFs are an example. Yes, I'm sure that the market for a cheaper digi RF is at least twice as big as the Leica market, and quite possibly five times the size. BUT, it's nothing like big enough to amortize the R&D on an FF chip down to the level required for prices to compete with the mass SLR market. Those things cut every penny they can: they don't even have pentaprisms any more, just penta-mirrors.

In other words, IF a manufacturer reckoned he could sell (say) 10,000 cameras a year for 5 years, they'd still be damnably expensive, and they'd be competing with second-hand Leicas and even RD-1s. Crop sensors are probably a non-starter, because, after all, the entire point of a digi-RF for most people is legacy lenses.

Of course I could be wrong, but as I've yet to meet anyone in the trade who holds a different viewpoint, I suspect I'm not. RFF is a highly self-selecting forum.

Cheers,

R.

[Rob-F]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

To quote an old friend, long in the photo business (film manufacture), "When people say, 'Why don't they make...?', they almost invariably mean, 'Why doesn't someone make it cheaper?'"

Usually, the answer to 'Why don't they make...?' is threefold. First, it's surprisingly often available anyway, at a price. You may not be able to afford a 21 or 24 Summilux (I can't), but it exists.

Cheers,

R.

Not too long ago, there wasn't a 21 or 24mm Summilux.

Now, why can't they make a $1000 8.5MP body in Leica M mount, with a sensor as large as the one in the R-D1; with smaller body; no rangefinder, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm framelines; and electronic focusing aid. I want to use my Leica lenses on a small digital platform, without the hassle of IR filters, coding, etc.

How about one for the Leica-R lenses? But I want 1.5x crop factor, not 2:1. So that rules out micro-4/3.

[Brian Sweeney]

I suppose my question is why Leica does not do a Monochrome version of the M9. I see so many images from the M8 and M9 converted to Monochrome, it would make sense. 17 years ago, I needed a near-Infrared digital camera for work. Kodak did not make one. I looked at the spec sheet for the KAF-1600, called them up, and asked them why they did not make an Infrared version of the DCS200. They called back a month or so later and agreed to do it. $4000 extra. But these days- I just do not need a Monochrome M9 for work.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

I suppose my question is why Leica does not do a Monochrome version of the M9. I see so many images from the M8 and M9 converted to Monochrome, it would make sense. 17 years ago, I needed a near-Infrared digital camera for work. Kodak did not make one. I looked at the spec sheet for the KAF-1600, called them up, and asked them why they did not make an Infrared version of the DCS200. They called back a month or so later and agreed to do it. $4000 extra. But these days- I just do not need a Monochrome M9 for work.

Dear Brian,

I specifically asked at photokina and was told that a short run (c. 50) of Kodak mono sensors would cost far more than the ballpark figure you estimated. I asked because I'm puzzled too. It could be that it's an excuse, but it didn't sound that way. Maybe I'm just too trusting.

Cheers,

R.

[tlitody]

And speaking of flying pigs, well this little piggy has got GAS !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtMFSvY5EsQ

[Brian Sweeney]

Also the advantage of working at a Research Lab. If it was required for a project, it just was done. I've worked projects where we had the company make custom sensors from scratch. One of our groups built a 100MPixel sensor 6 or 7 years ago.

The Monochrome Sensor- kind of like Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, just make the BLT but leave the Dye out of the Mosaic Filter.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

The Monochrome Sensor- kind of like Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, just make the BLT but leave the Dye out of the Mosaic Filter.

I think it would be even easier than that.

[j j]

Other manufacturers made film cameras that cost less than a Leica, so why is it fantasy to wish for the same with digital? There are cameras equally as good as and with similar specs to the X1 available much more cheaply than that Leica.