fmwing wrote:
Chinese manufacturers make decent low price lens, but there's disconnect here. I think most Leica owner don't care about that. I think what Chinese manufacturers need is a mid priced body. What is keeping that from happening?
I assume you mean a cheap Chinese rangefinder? Because most of not all mirrorless cameras will take M lenses with an adapter. Some adapters even provide 'autofocus' capabilities.
RustyBug wrote:
Leica "experimented" with the Q and it turned out to be a success. An EM (or EM-D variant) has been asked for so many times, that I can't see it not doing well for them. Sure, the history of M is something they want to safeguard, etc. ...
It is less the heritage and more that they saw with the Leica CL that a cheaper camera that actually does the same as the more expensive ones will of course cannibalize the sales of the more expensive models.
If there was a Q form factor M mount camera with decent EVF (and maybe even proper manual focus assists),
90% of the people that actually use M-mount cameras to take serious pictures will never look back to the rangefinder
and especially the rangefinder cameras with that ugly addon EVF on top.
If seeing the surroundings is so important (the only "real" argument for rangefinders),
you could just put in a small smartphone camera to show the surroundings in the EVF,
like modern iPhones already do it (I should probably get a patent on that idea...).
Now obviously you would have to sell that camera for less than the Q, because it would be a Q without lens and AF fluff.
So that camera would have way way way less margin than the vastly overpriced M-mount digital cameras we have today.
And if some fanboy wants to tell me how expensive the mechanics are, explain to me, why I can buy an MA
that has just the same "advanced mechanics" from the 1950s and in addition to that a really fancy digital camera from any other manufacturer with all the latest tech
for less than an M10r or an M11. The math just doesn't add up, the delta is the margin on the M cameras which is simply ridiculously high.
If I had a product like that and customers like that I would also protect that little bubble at all cost.
An SL Typ 601 in a CL body would be the dream for me. The SL is apparently so good for m-mount lenses, but it's so big and heavy (relatively speaking). Stick that in a CL body and they'd have a winner on their hands.
BastianK wrote:
If seeing the surroundings is so important (the only "real" argument for rangefinders),
you could just put in a small smartphone camera to show the surroundings in the EVF,
like modern iPhones already do it (I should probably get a patent on that idea...).
Now obviously you would have to sell that camera for less than the Q, because it would be a Q without lens and AF fluff.
So that camera would have way way way less margin than the vastly overpriced M-mount digital cameras we have today.
And if some fanboy wants to tell me how expensive the mechanics are, explain to me, why I can buy an MA
that has just the same "advanced mechanics" from the 1950s and in addition to that a really fancy digital camera from any other manufacturer with all the latest tech
for less than an M10r or an M11. The math just doesn't add up, the delta is the margin on the M cameras which is simply ridiculously high.
If I had a product like that and customers like that I would also protect that little bubble at all cost....Show more →
So, what numbers are you using to deem the margins on M cameras compared to the margins on other cameras?
Do you have the material composition / allows prices that Leica specs? Do you have the glass composition specs / prices on those raw materials. Do you have their employee wage scale? Do you have their R&D costs? Do you think the microlenses they designed for the M lenses are of the same R&D / material as other mfr's (which use glass that is thicker and doesn't have the same refractive properties), etc. How do you think the get such a thin glass and precision optic in the digital bodies, compared to the film plane of a simple projection, rather than what they use in the digital M. Do you think that R&D was the same to develop the microlenses, specific to the M lenses?
And, then do you have the same for the other manufacturers. I mean ... I work in manufacturing and hear folks grumble about margins, when they do NOT KNOW what the costs actually are? Do you know what they are? Do you know the cost difference in random sampling vs. 100% inspection?
You say "the math just doesn't add up" ... well, can you show the numbers that you are using? I'd like to see those numbers for all that goes in to deriving such an assertion. Which BTW ... all sustainable manufacturing has to have margins of profitability that "don't add up" to the casual consumer.
What numbers do you have regarding Leica's manufacturing business? Sony's, Canon's, Nikon's, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, etc. Sure volume and margin are interrelated to certain degree.
If you want to get going on ridiculous margins ... ummm, ever buy a Coke ... or, a bottle of water. I know those costs to manufacturer because it has been my job to improve the ROI on the manufacturing throughput.
Just saying ... I'd like to see your "business math" on this one, regarding TOTAL COSTS and how that derives into your assertion. Sure, their price may be higher, as their units sold may be lower ... but, I'm not sure we can make an assertion to what those margins are without knowing ALL the numbers. So, would you care to share the numbers that comprise a correct assessment of Leica's margins, to back up your assertion?
RustyBug wrote:
So, what numbers are you using to deem the margins on M cameras compared to the margins on other cameras?
Do you have the material composition / allows prices that Leica specs? Do you have the glass composition specs / prices on those raw materials. Do you have their employee wage scale? Do you have their R&D costs?
And, then do you have the same for the other manufacturers. I mean ... I work in manufacturing and hear folks grumble about margins, when they do NOT KNOW what the costs actually are? Do you know what they are? Do you know the cost difference in random sampling vs. 100% inspection?
You say "the math just doesn't add up" ... well, can you show the numbers that you are using? I'd like to see those numbers for all that goes in to deriving such an assertion. Which BTW ... all sustainable manufacturing has to have margins of profitability that "don't add up" to the casual consumer.
What numbers do you have regarding Leica's manufacturing business? Sony's, Canon's, Nikon's, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, etc. Sure volume and margin are interrelated to certain degree.
If you want to get going on ridiculous margins ... ummm, ever buy a Coke ... or, a bottle of water. I know those costs to manufacturer because it has been my job to improve the ROI on the manufacturing throughput.
Just saying ... I'd like to see your "business math" on this one, regarding TOTAL COSTS and how that derives into your assertion. Sure, their price may be higher, as their units sold may be lower ... but, I'm not sure we can make an assertion to what those margins are without knowing ALL the numbers. So, would you care to share the numbers that comprise a correct assessment of Leica's margins, to back up your assertion?
BastianK wrote:
I cannot help the blind to see, sorry.
While I do not have insight to Leica's business finances ... I assure you, I see VERY WELL when it comes to manufacturing costs, ROI and margins.
Not sure that we see "eye to eye" on where the "blind" is being applied. Although, I'm curious to what you think their margins should be? Care to lob out a % that you feel is appropriate for sustainability and advancement? If you're gonna open Pandora's box on business and math ... you probably should be prepared to bring something tangible to the table.
Who knows, maybe you're right ... but, St. Louis is in Missouri, and is known as the "Show Me" state.
So ... what ya got?
BTW, I'd like a cheaper BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, Bosch, etc. ... those dang Germans just keep making stuff that has a margin. Shame on them. Can't they just make them the same way other mfrs do.
All the way down to the molecular composition of the steel / alloy panels ... there are mfrs that spec more costly components, so that they will last longer, perform better, etc. The cost of that steel / alloy is greater ... not just because of the different alloys, but also how much it takes to get a process dialed in for a a different molecular composition. The QA requirements to achieve this vastly increased from from "regular" steel. I could go on ... and yes, I have made such alloys to diff mfr spec. There is far more to it than folks can remotely conceive if they haven't been part of that process, etc. I've made millions of those little coke and water bottles, too.
Those corners are so vastly different ... the optical path through the camera ... the precision difference seems obvious for what it takes to get the most of out an M lens, is a a precision optical M path.
Can't they just make them the same way other mfrs do. 