beau 1664876222 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Grant, on the Kravitz thing, I don't think there's any contradiction in recording with "old school" gear and delivering the product in a high-tech way. If a photographer shoots with a 100-year-old 8x10 camera, but scans his work and posts it on the web, is he a hypocrite too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 i must say, i am very surprised to hear smart people suggest that it made good business sense for leica to attempt to become profitable by making digital cameras. did anyone notice that the estimated investment in the R modul was about the same as the net operating loss for leica for the last three years?? consider that the R modul was outdated withing 3 months of its announcement (and now looks like positively ancient technology), and you begin to see why only large electronics companies can play on the digital stage. let's now even discuss the dlux or digilux 1&2. how many profitable years did they eat up (and they were panasonic products). leica will sink or swim as a film camera maker. could it survive on the same business model as alpa -- i say yes, why not?? new technologies, always produce nostalgia/luddite/retro markets. based on the much higher than expected MP sales, this theory seems to be holding true for leica. the company will have to scale down and raise its prices. but it has a market. it simply must become the anti-digital alternative. digital may kill leica -- the foolish expenditure of profits on a vast digital folly. most boat makers switched to fiberglass out of business necessity. a few high end wooden boatmakers are thriving by catering to a niche. and don't tell me leica has failed catering to a niche. they have done no such thing. ever since digital came along they have tried to pretend they were in the game. and that is where they have gone wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 beau i guess i took for a traditional sorta dude, against digital and all that....you know...looong tonal ranges and stuff like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "did anyone notice that the estimated investment in the R modul was about the same as the net operating loss for leica for the last three years?? consider that the R modul was outdated withing 3 months of its announcement (and now looks like positively ancient technology), and you begin to see why only large electronics companies can play on the digital stage." Roger, it has nothing to do with large electronic manufactures. In what right mind would a company spend all that money on R&D for a digital back aimed at that street price for a few R bodies out there? Like really. Any shooter wanting to go digital with a dslr isn't likely spend that cash on a steam engine. Leica trying to make a back for a body that hardly anybody uses in the first place while in the infancy of digital? Stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Leica should have studied Norton and Triumph in the mid 70's. Leaky motors and electrics that don't work and tunning the thing up everytime you want to ride while being more expensive in your home country than an imported hassel free Honda CB 750 four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 leica has always been a niche market....it only takes time where niche markets die in a world of large companies that can produce new and exciting products that consumers love to consume....if you dont keep up with that you lose...its just business....right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_cain Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "Snortin Norton? Ah yes, gasoline on your shoes, oil on the driveway but darn they were fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose f. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Gabriel Hanson presented the analogy of Porsche and their 911 series, conveniently ignoring several missteps that company has made over the decades (924, 928 anyone?). But there are parallels ... is there sufficient market for Leica's optical design skills, the way Porsche markets its engineering services? They don't have much of a history with the wide-range zooms that occupy most of the consumer market. Are there enough customers out there for a highly-refined dead-end design? If Leica really were Porsche, there would be a quieter, higher-speed shutter in that body, and a rangefinder more resistant to shock. There would be an R6.2a to compete with Nikon's FM3A for the hardcore film/mechanical camera boutique market. I enjoyed working with my Leicas back in the '70s and '80s, but they've been chasing too many design zebras to stay current with their core products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Vincent Black Shadow. Nuff said. Well, maybe one more comment: German banks would all be in the dumper except for foreign bottom-fishing investors. In the old days Drexel Burnham Lambert would have arranged a leveraged buy out. Maybe this explains Bush's visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "it only takes time where niche markets die in a world of large companies that can produce new and exciting products that consumers love to consume....if you dont keep up with that you lose...its just business....right?" Some people fear this is where we're headed, and we may well be living in such a monolithic, monopolistic world before long. But the whole point of this discussion is whether or not this scenario is inevitable. Optimists would point to things like microbrews, the renewed popularity of tailored suits, flourishing small guitar manufacturers, etc. and say Leica and similar companies have a lot of potential if they're managed correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I've always wanted a Vincent Black Shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 fo me, a 500 Manx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 without the boulders, you can't have the nooks in between. beau, i think large companies often are responsible for creating niche companies. the esoteric must define itself by reference to the mainstream. and so i disagree that leica cannot exist in a world of canons and nikons. in fact, just the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 its a capitalist society...the consumer dictates...its all about celebs and reality tv these days....get ur fill where and when you can and live out ur life bobbin and weavin the best u can....just make sure u gotta good pair of shoes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 What's the big deal? It's just a box with film in it....if nothing else works then youre done, go bowling or white river rafting. Take some culinary arts classes....move on. If you want to take pics you still got your box or get another. WTF?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 theres no seeing things for what they are around here, please move on edmo....theres more important things to discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 hi -- i just don't buy the idea that you can compete successfully as a digital imaging company with a new platform every 7 years or so. the pace of change is too great. i also don't believe that leica has the expertise to pull off successful digital cameras in any event. they couldn't even buold the CM properly. more important (maybe just as important), leica trying to sell digital is like nikon going into the hand-bent snow-shoe business. it really fights the whole image of the company. leica should continue to do what it is good at or die trying. finally, i think it will be just plain easier for leica to succeed in the alpa model as opposed to its current hybrid model. selling high end non plus ultra film cameras to a niche market of rich luddites is, in reality, the low hanging fruit. HOW ABOUT THIS: i bet if someone gave leica back all the money it has wasted on its numerous failed digital ventures (c.2,600,000 euros i am told), and if someone readjsuted their profit sheet to show how they would have gared had the dollar not dropped 40% against the euro, the company would be well into the black. MP sales are double the forecast and m7 sales are 80-90% of forecast. toss in ONE successful OEM deal with sony or konica/minolta and you've got a very robust little company. and every box they sell should be stamped "100% analog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 <i> it really fights the whole image of the company. leica should continue to do what it is good at or die trying.</i> <p> Like a dying dog on the highway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 <i>...this is the future of rangefinder style photography we are talkin' about man, </i> <p> No it's not, this the future of Leica...fish tanks, glow, Luigi bags got...this has nothing to do about photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 whats this tellin it like it is shyt edmo....ur scaring my fish...cmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 <i><blockquote> Film will become a boutique item, yes. Art is already a boutique item though </blockquote> </i><p> So for Ray film is equivalent to art. That makes a lot of sense on some planet, I'm sure. <p> <i><blockquote> If Leica goes under, it is not entirely their fault. It seems to be a law of nature that cheap inferior products produced in quantity, whether by genetics or manufacturing, will overcome and replace expensive, less numerous high quality items. </blockquote> </i><p> Assuming momentarily that's true you <u<must</u> find fault with management which is so blind as to not grasp this simple "law of nature" and respond accordingly on behalf of shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 But Nikon's <a href=http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=145502005>profitable now</a>, Pete. Even if one contends that Canon calls the tune and Nikon dances to it, at least Nikon's dancin'.<p><p> Beau says "ome of the most important musicians of our generation play phonographs," and I suppose he's right. Must say, though, that some of the listeners from *my* generation haven't really warmed up to that music and still look at the turntable as a device upon which to play older jazz records. -:) <p><p> Into this forum filled with failed analogies, let me roll another one: Could a smaller Leica wind up more closely akin to a semi-custom bicycle frame manufacturer, rangefinders only, and ultimately, add a rangefinder that captures digitally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 <i><blockquote> leitz today, and the swiss watchmaking industry in the early 80s...which seems to have survived intact, it would seem. </blockquote> </i><p> It hasn't been 'Leitz' for a while. Aside from that, I'd agree that Leicas have a lot in common with expensive jewelry timepieces which work as well as competitors costing a fraction of their price, while selling as luxury goods with snob appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "People will buy a digi M and a digi R - all Leica have to do is deliver the product. The market will make sure that the brand doesn't die - and that these products will be delivered." ah, Pete, there isn't enough of a target market to make even the R&D pay off. My bet is eventually a Japan made digital body will come out for all the dusty Leica lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 <i><blockquote> Leica is paying the price of quality and durability. Sad. </blockquote> </i><p> Leica is paying the price of staying decades behind everyone else in everything but some lenses. Old Nikon F bodies are durable and of high quality. Same for Canon F bodies. Same for most medium format bodies from decades ago. But the successful manufacturers advanced their products and kept constant with the needs and demands of most consumers. Leica was too conservative, deriving sales from fewer and fewer customers with marginally-differentiated rangefinder camera bodies (and problematic SLR bodies) that were comparatively technologically backward for too long, focused on a small niche of fondlers and amateurs who could afford to spend relatively huge sums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now