What if Zeiss bought Leica?

[Sirius Glass]

That's ridiculous, they are certainly not losing money on anything that they sell.

+1

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That's ridiculous, they are certainly not losing money on anything that they sell.

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.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Leitz is not a camera company and the manufacture of cameras is a very small percentage of the companies business. Their major sales are in all sorts of optical instruments. For Leitz to continue making these is an example of noblesse oblige. Such a sentiment is part of the German psyche. It used to be an example of commitment that you could have Leica restore ANY model camera to its original condition. Sadly this option is no longer available.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... The level of craftsmanship involved in making a Leica is incrediible. This is not a camera that is mass produced.

I've often wondered what it would cost today to produce some of the fine mechanical cameras of the 1950's, such as an M3.

 

[Arklatexian]

Leica has been sold already in the past.

More than once as a matter of fact!..............Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

It really never has been and I would say the same about Hasselblad. Made on some sort of an assembly line, sure but not truly "mass produced"............Regards!

 

[miha]

Leitz is not a camera company and the manufacture of cameras is a very small percentage of the companies business. Their major sales are in all sorts of optical instruments. For Leitz to continue making these is an example of noblesse oblige. Such a sentiment is part of the German psyche. It used to be an example of commitment that you could have Leica restore ANY model camera to its original condition. Sadly this option is no longer available.

You have things confused. There is no more "Leitz"
Fot the last 20 years we have three separate companies - Leica Camera, Leica Geosystems, and Leica Microsystems. The first one is very much a camera company.

 

[blockend]

I've often wondered what it would cost today to produce some of the fine mechanical cameras of the 1950's, such as an M3.

Even run of the mill cameras like Nikkormat would be pushing £2k given the amount of hand assembly involved in making one. Mechanical cameras do not fit the modular, robotised production systems of the c21st.

 

[AgX]

You have things confused. There is no more "Leitz"
Fot the last 20 years we have three separate companies - Leica Camera, Leica Geosystems, and Leica Microsystems. The first one is very much a camera company.

And even that company saw change of ownership after that. So we have a company that lost "family" status long ago.
A ownerschip by Zeiss should only be of interest of us if Zeiss got enough shares to control the company, and if then such results as hinted at above in other products, other prices, other manufacturing. At the moment it seems far from that, unless the board of advisers would already see reason for industrial cooperation.

 

[blockend]

Zeiss are said to be interested in a majority shareholding only.

 

[Dan Fromm]

If chip j had wings we'd have to carry umbrellas.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

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.

Yeah somehow I just don't believe your unsourced, unposted and unnamed magazine article. Re their craftsmanship, sure they assemble a nice camera. But most of the camera is still made elsewhere and they're not using the same techniques they did with the M4 and earlier. I just have a hard time believing that it's such a huge feat to put 1950s technology in a hard metal shell. Leica makes a lot of fine products, don't get me wrong. I like that they're still a company and that they make cameras for a niche market. But this fetishising is a little obnoxious... Too often their praised for more than they deserve and not held to account for their horrible customer service should your camera need repair.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Leitz is not a camera company and the manufacture of cameras is a very small percentage of the companies business. Their major sales are in all sorts of optical instruments. For Leitz to continue making these is an example of noblesse oblige. Such a sentiment is part of the German psyche. It used to be an example of commitment that you could have Leica restore ANY model camera to its original condition. Sadly this option is no longer available.

I think Leica has been through enough hard financial times that we might assume that unprofitable lines have been discontinued. Were it a matter of noblesse oblige then the R-series would still be sold. Film M bodies still sell at a high price (and next to no development cost in the somewhat cynically produced M-A) simply because that lets a user access the M lenses, which we can, perhaps, agree are very, very good.
The most interesting question that we are failing to address is what would Zeiss have in mind if they got a controlling interest? I would guess that camera bodies would continue much as they are. 35mm lenses would probably merge into a mix of the best Leica lenses, and Zeiss lenses positioned as a bit cheaper, with the Summarits being cancelled to create more need for the Zeiss offerings. In MF, things could get exciting, as Zeiss formulae could be slotted into S lenses. I don't know enough about the ciné lenses of either company to make any guesses there.

 

[Huss]

I read some time ago that Leitz loses money on each camera they sell.

Fake news. Sad.

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/leica-is-healthy-but-theres.html

https://leicarumors.com/2016/04/05/...ed-revenue-for-the-20152016-fiscal-year.aspx/

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Yeah somehow I just don't believe your unsourced, unposted and unnamed magazine article.

The article appeared in one of the photo magazines. It may have been Modern Photography or Popular Photography but I subscribed to so many of them I am not quite sure. I do admit that the article was from several years ago. But I assure you the article was genuine and stated that Leitz did not make a profit on their cameras. It went on to state the reasons why the company continues to make and sell the Leica. Since Leitz was mentioned then it was before the split in the company. Things have probably changed but the point of dedication to the name has not. This was actually the point of the article and of my post.

 

[4season]

I'd imagine that Zeiss would be far more interested in Leica's sport optics and licensing deals with the likes of Huawei and Panasonic. Still cameras like the M, S, Q, T, SL etc maybe not so much: While the retail prices are high, I expect that so are associated costs.

 

[phrons]

Considering that Zeiss' last film camera (IKON), built by Cosina, was $1800 or so, I dont see how a $799 price is even remotely possible.

The Bessa's were that price

 

[phrons]

Cosina stopped production of the R2/3/4 series because there was no interest from the film community.
Same for the Ikon Zm they made.

If people still wanted them, Cosina would still be building them. Instead the market realized they could get a used Leica for the same money.

True, maybe its just a pipe dream of mine

 

[RattyMouse]

The Bessa's were that price

So were the Ikons. I had one in my hand so close to buying it, but I didnt pull the trigger. I regret that today.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I suspect part of the reason for the demise of the R system is the fact that Minolta (long a maker of R-system bodies for Leica) got turned into Sony. That and the overall quirkiness of the R's (still no autofocus, for starters, and no real way to bring it to them short of doing a Contax AX type thing, or a Contax N thing with an all-new lens mount and all new lenses).

 

[Ian Grant]

I suspect part of the reason for the demise of the R system is the fact that Minolta (long a maker of R-system bodies for Leica) got turned into Sony. That and the overall quirkiness of the R's (still no autofocus, for starters, and no real way to bring it to them short of doing a Contax AX type thing, or a Contax N thing with an all-new lens mount and all new lenses).

While Leitz used castings etc from Minolta for some cameras Sony were already working with Carl Zeiss before taking over the camera production part of Minolta which had ceased manufacture in 2006. Kyocera the manufacturers of Yashica and Contax had stopped camera production a year earlier - so when Sony redesigned and upgraded the Minolta cameras they were free to use Carl Zeiss lenses for their still cameras.

Historically Zeiss and Leitz had trade links, before WWII the Schott glass works (a Zeiss Foundation subsidiary) supplied Leitz with optical glass, and we should remember that Leizt have also worked with other companies using Schneider's Super Angulon design for their early 21mm lens and having a fast lens made by TTH Cooke just after WWII.

So would Zeiss taking a stake - maybe majority - be a bad thing, I doubt it.

Ian

 

[Huss]

The article appeared in one of the photo magazines. It may have been Modern Photography or Popular Photography but I subscribed to so many of them I am not quite sure. I do admit that the article was from several years ago. But I assure you the article was genuine and stated that Leitz did not make a profit on their cameras. It went on to state the reasons why the company continues to make and sell the Leica. Since Leitz was mentioned then it was before the split in the company. Things have probably changed but the point of dedication to the name has not. This was actually the point of the article and of my post.

So instead of paying attention to current financials that show Leica is making a profit selling cameras, you are relying on a decades old source that is unverifiable?

 

[miha]

I suspect part of the reason for the demise of the R system is the fact that Minolta (long a maker of R-system bodies for Leica) got turned into Sony. That and the overall quirkiness of the R's (still no autofocus, for starters, and no real way to bring it to them short of doing a Contax AX type thing, or a Contax N thing with an all-new lens mount and all new lenses).

Minolta was never a maker of R-system bodies. Most of the R cameras was made in Portual, some in Germany. The only R lenses made in Japan are some very old Minolta- made 75/80-200 zoom lenses and the superb Kyocera-made 80-200 f4 lens.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Exactly. Probably it got mistaken for cameras having a lower gain margin that lenses, but they definitely aren't losing money on them. They aren't a charity but a business.


About OP question, result would be nothing. If Zeiss where to buy Leica, it would do so because its business model, not because they have an heroic calling on making thinks right for the analog community or to get hold of the magical properties of Leitz lenses. Zeiss, like Leica, is a business and if they wanted to provide a camera at a reasonable price they would do so.

Cosina or Sigma should buy them. Then they could sell M9's and Monochroms at their true price.

I'm not sure what it "true" value would be. I understand "desired price" or "affordable price" but as far fetched an idea as it may be, its actually expensive to make this cameras. Reduced production batches (not a mainstream product but a niche one) doesn't help either.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[blockend]

I'm not sure what it "true" value would be. I understand "desired price" or "affordable price" but as far fetched an idea as it may be, its actually expensive to make this cameras. Reduced production batches (not a mainstream product but a niche one) doesn't help either.

Best regards

Marcelo

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.