Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Lee, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lee@hrcc.on.ca> Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 21:04 Subject: RE: [Leica] What I'd like to see. > Jeez, if Canon could do it 25 years ago, Leica should > be able to do it today. I'm sure they _can_ do it; the question is whether they _should_ do it. I wouldn't mind being able to offer an M6 identical to my own to my grandchildren years from now. It works just fine; why change it? Why does everything have to change every two years? I don't like the way the M6 film loading works, but it _works_, and so I accept it. I just get used to it. If it is still that way twenty years from now, fine. It's funny that I never hear anyone suggesting that wines should be made in a new way every three or four years, or that Rolex movements should be redesigned every half-decade, or that wheat should be genetically reengineered every season. I've spent the past twenty years putting up with "upgrade fever" in computerland, and I'm tired of it. You don't need to reinvent the wheel every year unless the only thing you know anything about or care about is reinventing the wheel. Changing camera designs is great for people who buy cameras but never use them; it's a pain for anyone who wants to spend his time taking pictures, and not relearning how to use his equipment or reading manuals. I think it's safe to say that the more a photographer takes pictures, the less often he updates his equipment. > I'd rather see this type of camera that another minilux. I'd rather just stick with the existing M6. After all, I might want to buy another body or two someday, and if I do, I'd prefer that it look just like the M6 I have now--that way I can use it right out of the box. (And, incidentally, I feel exactly the same way about my F5.) > When I was first thinking about buying a Leica, I kept > reading about how light and quiet the camera was, but > it's not really that light. That's a matter of opinion. I keep worrying that it will blow away in a stiff breeze. > Maybe in comparison to a fully loaded Nikon f5 it is ... It is! > ... but not in comparison to other cameras. A lot of other cameras are light, too. My Nikon FG is not very heavy, but it's still heavier than the M6, particularly once you put a modern lens on it. > As far as cheapening the marquee with an M6 lite, I don't > think that selling a braod range of cameras with different > price points would necessarily cheapen the brand. It dilutes the product offer, and in the absence of unlimited resources, something has to be sacrificed. > I'd be like Nikon selling the F2 and the FM. I've always felt that Nikon changes F models way too often. > If there were a decent Lecia body that was selling around > the $1K (USD) new I think a lot of people who wouldn't > buy a Leica previously would also do so. So? What's the objective here? Are we trying to turn Leica into a General Electric? As long as Leica is making money, does it have to make more and more and get bigger and bigger? Why can't it just continue as always, making a modest but comfortable profit? > And who would buy it? I don't know--that's part of the problem. Most people who are in the market for an inexpensive camera have no clue who Leica is. > What about those Leica users who have a minilux but are > now looking to upgrade into a more powerful camera. What do you mean by "powerful"? -- Anthony