What if Zeiss bought Leica?

[RattyMouse]

Sorry if you don't believe the magazine article I read. The level of craftsmanship involved in making a Leica is incrediible. This is not a camera that is mass produced.

As proven with Huss' post above, it's ridiculous to think that Leica isnt making any money. The more craftsmanship involved the more certain you can be that it is done at a profit. People dont give away their skills!!

 

[RichardJack]

I'd still shoot with my Nikon's.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

The digital age isn't the film age. Back then manufacturing quality and technical efficiency were at the service of the film used. Now imaging technology is a work in progress. No matter how superbly made a digital Leica is, after 5 years it's old hat and after 10 it's an exercise in nostalgia. That doesn't mean the cameras won't work, but most users will get the itch for something better, and their £X thousand investment isn't such an investment after all, unlike Leica film cameras.

The company's track record with sensors isn't stellar, and it has flirted with niche products that are styling exercises or something to fit in your silk Paul Smith pants. What they need is cutting edge tech to match their quality aspirations. Their film cameras are irrelevant to Leica as a company, they need to get pro's using their digital cameras instead of their Canon's and Nikon's, as Fuji have. There will always be people who aren't price sensitive and pay whatever it takes to buy the brand, but Leica have almost gone broke a couple of times servicing the tiny bespoke market.

I kinda agree with that logic, but I think getting into a market which Leica is ill suited for (mainstream digital cameras) would be an error (recipe for bankruptcy). Also, with a ever diminishing market for digital cameras, would it be wise to dive head on into a dying market? Not likely.


I think that what Leica needs is to fortify its selling point (service an quality). If one read some threads about people complaining about Leica (from people that actually buy Leica, not from those complaining that it is too expensive), complains are mostly about quality issues and bad service.


So, getin back into topic, why would Zeiss buy a luxury oriented brand to make it a cheap brand? No logic in there.


Best regards.

Marcelo

 

[fstop]

I don't think anyone outside of rangefinder fans would notice.

"People dont give away their skills!!"

Manufacturers don't pay for skills.They pay for labor.

" with a ever diminishing market for digital cameras,"

Don't you mean film? Digital is on the upswing with full frame prices dropping, they will hit the price point in a year or two and then really take off.

 

[phrons]

So, getin back into topic, why would Zeiss buy a luxury oriented brand to make it a cheap brand? No logic in there.


Best regards.

Marcelo

You are completely mistaken if you think zeiss cares about leica as a brand name. The only thing zeiss cares about is profit.

 

[Huss]

Digital is on the upswing with full frame prices dropping, they will hit the price point in a year or two and then really take off.

"Lowest sales ever"

http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-sales-report-2016-lowest-sales-ever-dslrs-mirrorless/

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

You are completely mistaken if you think zeiss cares about leica as a brand name. The only thing zeiss cares about is profit.

Businesses exist to make money usually, Zeiss and Leica are no different. There would be no Leica special edition whatever if Leica didn't want to make money, especially off of the Asian luxury market boom. In fact Leica's continued existence is largely due to the status obsessed in emerging markets.

 

[blockend]

In fact Leica's continued existence is largely due to the status obsessed in emerging markets.

That I agree with. Like Rolls Royce in the 70s and 80s, no one in their right mind would prefer those overweight and under designed lessons in conspicuous consumption to the competition, but sales trickled on to the status obsessed before the business was sold to the Germans. There are only so many sepia dreams of 14 men polishing a bolt people are prepared to pay for.

 

[Mick Fagan]

That I agree with. Like Rolls Royce in the 70s and 80s, no one in their right mind would prefer those overweight and under designed lessons in conspicuous consumption to the competition, but sales trickled on to the status obsessed before the business was sold to the Germans. There are only so many sepia dreams of 14 men polishing a bolt people are prepared to pay for.

Funnily enough, that period of Rolls Royce automobile construction, was probably their best in terms of what the vehicles could do, how they drove and more importantly, what they were like to drive.

Those units, I’m talking the Silver Shadow here, were really nice to drive. The ones I drove were smooth as silk, the throttle action was so perfectly balanced, you almost didn’t know you were pushing it down with your foot.

The brakes were almost as good, they just stopped you with minimal foot effort, time after time.

I can still remember the faint click as one moved the small lever into drive, some throttle application, then a gentle surge and a push back into the seat informed one you were moving. At 100 km/h one could hear virtually nothing, one couldn’t hear the clock ticking as the clock tick had been muted, or at least eliminated, as the owner of the vehicles I drove was annoyed at the intrusion of the ticking clock.

I drove about 10 of these units. Also, they could out accelerate a hot Mini Cooper S from a standing start; maybe not for the first few metres, but after those first few metres, that 6.7 litre V8 could boogie with the best of them…

Mick.

 

[blockend]

Funnily enough, that period of Rolls Royce automobile construction, was probably their best in terms of what the vehicles could do, how they drove and more importantly, what they were like to drive.

I think Rolls Royce lost their way when they became owner-driver vehicles, never sure if they were limo's or grand tourers. Most were as ugly as sin, with the Parthenon grill stuck on the front like a sore thumb. They compensated for their huge weight in cubic inches, but I'd have taken most other up-market saloons through the twisty stuff in preference to a Roller.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

That I agree with. Like Rolls Royce in the 70s and 80s, no one in their right mind would prefer those overweight and under designed lessons in conspicuous consumption to the competition, but sales trickled on to the status obsessed before the business was sold to the Germans. There are only so many sepia dreams of 14 men polishing a bolt people are prepared to pay for.

To Leica's credit, they are at least offering a few competent products. The M8 & M9 have their fans, but they were multiple generations behind and had fatal flaws built into them. The M240 is pretty good, but was oversized and had poor low light compared to the cheapest Nikons. The M10 seems pretty good, to their credit they've finally figured it out. Same with the Q. The lenses are of course good, as they have always been (but so are even the Voigtlanders these days). The rest of their photo equipment are poorly thought out experiments that only exist for those who MUST have only the red dot. I know a few people like that. I am quite pleased that they still produce 3 film cameras. If they wanted to impress me though they'd replace the M7 (which is already barely mechanical) with a modern body that has a motor drive, 1/4000th of a second (at least) and maybe a couple other innovations. But frankly, that's not gunna happen. The Leica's are real charmers I have to admit, and during my short spat owning an M4 and an M 240 + a slew of Zeiss lenses, I made some great pictures. But then eventually I realized I still do better with my Rolleiflex, and better still with my F6.

I'd get another M4 someday, and I'd definitely go back to Zeiss M lenses. But it's all just too dang expensive with no practical value to my photo business. I use my F6 at weddings still, never the M4.d

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You are completely mistaken if you think zeiss cares about leica as a brand name. The only thing zeiss cares about is profit.

That's what I mean. It is interested on the profit the Leica brand will bring to it

Regards

 

[blockend]

The Leica's are real charmers I have to admit, and during my short spat owning an M4 and an M 240 + a slew of Zeiss lenses, I made some great pictures. But then eventually I realized I still do better with my Rolleiflex, and better still with my F6.

I loved my M5, but wasn't prepared to buy the Leica lenses I wanted when I have some great lenses in other mounts and formats. The Kiev and J12 scratches my old school rangefinder itch and is a surprisingly capable camera. Unless it's tax deductible or Leica are offering inducements, I don't know why anyone would buy a new Leica film rangefinder over a classic M.

 

[phrons]

I loved my M5, but wasn't prepared to buy the Leica lenses I wanted when I have some great lenses in other mounts and formats. The Kiev and J12 scratches my old school rangefinder itch and is a surprisingly capable camera. Unless it's tax deductible or Leica are offering inducements, I don't know why anyone would buy a new Leica film rangefinder over a classic M.

I really love the feel of the M

But, if I was going to invest so much into a system I would rather do it in a bigger format. Cheap portable 645 cameras will have a much better look than a M with and lens.

I think that's where Leica really has a problem. No matter what they do, they will not be able to outperform a bigger format.

Digital has made medium format and even 4x5 so affordable, unless someone really wants that red dot they can spend $150 on a yashicamat and get the portability with much better image quality than spending $10k with the best Leica setup.

 

[fstop]

"Lowest sales ever"

http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-sales-report-2016-lowest-sales-ever-dslrs-mirrorless/

Why can't I get a USA warranty D810? because its sold out!

 

[Huss]

Why can't I get a USA warranty D810? because its sold out!

No it's not

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062499-REG/nikon_d_810_digital_slr_body.html

Dead Link Removed

http://robertscamera.com/d810-body-only-17824?source=category

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d810-dslr-camera-body-only-black/7521025.p?skuId=7521025

https://www.samys.com/p/Digital-SLRs/1542/D810-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body/151762.html