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.
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.
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
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.
You are completely mistaken if you think zeiss cares about leica as a brand name. The only thing zeiss cares about is profit.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
You are completely mistaken if you think zeiss cares about leica as a brand name. The only thing zeiss cares about is profit.
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.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.
Why can't I get a USA warranty D810? because its sold out!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?