Is Leica in big financial trouble? Is this the end?

...and there's Sony's new M1

<P>

Zeiss Vario Tessar 5.1MP 2.5" screen better pivoting screen design than

Canon or Nikon.

<P>

They should have called it IIIG-5.1 because we all know IIIG was the ultimate until this.

<a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_Cyber-shotMDigitalCameras&Dept=dcc_DIDigitalCameras&DCMP=LC_DCC&HQS=camera_mseries_engage_view-models">Link here.</a>

If they continue alienating much of their professional and prosumer base, while playing into the hands of rich and dumb collectors with "First Sexual Encounter of Prince Harry" and other retarded "commemorative editions," then good riddance.

" 2003, Ferrari lost 13 million euros"

 

That's about 26-30 cars right WOW big deal.

As an inside look regarding an M digital body I've been told by an internal source at Leica in Germany that it will be announced in 2006 - do not know if that means early or late.

 

This whole story or thread reminds me of Rolls/Bentley with regards to having to sell out in order to remain in business to BMW/Volkswagon. The original craftmanship required to make special cars or cameras is not the most financially lucrative business but rather a niche market that requires a special parent company to maximize the benefits of doing so.

 

Ford buys into Volvo & furtunately Volvo had the S40, S60, SUV etc. series under development & they are having good sales. GM into Saab - different story & now we have crossover Saabarus rolling out. BMW & Volkswagon I feel decided to go for the top of the line for their versions of Toyota's Lexus/Honda's Acura/Nissan's Infiniti upscale brands & made the right move.

 

Same with boats - the carefully crafted boatmakers have experienced a similar fate - hence the Bayliner Wal-mart approach to maximizing profits.

 

With regards to cameras - if it's someone like Cosina buying the mark then it's a Toyota/Lexus deal. Would be nice if it was more like Hasselblad/Leica or Linhof/Leica to maintain only high end equipment output but we all know that Canon probably makes more profit with their digital Rebel than Leica makes across the board.

 

Reminds me of Nikon not long ago - okay say 10-15 years ago "lowering" themselves to make the EM to compete with Olympus/Pentax/Minolta & Canon as they realized that they were not making money like their competitors. Now they make a whole line of cheap consumer cameras & appear to have tripled profits last quarter mainly because of the D70. In the meantime they still find it in themselves to bring out the F6 which sounds like a kiss of death but with strong revenues they can afford the risk + it may be the last high-end film based only camera they ever release. The next generation could be an F7 - film/digital hybrid - who knows. Nikon simply went into Wal-mart mode & survived. This also has been during a major fallout with pros switching to Canon as well & yet they are fine & doing well. They realized they could not sit back on their laurels & wait for buyers to line up. Yet they still offer high end equipment at the same time.

 

If I were Cosina I would be looking at all that expensive glass that could be used with their digital body that exists out there - I feel they read the market well & although there are problems that have surfaced it seems it's not insurmountable & they will have a major foothold on this market regardless of when Leica brings an M digital body out. By the way it appears that their outlay for R&D far outstrips their recoup costs for sales & that it's an investment towrads the future. What a novel concept - must be nice to have the funds to wait it out.

 

I truly hope that Leica can survive even if bought by another company - their trademarks alone are worth a considerable amount & if all hell breaks loose then I'm sure a company will be willing to buy their equipment & molds/forms etc. & continue with the tradition.

Could they sell their lens section to Panasonic and their camera section to Konica

Minolta? I don't think they'll have anything to do with Cosina, that's too embarrassing.

Well is it any surprise? They must have wasted millions (presumably) making the digital back for the R9, a product which absolutely no-one wants, and which will probably cost about 3000GBP!!!

 

John

The news is not surprising.

 

You have a company selling low tech and increasingingly higher priced products into a market whose consumers are demanding -- and getting -- higher tech and decreasing prices.

 

Collectors who buy the new semi-custom high profit models can help, but there just aren't enough of them (meaning the collectors, not the custom options!) to make a big difference.

"the digital dust needs to settle before film and digital take their respective places in the global toolkit of creative media"

 

True... and once the word starts getting out that digital cameras cause cancer I'm sure the digital market will shrink. (Something to do with the sensors which emit deadly radiation, I'm told.) I've been telling everyone about this... particularly young parents. (I feel I have an obligation to do so.) ;>)

"North America is its biggest market, and Japan is a big market."

 

Actually, no it isn't. Europe (including Germany) makes up 54% of Leica's overall sales. All of North America makes up the next biggest share at 22%. All of Asia (including Japan) and Austrailia comprises 21%. The remaining markets total only 3%.

BTW, I estimate Leica has approximately 24 months of life in it before the fire sale begins. It's an acquisition waiting to happen.

Check the Sony M1. $699. Just introduced.

 

Zeiss Vario Tessar, big rotating viewing screen, superb ergonomics. 5.1MP ...but it's only the M1, so an 8MP M2 can't be far behind. And it's a Sony, which is another way of saying "trouble free."

 

Given relationship with Zeiss, it's surprising that Sony called it an "M1" rather than "Super D." (as in Ikonta) Especially interesting because Pansonic makes the best of the mediocre digital "Leicas" now.

 

Maybe this means Sony is merging with Pansonic and leaving the fake Zeiss camera concept to Cosina.

The cure: Leica buys the rights, etc. to re-run the Konica Hexar AF with Hexanon 35mm f/2 lens and sell it directly online for US $500 each. They'd probably sell a zillion to Leica PNers alone and be in the black in about 2 weeks. Then they'd bring out a Hexar (now Leica Hexar) AF with superb 90mm f2.8 lens for US $600 or so and be king of the heap!

What's surprising -- and regrettable -- is that it didn't read "The Company's *new* Board of Management will..."

Digital M who needs it? Film cameras are their forte. Gimme a Hexar AF type/size pocketable range finder with a fixed dual focal length lens 35/50 f2, manual focus/aperture and motorized shutter and film wind. The everyman rangefinder. This along with the prerequisite "First Sexual Encounter of Prince Harry" and other retarded "commemorative editions to balance things out ;-)

Anyone who believes Leica is the same outfit that started back in the 19th century just hasn't kept up with history. First LEITZ went GMBH when the family couldn't support it any more. Then somewhere along the line it was acquired by the Schmidtheiny interests (Wild, etc) and then via a couple more permutations it became Leica AG (quite frankly I haven't kept up with all the manoeuvering) which I think it still is with Hermes calling the shots. So don't be surprised if they pull of another transmorgification. Remember Zeiss got out of the German camera business forty years ago while Leitz/Leicam managed to hold onto their drawers. It's all where the money is. If an angel comes along and eats them up it won't be something that hasn't happened before.

My response to the troubles at Leica AG is that their overhaul should be mainly internal.

Cut costs where necessary and eliminate poor product lines. If they could rework the

"guts" of the company so that they increase profit, even if their revenue stays stagnant,

that should buy them enough time to redevelop themselves. Leica optics are icons of 20th

century photography; the epitome of fine engineering. There are very few companies

worldwide (granted there are others) that have such a cultish following as Leica. In terms

of name recognition, anyone who knows anything about photography has most likely

heard of Leica. I think one scenerio is that if Leica can't get back on track themselves, they

could be bought out by a larger company. (Similar to the Hermes deal), which could be a

good or bad thing...

I also agree with Doug on the Digital M issue. Who needs it? I think IF they are going to

pursue a high quality digital, then they should focus on a DSLR system. Instead of having

the hybrid film/digital module r for the r8/r9, they are better off putting a digital body

that can compete with Nikons D2x and similar camera's. In my opinion that would make

more sense than a digital m.

Leica will never make it as a digital. They have no experience in producing a new camera model every 6 months that makes the previous model out-of-date. That's what the photoconsumers want--the constant upgrade...the newest technology...the new "what's hot".

 

Amateurs are what drives the camera market. Pros don't buy enough cameras to keep any photo manufacturer going. But a couple of thousand pros using an EOS 1Dn(mk XXXI) will sell a few million EOS DigiRebels.

 

I'm with Dennis on this. Leica's future is tied to film. It will survive, succeed or die with film. To survive or succeed, it should produce a lower priced line of cameras.

 

(Of course, I could be wrong.)

Maybe customers like me are the downfall of Leica. I would never be interested in the R line as it is right now or in digital SLR for that matter. That is already covered adequately by others. I would not even buy M7. Besides that the M is the perfect camera for me doing just enough and not too much. The only thing on digital front that would do for me is a full frame MP or even M3 type of camera. No lcd needed no functions or anything like that. To make things sweeter the chip would be replacable/upgradable and that is all I want. Just how much research does something like that need? I am baffled at that.

this is a disclosure issue due to germany's auditing procedures. it is just full disclosure as required.

Someone rightly brought up the point the new digital camera models come out every few months or so. If Leica was successful in designing a new digital body that took M lenses (but not necessarily based on the M) and also had a removable digital back that could be updated every few years without having to buy a whole new camera, they might be able to succeed. I think Leica users will always want to use those lenses that they spend so much money on.

Losing half the share capital is not losing half the value of the company. It could be more, it could be less, depending on the company's accumulated reserves.

 

But the key question is what this "turnaround" strategy will be. And what's worse is that generally, turnaround strategies require $$ to execute, for which the company would have to sell its soul, probably to greedy VC's or other investors.

 

I would agree that Leica cannot compete in the digital market-- not with a German-based labour force, not with the type of slow development culture. On the other hand, Leica users like us do not expect a new model every 6 months. What we value in Leica are stability and old-world elegance.

 

I hope the turnaround strategy will focus less on collectors and more on quality, precision engineering and elegance, with perhaps a line of starter-Leicas to bring in new customers.

 

Wai Leong

We must all do our part. Buy new Leica stuff. ;)

People should spend more time shooting with the cams they have rather than worrying

about the company. They're just tools to use, rather than objects to covet, and will

probably be supported for a long time. For people that actually shoot, I can't see this

making any difference one way or another.

"Leica will never make it as a digital. They have no experience in producing a new camera model every 6 months that makes the previous model out-of-date. That's what the photoconsumers want--the constant upgrade...the newest technology...the new "what's hot"."

 

If that were the case with Leica's "photoconsumers" Leica would've died out long ago. "the newest technology...the new "what's hot"?? Are you kidding? The Leica M7 has 1980 technology, the M6 had 1954 technology and the MP is a step or two back from the M6. The constant upgrades can't last that much longer. The 11MP full-frame EOS 1Ds, now discontinued, already had enough pixels to enlarge as much as the best 35mm slide or neg. The MK-2 is aimed at grabbing a piece of the pro marketshare of former MF users. If Leica users have been satisfied with the enlargement constraints of 35mm film, why would Leica need to go beyond that with a digital? Why wouldn't Leica users be satisfied with a digital M body that is a mechanical-shutter, rangefinder-focusing, no fancy modes, just an LCD for review, basically an MP or M7 that writes to a card instead of film, with enough megapixels to make an 11x14 as sharp as from the finest-grained film around? Why would Leica need to come up with a new model every 6 months or even 6 years? I just don't understand why people happy to use a film camera with decades-outdated technology would suddenly shift their attitude and Leica would be forced to upgrade a Digital M as often as Canon upgrades their Rebels?