retrofocus wrote:
I clarified it earlier - I did not say that Leica would reverse the course not being a luxury brand anymore. What I said is that in addition to the luxury stuff they might reconsider adding lines for entry levels like the M-E camera versions or less expensive but excellent Summarit lens lines. This is IMO not a deviation from a the luxury strategy but a smart addition to attract younger folks or photographers considering switching to Leica from a more general photo brand. I believe it was a mistake from Kaufmann & Co to desert the entry market with single-sided focus only on luxury. IMO they lost quite a lot potential new customers by doing so. ...Show more →
I always understood that Leica is too small to boost its production capacity, so they may as well make a few overpriced products rather than a lot of reasonably priced ones.
If there were a cash injection, I believe Leica could add a cheaper line of M products and a line of Q-style interchangeable lens cameras and make good money.
There is clearly a market for well-designed and relatively minimalist gear below the current offerings from Leica and Hasselblad.
I am not sure that Leica is culturally able to produce lower cost lenses. To ensure that their high-end lenses can still compete, they would have to subtract so much from their existing designs that they may not be attractive at all.
Even the SL line is being operated in a very different, and secondary fashion to the M line, which always was, still is, and probably always will be their main focus. Selling obscenely expensive M cameras and lenses to very well off people who have investment as much in mind as status symbol, and in third place, photography.
I say this as a fan of Leica products. If I were not, this description would no longer hold back.
retrofocus wrote:
So what is your point with this long reply to my statement? That you work for Leica?
Nothing more than offerring up the author's IMO interesting perspective on Leica's luxury strategy that might relate to your comment "[you] hope that the potential new owner revises the push only to focus Leica as luxury product and offers again camera and lens lines more reasonably priced for entry etc." To your other question, I don't believe the author works for Leica either.
Leica's entry level strategy is used Leicas. They support that market in many ways. This robust used market enables its customers to upgrade and enhances the brand heritage. It is working well.
carstenw wrote:
I am not sure that Leica is culturally able to produce lower cost lenses. To ensure that their high-end lenses can still compete, they would have to subtract so much from their existing designs that they may not be attractive at all.
Even the SL line is being operated in a very different, and secondary fashion to the M line, which always was, still is, and probably always will be their main focus. Selling obscenely expensive M cameras and lenses to very well off people who have investment as much in mind as status symbol, and in third place, photography.
I say this as a fan of Leica products. If I were not, this description would no longer hold back....Show more →
This would be nothing new - more a revamp what Leica successfully did in recent past in case people forgot. They had entry level camera lines (M-E line) for the M9 and the M240 series. They stopped making them at the time when it all went luxury brand around the time when the M10 production ramped up. The Summarit lens line I mentioned earlier closed down a few years ago - Leica stating due to low demand which is contradictory to the used market where they are still in high demand to this day and go for similar slightly upped pricing.
1bwana1 wrote:
Leica's entry level strategy is used Leicas. They support that market in many ways. This robust used market enables its customers to upgrade and enhances the brand heritage. It is working well.
Please see my comment above. Leica was in good business with entry M-cameras, the M-E line (E stands for entry) for example. I am still using my Leica M-E 240 camera which was a good deal at the time and made me desert Sony and move to Leica for digital.
johnvanr wrote:
I always understood that Leica is too small to boost its production capacity, so they may as well make a few overpriced products rather than a lot of reasonably priced ones.
If there were a cash injection, I believe Leica could add a cheaper line of M products and a line of Q-style interchangeable lens cameras and make good money.
There is clearly a market for well-designed and relatively minimalist gear below the current offerings from Leica and Hasselblad.
Minimalist doesn’t mean it’s cheap to design/manufacture. People buy Leica because of luxury, not minimalist. If you really want a minimalist camera you can consider campsnap. I know there’s a huge gap between M11 and campsanp, but
I doubt there’s a practical business solution can survive in the middle ground.
tigerlo wrote:
Minimalist doesn’t mean it’s cheap to design/manufacture. People buy Leica because of luxury, not minimalist. If you really want a minimalist camera you can consider campsnap. I know there’s a huge gap between M11 and campsanp, but
I doubt there’s a practical business solution can survive in the middle ground.
I think people buy Leica for a bunch of different reasons, one of which is that they’re focused on shooting first and foremost and don’t have a plethora of buttons and use a relatively clean menu system. Hasselblad is the same. I doubt many real photographers buy either of these brands for luxury. I do think there’s a market for a decently priced offering for those kinds of cameras. They can be made cheaper simply by having lower resolution and other tweaks.
1bwana1 wrote:
Leica's entry level strategy is used Leicas. They support that market in many ways. This robust used market enables its customers to upgrade and enhances the brand heritage. It is working well.
That still leaves the question as to whether they would expand their new offerings if they could realistically up their production. I doubt many real have the sense they’re too small a manufacturer to fully cater to their potential market. So, they resort to stuff like watches and phones that carry their brand, but don’t require production capability. And protect their bottom line with enormous markups, which they protect with a robust marketing and retail effort.
tigerlo wrote:
. People buy Leica because of luxury, not minimalist.
You can generalize, but I never bought my first digital Leica (M9) because of luxury. I bought it because it was small and worked for me and I had no idea who Leica was at the time as I just wanted a small full frame digital camera.
stgrove wrote:
You can generalize, but I never bought my first digital Leica (M9) because of luxury. I bought it because it was small and worked for me and I had no idea who Leica was at the time as I just wanted a small full frame digital camera.
Very much why I bought my first M (M11). I wanted a small high-quality (both build and images) camera for photos only. I had tried all the major brands and to get small you couldn't get high image quality and all the mirrorless lenses were huge compared to an M lens.
