Rant...Why?

The Rant:

 

 

Cannon and Nikon seem to be able to introduce an improved version of a camera in six to twelve months, and they

have several lines with different levels of sophistication. The low-end sells, the Prosumer sells and the

professional models all sell. Why can't Leica bring out “an affordable” model (M-2 ish) and an M-8-x

flagship?

 

 

 

There are full-frame detectors exceeding 12 MP (with 22MP full frame 35mm equivalent not far off) in cameras

with no significant technological problems. The problems of the M-8 have been addressed and resolved

elsewhere...why can't Leica do any of this?

 

 

 

High quality, high-speed glass is a Leica hallmark, but when the sensitive medium can simply be dialed up to ISO

64,000 and more, developing a 50mm f/0.95 seems to be a waste of resources. Cannon made a 50mm 0.95 for the SP

in the ‘70s. How big a deal can it be now to work up a lens to this specification with modern computers and

modern glass formulations?

 

 

 

Ok, Rant over…I’m holding my M-3 and I'm better now.

Canon is a much, much larger company than Leica, with enormous resources for R&D.

 

Let's face it, Cannon is a big gun.

 

;)

[[Let's face it, Cannon is a big gun. ]]

 

Har!

Why???...I remember reading about 5 years back, when there was real talk of bankruptcy at Lieca that Canon sold in a day what Leica sells in over a year.

 

Pretty much says it all.

Another telling statistic. Canon has 118,499 employees, and Leica Camera AG has 1013 employees. (Sourced from

Fortune's website for Canon and Leica's annual report).

"Another telling statistic. Canon has 118,499 employees,"

 

But I bet the number who work on the camera related components of Canon, Inc is well under 10,000, possbly under 5,000.

 

But Nikon and Canon's photography related business is much, much larger than Leica's. Size has its advantages.

This NYT photographer really, really, feels your pain: http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

Canon and Nikon can amortize the research and development over a much larger number of cameras, so the R&D cost per unit is low. Leica has to pay off R&D in the revenue from each unit.

 

Canon and Nikon can afford custom integrated circuits in their cameran like the DIGIC III. Every chip in the M8 is off-the-shelf. (Look at the M8 teardown story on the web.) Off-the-shelf chips have extra wasted functionality, thus much higher cost per unit than a custom chip.

 

That said, certainly at Nikon the "professional" cameras may be a money loser, and are there just to bolster their corporate reputation. Their reputation increases the sales of the "consumer" cameras. Nikon's real core business is semiconductor manufacturing equipment, photo lithography steppers. But it's very cyclical, so the camera business is a nice cash flow buffer.

 

Both Nikon and Canon have at times reconsidered whether the professional camera business is worth it.

"Ford seems to be able to introduce an improved version of a car in six to twelve months, and they have several lines (49, actually) with different levels of sophistication. The low-end sells, the family sedan sells and the luxury models all sell. Why can't Lamborghini bring out “an affordable” model and a flagship?"

 

Company size?

 

[no implication as to relative quality of Ford, Lambo, Nikon or Leica...just company size and range of models]

Why is it a good thing to bring out constantly changing models that are superseded virtually the moment they appear on the market? IMO

better to have just a few models and concentrate on perfecting them. Less is more. Quality not quantity. I agree about affordability.

Both Canon and Nikon produce cameras that large numbers of people want to buy and can afford to buy. That's why the companies are large. Being large, in and of itself, is no guarantee of success. Remember General Motors?

"certainly at Nikon the "professional" cameras may be a money loser, and are there just to bolster their corporate reputation. "

 

I've heard that said of Canon, which is a huge electronics company, but never of Nikon where optics and imaging is their core business, whether it is cameras, lenses, microscopes or the devices used to make electronic circuits ( Canon is a Nikon customer in that field BTW).

Leica has to do what they can on a limited R&D budget.

 

The latest rumors are that they are going to bring out the M8-2, a 21mm Lux, a 24mm Lux, a slower 24mm, and the new 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux.

 

Not too shabby.

This thread has so far ignored the differences in the technological problems in an M camera vs an SLR. From what I understand, these

differences are can be quite large so it may not all be down to company size. The requirements of an M sensor and the M lens line is

very different from an SLR, making comparisons between them difficult.

 

Differences in bayonet geometry, angular sensitivity (e.g. for wide angle lenses) etc create problems that may not yet have a solution.

It's not clear that existing high-resolution sensors would perform well at all in an M due to these factors. Problems like vignetting and

color dispersion (and probably a host of other problems) would likely result b/c of the shallow angles created in the M mount with wide

angle lenses. I'm sure one of our forum members can expound on this at length. Yes?

 

The suggestion that one can simply dial up the sensitivity means that a .95 is a waste of resources may not be accurate. Perhaps as

Drew suggested, improving from f1 to f.95 is easy, or fits easily due to changes in formulae. Consider instead that Leica may have

spent enormous effort and vast sums of money on this tiny change. That seems pretty dumb, doesn't it? Unless they project significant

ROI on this one product, I'm guessing is they wouldn't exhaust their R&D on it. That is, assuming they are really building an f.95 at all,

which is yet to be seen.

 

I secretly hope its true so some used f1.0's come up for sale.

 

-Ramy

So far nobody has brought out a digi rangefinder except Leica and Epson which is now out of production.

 

The DMR was outstanding but the chip supplier required a larger volumn than Leica could afford all at one time so now that is out of production. This is what happens when you depend on outside suppliers which is what a small company must do when going from analog to digital.

 

I think they are making to big a deal of this. How hard can it be to make a reflex with a purchased chip? Yes there are technical demands for a RF that are difficult and I think they should make a cheaper one using M8 sensor and a plastic covered body like Nikon uses. We are not buying a 50 year camera here. The world has changed and technology dictates a 5 year product life. They would sell gobs at $1500 with a M mount.

 

They just got to get over the built for generations mentality. Until they produce an affordable camera, they will suffer.

 

I read a 21 1.4 24 1.4 and some other fancy optics are going to be made. I am sure they will be nice, but not necessary for most photogs. An affordable decent body is. In the meantime, my Nikon collection grows.

 

Good luck Herr Kaufmann.

Every one: Thanks for helping me understand the limitations of leica.

Ronald, I think you rightly point out that Leica knows how to build great lenses, but doesn't seem to have the same expertise in keeping up with modern cameras. I think they need to figure out how to leverage their expertise, even if it means they let someone else outfit the digital guts of their M cameras.

"C/N are into producing cameras for photographers. Not so for Leica."

 

Then what is a photographer like yourself even doing here but 'spoiling the party', really? What point are you trying to make? That no one using a Leica can possibly be a photographer?

 

If it's real, I agree, the 0.95 noct. is fairly useless these days, at any price.

I am actually amazed Leica managed to put out the M8 at all. None of the above explanations means anything to

the consumer and why should it? If Leica can't bring a competitive camera to market then there are other options

including oursourcing and rebranding. Those lenses are top notch though and I would like to be able to have Leica

lenses to buy whether I can afford them or not so hope they are making the right moves.

>>> If it's real, I agree, the 0.95 noct. is fairly useless these days, at any price.

 

Which supports my original comment. Thank you.

Leica knows its core competancy and this is where it will remain. To lower its production cost it would have to increase production volume and sales, which is more than Leica is prepared to tackle. To use the oft used Rolex example: With its elite brand, Rolex could sell mass production to the masses, but, then, it would seize to be Rolex as we know it.ditto Leica.

Some of the best photographers I know still use or want to use Leicas, film or M8. So whatever Leica is doing with their

limited edition BS etc, their cameras are still viable for specific reasons. I had a guy who owns a 5D, Sigma and an M8 tell

me he likes the sensor on the M8 best of any of them, and he does pretty decent work. And he's not the only one. Different strokes for

different folks. I don't have the camera so I don't pass judgement.

 

If Canon is so interested in making cameras for photographers, why don't they suck it up and come out with a good digital

rangefinder that beats the M8? Some of us would love it, but maybe the endeavor wouldn't be profitable enough for them.

I don't see Bruce Gilden toting a Canon or Nikon dslr around. Why is that?

The major issue for all companies now is a matter of continuous expansion of technology and proprietary software and

hardware. Kodak in the film days was able to standardize everyone on the 35mm cartridge. You could for the most part take

the same shot with a top pro and lwo-end film camera, and no one would be the wiser, especially if you used the same lens

(my old AE1 compared well to my F1N, picture for picture, highlight and shadow, night or day shooting). Now with digital, until

another sort of Kodak standardization comes along (same chip for everyone and avery camera) the difference is what chip

and hardware is used in the camera. Every camera introduced is already superceeded by one in the last stages of R&D.

The only caveat will be when the technology reaches maturity, and the differences become minor. However, technology

being what it is I'm not sure if that will happen any time soon, if ever. Standarization has both good and bad ramifications. It

levels the playing field more but mostly by holding the best cameras back from achieving more.

I firmly believe Canon and Nikon are capable of introducing film and digital rangefinders that compete well on all fronts with any

current Leica in terms of optical and mechanical quality. They did so in the past and can do so again. The problem is how the

modern major corporation is run. No single champion exists who would be the equivalent of a Mr. Kobayashi at Cosina. CEOs

are replaced based solely on monetary performance of the company stock. It would take a champion at the CEO level to

achieve this, and then he would be looking over his shoulder for the axe to fall. There are problems of justifying the total budget

for such a camera system and expected sales to a small market of devotees. I still say Leica needs to follow the example of

Alpa and stay small and produce uncompromising cameras. They are currently fishing in a lake that will killl them.