Re: [Leica] Hexar RF/M7

["A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>]

Bernard wrote:

> Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> > > What Leitz really needs, one one hand a beginners model, with
> > > a good lens for a reasonable price, and a lower cost body, but
> > > reliable.
> >
> > I disagree.  There are already dozens of cameras like that--Leica will
> > just be
> > washed away if it tries to compete in that market.
>
> I'm with Anthony on this, and the argument that the cheaper cameras are
> useful to make up for the losses of the quality gear is something I
> don't find convincing. I don't believe that Leica can market cheap
> cameras for a *long* time. Of course, for a *while* there will be plenty
> of people who will gladly buy a $300 non-Leica manufactured "Leica".
> They want to own something with that name and then try to convince their
> neighbor that the $300 "Leica" plastic is superior to the Nikon plastic.
> But the name alone won't keep selling those point and shoots (or
> beginners models) forever.
>
> It's a cheap, temporary solution. The brand name will erode and the
> sales of the high-end gear will suffer more and more from the
> non-cultish plastics with the red dot. So high-end sales suffer, and the
> low-end will suffer as soon as Nikon et al prove that they're no worse,
> which is easy enough for them, because it's true and the big boys have
> more cash to get that message across. Down go the beginners models along
> with the high-end. Good-bye Leica-cult means good-bye company.
>
> Cheap, quick fixes may save some temporary CEO's reputation, but not the
> company. There are thousands of successful small companies in the world,
> making high-end gear of all kinds, of which only professionals have
> knowledge. Those companies survive if they render outstanding quality,
> or a cult-object, or both, as in Leica's case. But not if they try to
> make a buck or two by betting on every horse in the stable.
>
> Bernard

  Bernard, it is important to realize the difference between Cheap and
inexpensive.

Cheap will always mean Less quality, But inexpensive does not infer that the
quality has suffered.

I never said anything about "cheap". I said: "less expensive", when I made
my comments about some more Leitz camera models.
This was already done before by Leitz, and it seemed to have worked.
A leitz standard was not less reliable, than a model III or IIIa, but it
cost less.
Later on, a model IIf was as good in quality than a model IIIf, it was just
simpler.
The customer had a choice.

To the Lens. There is no reason, why the Elmar 50mm F2.8 could not be used
as a
Entrance level lens. especially if the collapsible mount could be changed to
a fixed mount.
Im sure, the costs could be brought down to a reasonable level. Even if it
is made off-shore, so what.  There is nothing wrong with the Elmar. It may
not be f2 or f1, but you'll
get away for 98% of the time with f2.8.  Quality wise: Nothing wrong with a
Tessar derived lens. The people who have used a Voigtlander colour Scopar, a
Schneider Xenar
or an Agfa Solinar know what I am talking about.

On the other side of the scale: an M6 derived camera with an electronic
shutter, with at least a switch able shutter priority automatic, with a
flash hot shoe with a flash sensor, which switches the shutter speed to the
correct setting for flash, when the flash unit is switched on, a decent film
remainder and last but not least, a sensible on-off switch.

There is no reason, why this additions should cost much more. On the
contrary, I could imagine it to be less costly, the a purely mechanical
camera.
However, Leitz would have a product which would cater for the various
consumer requirements.

Out sourcing: Most of you would run around half naked, if you only bought
items fully manufactured in your own country. Of course some items are made
all in house, but they are few and far in between. No matter what you by,
especially in the electronic or in the field of motor cars, you'll find
either part, or all made in a foreign country, be it third world or not.
I remember 30 years ago, people referred to items made in Japan as :" Cheap
Japanese crap", Then after It was: "Crap made in Taiwan" and suddenly the
Japanese stuff was considered high quality. The next one was the cheap
Chinese, and the Taiwanese went up a step in the ladder. It goes on and on.
probably sometimes it will be: " The rubbish made in Upper Volta".

Have you ever looked at the labels of the Hugo Boss, Nike, Adidas, and other
well known brands. You'll find normally the labels "made in China, or
Singapore or Hong Kong or some other eastern Country, sawn in to it.
In years to come, when the black africans stop massacring each other,
production of western goods will go to there. With enormous benefits to
these countries.
However the same folks who complained about the :"Crap made in Asia" will
now complain about the: "Crap made in Africa" and talk about the good old
days when all the quality came from Asia.

 Regards, Horst Schmidt