Would people still buy?

[phil_kneen]

Right,lets pretend,tommorrow Nikon release a small,light rangefinder.It's as quiet and well built as the M6.The lenses are superb,all the pro's test it and say the optics are better than Leica.Virtually overnight all the Nat' Geo',Magnum,etc,etc photographers switch to the Nikon.None of the pro's use Leica.

 

<p>

 

SO..........nothing changes at Leica,

 

<p>

 

Would people still buy them on their reputation alone?

[craig_smith5]

Exellent question.

 

<p>

 

No I don't think they would,because National Geographic,Magnum,etc

ARE their reputation.

 

<p>

 

As a pro Phil,would you switch?

[phill]

Yes,of course I would.

[stephen_jones4]

"would people still buy them on their reputation alone?"

What reputation? Their reputation is based on having the best

lenses. In your make-believe future that would no longer be the

case, so people would then need to buy Leica on the basis of

them making the not-best lenses in the world. Second place, as

I remember reading on a Californian t-shirt, is the first loser.

[geddert]

depends on the cost of this new nikon rangefinder... if it is a lot

cheaper i would certainly switch. if its the same price i would

probably stick with the leica simply because it is good enough for my

needs.

[phil_kneen]

Ok lets say the whole Nikon system is 10% more expensive.

[dennis_couvillion]

Are Craig and Phill the same person?<p>

<i>[Phill and Craig appear to be the same person. If not, they're

swapping places on the same computer. In this thread, the source IP address

is the same for all posts from both participants.

--Moderator]</i>

 

[phil_kneen]

It has been said before,but no.

[andrew_schank]

That's an awful lot of pretending to have to do. Why don't we add

that the camera and lenses will also cost 1/4 of Leica's boot if we

really want to do some serious pretending. Seriously, maybe Nikon

would bring back the SP system (like they did their special edition

Millenium camera)or come out with a completely new rangefinder, but

even if it got rave reviews and was more affordable (and it probably

wouldn't be), many Pro Leica users would continue to use what they

are comfortable with. Changing camera systems isn't likely to improve

ones work, rave reiviews or not.

[iván]

Hi, all:

 

<p>

 

I came to Leica after much strugling and lots of evaluations. Enough

to make the decision that this will be a definite RF system for me.

Though not the only system. I own SLRs too.

 

<p>

 

But on the RF side, I absolutely agree with Andrews

opinion: "Changing camera systems isn't likely to improve ones work,

rave reiviews or not".

 

<p>

 

Sell everything, buy everything and learn everything once more . . .?

Naaahh ! ! !

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't change.

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[bobtodrick]

Some would, some wouldn't. Even if the Nikon lenses were better,

would they be that much better? I traded away a complete Olympus

system to buy Leica rangefinder, but not for increased sharpness, but

because when I tried a rangefinder I felt more comfortable with it for

my style of shooting. Supposedly the lenses are better than the

Olympus, but not by very much IMO. Another thing to consider is

resale value. If the new Nikon was the same price as the Leica, but

Nikon built a ton of them (because they are a far large company) they

would not hold near the value Leica does. Some would say that the

Hexar has done exactly what you propose, but Konica is disappointed

with sales....

[james_.1]

Now if it had performance and the "feel" of quality to them like a

Leica, or even better, yes indeed! It'd hafta look cool too,

something I like about the Leicas. Anyway, in the meantime I'll be

taking my Leica to an ice-sculpture contest in Colorado, and maybe

some sand dunes. Where are people taking theirs?

[fred_ouyang]

No,

 

<p>

 

I don't think so, if they're(pros) happy and getting satisfying

results why switch.

But, for certain reason, like commercial value behind it, they may

switch.

Hey, it's like asking golf pros to switch clubs. They would, but

depends how much(like Nike or Titleist) willing to pay them. We know

the clubs are all good, but for pros, they make a living on them.

 

<p>

 

Wondering if any camera is taylor made for pro, who only uses the

lable to boost the sale to the public? :) like golf clubs?

 

<p>

 

I think amateurs would switch faster than pros just for fun and

curiosity(try) at beginning , but after pros switch based on $$(maybe

getting the cams for free), then people are getting convinced that

Nik** is better than Leica.

 

<p>

 

Fred

[craig_smith5]

Hey! Me and Phil the same person! Ok,we know each other and work

together,but Phil is at home and I'm earning money!sorry Phil.

[david_kelly1]

I think that something like this already happened. From the late '30s

right up to 1953 Contax bodies and lenses were both superior to Leica.

Lots of pro's switched -I've just been looking at John Loengard's book

"What They Saw" with many picture of Life staffers from that period,

and the 35mm cameras in those shots are mostly Contaxes. Yet people

went right on buying Leicas. The brand ran pretty much on it's

reputation until the the M3 and the Summicron appeared........

[craig_smith5]

Is this site sponsored by Leica? I think it must be.

[dennis_couvillion]

I'd first have to see how the Nikon camera looked against a black

turtleneck sweater?

 

<p>

 

Dennis

[jackflesher]

Esnesnon siht no emit ruoy gnitsaw rof sttuf gnikcun lla era uoy

kniht i.

 

<p>

 

:-),

[will_woodford]

Nah.

 

<p>

 

Too many people have too much invested in lenses. Over time you could

expect the Nikon to take some market share, but it would take a while

and Nikon's shareholders might not think it's worth the wait.

[dlegaspi]

yes, people will still buy Leica.

 

<p>

 

you know why? because nikon's customer service suck ass. their

warranty coverage suck ass. will nikon still repair your old N2000

camera? good luck.

 

<p>

 

i will buy a porsche boxter over a toyota supra anytime...

[yip2]

Using the new generation leica M lenses, I find it hard to believe

it is possible to improve them any more. There are fast, small,

and sharp. Any possible improvement will be marginal, hardly

noticeable except to the most discerning eye with a loupe.

 

<p>

 

The only way to make a quantum leap in pic quality is for leica to

be able to make a medium format rangefinder camera that is not

much bigger than a M or at least the smallest in the market.

 

<p>

 

Yip, who is ever hopeful for a MF Leica !

[nicholas_wybolt]

Phil,

 

<p>

 

Your question suggests a "herd mentality," where buyers gravitate to

brand name recognition, whether the manufacturer or the buyer(s). I

will submit that if there was a "herd mentality" with Leica, then

this forum would contain fewer posts lamenting Leica's marketing or

product strategies.

 

<p>

 

There is indeed a herd mentality in the photographic community at

large. I also believe that there are people who have purchased Leica

gear because of perceived "status" or whatever. That is, there is

a "Leica mystique" that many buyers find compelling. On the other

hand, I can't say that I've ever used a 35mm camera that at the same

time gets out of the way of making a photograph and facilitates

making a photograph as the Leice M rangefinder.

 

<p>

 

I suspect that I'd have to own some sort of spectroscopy equipment to

be able to discern the quality of Leica optics from "better" Nikon

optics.

 

<p>

 

So, no, I can't say that "better" optics or endorsements would be

sufficient for me to switch, athough some folks would.

 

<p>

 

-Nick

[gee-bug]

Kcaj thiw eerga yldetraehelohw i.

[msitaraman]

Er, isn't this what actually happened, more or less, with Nikon S

rangefinders, and later the Nikon F in the late 1950s, and early

1960s?

[kristian dowling]

Well, from a marketing point of view, many people would change.

There is almost a feeling among photographers that if they wish

to be remembered, a Leica will help with that. Their aren't too

many famous photographers at the moment that are seriously

compared to famous photographic greats in history. Sure we

have Salgado, Ellen Mark, Steve McCurry, etc who are all

recognised and appreciated for their work. But we cannot forget

about history, and sure many photographers like Eugene Smith,

Bresson, etc didn't have much of a choice, but for Leica. But the

fact remains that some of the worlds most influencial pictures

have been taken with the logo "leica" on the camera. And this

history will never be forgotton as long as the photos exist. Maybe

if their were photographers such as Steve McCurry taking more

meaningful pictures- as apossed to commercial style, a

following of Nikon fans may grow.

 

<p>

 

The point is that Leica's past will never die, and the reputatioon

is deserved through photographic merit throughout history,

compared to, say a new Nikon rangefinder getting good marks

from MTF graphs and used extensively by Pros all around. Lets

face it....a company like Nikon throws their cameras at Pros like

Steve McCurry, whereas people like Salgado actually choose

Leica based on the quality, feel and reputation deserved from

history thanks to people like Eugene Smith and Bresson. Nuff

said.