[Leica] Endangered Species??????

["BIRKEY, DUANE" <dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec>]

Well, quite honestly,  if Leica ever does become an endangered species. 
it will probably be due to the fact that it has a rather limited market 
at it's price point and people have other ways they'd rather spend the 
money. 

Let's face it how many people have the disposable income to spend   $850 
for a new 50mm f/2 M lens,  $ 2300 for a 24 2.8 R.  $1800 for a 28 f/2.8 
R.   I don't.    Good grief I paid $375 for a new Fd Canon 24mm f/2 and 
it's a stop faster. 

The only reason I've personally been able to buy any Leica at all is that 
I sold my Hasselblad stuff.  My dad gives us a nice check every year for 
Christmas and we designate part of our monthly budget towards my camera 
fund which over time builds up to a point where I can buy another lens 
etc...... other wise I wouldn't be on this list...   

But the average person either doesn't have the money to spend, or would 
prefer to spend it in another way, a new car, a vacation to Europe, a big 
screen tv. etc.  Besides that, the wife can't seem to line up those funny 
squares or figure out what to do with the red thingys in the bottom of 
the finder.

I seriously doubt that Leica could ever compete at the price level of 
Nikon or Canon.   And if they did, we would all forever grumble about how 
the company went from producing the utmost quality to absolute junk for 
the next 50 years.  

And then there is the technology and available feature issue.........

I know we've discussed this before.......but how long does it take to 
design and produce a working motordrive for the R-8.  Why does a M-6 
meter a computer  monitor the same over several stops......   why don't 
they have a 20-35 and  a 28-70 f/2.8 for the R etc.   
Let's face it, for many applications Leica image quality is overkill.  I 
quit shooting 2 1/4 because the improvements in technical quality were 
lost in reproduction.  My 35mm images are much more creative and have far 
more visual impact as well.  But I'm hard pressed to see a sizeable 
difference between my Canon and Leica images unless I blow them up huge 
and even then it is only in certain situations.

The difference is sometimes there of course,  but the question that 
people ask is whether or not the extra amount of money paid for the 
equipment is worth the improvement in image quality.   As long as enough 
people say yes, Leica has a chance.  When they increasingly start saying 
no, it's not worth the price, then they will be in danger of extinction.  
  

The main reason I bought Leica M is that it forces me to work close and 
it's small and quiet.  That's great for photographing dignitaries during 
radio interviews or people during workshops or during church services.  
Besides that it should be usable for 30 or 40 years or as long as film is 
around.  Unless Leica changes the M-mount (heaven forbid)   

Fuji is dead wrong on the 4 year issue, unless he meant that APS might 
roll over and be dead in 4 years if it doesn't grab hold of a higher 
percentage of the cameras in use (not cameras sold).  I can tell you 
what's it's share in Ecuador is (less than 1 %)

Duane Birkey

HCJB World Radio
Quito Ecuador