Effects of Minolta-Konica merger?

._._z · January 8, 2003

"Boring,that has always existed."

No. Regular profits -- now that's boring.

You think Leica has "always" been in precarious financial straits? Although their poor management decisions surely have hurt them in the last couple of decades, and especially around 2-3 years ago, it hasn't "always" been true.

Allen Herbert · January 8, 2003

Maybe a long time ago when they were innovators (found that word in my new dictionary).However,that was Ancient History: i prefer reading about the Ancient Greeks myself. In recent years, they seem to be able to bumble along selling a quality product with a History. The big boys,always profit hungry,are more than happy to steal what little profit they make. It is a constant source of fasination to me how they survive. It is nice to see a bit of History,and a quality product hanging in there. Bless them!

kelly_flanigan1 · January 8, 2003

Konolta

dante_stella · January 8, 2003

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

</head>

<body>

In case you haven't heard, Konica and Minolta have announced that

the two

will merge. Any guesses as to how this might impact the production and

development

of M mount cameras? I'm hoping for a reintroduction of the CLE or something

like it. There is also a chance they new company will abandon rangefinders

completely.

The "reintroduction of the CLE" is becoming the most oft-

repeated

piece and certainly the most hackneyed piece of wishful thinking I have yet

seen. Who needs a new CLE?

<ul>

<li>Other than TTL flash, CLEs have no must-have

features vis-a-vis current M cameras (none as against the M7). They have

no exposure lock in AE mode;

CLE 28mm and 40mm lenses key the wrong framelines on Ms and vice-

versa, they

don't take accept of the most desirable M glass, and their limited baselength

cuts you out of fast teles. Worst, they are not really that much smaller than

an M6.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>A resurrected CLE would necessitate the resurreciton of an obsolete

shutter

and transport mechanism. I can guarantee you it would not be cheap,

unless

you want an off-the-shelf system from a Cosina SLR or a Chinese X-370

clone.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>So what if the tooling still exists? I would bet that it takes fewer than

10 die-cast and stamping tools to make all of the major body parts (chassis,

covers, back, front plate, wind lever, shutter dial). You could re-make all

of them at minimal cost. As Nikon has learned, what you could not make at

a reasonable cost are the skilled workers necessary for die-cast finishing

and assembly (unless you're willing to have a product made in China) and

the

obsolete electronics (which given the current state of the art would probably

be radically differently manufactured today).</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>A lot has happened since 1975. Coreless DC motors have made motor-

driven

cameras like the Hexar RF far smaller and lighter, as well as more energy-

efficient.

Shutters have gotten faster. The rising tide of technology has lifted all

boats, even Leica.</li>

</ul>

There are plenty of CLEs on the secondary market (there are two a week

on

Ebay) and they are cheap. I think a lot of people see the Cameraquest

treatment of the CLE and decide

it's the best thing since sliced bread. If you handle one, you realize that

it was a nice, cheap, compact M camera when it came out, but it is no Leica.

Some people reallly like them, but it is probably more likely you will see a

TTL-flash Hexar RF than a resurrected CLE.

vic_. · January 8, 2003

Bailey, you beat me to Monica, I didn't read your message!

As far as the quality of Japanese management, their stock market index, the Nikkei, is at early 1980's levels. Twenty years of gains have evaporated. Something is clearly wrong, and the downturn in electronics purchases, with hardly any growth in the market, will probably mean that not a lot of money is spent on research and development, but in reengineering existing technology, milking whatever has already been created.

Meanwhile, the market for Leicas is outrageously strong. All the IIIg's, besides the one that Bob Todrick has, seem to have ended up in Japan.

._._z · January 8, 2003

"Meanwhile, the market for Leicas is outrageously strong."

Quantify "outrageously strong." It's a small boutique market, and not a paricularly profitable one at that. Leica barely made a profit this year, and was bleeding money just two years ago. Their financial reports clearly state that their profits are trending towards "sport optics" and digital, not rangefinders.

jsbc · January 8, 2003

Talking about Leica's financial straits... I think they even screwed up Hermes' investment.

When Hermes bought the 30% or whatever percentage of Leica, I could not believe Leica arranged it so that Hermes bought old (existing) shares from the market, presumably from the mgt, rather than subscribing to new shares, the proceeds of which would sustain more R&D.

Bad, stupid move.

Robin Smith · January 9, 2003

Johnson

I don't get your point. 30% value of the company costs 30% of the value. Issuing new shares and asking Hermes to buy them for the same price as they paid to get the amount they actually paid presumably would not have been what they wanted since that way they cannot have got an influential 30%. Issuing more shares and assuming the value of the company stays the same means each share becomes worth less. Printing more money means the value of the notes decreases. There is no free lunch.

You CAN raise money by issuing new shares, but this assumes that shareholders agree (they have to stump up some of the money themselves, else their investment is effectively reduced) and that the market actually want to buy new shares in Leica. Since Hermes wants to have some sort of controlling interest in Leica it will not make any difference to the amount they have to pay to get it.

joel_matherson · January 10, 2003

Dante, with respect to you anti CLE jibe, you totally miss the point. That being people would like a replacement for their CLE's in a new compact M mount camera NOT an actual replica of the original. Like the CLE had many improvements over the CL so too would the next version would be updated as well. All the talk about reproduction of shutters and electronics etc is totally irrelevent. It would all be new and improved to modern production standards. The Nikon S3 re-run was purely for collectable purposes to which a replacement of the CLE would be a practical user. As far as the CLE having no advantage over M, well thats how you see it but many others do not. It is significaly smaller than an M (you may not think so but it is) but more importantly it weighs significalty less. Back door film loading, believe it or not some people dont like the bottom film loading of M's. Also significatly is the 40mm lens focal length, you of all people being a fan of the 70's rangefinders that mainly have 40mm lenses, I would have though you would have appreciated the virtues of the focal length, aparently not. The inhability to use the long fast tele lenses ie the 90mm f2 & 75mm f1.4 is true but if someone is seeking a more compact lightweigh M shooting platform, from my own experience these wont be lenses that one would want to choose from. Your long winded discussion of the virtues of hollow core motor drives being energy efficient as an arguement against the CLE. The CLE takes two 1.5 Silver Oxide batteries and is manual wind? These will still outlast any modern motor drive camera, as the camera is manual wind and consumes very little power, so I still fail to see where you were going with that one. Yes there are a couple of CLE's for sale on ebay every week, but more so every non collectors edition Leica is too, is that meant to suggest that the cameras arent really wanted or any good? You talk about stamp tools for several parts including covers? But they are injection moulded plastic! Have you handled the camera or is this just web based research you have done? Certainly your 1975 reference Im still wondering about, the CLE came out in 1980. I still remember your discussions of the F3's cloth shutters which are actually Titanium foil, and I believe a more hands on and thorough research should be undertaken with some of reviews of items you have done. One thing I do agree with you on however is that more likely than not if any CLE replacement is ever offered it will be very much like the Hexar. Lets just hope its smaller.

dante_stella · January 10, 2003

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

</head>

<body>

Joel, let me address your comments in turn.

...people would like a replacement for their CLE's in a new compact

M mount

camera NOT an actual replica of the original.

Then why do people keep talking about an "updated CLE" and

not a

"compact M?" I have never seen anyone say the latter.

Like the CLE had many improvements over the CL so too would the

next version

would be updated as well. All the talk about reproduction of shutters and

electronics

etc is totally irrelevent. It would all be new and improved to modern

production

standards.

Made in Thailand, out of plastic? Designing an all-new camera is a pretty

risky

enterprise, and expensive. If Konica, which has tons of money, did not depart

significantly from the G2 in making the Hexar, I cannot imagine that anyone

would come up with something completely new.

It is significaly smaller than an M (you may not think so but it is) but

more importantly it weighs significalty less.

Let me explain where this is coming from. I don't think it's significantly

smaller, because to me the size issue is the front-to-back dimension, then

the

top-to-bottom dimension, and then the left-to-right. I carry cameras in coat

pockets, and to me the lens projection is the major hangup to portability.

Back door film loading, believe it or not some people dont like the

bottom

film loading of M's.

The Hexar already has that.

Also significatly is the 40mm lens focal length, you of all people

being

a fan of the 70's rangefinders that mainly have 40mm lenses, I would have

though

you would have appreciated the virtues of the focal length, aparently not. </

em>

The 40mm focal length has nothing to do with the camera body. I used a

40 CLE

lens on my Hexar for a few months, and I liked the compactness. I have used

a lot of things with 40mm lenses, from Canonets to Fuji 6x9s. Quite honestly,

it is a good lens if you take only one. But so is a compact 35mm. In the end,

the virtues of a 40mm lens are inherent to the lens, not the body - and the

CLE-type lens fits anything with an M mount.

The inhability to use the long fast tele lenses ie the 90mm f2 &

75mm

f1.4 is true but if someone is seeking a more compact lightweigh M shooting

platform, from my own experience these wont be lenses that one would want

to

choose from.

I don't consider those practical lenses for anything other than an M3 or an

high-mag M6 or 7.

Your long winded discussion of the virtues of hollow core motor

drives

being energy efficient as an arguement against the CLE. The CLE takes two

1.5

Silver Oxide batteries and is manual wind? These will still outlast any

modern

motor drive camera, as the camera is manual wind and consumes very little

power,

so I still fail to see where you were going with that one.

The point is more that you might as well get motor drive if you have to use

batteries. Why do you assume that the future CLE would have manual

wind?

Yes there are a couple of CLE's for sale on ebay every week, but

more so

every non collectors edition Leica is too, is that meant to suggest that the

cameras arent really wanted or any good?

I never suggested that. The point was that it is relatively easy to find one

if you want one. They don't sell for astronomical amounts of money, certainly

not enough to support a new product introduction.

You talk about stamp tools for several parts including covers? But

they

are injection moulded plastic! Have you handled the camera or is this just

web

based research you have done?

I have played with several of them, but none has been in bad

enough shape

to see what was under the surface finish. They always seem to be in perfect

condition. Should I take a file next time? Nor would I really care.

Certainly your 1975 reference Im still wondering about, the CLE

came out

in 1980. I still remember your discussions of the F3's cloth shutters which

are actually Titanium foil, and I believe a more hands on and thorough

research

should be undertaken with some of reviews of items you have done.</

p>

I have an F3HP, s/n 1717xxx, sitting on my desk. I opened it, pushed on

the

curtain, and it felt like the curtain my M3. My bad. If I had done internet

research, I would have concluded differently. Ditto on the intro year of the

CLE. I was 2 when it came out, so pardon my lack of firsthand knowledge.

Was

it the CL that came out that year?

Regards

</body>

</html>

vic_. · January 10, 2003

Quantify "outrageously strong."

Bailey, I mistyped, I was talking about Screwmounts only, which means mother Leica gets nada.

Sign In

Effects of Minolta-Konica merger?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in