Why Leica made a mistake

[inspiration point studio]

Why would a company make a product so that it will last forever? That's not a very sound

business plan. Yes, you want to sell high quality product so your customers love it, but

then you will upgrade those products with new features and capability (e.g. M7

automation, asph lenses) so the customers keep on coming back for more.

 

I agree buying a M8 is not a sound investment, but people should only buy it so they can

enjoy using it, and take pictures with it. Why do people buy luxury cars knowing they will

loose a big chunk of the value the next day? If I want to invest, I'll go buy some stocks. If I

think the sensor technology still has a lot of growing to do, I'll stay with film a little longer

and perhaps even buy a M7. If I think the M8 is my digital range finder dream comes true,

I'll buy a M8.

[squareframe]

the M8 comes with a USB 2.0 connector. even if the M8 sensor remains adequate for your needs come thirty-years, your computer most likely won't be able to swallow its data.

[andy_piper2]

" I know Leica HAD to bring out the M8 to survive....."

 

Survival is a mistake?

 

So far as I'm concerned, any camera I buy becomes worthless the moment I walk out the

camera store door - EXCEPT for any return from the pictures that come out of it.

 

I pay for performance and handling.

 

To some extent build-quality has an influence on handling, and to that extent I'll pay for

build quality. Elegance (in the scientific sense of "the minimum required to do the job, with

no excess") has an influence on handling, and to that extent I'll pay for elegance.

 

A hand-built, hand-calibrated RF/VF performs better than a mirror-and-plastic-screen

viewfinder - for my photograpy - so I'll pay extra for a rangefinder, and a brass skin to

protect it.

 

But none of those attributes have ANY value in and of themselves - only in what they offer

in performance.

 

My M8 will become 'obsolete' when the first critical part wears out that is no longer

replaceable, and no sooner. If a full-frame Leica digital comes out, I will ADD the full-

frame body for wideangle use (I'll get my 15mm FoV and 21 f/2.8 back).

 

If and when my M8 'dies' forever - then it will get a nice retirement on the shelf as a

museum-piece of pretty industrial design. Until then, it will work its butt off, and probably

pay for itself in two years, and pay for itself 5 times over in 10 years.

[paul_neuthaler]

Al Kaplan & I had the same debate in 1954 when the M3 came out. I was right -- but then I'm 9 days older then he is & so much wiser!

[harvey_edelstein1]

The M8 makes sense to me for only two types of Leicaphiles.

a. Those taking presently hundreds of rolls of film exposures. They will eventually recover the $5k in a couple of years.

 

B. Professionals who like Marc Williams who have been waiting for a lightweight alternative to the Canon 1dsMII. They earn enough and also can amortized the expenses fast enough to pay for the camera in a pretty short time.

[dayton_p._strickland1]

Where is it written, or how have some detemined, that the M8 cannot be upgraded via sensor replacement and firmware? With the quality of the typical Leica body it would seem like this could be done and would have been part of the plan, although from a financial standpoint it wouldn't make sense, but from a marketing and consumer loyalty standpoint it would.

[andy_piper2]

Daniel: Say "card reader".

 

Will SD cards eventually disappear? Someday. Anyone bought any 620 film or quarter-

plate glass recently?

 

35mm and 120 film have had an extrordinarily long run as technological standards go, for

whatever reasons of historical contingency (consider: 70 years before the Leica was 1856,

and how many 1856 technological standards, especially in photography, still existed in

1926?).

 

645 or Disk film or APS COULD have killed 35mm - but didn't. And that would have ended

the useful life span of an M3 in 1970, or 1980, or 1993.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> It's success is already a done deal.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

How are you defining success? Sales? Profit? Increased market share? Fanboi raves?

[al_kaplan1]

Yup, Paul was right! He predicted that in 3 or 4 years Leitz would come out with the M2 so we'd no longer need a seperate finder for the 35mm lenses.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> If a professional photographer buys an M8 (or a 1DSmkII, or D2X for that matter)

 

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

If Leica is hoping that anything other than a tiny percentage of its digital sales go to pros, they're delusional.

[terry_rory]

120 was so common you could buy in gents toilets once...<div></div>

[dan flanders]

While I don't necessarily agree, I am in concurrence with the thrust of the post. The original Barnack Leica concept anticipated that the Leica could be updated as improvements to the design were implemented. There is no good reason that principle cannot be instituted with the introduction of the digital M Leicas. In my most arrogant opinion a digital adaptor unit that would simply be a substitution for the 'back door' with certain internal adjustments and connections and leaving the basic M returnable to film use, would be a more practical approach. In any event the updating principle should be effected in the design to protect the purchaser's investment for a reasonable time.

[bobtodrick]

As some of you know I work at one of Western Canada's largest photo retailers. The M8 has garnered more information requests from both existing Leica useres and people who've never owned anything with the red dot than any Leica product I remember in the last 10 years...along with a number firm orders. I think it is truly a winner for Leica.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I suspect the grandkids will be asking in 10 years, "Granddad, what's film?"

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Probably true. Today's college freshmen probably never used an electric or manual typewriter, or carbon paper, or a rotary phone. Most today don't (or won't) use a film camera. Most have cameras embedded in their phones. Kids born today will probably look upon film like most people today look upon the telegraph.

[steve_larese1]

Pros will use it as a tool today. Hobbyists will follow. Pros will use it for all the advantages

of the rangefinder, and now they can meet the digital quality and speed demanded in

photojournalism. The M8 appears to be a professional tool and meets that mission well.

Pros make money when they sell their photos; Hobbyists make money when they sell their

cameras.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> 120 was so common you could buy in gents toilets once...

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Kodak would've sold more if they'd included condoms. Maybe they still could today, though I wonder at film fanatics' ability to get a date.

[andrew robertson]

"In the digital age, the notion of using a camera forever is unheard of."

 

That's quite a pronouncement for an age that's scarcely a few years old. Please, as long as

you have your crystal ball out, will you tell me the Powerball numbers for next week?

 

"Photographers buy Leica because its perceived to be of the highest quality. Today no

camera model will be made to last 20 years, such as the M3 did."

 

Another person with a crystal ball. Please, tell me when and why my digital cameras with

far less moving parts than a film camera will fail.

 

All these pronouncements and pontifications about the digital age seem to be enough to

inflate the worlds largest balloon. Fly around the world, gents!

[andrew robertson]

"Hobbyists make money when they sell their cameras."

 

No, they lose money for the most part, unless they are very shrewd.

[steve_larese1]

So there it is. If we're going to lose money, we might as well take some photos along the

way :)

[leon chang]

"the M8 comes with a USB 2.0 connector. even if the M8 sensor remains adequate for your needs come thirty-years, your computer most likely won't be able to swallow its data"

 

Couldn't agree more.

[steve_larese1]

BTW - I'm a 35-year-old photo editor. At a conference recently I met a photo editor in her

20s who said she has never looked at a slide on a light table. I aged decades...

 

Oh well, I'm going to go lupe some 4x5 Velvia now ;)

[leon chang]

I guess I agree with what some people said here: if you're a professional photographer, the camera will eventually pay itself back. That's very true. Problem is I don't see any professional photographer use an M8.... . Apart from wedding photographers there is no real professional market for it IMHO, even if I hope that photo journalists will be using it instead of their bulky d-slr's. Still, I'm happy for Leica and I really hope it will be a succes. I just don't think so.

[paul t]

Why do people insist on complaining about the depreciation on a digital

camera when, if you use the damn thing, that depreciation will be covered,

and probably more, by the savings in film and processing? <p>The argument

about depreciation just doesn't hold water, plain and simple. If you're a

professional, and can reclaim the VAT or tax on your M8, you could almost

certainly sell the thing after two years and make a small profit on the deal.

[vinay_patel]

""the M8 comes with a USB 2.0 connector. even if the M8 sensor remains adequate for your needs come thirty-years, your computer most likely won't be able to swallow its data"

 

Couldn't agree more."

it's one th

What is wrong with you people? When you've tallied up the amount of money you haven't spent on film and developing and it equals what you paid for the M8, every shot you take from then on it's putting money into your pocket. Or if there's something on the market you want better, put the damned M8 out with the trash, and it hasn't cost you a dime. Is the math so hard, or are you just arguing for arguing's sake? If you're looking for something to sell to fund your retirement 30 years from now, it's not an M8, that much I'll agree, but neither is/was any other camera. I've got many collector's item Leicas that are worth more than what I paid for them, but also many that are worth less. In the net, it's a hobby and a labour of love, not an investment. Buy stock, buy real estate, buy diamonds and gold, but stop talking about these cameras as if they were investments. They are consumer items, even if people do collect the old and rare ones.

[steve_larese1]

Guitars aside, can any of us think of any digital/electronic items that we cherish and love?

TV sets? Microwave ovens? I really like old typewriters, even though I can use them to post

on photo.net ;) Is the real issue that it's just impossible to get emotionally attached to

electronics? Will kids today cherish their first iPods 30 years from now? Any psychologists

out there (c'mon, all you Leica-owning doctors...)