how leica can survive? turning itself into rolex or patek philip.

[marco_cuturi]

Hi all,

 

We all know Japan has always been a great market for Leica and that

many magazines and shopping spots are devoted to the brand here in

Tokyo. However my feeling was that leica lovers were either

collectors or photographers.

 

I just came across the last edition of Men's ex, a very trendy

fashion magazine for guys here in Japan (http://www.mens-ex.jp/) and

it made me change my mind. Hermes' grasp on Leica is changing the

company's profile, and Leica cameras are increasingly becoming a

fashion toy (an expensive one) for consumers, not just either a tool

or a collector item.

 

Come to think of it: why people buy rolex watches when you can get a

digital watch for 1/10000000th of that price? image and looks, some

identity that you buy, not so much a question of being on time at

your rendez-vous. With Hermes' providing customized branding for

leica cameras', you end up proposing a product that's not so much

about its use, but which gives some identity to its owner.

 

This is probably an old debate, but it all became really clear to me

when i saw those 5 or 6 pages in that magazine, where a male model

(such as the one you would hire for watch commercials) was carrying

a leica MP around and faking he was using it, giving playboyish

smiles and the like. The article was all about finding the right

leica that fits your style (in terms of leather and coatings

obviously, not so much .58 or .72 magnifiers)

 

a leica is slighlty heavier than a watch, looks better and can even

have *some* use (grin).

 

Marco

[frank granovski]

Weren't Germany and Japan allies?

[terry_rory]

Oh dear Frank. You may have just touched bottom on that one!

[frank granovski]

Couldn't help myself. ;*)

[terry_rory]

I re-read and re-read the original post and cannot see why that is pertinent Frank.

 

I hope you can tell us without some offence to all the Japanese and German Leica forum contributors. (Not to mention the many who may be reading this forum but do not post here.)

[frank granovski]

The German and Japanese camera companies are allies and some were allies until recently. Hence, Leica/Minolta, Leica/Panasonic, Zeiss/Cosina, Zeiss/Yashica, Zeiss/Yashica/Kyocera. What did you think I meant? ;*)

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello all,

 

First I'm happy to come back with you... I had much troubles and change in my life recently and was unable to follow this message board as regularly as before...

 

Since the long time I have not written here, sad news about Leica financial difficulties have surged.

 

Marco's message seems to me to confirm the Board of Directors at Leica is still the same and that the main share holder is still unable to understand what really caused the problems.

 

They are trying (once more) to solve their problems making the Leica M (which was originally one of the best - if not the best - 35mm photo tool) a fashion accessory...

 

As I wrote before here, the two major problems with Leica M series are:

 

1 - Prices (lenses notwithstanding) which obviously doesn't reflect the actual state of the art of the bodies (i.e.: see the all mechanical MP and compare its price to the equally mechanical Nikon FM3A)

 

2 - The lack of a really state of the art PHOTOGRAPHIC TOOL which can justify its price and seduce professionals and real amateurs in sufficient number to save the day.

 

I ever considered the rangefinder small format camera as the best way to maximalize the advantage of a samll format camera (size, focusing precision, silence) to capture what Cartier-Bresson called "the decisive moment" and be immerged in the life of the subjects and the best way to carry an unobtrusive but efficient equipement.

 

Unfortunately, the Leica M (even the M7) is unable (like its competitors but they are significantly cheaper) to provide such an ideal tool when compared to what a lot of SLR's are today able to do, despite being more obtrusive and less silent...

 

I know, a lot of you wil disagree, but I think this because they use their M's mainly for the same kind of subjects I generally tackle with my medium format SLR (Rolleiflex F or Mamiya 645 1000 S). I don't think the M is mainly destined to "fine art photography" or still subjects, but to capture the life. Today, a combination of matrix metering and depth of field focusing is unbeatable to capture the "decisive moment", as the only thing the photographer has to do is think about composition and trigger the shutter at the right time to get a properly exposed in focus picture 95% of the time. Just have a look if you can on the contact prints of many famous Leica photographers of the Cartier-Bresson generation... You will understand how many frames were unusable to get a high quality one!... This is no more the case with what modern technology brought to the present SLR's in term of auto-exposure.

 

I would like to see Leica produce an "M8" with such a feature as an option to get the best of both world, and budget wise, I'm ready to part of some of my other gears to buy one, even if it costs the same as a present Nikon F5.

 

I would also like to see this M8 fitted with a three position finder magnification : 0.6, 0.8, 1 (instead of having to buy two or different bodies or a accessory magnifier).

 

But if I'm ready to buy (mostly second hand due to my budget restrictions) Leica lenses (which were and are still the best), I'm not ready to buy a body at least twice its real value just to get a red dot on it and nothing more to justify its astronomical price. Witht the M mount in the public domain, I will certainly turn to Zeiss or keep my Hexar RF...

 

I don't think I'm alone, in the somewhat "niche" market of small format rangefinder cameras. And I think the lack of state of the art feature on such cameras maintain them into an even smaller market than they should be.

 

Friendly

 

François P. WEILL

[bill_thorlin]

Just why do you think Hermes bought in to Leica ? Are they a camera company ? - No. Are they an electronics innovator ? - No.

 

So what are they ? They are a brand image merchandising operation catering, as far as I can tell, for the well heeled who like to dangle or adorn their person with the ( perceived ) top of the range, must have, exclusive products.

 

Sad.

[vasilis]

I totally agree with the comment of Marco. I have also the same impression about the future of Leica. I live in Switzerland and this is the country of Patek Philip or Rolex. Wlalking last we I was looking the window of a quite expensive camera shop. One window was dedicated to "Leica a la carte" with the kind of marketing you would expect for a watch or jewellery. The fact that the next shop to leica window sells expensive jewellery and watches made things clearer. I believe that really is natural because either way Leica and an expensive (and traditional) watch brand offer the same alternative. A traditional, romantic and mechanical way to make the same thing that others do electronically. Thus, giving identity to the rich people that buy the product.

[frank granovski]

Thanks! I needed to hear that after buying the CL. Now I can do my dangling with pride. I wasn't too sure before. ;*)

[h._p.]

" I hope you can tell us without some offence to all the Japanese and German Leica forum contributors. "

 

Why would the comment that their parents or grandparents were allies in a war of aggression that left forty million dead, cause offence to anyone? It's a fact and you'd need to have very thin skin or an extremely guilty concience to be worried by it.

 

To bring the discussion back on topic: Germany and Japan have taken very divergent courses in camera development over the last forty years. Marco's comment seems like an accurate picture of the way in which Germany is going. Leica and Rollei are toys for the rich and Zeiss sells its name to the highest bidder (just bought a nice little Sony digicam with a 'Zeiss' lens).

 

There's nothing wrong with it, everyone's got to make a living, at least until we get enough robots to save us the trouble.

[stephan_hugel]

<em>...where a male model (such as the one you would hire for watch commercials) was carrying a leica MP around and faking he was using it, giving playboyish smiles and the like...</em><br /><br />

 

That sounds pretty much exactly like what I do. My plan has horribly backfired though, because the only attention I get is from destitute foreign photography students (male) and/or frightening middle-aged men purporting to work for the Sunday Times. Sigh.

[bill_thorlin]

You are always dangling around here anyway but check out the word "perceived" before you get too puffed up with pride.

 

Nice to hear from you again.

[les_lammers]

John Kennedy's Hermes briefcase is in the Smithsonian. As Sonny and Cher sang, "the beat goes on". The price of new Leica lenses is out of reach for most people. Most hand crafted precision items are also.

If an 'as we conceptualize it' digital M was available most of us could not afford one.

 

At this point in time most people on the street do not know what a Leica is/was. Does that old camera still work? Great, less of a theft target. Just what we need Leica in GQ.

 

What the original Leica did for photography in the past, digital is doing today. With the added benefit of instant gratification.

 

I can imagine that Leica film cameras will join the turntable and LP on the shelf of history.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>why people buy rolex watches when you can get a digital watch

for 1/10000000th of that price</em></p><p>A combination of vulgarity

and stupidity, I suppose. Next question?</p>

[frank granovski]

Peter, I have a question, but it doesn't concern Rolex watches. Which travels faster, light or electricity? One more. Which animal can travel the fastest? Last one. Which member of the weasel family can kill a polar bear?

[dan_fromm2]

Leica transformed into a Rolex equivalent? Hmm.

 

You do realise that contemporary Rolexes aren't as well-made as older ones, don't you?

 

And I'm sure realise that imitation Rolexes that won't turn the wearer's wrist green right away can be bought on many street corners on NYC. I suppose that if Leica goes that way, we'll be able to buy imitation Ms that won't turn green immediately on many street corners too. Now there's a thought.

[jason]

There must be something wrong with the camera shops I've been to!

Compare the prices of "top o the line" bodies and pro-lenses of Nikon & Canon, and they are as expensive as Leica! Yes, one gets "state-of-art-technology" with 95% of features one doesn't require or need. If one wants a point and shoot, then a Leica is not for you. The Leica requires craftsmanship and understandin of photography.

Rolex is a foundation, so they supposedly do NOT care if profit is made..Patek makes the finest Swiss watches in the world, but unlike Leica or Rolex, WILL repair and refurbish any watch ever made, no matter how old! How is that for customer service?

Do not compare a Nikon mechanical to a Leica. The Nikon is way cheaper build and not really that cheap.

Yes older Nikons and Canons(esp older mounts AE-1 etc) bodies andd lenses are significantly cheaper but not comparable in quality.

I know there will be doubts but no one of my Nikon/Canon lenses compares at FULL aperture to an equivilant Leica lens.Two stops down it becomes similar.Thats a lot of difference.

Leicas are expensive used because they work!

I have a friend who regularly shoots with Leicas from the 30's and early 50's.

My own M3, 1967, had had more than 6500 rolls thru it.

My 50mm has sold more photos taken by me than other lens/camera combination.

[paul t]

The problem with comparing cameras to watches as status symbols is that

watches are ubiquitous, Rolex is internationally known as a 'currency', and it

takes only a modicum of skill to operate a watch, whereas using a rangefinder

camera is an acquired art. For this reason, pricing Leicas at this level means

that they are aiming at a niche of a niche market, particularly when all the new

money is going into digital cameras.

<p>

I have met rivals of Hermes, who work for Louis Vuitton, who admire what the

company does and believe they have an intelligent plan worked out for Leica

- but it's hard to work out what it is. And as far as I can tell, a cold wind will

soon be blowing in the luxury goods market - even established brands like

Tanner Kroll and Mulberry have had problems recently - although, looking at

the truly crummy quality they both deliver for the price, I'm not surprised.

[ray_nieves]

The analogy of a fine Swiss watch to Leica is a good one. Compared to a Seiko, a well made but mass produced and affordible watch line. I own different watches, a couple of them Seiko, Invictas, Citizen..but my favorite is an old Omega Speedmaster from the 70's (Automatic, no battery). It keeps perfect time and always commands attention. After a few years, my Seiko and others stop working and need repair....not yet of my 30 year old Omega....I am sure a Rolex and other high end watches would be just as good and reliable. I agree that Leica, once the best tool for photojournalism, has become a limited but masterfuly made precision, mechanical instrament catering to the serious user and now the well-heeled casual shooter(i.e. Carl Lagerfield). Let the Nikons and Canons become the brand for the masses, Leica can be the boutique camera, hand-made and finely tuned like a fine Swiss watch... one that can be bequethed to your grandchildren. You can't say that of Nikon and Cannon...or of Seiko or Invicta. I would rather see that for Leica than to have it go the way of Rollei and Zeiss-Ikon...a great old name on a Japanese product.

 

When I wear my Omega....or carry a Leica, I know I am using a well made instrament that I have paid more for to ensure it will last and be as advertised. I like my Olympus OMs, but I admire and respect my Leicas. I will continue to use my Leica until the day comes when film is no longer made.

[franka t.l.]

As business goes,I tend to agree with Bill. Although myself a Leica owner and shooter. As of today I will not and cannot bring myself to spend the money on any NEW Leica purchase ( which is where the business goes ). Why , although lots of fellow Leica user like to trash other brands ( OK I am exaggerating a bit ) but the truth is in the choosen format of 35mm, any quality lens from any of the big name can just do as well as a leica within a context. Few can touch leica in RF and a decent 50mm but at this price its selling now .... one wonder if its does provide that more quality for measured difference in price !!

 

And for those who are not bind to a single format, the difference is even more pronounced. Well, the recent financial foesco Leica having just happen to prove the point. Leica either need to get back to their serious Business of making and selling cameras and Lens or they might expect another similar fiesco soon.

[edmo]

"<I>The Leica requires craftsmanship and understandin of photography.</I>"

<p>

"<I>...whereas using a rangefinder camera is an acquired art.</i>"

<p>

You guys take a look at the W/NW threads here yet?

[douglas k.]

I think Leica already has turned itself into something like Rolex or Patek Phillipe. They are all producing objects which cost far more and perform less well than the competition and then marketing them to status-conscious monied people.

[jonathan_reynolds]

30 years ago, Rolex used to make - and may still make for all I know - a basic model Oyster in stainless steel, nothing fancy, no jewels on the outside, no gold or silver plate, no date, no autowind, just mechanical, waterproof, tough. I bought one. Despite a lot of outdoor living it has never let me down. It was made to function for a very long time. It tells the time with more than enough accuracy to catch a train, and only when I want it to. It has no unwanted functions. If it stops out in the boondocks because I forget to wind it, I don't need a new battery to restart it, and I can reset it by the sun. I don't have to remove it and hide it somewhere when I go swimming or into the sauna. OK, it probably (possibly) HAS cost me more than a succession of quartz watches, but on the other hand I LIKE it. It is an inanimate object, but it ticks pleasantly, I wind it every evening, and because it has been with me in everything I do, I have a sentimental attachment to it.

 

Of course it's no coincidence that I also own a Leica, but not because I'm stupid or rich. I just like well-made, simple but functional kit. Unless there's a strong chance that I'll lose something, I would rather go shopping only once, and buy something that is useful to me over a lifetime.

 

I guess it's inevitable that durable kit is especially attractive to people who want it gold-plated. (There's less point personalising disposables, although - god knows - people do it: pencils, tissues, mobile phones...) This should not distract us or Hermes from the underlying requirement that the kit works. Knock the rich and stupid by all means, but not the basic design. Rolex ticks.

[vasilis]

I find myself that I agree with the last remark leica and rolex and a lot of other companies make money by rich people which pay to be different. Also I think that it is not really difficult for someone to learn to operate a camera (whichever camera). I do not consider important for someone to learn a manual camera. Important, difficult and rare is to take good pictures. This you can do it with almost any camera.