The affordable Leica is never going to happen..

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, history has shown that Leica is still successfully making and selling rangefinder cameras, while Nikon is not.

Yea!!! Like five hundreds MP, M-A per year...

Yet, Nikon oversold Leitz, Leica Camera AG. On lenses and on cameras. In terms of history, Leica rangefinders cameras were ditched for Nikon SLRs.

Where are some old good names for street photos with Leica. While the more common, commercial rest of photos was, is taken by Nikon and else.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I'd bet money that Leica will outlast Nikon. Nikon has a lot of competition whereas Leica really has none.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, history has shown that Leica is still successfully making and selling rangefinder cameras, while Nikon is not.

And Leica's many attempts at an SLR are pretty much history. Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.

 

[wiltw]

Not really - at least from his account, David Douglas Duncan simply found the 50mm and longer Nikkors to be better than the Leitz glass he had available to him at the time. From what I can tell from the available material today, at that point in time the feeling seemed to veer towards Leica having the better cameras (for the end user) and Contax the better lenses. Nikon essentially split that difference by making their lenses available in L39 - and by giving DDD an appointment to try out the lenses (apparently Canon were too busy to let him visit and try their lenses). I don't think price ever came into it - but performance did.

I will not debate historical fact of which I do not have first hand knowledge. I will let Nikon battle out the facts.
https://www.nikon.com/about/corporate/history/oneminutestory/1950_nikkor/

 

[logan2z]

Yes, I believe you are right.

+1 The demise of the Summarit line of lenses is proof of that.

 

[faberryman]

I'd bet money that Leica will outlast Nikon. Nikon has a lot of competition whereas Leica really has none.

It all depends on how you define the market.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

... Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.

First cameras sold in retail under Leica label were made by FujiFilm and then Panasonic. Leica Digilux line.

M8 came years later and despite all of the snafoos, it is still selling used at very premium price.

M9 series were in production until 2015. At some point sensor glass started to fail in many of those cameras.
Leica did sensor swap (couple of years free and then for 1K USD) and as alternative sold other new cameras after trade in.
M9 cameras Leica got after trade in were sold back after refurbishing in 2019. For something like 3K USD.
In 2020 Leica Camera AG run out of major components for M9, means no support.

 

[faberryman]

First cameras sold in retail under Leica label were made by FujiFilm and then Panasonic. Leica Digilux line.

Right, those are the inexpensive Leicas. Leica still charges you extra to misspell the manufacturers name and attach a red dot to the front plate. Leica has some of those in its current lineup for those who want an inexpensive Leica.

 

[4season]

Actually, Leica themselves do offer 10-15% discounts on refurbished and demo gear: It's a program that has been in place for many years, but they don't really promote it.

At this late date, I imagine that products such as the Leica M-system are really labors of love, and no amount of discounting will make them as popular as they were in the early 1960s or even 2007, at least not sustainably.

 

[Arthurwg]

What about the Lomo LC-A 120 camera? Pretty good at $450.00. It's a very wide angle device. I call it the poor man's SWC. But the same body could be used for 35mm and 50mm lenses.

 

[Danner]

If anyone builds a budget M camera, it will be Cosina. And I'd like to see that.

 

[Huss]

Yea!!! Like five hundreds MP, M-A per year...

Yet, Nikon oversold Leitz, Leica Camera AG. On lenses and on cameras. In terms of history, Leica rangefinders cameras were ditched for Nikon SLRs.

Where are some old good names for street photos with Leica. While the more common, commercial rest of photos was, is taken by Nikon and else.

Selling 500 MPs a year at a profit is making Leica more money than Nikon selling zero. It actually must be much more than that if you figure the number of shops throughout the world that sell Leica, and their allocation. But still.

Also, all the camera manufacturers are dumping SLRs and going to mirrorless in the near future.
Seeing that Leica has been mirrorless since, what, the 1930s?, it seems that they were right all this time. Nikon should have stuck with the RF seeing that the SLR has ultimately proven to be a failure from a business perspective.

 

[Huss]

And Leica's many attempts at an SLR are pretty much history. Leica's first digital cameras were pretty dismal, too.

So they did the right thing and stuck with the rangefinder/mirrorless cameras.

How is Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Olympus etc film slr business these days? What's that again? They quit years ago? Oh....

 

[Huss]

If anyone builds a budget M camera, it will be Cosina. And I'd like to see that.

I had an R3A, and briefly a Zeiss Ikon ZM.

You are right, they are, very, budget M cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

Leica, like Nikon, Canon and Fuji recruits "ambassadors" or influencers to market their cameras, with the goal of associating those photographers work with their cameras. But the reality is that for decades, most small-format cameras of a certain quality have been pretty much interchangeable, with slight variations in handling, the look of the lenses, bodies and systems. It is all marketing. People buy into the family elitism. (I'm a Nikon photographer, I'm a Canon photographer, etc.) A Leica feeling good in your hands does not make better pictures or you a better photographer. And as far as an affordable Leica, the company does not seem to be concerned with volume (that's pretty much all an affordable camera will get you), part of the cachet of owning a Leica (see the video posted on another thread) is exclusivity. A mass-market Leica would just dilute that and hurt that image they have so carefully built over decades.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Selling 500 MPs a year at a profit is making Leica more money than Nikon selling zero. It actually must be much more than that if you figure the number of shops throughout the world that sell Leica, and their allocation. But still.

Also, all the camera manufacturers are dumping SLRs and going to mirrorless in the near future.
Seeing that Leica has been mirrorless since, what, the 1930s?, it seems that they were right all this time. Nikon should have stuck with the RF seeing that the SLR has ultimately proven to be a failure from a business perspective.

If SLR was failure, why Leica and else are imitating it still? By placing EVF in the middle and bulk, weight

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Right, those are the inexpensive Leicas. Leica still charges you extra to misspell the manufacturers name and attach a red dot to the front plate. Leica has some of those in its current lineup for those who want an inexpensive Leica.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1428270-REG/panasonic_dc_lx100m2_dc_lx100_mark_2_digital.html
797 USD currently.

1295 USD for exactly the same camera, but under Leica label.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1445092-REG/leica_19116_d_lux_7_digital_camera.html

500 USD more for just a label.

 

[faberryman]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1428270-REG/panasonic_dc_lx100m2_dc_lx100_mark_2_digital.html
797 USD currently.

1295 USD for exactly the same camera, but under Leica label.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1445092-REG/leica_19116_d_lux_7_digital_camera.html

500 USD more for just a label.

A bargain at twice the price.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I sort of can't believe there are no film cameras in production from Voigtlander. How hard could it be to find someone to make shutters?

 

[faberryman]

I sort of can't believe there are no film cameras in production from Voigtlander. How hard could it be to find someone to make shutters?

If someone were willing to make them, I am sure the price would depend on the quantity ordered. How many do you need? How much would setting up a production line cost? How much would the design, production, and assembly of all the other parts cost? How much are you planning to sell the camera for?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

If someone were willing to make them, I am sure the price would depend on the quantity ordered. How many do you need? How much would setting up a production line cost? How much would the design, production, and assembly cost of all the other parts be? How much are you planning to sell the camera for?

If anyone in the world knows the answers to these questions, it's Cosina. Given the interest in film photography these days, I'd say they could sell a lot of anything they choose to make. The first thing I'd put back into production is the Bessa III/GF670, with some reliability fixes. Then at least the Bessa R2a or M. If I could buy a new R2a for $1299 I'd consider it over a an M4.

Leaving Cosina behind, you have these top notch chinese manufacturers making incredible things. I wouldn't put it past one of these companies to completely clone an M4 top to bottom and sell it for $2000 USD. I say this as someone with Chamonix 8x10 and 5x7 cameras, and a China HiFi tube amp for my turntable. All top notch products at bargain prices.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I sort of can't believe there are no film cameras in production from Voigtlander. How hard could it be to find someone to make shutters?

Well no decent demand for that. That was the reason Cosina discontinued them, low sales. We may think we make a a huge demand/impact of the market but true is that very few of the people that like/uses rangefinders buy new cameras. From those, the ones that buys Leica are either buying them as fashion accesories or buying them to use them and maintain their investment. Bessa doesn't look a particular pretty option if you want to keep your investment.

IMHO Bessa created the Bessa line to suppor their VM lens line and get attention on that market. Once that was done (once both Bessa and Leica camera owners alike where taking Voightlander seriously) Bessa line was not longet needed.

Marcelo

 

[Pieter12]

So they did the right thing and stuck with the rangefinder/mirrorless cameras.

Until digital mirrorless came along, a rangefinder camera was only good for a narrow range of focal lengths. Specialty lenses (macro, fisheye) and long telephoto lenses such as those used for sports and wildlife photography really are only practical with an SLR.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Until digital mirrorless came along, a rangefinder camera was only good for a narrow range of focal lengths. Specialty lenses (macro, fisheye) and long telephoto lenses such as those used for sports and wildlife photography really are only practical with an SLR.

I would say wide angle lens are MORE practical on SLR. I 've been usin 21mm and 15mm on Leica/Bessa for a while with no problem and really enjoy them, they are pretty usable on rangefinder. Can't comment on telephoto and macro since I don't usually use them..


Regards

 

[madNbad]

Leica has always been a small market manufacturer. In the twelve year run for the M3 a total of 220,000 units were made, a fraction of the number of Nikkormats that were built during their twelve year run. Leica have always been expensive because of those limited production numbers. The switch to digital in the mid 2000s dumped a lot of film cameras on the market and prices plunged. With a new generation trying film and influencers using certain cameras the prices are rising. Leica is content with producing just enough M-As each year to maintain a claim of still a film camera manufacturer. They don't need to chase new customers so there is no incentive for a bargain Leica.