Grim times for Leica

[hashim a]

<i>their core products' customer base is shrinking.</i><p>

 

<i>To make up for a lower volume of new bodies and lenses they have been forced to price them ever higher.</i>

<p>

 

agreed, and these are very fundamental and serious issues they have to deal with.<p>

 

but more fundamentally, and i hope not one reads too much into this, the company (like its consumers) - seem very

resistant to change. it simply cannot continue on the path it's on.<p>

 

 

<i>But they'll survive as they have for decades, as a niche company offering fabulous optics wedded to a concept

of image-making that's at least an entire generation out of sync.</i><P>

 

i'll buy that they make fabulous optics - but the prices on some of those lenses are eye-popping and far out of

reach of folks that aren't loaded.<p>

[musings]

Problem is that Leica is being viewed as a hobby for Mr. Kaufmann and not a company willing to adapt and survive. This comment says it all: "But Mr. Kaufmann is optimistic that Leica will grow again. "I'm a long, long-term investor," he says." Nice statement but it's fluffy and hollow. Where is the strategy? Where is the roadmap? Wishful thinking won't cut it.

[zml]

<i>I disagree with the writer's assessment of recent losses in revenue. </i><br><br>I wonder what will it take for

the "Leica faithful" to become reaslistic? The German equivalent of Chapter 7..? Loss is loss, and for a small and

mismanaged company such substantial loss is often a kiss of death.<br>

[george_shihanian]

...."Eventually the majority owner will tire of dumping $10 Million or more into the till every year and the company will become someone's deep pockets toy-- ...."

 

It already IS someone's toy- Kaufmann's. And his pockets aren't deep enough to keep the company going much longer.

[leicaglow]

If I had to pick one fix for Leica, it would be to team up with Panasonic or something to build a digital body that takes M mount lenses and sell it for $2K or less. Pano can make a great product with Leica's insight and guidance. Leica should (and could) focus on building great lines of optical lenses for prosumers and pros. Add a little salsa to get the youngun's buying the Leica brand, and they'd be off to the races. I'd have no problem paying more for lenses if I could shoot them on affordable camera bodies. But there's just no way I can justify new Leicas in my business.

[george_shihanian]

If Leica were ever to reverse course and sell a nice featured digital body for $1K to $2K (which I'm sure they could but would never do) they would instantly have 30,000 (or whatever the number is) piss*d off M8 owners who paid between $4500and $6000 for their probably same featured digital body. They'd rather sell a product to 25,000 happy suckers than a lower priced product to 100,000 happy customers anyway. It's been their way for a long time.

Don't you think they have discussed their various options over the years (to open their product to more people) in corporate meetings? Sell less but at a higher price. That way you don't have to pay more workers or keep the factory open longer. They are choosing their path with their eyes wide open, don't underestimate them or make excuses for them.

[dave_s]

A few years ago I pontificated that the last Leica camera, film or digital, will roll off the assembly line between 2010 and 2015. (The thread was from a more irascible time, and I think it was deleted.)

 

I still stand by that estimate. All the rangefinder cameras the world will ever need have already been made, and Leica's digital rangefinder enterprise has begun its death spiral. In ten years, I bet Leica will be a manufacturer of high-quality optics, not cameras.

[Brian]

With the inexorable rise of digital, I think Leica's core competence has to be optics (they sell a nice line in binoculars and there are a lot of Leitz microscopes out there). The camera business will probably contract to be the lens-design subsidiary of Panasonic.

[Spearhead]

<i>While the usual people are cheering the grim news of Leica</i><P>Where's the cheering? Here?

[vic_.]

<i>"... Where's the cheering? Here? ..."</i>

<p>No, this forum is full of Leica fans.

[Spearhead]

Please show someone "cheering the grim news" so we know what you are talking about.

[carbon_dragon]

I hope someday someone (Canon maybe) produces a digital rangefinder with a good sensor and an affordable price. I think the best chance of something approximating the rangefinder concept in the modern world may be the micro-4/3rds cameras, maybe a nice panasonic with a Leica lens.

[el_fang]

<i>If Leica were ever to reverse course and sell a nice featured digital body for $1K to $2K (which I'm sure they

could but would never do) they would instantly have 30,000 (or whatever the number is) piss*d off M8 owners who

paid between $4500and $6000 for their probably same featured digital body.</i>

 

<p>By the same token, Canon would probably have at least as many pissed off 1D owners who paid $6,000 in 2001

when they can buy the much better and faster 1D MkIII for a little over $3k today. But they don't. In fact, many

of the same people who shelled out $6k for the original 1D are still shooting Canon. Why? Technology changes.

Things improve and get cheaper to produce. People who buy technology realize this. Camera collectors don't.</p>

 

<p><i>They'd rather sell a product to 25,000 happy suckers than a lower priced product to 100,000 happy customers

anyway. It's been their way for a long time.</i></p>

<p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with this business plan as long as the higher end product offers some value

or benefit over its lower-priced counterpart. Back in the film days Leicas were more expensive but were capable

of the same or even slightly better results than other 35mm competitors because the medium was film. Leica could

even claim to be king of low light. But in this day and age of sensor technology, when you've got stuff like the

5D Mark II that can do 25,600 ISO? Or a digital Rebel that shoots clean ISO 1600, costs $500 and can be repaired

locally? What is it, then? Brand recognition? The Rolex analogy doesn't work because unlike the Rolex scenario,

your average Joe or Jane on the street has no clue what a "Lee-ka" is.</p>

 

<p><i>Don't you think they have discussed their various options over the years (to open their product to more

people) in corporate meetings? Sell less but at a higher price. That way you don't have to pay more workers or

keep the factory open longer. They are choosing their path with their eyes wide open, don't underestimate them or

make excuses for them.</i></p>

 

<p>It isn't simply a matter of opening their product to more people. It's taking the FLAGSHIP PRODUCT and

justifying its premium over, say, a digital Rebel. You want to sell me an M8 for $5k, fine. But what benefits do

I get

in return for spending $4500 more over a Rebel? Spotty reliability? Poor low-light performance? A baseplate to

fumble with and drop? A six-month trip to Germany should any repairs be needed? No thanks. I'm just not that

retarded, and judging from the WSJ article, most of the market isn't, either.</p>

[hashim a]

<i>By the same token, Canon would probably have at least as many pissed off 1D owners who paid $6,000 in 2001

when they can buy the much better and faster 1D MkIII for a little over $3k today.</i>

<P>

i may be off on my assumption, but i would imagine a lot of the folks that got the 1D probably didn't pay for it

out of their own pockets, in most cases. i would think these are paid professionals and their companies made the

purchase. if they had bought the camera out of their own pockets, they are probably working professional

photographer. and yah, there are probably a few folks who are not hired or paid professionals who made the

purchase for whatever reason - but in general, with prices like that - i don't think that Canon is marketing to

most photographers who have a day job not related to photography.

<P>

i don't think the folks that buy an M8 mirror what i just described above. quite frankly, i get the sense that

the folks at Leica haven't improved much or lowered prices (due to economies of scale or other changes in the

landscape of technological efficiencies).

<P><BR><P>

you would think that if the prices stay as high as they do that you'd get a lot more bang for the buck as a

consequence.

<P><BR><P>

based on what i read here - i really have to wonder why this would be a desirable camera - regardless of price.<p>

 

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

<P><BR><P>

and despite what some may think in this forum, i'm not rooting for the demise of any company. i'm just very

surprised at the rah rah fluff that usually is associated with a camera maker that when examined leaves one

wondering what it actually delivers for the hefty price tag other than some sort of nostalgic warm fuzzy.

 

<p>

 

re the lenses, yah... from what i've seen, they look super.

[35mmdelux]

did the R line die already or was it pushed?

 

Rolexquartz = Summarit.

[peteradownunder]

I have a lot of trouble with my F430 Fango - but I wouldn't be seen dead driving a Toyota. Some people prefer

beautiful things to ugly things.If you can't see the difference between a Canon digi file and an M8 file - then

you may not be a moron - but you are certainly blind. <p> Who cares what situation Leica is in anyway - you

either like their product or you dont - move on already, no one is forcing anyone to buy or sell anything.<p> I

have 4 very nice Leica M lenses and I shoot B&W film with them on what you would say is an overpriced MP and digi

on an M8. If I want to use the best 35mm lenses ever made or ever will be made in a tidy package that I can carry

in a coat pocket - there is only Leica M. <p> If you dont get this - sorry you are beyond help.<p> flex your

muscles at teh gym and stp shouting all the time you lil weenie.

[marc_bergman1]

"flex your muscles at teh gym and stp shouting all the time you lil weenie."

 

Peter,

 

Did you just channel Allen Herbert?

[tom_higgins3]

The leica/rangefinder forum's unique in that many of its contributors spend their time constantly deriding leica cameras, and

by unsubtle extension, the photographers who use them. It's gone far beyond "real photographers not suffering leicaphiles (leica fools, in

other words) gladly. There's NO other forum

here where this goes on (or is allowed to). I'm not really given to "good old days" discussions, but it seems to me that not so

long ago this was somewhere you could find good photo threads on a daily basis(or at least a bunch of photogs in the same

boat, trying). Now it's just bash bash bash. I'm not a retiree with nothing better to do with my pension, or a collecter with nice shelves and

some fine chamois, every cent I earn, I earn with a camera. I've done two gigs with an m8 since I got it last week, and the clients didn't

notice a thing.

[mjferron]

Vic says "Thank you George Bush, now I can't afford to die, I'll have to work forever"

 

You really should have been wise enough to leave politics to the blogs that specialize in such. Mr. Obama was 2nd on a list of politicians who pocketed the most money from the mortgage giants. Not Mr. Bush.

(moderator if his comment stays so should this one.) Thanks

[el_fang]

<i>i may be off on my assumption, but i would imagine a lot of the folks that got the 1D probably didn't pay for

it out of their own pockets, in most cases.</i>

<p>You are in fact off, and by quite a margin. Print newspapers and magazines have been in steady decline over

the past decade in an almost perfectly inverse relationship with the growth of the internet. They've only finally

dropped off a cliff this past year, if you've been keeping up with Sam Zell's takeover of the Tribune Company as

well as what's going on at the New York Times as we speak. The almost universal trend of the smaller to

medium-sized papers has been to freeze the hiring of new staff photographers and instead hire freelancers, who

use their own equipment and therefore eat the depreciation. That trend has since spread to the largest newspapers

as well, and many longtime staffers have since accepted buyout packages rather than suffer the humiliation of an

outright layoff. Your warm and fuzzy mental image of the cushy staff position with staff gear and a company car

is about 10 years out of date.</p>

[hashim a]

<i>You are in fact off, and by quite a margin.</i><P>

 

no argument on my end... was just an assumption.

<p>

 

if it is the case, i think it's sad and kindev cruel to be honest.

[el_fang]

<p><i>I have a lot of trouble with my F430 Fango - but I wouldn't be seen dead driving a Toyota.</i></p>

 

<p>That's great; I love my Toyota Prius because to me, contributing a little less to pollution when I do have to

drive (48mpg actual), and actually getting from point A to point B, are more important than looking cool on my

mechanic's driveway. But to each their own. My point is, let's not confuse the issue by claiming that my Prius is

faster than your F430, or that your F430 gets better mileage than my Prius. Facts are facts. And the fact is,

even disregarding price, the M8 is a worse camera than any entry-level Japanese digital SLR available today, if

you want to talk about low-light performance (where Leica used to be "king"), product design and after-sales

service.</p>

<p>To use your F430 as an analogy, sure, a few years ago you could out-accelerate, out-brake and out-corner a

Toyota Corolla. But now a 2008 Corolla out-accelerates, out-brakes and out-corners YOU. You're no longer paying a

LOT more for a little more performance (as was true in the film days). You're now paying more - for a WORSE

product. If you can't see the discrepancy here, then you are the one beyond help.</p>

 

<p><i>If you can't see the difference between a Canon digi file and an M8 file - then you may not be a moron -

but you are certainly blind.</i></p>

<p>Oh, I see a difference, all right, and that difference only gets more obvious as the ISO gets cranked up.</p>

 

<p><i>Who cares what situation Leica is in anyway - you either like their product or you dont - move on already,

no one is forcing anyone to buy or sell anything.</i></p>

<p>Obviously, anyone who wants to see Leica still making and supporting cameras in the next 2 or 3 years should

care. If you don't, then don't come crying onto the forum when your precious M8 becomes a $5,000 paperweight that

even a 6-month trip to Germany won't revive. Or did you not read the WSJ article linked by the original poster of

this thread?</p>

[el_fang]

BTW, I even think the F430 is a better product than the M8 since I'm almost 100% sure you can get most repairs on an F430 done here in the States, or indeed, in any country where the car is officially sold. Or do you have to ship it to Italy if you blow a timing belt?

[ray .]

What a pointless argument.

[Alex_Es]

Hey guys, Leica has outlived Lehman Brothers. Leica didn't have to be propped up like AIG. It's not up for sale like

WaMu. At least Leica is selling its stuff to people who can afford it. No problem with sub-prime loans, no foreclosures on

M8s.

 

Okay, Ray, how did Rush get his? Was he hauled in for manslaughter for sitting on Ann Coulter?