[Leica] Doomed:now a discussion of leica owners

[pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig)]

BD,

I agree with everything that you say/write.

The trouble is that there is no sign that Leica listens to what goes on on 
this 
list - or any other. That represents a serious defect in their market 
intelligence. It would be greatly to Leica if there were some sign from 
Solms 
that they do listen to what people say - although I think that any such move 
on 
the part of Leica is unlikely in the extreme. Pity.

Peter Dzwig

B. D. Colen wrote:

> Believe it or not, Don, I, too, am glad Leica held on and continued to
> produce sensibly refined traditional gear - and I'd include the
> ill-fated M5 in that category. Unfortunately, the company has fallen
> down in three areas if what one cares about is long-term survival:
> 1. Marketing. And by marketing I'm talking about how they positioned the
> product. Had the company used advertising, student programs, and PR to
> position the M as "The" serious pro camera, the camera that every
> newspaper, magazine and documentary photographer wants around his or her
> neck even if they're being forced for commercial reasons to use a motor
> drive-laden behemoth, they would have, I believe, secured a much larger
> market than they did by position the product as a jewel for the elite.
> More money in marketing - and real R&D - rather than in special
> editions, would have gone a long way. And don't forget that the kind of
> position I'm suggesting would appeal to the "jewel" crowd, the serious
> "am" crowd, as well as up and coming pros - because the folks in those
> other groups also want to be seen as 'real,' 'serious' photographers.
> 
> 2. Reflex development. (Ducking incoming :-) ). Yes, the R8 & 9 have THE
> best viewfinder on the planet - no question. There is outstanding glass
> for them. But as sales prove and have proven for some time, the market
> for a manual reflex camera at a top AF reflex price is limited indeed.
> Had Leica developed an AF version of the 8/9, while continuing to turn
> out the MF for as long as they could financially, I believe they could
> have turned the R line into a money maker. Obviously they were never
> going to be a Canon or Nikon - most wouldn't want them to be. But they
> could have really done things with the line that would have made it a
> financial success.
> 
> 3. Digital. Here, as in most areas, the company has done too little too
> late. I know there are people on this list who have already ordered
> their R back on faith. But what Leica has chosen to do in the digital
> realm is to set out to produce a very expensive - when compared to high
> quality digital cameras that are already out there (and as folks here
> are finding out, work very nicely with the R glass) - back for cameras
> in a line that is already losing money. And, if they hope to sell this
> back to new buyers, the price of camera and back jumps into the digital
> stratosphere, and doesn't begin to compare in utility to the few
> digitals in that price range. 
> 
> I realize that Leica is a tiny company compared to the competition, that
> it is a niche market company, and that it is a very limited R&D budget.
> But perhaps all of that argued for finding  a partner/buyer 20 - or at
> least 10 -years ago. As someone suggested to me off-list last night -
> what if Zeiss acquired Leica. Talk about synergy.
> 
> B. D.
> Not angry at Leica - but saddened by Leica.
>