Sunday afternoon musings: Leica's ability to conquer the future

[Karim Ghantous]

If I'm concerned for Leica's future, it's not because of specific

products such as the DMR or the lack of a digital M. There is a deeper

reason: pre-war and post-war thinking. (Disclaimer: I'm not a

materials expert so I hope those who know about this stuff can forgive

that and try to get the point I'm making).

 

I'm all for reliability and durability. With my car tools and my

cameras I prefer precision and accuracy, even if the cost is a little

on the high side. But someone at a tool shop said to me last year that

the cheaper, Chinese made drill bits are probably a better bet than

the more expensive, very well made English bits. Or at least this will

be the case soon.

 

Pre-war, it was steel, brass and glass. Post-war it's all polymers and

even ceramics (or course there's overlap: British aircraft used

Perspex for canopies). The mentality of pre-war thinking is

long-lasting, precision - cost naturally comes with that. The best way

to get precision and durability and reliability was to use materials

like brass and so on. They have the advantage of giving long-life. And

they're sexy. (Yeah, materials can be sexy).

 

The antithesis of that is cheap, high-tolerance, short-life, almost

disposable products. You wouldn't use cheap and nasty cylinder head

bolts, but you are happy to use cheap, disposable pens and pencils. So

for some things you need the old philosophy, for some things you don't

want it as it just gets in the way.

 

So can Leica discard that pre-war mentality where appropriate? On the

Nikon forums someone commented that the polymer shell of the

(admitedly very ordinary) FM10 was far better than a metal one as it

would resist impact better (it is 'springy' and won't dent, unlike a

Leica). However, metals, while not being able to take impacts like

that, are probably more suited to high pressures (e.g. standing on a

camera's prism housing). I guess there must be a compromise between

the FM10 and the M6, and it shouldn't cost much.

 

And look at it this way: if you lose or have stolen your proverbial

FM10, you can get a new one cheaply, and the thief won't get much for

his trouble.

 

Is the insistence on brass and zinc and magnesium alloys just a snob

thing on the part of the company? Is it just there because it's part

of the culture? Can a Leica engineer look at a polymer and say "This

might be better than zinc"?

 

And can a Leica engineer consider the idea that a well-made (but not

better than it has to be), moderately priced, precision instrument

that is not guaranteed for a lifetime is a better tool than the

current product? Wouldn't it be better to forsake some unnecessary

quality for other gains?

 

I think that while Leica engineers are excellent, they're not

necessarily imaginative. The DMR is an example of that. No doubt it's

well made and the image quality will belie the 'low' pixel count (oh

heaven forbid a camera have a lower resolution than a 1Ds, run for the

hills). But there is not much imagination present IMO.

 

What it boils down to is knowing what to keep and knowing what to

change. I'm an armchair 'expert' just like everyone else and I would

know what's what. What about you?

[paul a. roid]

I'd rather burn a roll of Tri-X, no matter what...

[pppp]

Leica is a company going along with some of its wheels about to fall off- if they lose

or change the only thing they have going now-and that is their image of quality-be it

real or imagined-well, R.I.P.

[rj]

I'd rather have snap-on and mac tools. I'm a pro mechanic and see the value in having durable tools that last and last. I hate buying things more than once and it shows in the things that I own. I buy shoes that can be re-soled, cars that I can work on cheaply and keep going, furniture that doesn't fall apart ect. ect. The one thing that I have had to keep rebuying is a tv set. I don't know what it is, but I can guess, but I had the same tv for 15 years and when that one blew out, I bought one and in three years bought another one and in three years bought another one and in three years bought another one, because they keep blowing their picture tubes or something else. I was happier when I had the same tv and never had to think about it, much less having to replace it. Anyway, for me, I want stuff that I have to buy once and can keep for a long time with minimal maintenance. but that is just me.

[deecy]

Karim--

Couple of things: The new Nikons do have a polycarbonate skin

but they have a magnesium and aluminum frame (and

underskin where needed). Nikon has not compromised on

quality.

As far as brass and zinc are concerned, brass is an almost ideal

material for the top and bottom plates of small cameras (not

including magnesium which is better but difficult to machine,

and perhaps titanium which is expensive as hell), but the only

excuses for zinc are that it's cheap, easy to cast, forge, and

machine (and as galvanizing, it makes an inexpensive plating for

steel garden implements). I can't imagine any other reason that

it replaced the brass in Leica cameras, for it is rather brittle as

metals go, and doesn't have the tensile strength of even brass.

So in a way, Leica is already "forsaking some . . .quality for other

gains", as you put it. The gain, by the way, is profit (and maybe

being able to compete in an ever-shrinking market).

I'm sure I'll get flamed by the Leica die-hards, for whom Leica

can do NO wrong, but that's life in the fast lane I guess.

 

Best,

 

Tom

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

How much are they making thru the Panasonic connection? Panasonic is said to be in the top 4 in digital camera sales and the lenses are all said to be by Leica.

[Troll]

To which war are you referring? Leica's problem is that they haven't had a camera designer with any new ideas for 50 years. Can you imagine Mercedes trying to sell 1953 models in today's market (300SL Gullwing excepted), even if they added air conditioning and power windows. The original maker, Ernst Leitz, couldn't make a go of it. I think it's amazing that they're still in business at all.

[joshchapman]

The fun thing about the "post-war mentality" is that, while it may be cheaper, the main objective to using plastics etc. is that they <b> are</b> disposable. The aim if for the products <b> not to last</b>. Thay way, you have to buy another one. It's economics. Products that are cheaper to produce (ie higher profit margin) and that will require the consumer to purchase another one a few years down the line are simply ways for companies to maximize profits. Why do you think modern cars only last about 10 years?

[ben z]

I wonder if Leica could build an exact M4 today for $2000 more than an MP, would enough people think that was money better spent than an optioned-up a la carte MP.

[wayne_murphy8]

Leica's strengths have always been mechanical precision and optical

excellence, both design and manufacture. The M3 in its day was cutting

edge. Nothing since has been anywhere near as innovative. The reflex line

has always been generations behind the competition. Leica has been relying

on outdated concepts, unchanged tooling and manufacturing techniques and

has largely refused to believe that external changes could affect its business.

The myth is just that now, a myth.

 

For example 1, I nominate the Leica M7- a fine camera (I have one) but it took

Contax and Konica to force Leica to even consider the possibility of part

automation using electronics. Contax went to autofocus, 6000th shutter and

a zoom viewfinder as well (yes, the viewfinder is not as bright). The M7 was

10 years too late. The market for a digital M must be small and shrinking.

That means to make a profit, the price will have to be huge. Catch 22 - an

even smaller market.

 

Example 2. The Leica reflex line has never had the sophistacation of even

the basic Pentax models. The fully mechanical models however, were, and

are, almost indestructable. So what? The Nikon F, F2 and F3 were also

nearly unbreakable. In addition, Leica has failed to keep up the design and

manufacture of new generatoin R lenses apart from stupid things like the new

15 lens (ridiculously expensive) and slow (yes competently sharp) zoom

lenses. Many of the R lenses are very very old and show it. Then Leica bring

out a new electronic body - the bulky R8 which breaks down. Instead of the

promised new, lighter R body with focus confirmation, we got the R9. Wow.

Now the DMR is a disaster in the making. Again, absurdly expensive in

comparison to the competition. No one in their right mind will trust it to work

after the latest fiasco. And if you do buy one, see how much you can sell it for

two years later. And are there any lenses designed specifically for the back?

No. Any announcement that they are under consideration? No. I despair. I

have a mighty fine R9 and lenses but I cannot come to grips with blowing the

huge price for the digital back and being left with a $5,000 paperweight in 2

years time. In 2 years, I will be able to buy a Canon D something with 16 or

more MP for $5,000, perhaps less. Autofocus, sophisticated metering and

flash, vibration reduction and lenses that are probably 95-98%% as good as

Leica. Now I despair even more.

 

I don't criticise just for the hell of it. I have owned and used Leicas for many

years and would like to continue to do so. But the freight train is coming down

the tracks just like the quartz-powered one that almost wiped out the Swiss

mechanical watch industry. Unfortunately, I don't think Leica can survive as

have (some of) the high end Swiss mechanical watchmakers by raising

prices to stratospheric levels and hyping their product's worth. Hermes

Leicas? I don't think so.

 

I believe that Leica's only future, apart from delivering toy lenses to

Panasonic, etc, is to somehow negotiate a body from Canon or Nikon with a

Leica mount and produce superlative lenses in autofocus mounts preferably

for itself and Canon/Nikon. This could mean Leica becomes an optical

design consultant and research company and not even a manufacturer.

Think Zeiss. This would not be a bad thing in my view.

 

I hope for a positive outcome but am apprehensive.

[richard s.]

Design and manufacturing philosophy certainly does appear to have changed over the

course of the 20th century. The triumph (?) of the Berle-Means corporate model (dispersed

ownership), at least in the US, means that profits are valued above all else, after all, if the

company doesn't maximise return the investors sell up and move on. In saturated markets,

frequent purchases = greater profits. Ergo traditional companies that focussed on quality

often lose out (because they don't necessarily maximise return, investors don't rate the

company, raising money is harder, etc.). Hence the constant focus on growth at all cost.

 

During Apple's woes a few years back, Woz said that he could not comprehend the

headlines pronouncing the death of Apple as the company had a good product, a loyal

user base and steady sales. Maybe I am naive, but surely Leica can survive as a niche

market player in extremely high quality rangefinder film cameras and can license out its

lens technology for digital cameras as it is currently doing with Panasonic.

 

In any event, I fully expect my Leica II(D) to outlast me, so as long as I can get it CLA'd

once a decade and film is still available the whole question is academic!! ;-)

[stuart_richardson]

Ben -- Why would anyone ever want that??? The MP is an excellent camera, I can't imagine

anything other than the slightly botched seal on the eyepiece that would make it less of a

camera than an M4...different perhaps, but certainly no worse. <P>In any case, I believe

that cameras, like almost anything, are more than the sum of their parts. Some designs

just work -- The M3, The Canon F1, Nikon F, Canon T90 etc...Perhaps there are lower

grade alloys or more plastic, cheaper electronics in the T90 than in something like an M7,

but it is an incredible camera...the one I am using is going on 19 years of use without an

error. <P>It is a bit like hifi. Some designs for tube amplifiers are extraordinarily simple,

yet they are capable of producing as good or often better sound than a super advanced

solid state amplfier. And then you will also occasionally have a really cheap amp made with

low quality components that will sound incredible. It is all about synergy. The same

applies for any complex device.

[h._p.]

I think Karim is conflating two different concepts here. There's no direct

relationship between the materials used and the final 'quality' of the product,

PROVIDED that the materials are appropriate to the desired outcome. So the

polycarbonate shelled Eos 650 is as much a quality product as the brass

shelled M3. (I own and use both, so have some knowledge whereof I speak).

 

The PERCEPTION of quality is something else entirely. That has far less to do

with measurable things like longevity or reliabilty and much more to do with

cultural training and background. RJ's example with tools is a good example

of this. He, quite rightly, wants the most reliable tools available for his work

and Snap On have an enviable reputation for quality, so he sticks with them.

On the other hand, I know a very good mechanic who seldom buys Snap On

because he finds that Draper, who have a reputation for extreme cheapness

in the UK, produce tools which are nearly as good for a fraction of the price.

He's been following this path for the thirty years I've known him and seems

well satisfied with the outcome.

 

So, contrary to the mantra that an aquaintance of mine was all too prone to

chant, price is NOT an indicator of quality, although Leica have spent a lot of

effort in trying to make people believe otherwise.

[socke]

Karim, you're on the spot! <br><br>

<i>And can a Leica engineer consider the idea that a well-made (but not better than it has to be),<br>

moderately priced, precision instrument that is not guaranteed for a lifetime is a better tool than the current product?<br>

Wouldn't it be better to forsake some unnecessary quality for other gains?</i>

<br><br>

This is called "value analysis" and started when the US industrie had to replace materials in consumer products during WW 2.<br>

For more information, read <a href="http://www.wisc.edu/wendt/miles/milesbook.html">this</a><br>

<br>

Todays "TQM - Total Quality Management" tries to produce exactly the qualities a customer expects from a product, not more and probably a little less. <br>

During my studies I had a very interesting lecture by the TQ Manager of a Philip Morris Brand, I was very surprised what they put in food as a substitute for food and the brand still has a high reputation<br>

<br>

Volker

[jason]

The whole concept of Leica is longevity and reliabilty.

The cost factor. I have run in excess of 6000rolls thru my M3 in various places on the planet. Arctic freeze to desert heat. The camera purchased in 1967. Take the cost of 'plastics' in the ultimate 'cheap' camera, the "one-time-use" and the actual cost of my M3, even with repairs and maintenance is really economical.

The fact that Leicas are desired and coveted bears testimony to this!

Cheap is dear.I use Pentaxes, Nikon-F(they are also indestructable) and Canons(the EOS system, which i hated with a passion but like the AE1-P).I have never seen negatives, slides or prints from any of my other cameras that come close in that extra details and way better distinctive colour seperations.I see almost unbeleivable statements here on the forum of other cameras such as OLympus. They are unreliable.Period! I have tried quite a few, even the original OM-1, the local distributor wanting more pros on their resume!! Statements that the P+S cameras such as Olympus Stylus etc have sharp lenses!!??

If people want to keep buying into the so called progress, good luck!

Keep your job, maybe add another to afford all the 'things' that need replacement!Last but not least. The pure sensual pleasure of handling and using an M compared to most other cameras, is a seductive masterpiece! The Leica is the least intrusive way to work.

[ishik_tuna]

i have a university professor friend who is a business guru...he tells me that modern product development is price driven....that is you pick a price point that you want to sell a product at (market research having determined what the target audience wants, and what they are willing to pay for it), THEN you design the product to achieve the price point and profitability that you desire.

 

apparently, the "old" way is to design and build something, figure out how much it cost to make, tack on a profit, and then try to sell it.

 

assuming Leica is using the "modern" approach, then they are targeting a niche, and know what they are doing

 

if they are using the "old" model....

[les_lammers]

*There is a deeper reason: pre-war and post-war thinking.*

 

I think it is just evolution in materials and manufacturing. Leica engineers are quite talented, but Leica is not an electronics company like Panasonic. Japanese companies share technology too.

Leica may be heading down the path of Zeiss. Just evolution. The world is not static. The Hermes influence will change the future and direction of Leica too. Is this good? I dunno.

 

I guess I'm a hybrid. I have an MP and ordered a Bessa R3A.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

On the whole, I'm still bitter that Leitz dropped the built-in self-timer when they

came out with the M4-2. Bah-humbug, grumble, etc. :->)

[philip_meadows1]

Here's my take... As a professional photographer at age 42 and with a 5yr old son, I was thinking of an appropriate way to introduce some history into my young sons life. I just purchased a brand new MP silver along with a 35 1.4 asph and a 75 1.4 Summilux. Yeah... that cost a lot (or did it?). I will use this stuff on an almost daily basis including 2 weddings per month which I get paid $3-5000 for. HOPEFULLY my son will appreciate in time that his dad made a living with this camera including putting him through college etc., and also appreciate the wonderful history behind it all. By the time I've finished with it, the cost now will prove to be negligable. I doubt even he won't be able to buy b&w film for it 50yrs from now. Lifes good, shoot it!

[anthony_brookes5]

Ishik - We were doing that at Ford Motor Company in England in the 1950s ! We had a small range of course but the engineers and accountants were in each others pockets from day 1. Plus ca change !

[Jochen_S]

The Leica myth sell out has started long ago. O.K. consumer line mainly ,but customer service too.

I'm still a borrower, unable to pick up my own used gear, but what's about that Digilux made by Fuji? no support at the Leica homepage. They bought Minox didn't they? Why was that little M3 modell just such a piece of good looking crap? It might have been a interesting toy with at least a distance setting and 2 interchangeable lenses... May I mention the dream of a rangefinder? Is it necessary to IGNORE e-mail requests of pre-war product owners? It can't be unaffordable to have some secretary answering "Sorry the retired expert seems dead / willing to give answers for a bottle of rum via snail mail, but we can't help you.

I'm a bit dissapointed. I can remember Agfa sending me a xerocopied manual for my inherited camera for free (21 years ago).

I don't see Leica really endangered. They 'll manage somehow. Maybe as a 3rd party lens manufacturer leaving camera (DSLR in that case) making to brands able to afford it? I suppose it wouldn't harm nobody. I myself am still dreaming of replacing some FEDs and Zorkis with 2 beaten up M bodys and 4 good lenses. Fun is quaranteed and some body will surely care about remanufacturing spare parts.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Film is dead. It'll be available forever, but it'll be like milk delivered to your door in the a.m. in glass bottles. When my M3 was made, every housewife in the civilised world had a chance to have an affair with the milkman; today she can't even find one.

 

The digital model will be like the computer model. Rapid tech change will mean near-annual obsolescence for the better models, and if you want to stay in the game you'll probably have to shell out a grand or two every couple of years.

 

The idea of a simple, durable, precisely made, repairable product that is expected to last for decades is probably as dead as Elvis.

[kevin m.]

Hey, my toaster was made in 1958 and it's still going strong. My toasting needs are simple, and I'm happy.