zhangyue wrote:
It is an embarrass announcement. Just want reminder you guys it is not for you but people want a zoom travel camera with red dot. We should not disagree that less than 50%(very conservative) of Leica revenue are from photographers/serious hobbits.
Let’s assume some richer amateurs enter Leica store, once they see all $3000+ lens and $7000”+ body around and found this $3000 ‘bargain’ can zoom from 28-70, which one you will pick. BTW, what is 'aperture' means?
Don’t worry about Leica, they will be fine
Obviously there are some wealthy and yet clueless folks that will buy anything with a red dot, and that is all well and good, but, there are also a lot of folks that would be willing to spend a premium if the camera actually offers some pretty decent specs.
As such, if Leica could be bothered to actually put out a decent camera, they not only would be able to still sell it to the well-to-do but ALSO to the larger photo enthusiast community who actually wants some performance (in addition to a red dot) for a premium price, thus moving more units and making the company more profit.
Just don't really get the corporate strategy at Leica sometimes.....
I know they of course value the exclusivity of the brand, and I can only guess that maybe high prices weren't enough to keep people away as far too many average Joe's were coming up with the money to buy into the brand, so instead Leica got the brilliant idea of not only making the camera expensive, but also making it horrible so that enthusiast who have some expectations of performance would lose interest.
Thusly, Leica can be a high priced fashion symbol for clueless rich idiots rather than an excellent imaging tool.
Basically its the equiv of a $90 "designer" t-shirt. Super exclusive because you have to be not only wealthy but also very ignorant to spend that type of money for a brand name.
Looks like the Hasselblad Lunar will be getting some competition...
Who's next for jumping into the "stupidest ever camera" competition? Perhaps a "Zeiss Ikon Digital" with a fixed 200mm (equiv.) f11 mirror lens, cellphone camera sensor, and a $4500 price tag?
For those waiting for a FF mirrorless with integrated EVF that takes M and every other glass, their turn will come next year with the Nex 9.
As for Leica, most of the time their strategy doesn't make any sense but it seems to always work for them. Though it is difficult to understand the reason behind such camera which is basically a step backwards from the X2.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Leica is in the business of making money not making forum gear heads happy.
But why not try to make a product that will let them do both ?
Is the customer who would buy a fixed lens camera with a 70mm equiv f6.4 lens on the long end going to no longer want to purchase it if its got some decent specs ?
Does anyone say "hmm, no thanks, I think that lens speed is a little too fast for me, got anything slower?"
Its like what Fuji did with the X100, made both a great camera that sold to people who simply want something retro to wear around their neck as a piece of male jewelry (and it does go great with some thick black glasses, a full beard, tight jeans and a western print shirt lol) but it also appealed to tons of photographers who simply wanted a really good photographic tool that checked off all the right boxes such as OVF/EVF, fast(ish) lens, useful focal length etc, looks be damned.
Its like Leica wants to alienate as many potential customers as possible by listening every possible feature someone might want and then having NONE of them.
They might as well of said this one comes only in hot pink
FlyPenFly wrote:
Leica is in the business of making money not making forum gear heads happy.
However, a lot of their "traditional" way of making forum gearheads unhappy is by producing cameras/optics that have many attractive points, but are simply priced out of range and/or have some undesirable quirks attached. We forum gearheads would absolutely love to get a Leica MM with 50/0.95 for <$1000; we just complain because the actual price seems high even for unique capabilities. This camera goes in a different direction: even if someone abandoned one on my doorstep, I wouldn't be particularly interested in using a completely free camera with these specs.
millsart wrote:
But why not try to make a product that will let them do both ?
Is the customer who would buy a fixed lens camera with a 70mm equiv f6.4 lens on the long end going to no longer want to purchase it if its got some decent specs ?
Because that is what they can offer at $3000. Because they don't need any effort by borrowing electronics from Peny, maybe even Lens?
If you want f2.8 zoom or f2~f4 zoom, that is another camera at $5000
Seriously, do you really think 35lux worth $5200, 50lux worth $4000? That is what $3000 Leica camera looks like. RX1 is a bargain if you compare it to Leica (price) standard.
mpmendenhall wrote:
However, a lot of their "traditional" way of making forum gearheads unhappy is by producing cameras/optics that have many attractive points, but are simply priced out of range and/or have some undesirable quirks attached. We forum gearheads would absolutely love to get a Leica MM with 50/0.95 for <$1000; we just complain because the actual price seems high even for unique capabilities.
Now we hear your complain, that is what we can offer at the price point you want
I am not that surprised for the price (what you expect they charge for a APS-C zoom) and the spec at this price.(what you expect to offer at this price?)
Either way, I don't care this camera. I am not surprised and hence, don't change my view on Leica as a company because of this.
Leica abandoned the rational to mid range camera market to Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc a while ago.
It just makes more business sense for them to sell to a high priced niche that none of those players can compete in because nobody will buy a $4000 APS-C Nikon no matter how good.
Seriously, do you really think 35lux worth $5200, 50lux worth $4000? That is what $3000 Leica camera looks like. RX1 is a bargain if you compare it to Leica (price) standard.
I think you make a good point about Leica producing to a price point (albeit an incredibly inflated one for this utterjunk).
But why not an FF, with a 50 Summicron? The Summicron has always been popular, in Leica world it is relatively inexpensive and it would fill a niche that Sony has not yet got to. Personally, I would prefer a 40 Summicron, which is even cheaper, but I realise this is probably too close to the RX. Many people would go for the 50 FOV if it was on a neat, small FF body - it would cover similar ground to the old Rolleiflex TLRs.
Put a built in viewfinder in it and keep the body small and a 40 model, all other things equal, would leave the RX in the dust.
Could Leica have done this? Possibly. But obviously it was far too good an idea for them to pick up, so instead they produce an f6.3 lump of rubbish instead.
j.liam wrote:
I still find it hard to see the business sense of an ƒ/6.4 maximum aperture lens on one end of the zoom FL range.
Because you still know what f6.4 means
wolfloid wrote:
I think you make a good point about Leica producing to a price point (albeit an incredibly inflated one for this utterjunk).
But why not an FF, with a 50 Summicron? The Summicron has always been popular, in Leica world it is relatively inexpensive and it would fill a niche that Sony has not yet got to. Personally, I would prefer a 40 Summicron, which is even cheaper, but I realise this is probably too close to the RX. Many people would go for the 50 FOV if it was on a neat, small FF body - it would cover similar ground to the old Rolleiflex TLRs.
Put a built in viewfinder in it and keep the body small and a 40 model, all other things equal, would leave the RX in the dust.
Could Leica have done this? Possibly. But obviously it was far too good an idea for them to pick up, so instead they produce an f6.3 lump of rubbish instead....Show more →
Even they sell such FF with 50cron at $5000, they might still lose money. On the other hand, if they ask $7000, will you buy it?
As for FF MILC camera Changing lens, leica don't make much money at $7000 for its M240 compare Canikon's $7000 camera, not to mention they build such body sell for $4000? If you can stretch more, then M240 is there waiting for you and used M9....
Can anybody tell me why they want introduce low margin body to boost ZM, VC sell and a small crowd here to adaptor SLR lens?
I don't agree with Anybody say Leica miss a opportunity because there is simply no opportunity here. We are a bunch of nerds contribute a very very tiny sell of their cap.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Leica is in the business of making money not making forum gear heads happy.
While I dont doubt how much stupid people can be (thats true infinity) I sorta doubt that they will make much money out of this. In this case I think they slightly overestimated how much brand loyalty is possible, even given presumption buyer is complete idiot (wealthy idiot, which contrary to popular belief isnt that common).
We will see I guess, or at least Leica will.
Hasselblad Lunar wins this one, cause despite exterior and price-tag, its actually perfectly usable camera.
Yes, Mescalamba is right! And besides, I can always put a Leica Summicron 50 APO on my Lunar! Except, of course, it will cost me an adapter, and, oh man! these helicoid thingies are expensive!
FlyPenFly wrote:
Leica is in the business of making money not making forum gear heads happy.
Forum gear heads often take great photos and inspire noobs to buy expensive gear, so neglecting them is probably a bad idea if Leica want to make money. Whatever crappy or great cameras they launch, they still NEED the good photographers to like the brand.
Makten wrote:
Forum gear heads often take great photos and inspire noobs to buy expensive gear, so neglecting them is probably a bad idea if Leica want to make money. Whatever crappy or great cameras they launch, they still NEED the good photographers to like the brand.
Thats pretty much how Canon marketing works. Pro's are using Canon and they are pretty visible, so "noobs" buy gear branded Canon (or Nikon, same case). Frankly, when I see some great photo, I am curious what was used, cause it gives certain idea of whats possible with that kind of gear. Its not like Im trying to deny, that it needs great photographer to create great photo, but I think a lot of times, great gear is part of that process too.
Im not sure how much are forum guys which take good pics important, but I learned thing or two here about cameras and it had effect on what I will buy or not. That said I doubt regular "noob" visits FM, or any kind of forum.
On other hand, Leica target isnt regular "noob" and their kind of "wealthy Leica noob" tends to visit "wealthy Leica noob forums", which might have that negative for Leica, that there might be people which actually know what they are buying and they will most likely question reason for existence of this Mini M. And given leaked specs, Im sorta puzzled why it does exist at all.
We will see today I guess. Maybe its still smoke and mirrors (really wish for that variant).
Spyro P. wrote:
Actually leica sucks at making money
They have a terrible track record and many many years of making losses from their photogear sales.
Anyway not sure what they're thinking but put it this way: I'd never buy leica shares.
From what I recall, they've been pretty profitable year over year since a management shake up a few years ago.
