[Leica] OT: Contax ceased production of 35mm cameras, digitalto follow

[dorysrus at mindspring.com (Don Dory)]

You have to look at the cost of R&D and the relative numbers sold.
Epson's digital rangefinder has shipped in the neighborhood of 2000
units at a retail price of $3000.  Oh boy, retail sales of $6,000,000
before marketing, warranty, and administrative overhead.  Plus, no
lucrative ink sales to help support the effort.

All of us who love rangefinders for what they allow us to do should be
grateful that Leica has managed to hang on this long.  Even if you do
not buy new, someone has to make the repair parts that keep these
machines working.

Rangefinders are a small niche in the image taking marketplace.  Many
manufacturers have lost a lot of money trying this niche.  You have to
wonder why Zeiss is entering the market at all.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of Scott McLoughlin
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:37 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Contax ceased production of 35mm
cameras,digitalto follow

Tim,

That  sounds good, but Nikon and Canon we're moving earlier. They're
market leaders, and the industry isn't so big that the others weren't
going
to notice.  Pentax seems to have gotten something out the door, and same
for Oly and Minolta.  P&S digicams seem all over the place, including
even bargain off-brand models by now. 

So why the seeming innability to act on the part of the high quality
rat pack, to scramble and come up with the goods once the handwriting
was on the wall?  Hell, doesn't premo glass deserve the latest body
technology as at least an option - AF, flash metering, or digital in
this
case.   Is it an issue of product cycle times, NIH syndrome or other
aspects corporate culture?

Just weird to me, I guess. And kind of sad.

Scott

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>How come?  Is every premium lens and camera brand
>>up the proverbial creek without a paddle?  I'm a newbie.
>>How did this come to be?
>>    
>>
>
>How? Simple - most of them have become victims of their own hubris.
>
>About two years ago or so, most of these companies (in addition to some
of
>the film companies) seemed to feel they had maybe 5-8 years before
digital
>photography made really serious inroads into their markets. And either
>because they truly were caught by surprise, or from wilful denial
(probably
>a combination of both in varying degrees) they failed to predict how
very
>fast digital was changing things. Even when the evidence was there for
those
>with eyes to see. That point, which they thought was 5-8 years away
arrived
>in about two years.
>
>As a result they failed to adapt - either by partnering with someone
who was
>in tune with the coming changes or doing the (radical) work needed to
adapt
>themselves. In fact it isn't so much a change as a revolution in the
way
>photography is done in both consumer and professional work. I forget
the
>exact figures, but Kodak for example, was caught out last year by
something
>like a 40% change in film use when they had been predicting 5-10%.
Ilford
>all but went under because they were still massively overproducing film
>products.
>
>Leica clearly failed to adapt fast enough and isntead seems to have
relied
>on a "we've weathered these things before - SLR's, autofocus etc etc -
we'll
>weather it again. Which is a bit like typewriter manufacturers in the
late
>80's early 90's believing their will still be a worldwide market for
>typewriters by the mid 90's. And even that analogy is out, because the
>revolution has taken place far faster than that changeover.
>
>Leica is still stuck trying to produce what can only be characterised
as
>"the last digital SLR in the world" which has still yet to really see
the
>light of day. Never mind the digital M. Whereas anyone who has been in
tune
>with the rapid change in the market has been producing their digi SLR's
for
>a few years now. And even the alternate digital M is out there.
>
>Simply put, you snooze you lose. And these manufacturers who are now in
>trouble or closing down their camera production lines were asleep at
the
>wheel (or such cameras weren't the main focus of their business by that
>point anyway - like Contax).
>
>
>tim a
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information