Of Leica M and steam engines

I once told you I am a railway modeler.

<p>

When reviewing a lot of threads about Leica M �survivability� came to me an obvious parallel between the Leica M camera and the use of steam by a very famous American railway company: the Norfolk and Western (now blended into the Norfolk Southern).

<p>

N&W kept the steam locomotive as its prime motive power well into the fifties when most �Class I� railroads had already dieselised. This company was by the way its own provider of steam motive power and certainly produced the finest steam engine ever. Through a splendid organisation of maintenance it succeeded in securing an rate of availability of these engines equivalent to what the diesels brought to other companies.

<p>

Despite these feats, the steam power eventually came to an end, even their.

<p>

Why ? Well, one of the main reason was trivial: many accessory devices (accessory but nevertheless absolutely required for a proper operation) which were produced outside their famed Roanoke shops in Virginia (and once sold to any steam locomotive manufacturers) were no more produced as one after the other dedicated steam locomotive makers closed for lack of customers. These patented items were harder and harder to find and more an more costly to obtain�

<p>

The demise of steam in the N&W infuriated many railfans in these times but it didn�t stop the clock and by the early 60�s the dies were cast and N&W entered a crash dieselisation program�

<p>

Like many railway modelers and railfans, I worship steam locomotives� But not to the point I consider them practically useable in real life (but for some railfan excursions).

<p>

What is the link between Leica and N&W history will you ask me?

<p>

I think there are at least two links:

<p>

The first is when you use a very particular technology which is otherwise scarcely used by others (steam for the N&W, SFRF for Leica) you�d better keep a technological edge on your products which makes them competitive in front of the other(s) more widespread technology(ies). This is the only way to preserve the efficiency and survivability of your choice

<p>

Then, if your technology is dependent from some external source, be aware this source won�t dry out if you want it survives: For the N&W these products from outside killed the finest steam locomotives ever and for Leica M�s an eventual (and unavoidable in the future) demise of silver halide film will kill the M series because it will be impossible to replace it by the new digital technology.

<p>

Here are the two obvious links and similarities.

<p>

But there are also obvious differences:

<p>

Rangefinder system is by no mean something which is replaceable by another system bringing the same function like steam was by diesel (or electric) power. It has its own irreplaceable interest. So the rangefinder concept is liable to survive the disappearance of silver halide films. Something which can be a great advantage to Leica M cameras. But it is clear from a user�s point of view these particular advantages should not be overwhelmed by inconveniences which destroy the edge of the original concept.

<p>

N&W managed their maintenance system as to obtain a cost and efficiency equal to what the other solution brought� It is hardly the case with an overpriced M camera which after all has an edge over a 35 mm SLR only in a limited range of situation and is otherwise limited by its own concept on others.

<p>

Leica M bodies on the contrary to N&W late steamers are far from being on par technically with what is available on the market with other systems and even cannot claim anymore to be the only representative of the original concept anymore.

<p>

Finally the M bodies are placed in a situation which is potentially worst than the one of late N&W steam engines:

<p>

1 - Because they are not representative of the state of the art technology which can be embodied into their original concept

<p>

2 � Because they are no more the only game in town and are liable in a near future to be submitted to an even harsher competition as there is without any doubt a renewal of this concept on the market and still no high end body available

<p>

3- Because they are not ready to �pull the train� of digital technology which will in the end totally replace the silver halide film on the contrary to the best steamers of N&W which proved in their time able to pull passenger trains actually FASTER than their diesel replacements were able to do.

<p>

IMHO, some of you, my friends leicaphiles, are in fact contributing to the disappearance of your pet camera each time you oppose any attempt to push Leica forward and make it produce at least their first state of the art cameras since the M5. Like you predecessors did when they actually killed the M5 (probably the most interesting user�s M camera ever an their last �state of the art� camera) on the ground it was not exactly similar to the M4 and as elegant as it while arguing against its teething troubles after they had already be cured.

<p>

Please help Leica camera AG to awake before it�s too late, tell them to move forward and gain new adepts� Actual users are a more useful customer reserve than collectors or investors.

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

Perhaps there is reason for hope. Consider the Medium Format market.

Much smaller than small-format, there are still manufacturers who

think it worthwhile to build digital backs to work with Hasselblads

and Mamiyas (and many more obscure and esoteric cameras as well). If

you consider Hasselblad, the basic camera design hasn't changed all

that much over the years (200 series excepted); it is the lenses that

have kept their users with the brand. On another front, there are

cottage-industry producers who find it worthwhile to convert old

Polaroid rollfilm cameras to new pack film designs, for cameras that

are forty years old. Even if Leica isn't the one to make the next

leap with an M-mount body, it shouldn't be beyond imagining that

another manufacturer will do so. Perhaps the latest liaison with

Panasonic will bear other fruit as well.

Francois: (Only slightly off topic)

<p>

I am certain you know of one of the most vibrant connections to

photography with N&W railroad and that is O. Winston Link, who

documented the last years of the RR with some of the most dramatic

and technically complex photos ever. The photos are a very secure

part of americam history and turn up in a large variety of sources.

Jusrt about everyone knows his work, or has seen it.

<p>

I do not have the link but, a google search turns up many hits.

It is a strange story, in that his wife literally stole many of his

pictures and negs and just few weeks ago got out of jail having been

convicted of theft for that.

<p>

Very sad is the fact that OWL died a year or two ago.

<p>

There have been several recent books of his work, and I am quite

certain any photo gearhead or fan will find his story fascinating.

<p>

Funny how the story of that RR has been documented by the opposite of

Leicas: LF with very elaborately staged settings.

Enjoy.

Richard,

<p>

Many many thanks for the tip

<p>

François P. WEILL

I think you're mistaken about the demise of silver halide film. There

will always be some who prefer it, and thus there will always be at

least a few small companies who find it profitable to cater to this

niche market.

<p>

In addition, it will be necessary to keep on making film for many

years because of all the film cameras presently in existence, and

especially, because of all the third world countries which will not be

able to convert to digital technology for decades to come.

Fran, I got to tell you something. I read through you post twice

trying to make sense of it, and quite couldn't. But life is a random

game of chance. Sometimes you make your point, and sometimes you roll

snake eyes.

<p>

Leica has a well established pool of buyers. In fact Leica sales have

remained constant over many years indicating that Leica can sell as

much product as it can produce, and it seems to produce as much

product as it can sell. The easiest way to go into bankruptcy is to

forsake a loyal buyer/customer base in hopes of winning a new buyer

base away from other competitors, who in fact, are not competitors at

all. Nikon and Canon are not competitors of Leica. Remember the "New

Coke," "Classic Coke" fiasco of tens years ago? Coke totally

abandoned it's loyal base in the hope of capturing Pepsi's base by

imitating it. Coke assumed its base would be product loyal and stick

with it. Didn't work, and it cost Coke millions of dollars to learn

that lesson. Those millions would easily bankrupt Leica. It also had

the adverse effect of chasing loyal Coke clientele into the waiting

arms of Pepsi. After all, why have an imitation, when you can have

the real thing? And even today, Coke has not fully recovered from

that disastrous, and potentially dangerous business move. What you

are proposing is no different, and just as stupid.

<p>

I think Leica has shown, and continues to show Mature leadership.

After all, one doesn't stay in business as long as Leica has, through

the travails that Europe has indulged in over the last century, by

accident. Plus, they have taken a huge step to move into the digital

domain in their partnership with Panasonic. Money in the digital

domain certainly isn't in the $1000 + business, it's in the sub $1000

sales, and offering price point products that draw on Leica's

outstanding repetition for quality and expertise can only help them.

I've found it of particular interest that everyone seems to credit

Canon with providing Leica's lens in the Digilux 1. In fact, Canon

has yet to produce a lens. Canon designs lenses, but the manufacture

is totally outsourced. Much as Zeiss has done with the Contax line,

and now Leica is doing with the digital line. The Digitalux 1 is, by

all accounts a very interesting design, with the type of start up

bugs one would expect. (But for bugs, one only has to look to the

Contax N digital to see how not to do it.)

<p>

As for the demise of film, that future is still many years away.

Never before have we had such an array of outstanding films to choose

from. And such a huge base of products already in the already in

consumers hands. And, it seems, even newer and better emulsions are

brought out every year. Professionals do not drive the photography

industry, it was, is, and always will be a mass market phenomena,

much a Kodak envisioned many, many years ago.

<p>

So, personally, I consider the points made in your post a formula for

disaster. Hopefully, more rational, mature, and business savvy minds

will prevail at Leica AG.

Glenn Travis

"because of all the third world countries which will not be able to

convert to digital technology for decades to come. "

<p>

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the economics. A lot of those

third world countries were years ahead of the US in taking to cell

phones, for example, because the infrastructure was cheaper. For

similar reasons, email is getting to be a very popular means of

communication amongst those who have access to a computer.

<p>

And besides, the pockets of people unable to afford digital

photography may not be sufficient to ensure the continued production

of modern, sophisticated films. Consider for instance the old Large

Format portrait and banquet cameras. Many of them continue in use, or

tin-can replicas have been produced for use, in the poorest parts of

Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the film is no longer the beautiful old

glass plates that these South Asian family photographers used a

generation ago; instead, they use poor quality home-brewed paper

negatives...

Hello Again -this time on topic:

<p>

I have great faith in the future.

<p>

I travel extensively in Asia and deal with one of the Photo Giants in

their operations over here.

<p>

They are investing Billions in physical plant here to make film and

paper for the Asian market. I have said this before, but we

westerners who have computers and printers and other toys, see

digital as making a direct frontal attack that can not be resisted,

and if not tomorrow, then next month, all trad silver photo stuff

will disappear off the face of the earth.

<p>

No Way!! There are about 4 billion prople in the world who can not

afford a 20 dollar fixed focus modern-day Brownie, let alone a

computer outfit, who want pictures of their kids, weddings, picnics

etc. Not only a $20 camera but a $3.00 roll of film is a luxury. THAT

is what will drive the market.

<p>

Do not be surprised to see Kodak ( The A*** Company is opening a

plant in China too!) someday market film made in Kodak plants in

China or elsewhere, having closed up shop to some degree or other in

exisitng plants.

<p>

The Kodak plant I knew as a kid in Toronto, that made a full line of

cameras and film (the film right from silver, as I knew the chief

chemist) is now a warehouse and makes inkjet paper that Kodak sells

all over the world. Things change.

<p>

There are also the plants in the old USSR and east block that will

continue for decades to serve their market, and me likely, as I like

the old style of sheet film.

<p>

Whenever I hear these discussions, I'm reminded of the drivers of the

teamsters driving horse-drawn wagons decrying the advent of trucks:

what is the truck drivers'union called today? Also, when moveable

type was introduced, many monks bemoaned the loss of scholarship, for

how could anyone learn anything if they did not write books in

longhand.

<p>

I just bought a few CDs of Elizabethan and earlier music today and

all the instruments are made on the patterns of the origials, and the

performace styles are patterned after the period practices. How do we

know how a 12th century "therobist" played? Some of the instruction

manuals have survived.

<p>

I can imagine 100 yrs from now a photographer will have the contents

of Ansel Adams' " The Negative" injected into his brain by the neural

interface in his shirt computer, then rebuild a Weston Master V meter

and a few days later have a glowing silver print.

<p>

There is a strong cottage music industry thriving on 12th century

theorbos, 13th century Krumhorns, 14 th cent. rebecs, 15th cent

lutes, 16th cent citterns, 17th century violins and 18th century

horns and harpsichords, and many many people making the music with

the instruments.

<p>

I am certain there wil be a few skilled craftspersons making Leicas

and LF view cameras. A shop is open in Singapore that sells almost

exclusively new Cosina Voigtlanders- the complete range, and the

lenses are absolutely great and the bodies just as good. The 12x18

prints I saw today from the Voightlander 105, f2.4 APO Macro were

better than MF 10 years ago, thanks in parge part to the new

emulsions as well. The build quality leaves nothing behind!! Enough

rambling. I shot 2 rolls with the M6 and 35 Summi today, so I can not

be accused of not using them.

<p>

I am off to China & Japan for a month and taking the M6, 35 & 50

Summis, Konica RF c/w 3 lenses and the FM3a with the 40 mm Nikkor, 35

mm MIR and 100 mm Kalenar, and a Snapman tripod & SB 23 flash. I will

definitely post some results this time, as I will need critiques,

slings & arrows.

<p>

Cheers

Yes, I agree with most of Richard's ideas.

<p>

And besides that, I happen to be 55 so I don`t care; I won't outlive

film. This is not more than a theoretical subject for me.

<p>

But the trains story was interesting and educative all the same.

Thanks, François.

<p>

Regards

<p>

-Iván

I feel that, as others do, the confusion lies in how much Leica

wants to compete against Nikon/Canon, etc. I don't think they do.

I think Leica has been, and is (and knows it is) a company building

for a niche market. Just as Rolex or Patek Phillipe is not

competing against Timex or Seiko, Leica is not trying to compete

against the 'majors'. They're customer base has not been for a long

time the hardened pro, the shooter who will switch to digital

because it is cost efficent or time saving. Their customers are

collectors (no matter how much we make fun of 'em, they spend a lot

of money), lovers of fine equipment, and artists who appreciate the

quality of the cameras and the look of conventional materials. I

completely agree with Glen, and will use an example a little more in

line with cameras. A few years back Rolex decided to jump on the

quartz bandwagon. They lost lots of cash and alienated a lot of

customers who saw the end of Rolex as a 'quality' watchmaker written

on the walls. The years following the quartz fiasco were Rolex's

toughest, though they bounced back. Like Rolex, Leica's customer

base is not one built on people who always weigh things like work-

flow and up-to date specs into the equation, but more on 'timeless

perfection'.

FPW -- your steam analogy is just plain silly whether applied to

leica specifically or silver-based photography generally. the steam

trains were competing in a commodity industry. all that mattered to

their customers was the $$ per lb-mile cost. the quaint factor was

meaningless. by contrast, the majority of leica m users buy the

cameras (and arew illing to pay thru the nose for them) for

irrational reasons (love the feel, the look, the history, etc.).

they do not engage in cost/benefit analysis. a good analogy here is

sailboat. before the mid-nineteenth century, all goods were shipped

by sail. as soon as cheaper, faster steamboats came along, sail-

driven cargo vessels vanished. however, their demise did nothing to

hinder the recreational sailing industry. indeed, you mite argue

that it is sailboats' obsolence as a commercial shipping medium that

lies at the heart of their appeal. as for the comparison of steam to

silver photography, the comparison is closer but still no good.

business must adopt cost-saving innovations quickly or get

slaughtered by their competitors. again, with sailboats: when steam

came along it wiped out sail shipping in a decade (for the most

part). the vast vast majority of photographers are amateurs to whom

cost, etc. is not a decisive factor. they can afford to make chnge

gradually. indeed, making change gradually is the way most humans

like to do it. film will be around for a while. it may go

eventually, but not in the working lifetime of a 30-something leica

user.

OT - Sorry about this, but I really hate when people mentioned about

SUMMI<br>

It does tell you NOTHING at all....

HAns;

<p>

OT

<p>

On this thread there seem to be accepted abreviaitions for familiar

objects like SUMMIcron, summiLUX, summiCRON. It seems to tell many

people all they need to know. Jargon/argot/cant-use whatever term you

wish- it is all language common to a particular group of

practitioners of the same art. A doctor will talk about BP, TURP, D&C

etc. and not draw criticism from his/her peers. IMHO FWIW LOL

<p>

Cheers

Yes, but some weeks ago we had that argument whether 'Summi' refers to

Summicron or Summilux.</p>I'd rather agree with Roger than with

François, i.e. IMHO the sailboat vs. steamboat analogy is closer to

the actual situation of rangefinder cameras today and, as far as we

may speculate, tomorrow. (Heck, I've written my masters' thesis paper

on eschatology.) Currently we see the first deep sea-capable

"steamboats" while the tea clippers are running ciurcles around

them.</p>A modern deep sea-capable yacht has about the same area of

canvas as an 18th century trade vessel.<br>Dhows and djunks are still

around.<br>Wooden recreational boats are en vogue again; they are a

PITA in maintenance, yes, but there's "so much more character in them"

than in those fibreglass boats...<br>But the last attempts at

modernised wind propulsion systems (anyone heard of Flettner rotors?)

were given up for good in the 1920ies.</p>I'm sorry to destroy your

confidence in the "third world" making sure film will be around for a

long, long time. Last week my parish got mail from a parish in

Guayaquil, Ecuador, which we occasionally support. Contents of the

envelope: a letter and three digitally taken photographs showing the

parish school's new computer lab.

Glenn, Canon certainly produce lenses in the Utsunomiya factory:

http://www.canon.com/about/group/list.html

Bob writes:

<p>

>> I feel that, as others do, the confusion lies in how much Leica

wants to compete against Nikon/Canon, etc. <<

<p>

Bob, I really don�t care what Leica wants today or not and my point

is not related to Nikon or Canon either. Neither Nikon nor Canon are

producing SFRF� Others are and not major brands of camera makers.

<p>

First point in case: is the small format rangefinder camera still a

valuable TOOL for a photographer? My answer is yes.

<p>

Second point in case is Leica M today the best possible tool to

seduce the potential customers of such a camera, knowing the built-

in limitations of the formula and its logical practical

applications? My answer is definitely NO.

<p>

Third point in case is Leica still keeping the same share of the

market it has (share not number of unit sailed). My answer is NO.

<p>

Fourth point in case: within a foreseeable future, will the

remaining customer potential be sufficient to maintain Leica

operational? My answer is NO unless it becomes a strictly luxury

item with no practical advantage justifying to buy it. And then will

the potential of customers be sufficient to maintain it either? My

answer is VERY DOUBTFUL because you don�t wear a Leica the way you

wear a Rollex or a Patek-Phillipe which looks more like a jewel than

anything else and hardly a fraction of potential luxury customers

will be interested enough to want a Leica M.

<p>

To sum it up I doubt Leica has a sufficient potential market to stay

alive with only snobs as customers. Proof of that Leica Camera AG is

still constantly in the red today�

<p>

>> I don't think they do. I think Leica has been, and is (and knows

it is) a company building for a niche market. <<

<p>

To have a �niche market� is something which could be fine but to

restrain the potential each year as they do is not conducive to

longevity either�

<p>

>> Just as Rolex or Patek Phillipe is not competing against Timex or

Seiko, Leica is not trying to compete against the 'majors'. They're

customer base has not been for a long time the hardened pro, the

shooter who will switch to digital because it is cost efficient or

time saving. <<

<p>

When their customers has been the �hardened pros� Leica (then Leitz)

has never been in the red� This is a FACT� Hardened pros and

seasoned amateurs are a niche market but much more numerous and

addicted than the �snob� market who has a lot of different products

in a lot of less technical domain to satisfy their ego (even in LVMH

group product range: everybody needs luggage and snobs will be

satisfied to show their �Louis Vuitton�s� ones, hardly a small

number will want a Leica M).

<p>

>> Their customers are collectors (no matter how much we make fun

of 'em, they spend a lot of money),<<

<p>

Real collectors will look for oldies not for the last special series

M, only collectors-investors will be interested : remember the craze

about old cars as investment some years ago and what resulted in the

end ? They may spend a lot of money but it is doubtful it will ever

be sufficient to make Leica Camera AG a profitable branch�

<p>

>> lovers of fine equipment, and artists who appreciate the quality

of the cameras and the look of conventional materials. <<

<p>

Fine equipment, as far as leica M system is concerned is limited to

the lenses today (still the best and going fine for this department

is useful to other branches of Leica and investments are sufficient:

Leica lens production was effectively modernized by the way. I don�t

consider anything produced after the M5 as a real high quality body.

If you omit the red dot on a M7 and compare it in all fairness to an

Hexar RF with no pre-conceived bias, you will hardly find anything

better built or assembled on the M body. With modern production

tools you�ll have no problem producing and assembling a mass

produced item better and more regularly than a hand crafted one. We

are no more in the 60�s or the 70�s�

<p>

>> I completely agree with Glen, and will use an example a little

more in line with cameras. A few years back Rolex decided to jump on

the quartz bandwagon. They lost lots of cash and alienated a lot of

customers who saw the end of Rolex as a 'quality' watchmaker written

on the walls. The years following the quartz fiasco were Rolex's

toughest, though they bounced back. <<

<p>

I think to compare something which is BOTH a jewel and an everyday

TOOL for anybody to something which is by destination a TOOL for an

amateur or a professional is not relevant. If you want to be

different than the common people (in one word: a snob) you�ll

probably be a customer for a such a watch as everybody needs a watch

and bear it everyday. It is hardly the case for a camera� So the

comparative means nothing IMHO.

<p>

>> Like Rolex, Leica's customer base is not one built on people who

always weigh things like work- flow and up-to date specs into the

equation, but more on 'timeless perfection'. <<

<p>

A watch be it mechanical or quartz is a watch, nothing more nothing

less and provided it gives you the time when required functionally

who cares� The fact is the built-in limitations of a present M body

precludes to use the original concept to its utmost capabilities, so

to say it is a �timeless perfection� is nothing but illusion. How

long this illusion will be a relevant argument for sales is

something nobody can forecast but the more the new direct

competitors of Leica will produce technically better and cheaper

alternatives, the less it will influence the potential customers. As

I don�t think the customers you describe, Bob, are numerous enough

to be a real market, even a niche one.

<p>

Roger writes

<p>

>> FPW -- your steam analogy is just plain silly whether applied to

leica specifically or silver-based photography generally. the steam

trains were competing in a commodity industry. all that mattered to

their customers was the $$ per lb-mile cost. <<

<p>

What you seem not to understand Roger is like for the steam

locomotives, the absence of an element (some pumps and other

apparatus for steam locomotives, silver halide film for a

traditional camera) will totally wreck the capabilities of a piece

of engineering to work� And it is not the small market described by

Bob in its post which will preclude the film to disappear, not in

short terms but in middle terms (15 to 20 years as far as one can

guess).

<p>

>> the quaint factor was meaningless. by contrast, the majority of

leica m users buy the cameras (and are willing to pay thru the nose

for them) for irrational reasons (love the feel, the look, the

history, etc.).<<

<p>

This market is IMHO much too limited to permit a brand to survive.

Advanced camera users are already a limited market, between them

snobs and collectors-investors are a very small minority� As for the

real collectors second hand market is fully sufficient to satisfy

their needs for years� The quaint argument is only a plus in a

specialized tool market and a camera is a specialized tool prior to

be a fashionable gadget�

<p>

>> they do not engage in cost/benefit analysis.<<

<p>

It is not a question of cost/profit analysis (by the way as long as

it was possible to use them N&W �modern� steam was competitive,

another factor contributing to the steam demise there was the

smaller older models necessary to exploit the lines which were not

is the same cost effective line). It is a question of sheer utility

as the user�s market is the only one which is really able to make

Leica M line survive or not.

<p>

>> a good analogy here is sailboat. before the mid-nineteenth

century, all goods were shipped by sail. as soon as cheaper, faster

steamboats came along, sail- driven cargo vessels vanished. however,

their demise did nothing to hinder the recreational sailing

industry. indeed, you mite argue that it is sailboats' obsolence as

a commercial shipping medium that lies at the heart of their appeal.

as for the comparison of steam to silver photography, the comparison

is closer but still no good. business must adopt cost-saving

innovations quickly or get slaughtered by their competitors. again,

with sailboats: when steam came along it wiped out sail shipping in

a decade (for the most part). the vast vast majority of

photographers are amateurs to whom cost, etc. is not a decisive

factor. they can afford to make change gradually. indeed, making

change gradually is the way most humans like to do it. film will be

around for a while. it may go eventually, but not in the working

lifetime of a 30-something leica user. <<

<p>

What you seem to overlook is the fact the amateur market (not the

very, very small �Leica-mateurs�market�) is already going to

digital �en masse�� Because the real amateur market is the �cheapo�

buyer �by excellence� and not a single silver based cheapo is likely

today to run a lot more than 5 years� Do you really believe their

next buy will be a silver based point and shoot camera? And then how

many customers will remain for silver based films? Even the somewhat

advanced market of cheapo reflex SLR�s is going for a five to ten

years lease only today� Very few people are concerned today by a 30

or 40 year plus duration for a camera. And less and less people will

be as the generations used to such kind of goods will fade away. Do

you really think (and moreover with the more and more stringent

environmental control) the film production will continue as soon as

it will have no more practical use�

<p>

The third world countries argument is pointless here, just look how

fast the prices in the computer technology is going down ? � A

sailboat needs only the wind to operate and wind there is as always,

a classic camera will need film which as a human production is

liable to be discontinued.

<p>

Friendly.

<p>

François P. WEILL

How many members of this forum buy NEW gear?

<p>

Perhaps Leica should consider buying back used and/or damaged gear,

refurbishing and then reselling. The car manufacturers do so.

Certain watch maufacturers do too.

After all the above, I'll just say that I've been surprised to see

many PJ's using Leicas or Voigtlander Bessa R's in combination with

Canon or Nikon AF cameras. A few even use nothing but Leica - but

they are a very tiny minority. But many people still have a Leica M6

round their necks all the time, even in conflict zones (I certainly

do, with 24/2.8 attached and prefocussed). So I think most working

snappers would see the M6 or 7 as an adjunct to their slr gear for

special uses. If Leica can continue to convince them of their

viability, then the M's will still probably be around for a while.

Dear Rob,

<p>

I think it is just THAT kind of customers which should be targeted

by Leica...

<p>

People knowing the practical advantages of a SFRF as a complement

(or sometimes the main gear with an SLR complement, be it a 35 mm

one or a medium format SLR)...

<p>

These customers are really professionals or seasoned amateurs, they

are liable to be more numerous if they feel they have all the

possible technical advantages they can wait for nowadays and at a

fair price...

<p>

I think though they are a "niche market" in themselves they are

numerous enough to secure a brighter future to leica M system than

the snobs...

<p>

It would be however less and less possible for Leica to convince

people like these ones to buy something which doesn't really offer

any real advantage whiule you can buy now a more or less equivalent

camera for at least half the price of the original and still use the

same lenses...

<p>

Friendly.

<p>

François P. WEILL

Francois, maybe you hang out with a different Leica user but here

are some facts (statistically Leica will tell you this pretty much

holds true worldwide). I work for the largest indepentdent photo

dealer in Western Canada. We do business worldwide via the internet

and are based in a city of 750000. I can count as my customers a

Life Magazine shooter based out of NY (a personal friend, otherwise

I'm sure he'd shop in NY), a couple of Rueters shooters, a couple of

McLeans shooters (Canada's version of Time magazine), etc. I sell

quite a bit of Leica. On average (and this has held true for the

last 10-15 years) 1, maybe 2 shooters out of 10 using Leica are pro

or semi pro and use their Leicas for serious work. Most are

amatuers, both serious shooters and collectors, plus a few pro who

purchased Leicas strictly as their personal cameras to use for their

own shooting. These 8 out of 10 people bought Leica sole because of

what it is, not what it isn't. I think Leica knows very well what

it's market is.

first, let me apologize for using the word "silly." i should have

proofread my reply -- i didn't mean to sound arch. needless to say,

FPW is too much of a gentleman to have complained (or responded in

kind). your posts, francois, are always very interesting to read. as

to your replies, i will add the following: (1) if spare parts is

your concern, there ar two things to consider. to return to my

economic model, the steam engine maintennace had to be economical for

the company to stay in business in a commidity environment. there are

no such constraints on leica m owners. (obviously not, when

people are paying more for a cla than the cost of a midlevel

SLR). virtually every MECAHNICAL part on an manual m can be custom

machined if necessary (albeit at a cost). in addition, there are

literally millions and millions of Ms out there to serve as parts

cameras for the forseeable future. there were not millions and

millions of steam engines sitting around for that purpose. now the m7

is a different story. i think there is every chance that it will be

an orphan in 20 years (like the CLE -- and that was a MINOLTA [i.e.

huge profitable co.] product). however, that amortizes to abot $100

per year, and i'm happy with that. now, concerning your second point,

market size, i really think that leica can survive as a niche mfr.

there is never going to be a return to the glory days when leica was a

true, widely-used professional camera. if the company adjusts its

business model, i believe that it can sell five to ten thousand bodies

a year, triple that in lenses, and stay profitable at that level.

indeed, once digital becomes pandemic, i think its luddite niche is

likely to become even more solid for a decade or so. after that, who

knows.

I liked the sailboat analogy, but the analogy that's much closer is

musical instruments. One thing that's different between photographers

and musicians, is that you'd never hear a musician castigate another

musician for discussing gear. Musicians love their instruments.

<p>

Especially in electronic music, there's numerous parallels: Japanese

manufacturers have switched to digital instruments and would never

consider putting analog back into production; Professional and serious

amateur users have to buy instruments that are designed for the mass

market hobbyists; and venerable names like Moog continue to make, and

command a premium price for, "obsolete" analog instruments. Moog would

die if they switched to digital, and the world would suffer a sad

loss.

<p>

Along different lines, if I attend an event with my rather large

extended family, probably 80% of those folks are taking family

snapshots. Not a scientific cross section, but to me they represent

the mass market for photography, which will ultimately decide if film

will disappear. Exactly one of those folks as got a digital camera,

and recently supplemented it with a 35mm P&S after the novelty wore

off and the battery demands became too onerous.

<p>

Again, this isn't a scientific survey, but these are typical mass

market people for whom the difference in image quality between digital

and film isn't even an issue. I'm convinced that film will continue to

be the primary medium for quite a long time.

<p>

Joe

Bob,

<p>

You write

<p>

>> � On average (and this has held true for the last 10-15 years) 1,

maybe 2 shooters out of 10 using Leica are pro or semi pro and use

their Leicas for serious work. Most are amateurs, both serious

shooters and collectors, plus a few pro who purchased Leicas

strictly as their personal cameras to use for their own shooting.

These 8 out of 10 people bought Leica sole because of what it is,

not what it isn't. I think Leica knows very well what it's market

is. <<

<p>

And I have no doubt this is true! � But for me, as a user of a SFRF

I know so well the advantages of this formula I think (whatever will

be in the future the kind of method used to record the image in

the �box�) it is a pity� My conviction is these advantages can be

valued to such a point the interest of many professional and

seasoned amateurs who are presently reluctant to buy a 35mm

rangefinder camera as a complement to their SLR system (be it a 35

mm or MF one) and the problem is cost/efficiency ratio. As an Hexar

RF user (but mostly with Leica lenses) I think I have a much better

cost/efficiency ratio than with a M7.

<p>

I will probably accept to save for an eventual M8 at the present

price of the M7 if it has a manual + spot metering / AE + matrix

metering combination, a modern high speed shutter with a high speed

real flash sync. with TTL metering at 1/250th of a second and a

loading system which will be both a fast and efficient one and

compatible to an eventual conversion to a digital high definition

back in the future. I know many people around me who will certainly

do the same. But to pay a mostly 50 year old technology (mostly

amortized) the price of a high end reflex SLR is too much for me and

for them.

<p>

I must add that when you compare the prices of the best lenses

available and knowing the Leica lenses are still retaining a real

edge versus the ones from their competitors, the price to pay this

edge should be considered on the contrary relatively fair. Leica

lenses for the quality they bring are not so expensive. But if you

compare the price of more or less technologically similar (but for

the fact it is an SLR) Nikon FM3A body and the one of an M body

there is no way you can have the same feeling�

<p>

My conclusions remain unchanged: Leica for failure to invest in

modern production technology is unable to market whether a high end

rangefinder camera which can justify the present retail price or

lower its body prices. As long it remained the only company in

business to produce a SFRF which can use their wonder lenses, they

could hope to barely stay afloat. Nowadays they are facing an all

new situation they never faced: cheaper (and not �cheapo�) cameras

with about the same capabilities, including the use of their own

lenses. If tomorrow Konica issues simply a magnifier (like the one

issued by Leica) for their Hexar RF, all the lenses in the present

Leica M range will become usable at full aperture (which is the main

shortcoming of the Hexar today). If they build an Hexar RF2 with

1/250th of a second TTL flash, more silent mechanism and cut the

small shutter lag and introduce a variable magnification finder they

have an M7 killer. If they introduce by the way matrix metering in

auto mode they�ll literally kill Leica itself. So Leica must react

now if they want to survive as camera body makers�

<p>

Roger,

<p>

Believe it or not, to reproduce any part of the Leica M series in a

commercial shop will be a patent violation. In fact it is exactly

the same problem once faced by the N&W with such externally built

parts I referred to in my original post. And N&W found uneconomical

to pay the royalties to produce these parts in their own shops

despite the fact they have the integrated means to do so. Personally

I still mourn my defunct M5 (probably the camera I liked the best)

BUT I was forced to do so as the cost of its repair was equivalent

to a mint second hand one� It was not economical to repair it.

<p>

Anyway my concern is not spare parts in the Leica case. My concern

(which is not for a near future) is for any classic camera� As long

as you need the production of something from a third party and here

you need 35 mm films, you are vulnerable.

<p>

We cannot determine when film will disappear, but it is clear it

WILL (like the wet collodion process and the glass plates)� This

will by no mean be the end of photography, just another evolution of

it. Leica is trying to enter the new business but, see the thread on

the Digilux on the board, they are failing to reach their target�

The only way they have to enter the new era and survive is to

prepare now the conversion to high definition digital technology

(Hasselblad is following that path since the very beginning). The

best way to do so is to conceive and produce a silver halide film

body and lenses combo on which only switching the backs will provide

a way to convert them to the new technology as it will convince

people to invest in them, knowing their investment will not be

ruined.

<p>

You write:

<p>

>> � now the m7 is a different story. i think there is every chance

that it will be an orphan in 20 years (like the CLE -- and that was

a MINOLTA [i.e. huge profitable co.] product).<<

<p>

The main problem with the M7 is to have retained what was

justifiable in the classic M6 mechanical body: a 50 year plus

shutter with a slow actual sync. speed and an awkward loading

procedure as in fact a M6 was more or less a direct amelioration of

the M4. And by the way to have kept the price so high with

something �well seated between two chairs� as we put in France.

An �electronic M� should have been something really different: a

user�s camera while the M6, still in production, would have remained

the epitome of the classic camera� So I agree for the �orphan� but

not for the delay imparted� You are completely missing the Hexar RF

here� The same without red dot but at half its price� The CLE

relative success was due to its price not its performances. Should

it had a broad effective rangefinder base and a manual option to use

its meter it would have cut the sales of M4-2 and M4-P.

<p>

>> however, that amortizes to about $100 per year, and I'm happy

with that. <<

<p>

Roger, it seems many M7 owners are happy with their purchase� Some

are even discovering that the �awful battery dependence� and

this �horrible brain killing device� : the AE mode, are not such

liabilities as some diehards have said. But sorry my poor budget

does not authorize me to buy a M7� It happens I�m very satisfied

with my Hexar RF body + second hand Leica lenses� And I don�t think

there�s a lot of situations the built-in shortcomings of my humble

Hexar RF will be a real problem in actual life� Call me an heretic

if you want �

<p>

>> Now, concerning your second point, market size, i really think

that leica can survive as a niche mfr. there is never going to be a

return to the glory days when leica was a true, widely-used

professional camera.<<

<p>

I certainly do not pretend they can be at the same place as before.

Since the late 60�s 35mm SLR�s became as fast and in most situations

as useful as SFRF cameras and they are able to handle much longer

lenses and be used in macro-photography too� In a sense they are

more versatile. One of our estimated participant: Noah, once wrote

and I tend to agree with him they can do the same as SFRF in 80% of

the situations (I suppose within the same focal length range). But

still in 20% of these situations a SFRF performs better. If you

admit very few photographers actually use long tele-lenses very

often, and a medium format SLR potentially permits you much better

macro-imaging, we can safely say the SFRF is finally a better answer

to a quest to maximize the small format capabilities and a 35mm SLR

(moreover the big modern all integrated all automated AF ones)

finally a more specialized kind of body, worthy only for long tele-

lens action photography. So I�m much more confident on the

possibility of a major come back of SFRF than you are. I simply

think it must not have a price which is beyond any kind of

justification for what it actually brings in the field of

technology.

<p>

>> if the company adjusts its business model, i believe that it can

sell five to ten thousand bodies a year, triple that in lenses, and

stay profitable at that level. <<

<p>

Unfortunately, since years it tried to do so it has never succeeded�

Leica Cameras AG is continuously in the red�

<p>

>> indeed, once digital becomes pandemic, i think its luddite niche

is likely to become even more solid for a decade or so. after that,

who knows. <<

<p>

I don�t think so because it has competitors in the niche now (your

assumption was true before)�

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

Joe writes :

<p>

>> I liked the sailboat analogy, but the analogy that's much closer

is musical instruments. One thing that's different between

photographers and musicians, is that you'd never hear a musician

castigate another musician for discussing gear. Musicians love their

instruments. <<

<p>

Dear Joe, what seems to be difficult to make understood is would it

be a bottle of Coke, a sailboat or a classic music instrument, these

are self contained devices. Once they are produced they don�t need

anything else to be used. The Coke bottle once, the other items each

time you�ll want to use them. Now, when you use a classic camera,

you need something which is called FILM� As long as you�ll have it

is fine, but if you can�t find a roll anymore, your magnificent

traditional marvel is simply a piece of junk metal and glass.

<p>

Something which definitely rules out any comparative such as this

one.

<p>

The fact this situation is liable to occur in a relatively distant

future only proves you can safely buy a silver based film camera

today if you want maximum quality in the result. But to use as an

argument this camera will last 40 years plus is IMHO completely

irrelevant� Nobody can forecast today the exact date but considering

at which speed digital technology is progressing and how fast this

technology reaches lower prices I consider very doubtful I�ll end my

life (if I die of a natural cause) before the film will be a thing

of the past (and I�m 48). At best it will be gone within the next 20

years or so�

<p>

Analog instruments provided they give you a different sound (for

whatever technical reason) or (and) are more pleasing to use by the

musicians and are not dependant on a third party liable to disappear

to operate are totally different things.

<p>

But to take the part of your comparative which is nearer to the

Leica M problem, the �sound� of the M is given mainly by the lenses

and the RF concept, not the body. Read carefully the posts of our

friends, M7 owners, they are discovering the AE mode and battery

dependence are not impairing their capabilities on the contrary to

what some diehards Leica fundamentalists said. Some even discover

they can do BETTER pictures with these features than before.

Surprise! It is possible to use more modern technology in a M

without spoiling the results! � So goes down the myth of the

necessarily all manual, all mechanical M�

<p>

As to people getting tired of digital cameras and coming back to

silver based P&S It is by no mean a scientific survey� We have the

general statistics on the market and the share of silver based

cameras is constantly dwindling each year� The only serious argument

against digital cameras is the quality is still inferior to what a

film can bring. And this argument concerns mainly advanced amateurs

and pros. Not the average customer, by far the more numerous and the

real hardcore of film consumers.

<p>

How long will the film last ? Who knows? But the switch to digital

is already set and there will be no come back.

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François P. WEILL

FPW -- i doubt if any of the basic component parts -- screws, gears,

bits of metal -- are themselves patented. the overall device is what

the patent covers. you can't patent basic mechanical parts unless

there is something very unique about them. even if these items were

subject to patent protection, no machine shop would worry about

fabricating them and leica would never prosecute such duplication to

repair an otherwise unrepairable item (the premise is the leica can't

supply the part). and as i said before, a parts camera or two is all

you need to keep an old leica going anyway. don't know what was

wrong with your m5, but it COULD have been fixed at some price. as

for film, it will be around for a long time. think how few people

use 8x10 sheet film (a few thousand -- maybe ten to fifteen)

worldwide, and yet it is still widely available from suppliers large

and small. how many years until 35mm demand dwindles to such low

levels -- twenty, thirty ?? film is not that hard to make -- a

number of small firms make their own stock -- you don't need a giant

like kodak to support the industry. you mention some 18th century

emulsions in your last post as examples of things that have gone by

the boards. it may surprise you to learn that places lie the

photographers formulary still can supply these old materials.

indeed, with the onset of digital they are more popular than ever.

bottom line: it will be a long time 'till 35mm film diaappears.

even when it does people will be able to freeze their own stocks that

will last ten years or more (i recently used some deep freeze tri-x

for a banquet camera that had a 1981 expiration date. the fog base

was higher than usual, but it still worked). stop worrying about

film!!! it will be here until you're grey. heck -- several million

film ased cameras were sold just last year.