...a customer who has the money to buy a Leica SL3, a Canon R5 series or a Sony Alpha 1 also has the money to buy a Hasselblad X2D or a Fujifilm GFX. So it’s one single market: the market for high-end interchangeable lens systems, whether full-frame or medium-format.
--
For extreme telephotos, it makes more sense for us currently to leverage the Alliance and recommend lenses like the Sigma 300-600mm f/4 or Sigma 500mm f/5.6. We recently had photographers using Sigma glass on SL bodies at Formula 1 events and motorsport shoots with outstanding results. We have no hesitation suggesting Sigma optics to our users where appropriate.
--
Size and weight reduction. We are rethinking our optical design approach to deliver the exact same optical performance in smaller, lighter barrels... The immediate future for SL glass isn't necessarily adding exotic focal lengths – it's optimizing compactness and ergonomics.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Size and weight reduction. We are rethinking our optical design approach to deliver the exact same optical performance in smaller, lighter barrels... The immediate future for SL glass isn't necessarily adding exotic focal lengths – it's optimizing compactness and ergonomics.
Happy to read this but why did it take 11 years to come to this conclusion?
I don’t think he’s right about it being a single market for high-end cameras. The R5 and Z8 are to me mid-level market cameras (in price, not performance) and not in the higher tier, price-wise, he refers to.
To take my own experience, I buy $4000 cameras new and +$6000 cameras used. That has been true for any brand I’ve bought in the past, if I remember correctly.
Thanks for posting this interview/article! More than a few interesting tidbits in this article.
E.g.:
[Q]"One of Leica's unique strengths is that while other brands abandoned legacy segments, Leica maintained film camera manufacturing and compact cameras. However, it sometimes feels like medium format (the S system) was set aside. Is that project still alive?
[A] We haven't abandoned medium format. We had to pause development on the next-generation S camera due to broader technological shifts in processors and sensor architectures.
The industry is evaluating the next evolution of imaging processors. Most dedicated cameras still rely on traditional processor architectures like our Maestro series.
Meanwhile, mobile applications leverage mobile SoCs [system on a chip] like Snapdragon platforms, which currently aren't architected to handle full-frame or medium-format readout pipelines effectively.
Technology has hit a temporary structural plateau. The next major leap requires global shutter implementations, stacked architectures and next-generation processing platforms that are still maturing in the supply chain.
Because camera development takes 3 to 5 years, we have to design around technologies that will be available in 2030 and beyond.
Rather than releasing a camera costing over €20,000 that quickly becomes constrained by current-gen hardware, we paused the project until the underlying component ecosystem aligns with our performance targets."
SlowDriver wrote:
Happy to read this but why did it take 11 years to come to this conclusion?
Efforts to reduce SL kit size and weight has been obvious to me since about February 8, 2023, when Leica released the set of smaller SL 35 + 50 Summicrons ASPH (non APO). Followed by a few "smaller SL zooms and of course slightly smaller SL3 cameras. Now with the new lens tech allowing Leica to create the recently released very compact Auto Focusing Summilux-SL 50 f/1.4 ASPH it is IMO even more obvious where this system is going.
LBJ2 wrote:
Efforts to reduce SL kit size and weight has been obvious to me since about February 8, 2023, when Leica released the set of smaller SL 35 + 50 Summicrons ASPH (non APO). Followed by a few "smaller SL zooms and of course slightly smaller SL3 cameras. Now with the new lens tech allowing Leica to create the recently released very compact Auto Focusing Summilux-SL 50 f/1.4 ASPH it is IMO even more obvious where this system is going.
True, the adoption of Panasonic and Sigma lens designs helped get the ball rolling – but the new 50 SL Summilux is the first true commitment to the smaller/lighter design philosophy since it's a Leica designed and built lens.
johnvanr wrote:
I don’t think he’s right about it being a single market for high-end cameras. The R5 and Z8 are to me mid-level market cameras (in price, not performance) and not in the higher tier, price-wise, he refers to.
To take my own experience, I buy $4000 cameras new and +$6000 cameras used. That has been true for any brand I’ve bought in the past, if I remember correctly.
I think the point being made was that the higher price tier is the only one showing growth and is the one they're focusing on.
Interesting. I initially found the surprising until I realized that the Q3, an expensive as it is ($7000+!!!), costs far less than the current M and includes a lens. And given the increasing emphasis among many consumers on convenience and one-size-fits-all capability in a daily use or travel camera, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Q is outselling the more niche (and much more expensive) M line.
Andrea Pacella, Leica's VP of global marketing and communications:
"At the beginning, some people would joke, 'You pay for the lens and get the camera for free'. But if you think about how much a standalone M-mount Summilux 28mm f/1.4 lens costs, the lens alone costs as much as the entire Q camera.
On average, the Q series cameras sell twice as much, or even more, than the entire M system. It is a lot.
However, we have never exceeded the production run that we can naturally manage. We have never thought about doubling factory shifts to produce more cameras, and we don't want to.
Q cameras are expensive, and we prefer to maintain its premium price point instead of overproducing and being forced to lower the price.
Today, if I had to give you rough, approximate numbers, the sales proportion between the two main models is roughly two-thirds for the 28mm and one-third for the 43mm – or perhaps somewhere between a three-quarters to one-quarter split."
Arka wrote:
Interesting. I initially found the surprising until I realized that the Q3, an expensive as it is ($7000+!!!), costs far less than the current M and includes a lens. And given the increasing emphasis among many consumers on convenience and one-size-fits-all capability in a daily use or travel camera, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Q is outselling the more niche (and much more expensive) M line.
"At the beginning, some people would joke, 'You pay for the lens and get the camera for free'. But if you think about how much a standalone M-mount Summilux 28mm f/1.4 lens costs, the lens alone costs as much as the entire Q camera.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges. Apart from the focal length and the "Summilux" designation, the Q's 28mm lens shares absolutely nothing with the M's 28mm lens.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I'm surprised there is growth in the camera market at all. It's been dying for years due to smartphones.
Phones took over the point and shoot market, but also made everyone a photographer. No surprise that with such a large population taking photographs, a good chunk of that group takes a more serious interest in the hobby and buys a “real” camera.
Sorry, I should have put the name with the quote. The quote is from Andrea Pacella, Leica's VP of global marketing and communications as stated in the article linked....
Nifty Fifty wrote:
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges. Apart from the focal length and the "Summilux" designation, the Q's 28mm lens shares absolutely nothing with the M's 28mm lens.
Arka wrote:
And given the increasing emphasis among many consumers on convenience and one-size-fits-all capability in a daily use or travel camera, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Q is outselling the more niche (and much more expensive) M line.
Q is Leica's 'entry level' system.
M has definitely increased in price a fair amount in the last 10 years, certainly more than inflation, putting it further out of reach. At one point it was attainable for me and not necessarily more expensive than the top-end mainstream options. But now it's like nearly 2x more for an M11. And some of the Leica lenses I bought ~10 years ago, are now in Canikony super-tele price ranges. While I love the M system, realistically, it no longer brings much benefit to what I photograph. Certainly not technical advantages. But where I think the M system has challenges beyond attainability, is that it's basically competing with itself. There is so much used M product on the market, and at considerably lower prices than new. Plus at least lens alternatives from Voigtlander and others like LLL, Thypoch, etc. It feels like M has become even more of a niche of a niche. And when LLL or another company out of China releases an M digital camera 'replica'... The higher Leica pushes prices, the more likely I see this happening.
M has definitely increased in price a fair amount in the last 10 years, certainly more than inflation, putting it further out of reach. At one point it was attainable for me and not necessarily more expensive than the top-end mainstream options. But now it's like nearly 2x more for an M11. And some of the Leica lenses I bought ~10 years ago, are now in Canikony super-tele price ranges. While I love the M system, realistically, it no longer brings much benefit to what I photograph. Certainly not technical advantages. But where I think the M system has challenges beyond attainability, is that it's basically competing with itself. There is so much used M product on the market, and at considerably lower prices than new. Plus at least lens alternatives from Voigtlander and others like LLL, Thypoch, etc. It feels like M has become even more of a niche of a niche. And when LLL or another company out of China releases an M digital camera 'replica'... The higher Leica pushes prices, the more likely I see this happening. ...Show more →
My guess Leica makes all its money on M from the cameras and the occasional lens releases because it’s so competitive on the lenses hence why they price how they price.
Sure, if you want a digital rangefinder camera, you have to pretty much buy a Leica. And it's a pretty high cost of entry to start building a system. For Leica, it's also kind of a vicious cycle. As volume decreases, per unit price has to increase in order to meet gross sales expectations.
I mean even in my own work, I'd much prefer to sell less and at much higher unit prices than sell on volume at lower unit prices. A challenge with selling at higher prices is that there tend to be fewer customers. So can you find enough customers to buy a $10K camera rather than $5K? It seems, so far Leica can, in part because they market to a different type of customer range than the mainstream brands. I don't know, maybe their research indicates that they haven't exhausted this approach and there's still room for upward price movement. You know, the more expensive and exclusive it becomes, the more desirable it becomes for a certain kind of clientele.
rscheffler wrote:
And it's a pretty high cost of entry to start building a system
I wonder if Leica does not count on the 2nd hand market.
A M240 is not that expensive and still a very good camera. And one can find plenty of Leica or third-party lenses to use it with.
If money was sparse, this what I would do.
