Re: [Leica] R8 marketplace performance and the LUG

[Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de (Hans-Peter.Lammerich)]

Apparently Leica did some kind of consumer survey for the R8: Many users wanted 
a faster shutter (1/8000s, 1/250s flash synch) and "high-eye-point" finder, a 
bigger body for better grip with the new zoom lenses, a manual film 
advance/rewind with an optional and detachable motor winder/drive, easy film 
loading etc.. Leica's honest intention was to design the best non-AF SLR body on 
the market, to incorporate all possible, even though partially inconsistent, 
customer wants, but under the constraint of a tight investment budget and by 
using as many existing components "from the shelf" as possible. Unfortunately, 
there was no current equivalent of the Minolta XD7 that could be easily 
converted into a Leica body. At least there was no Japanes company willing to 
give a license or Leica did not like the idea of rebadging.

Leica invested a for them substantial amount of money into the R8 and in new R 
lenses. Although the R8 meets all of the above requirements, wrapped-up in a 
very nice design, several postings confirmed that R6.2 sales outnumber R8 sales. 
Dr. Yao even mentioned that sales from his stock of "old/new" R7 outnumber his 
R8 sales. So we can conclude that the market has made his choice and does not 
reward Leica's effort in this market segment. The minority of R8 enthusiasts on 
the LUG is no help. The lack of an attractive R body may even jeopardise the 
market for R lenses!

I believe that Leica users either want a compact, mechanical SLR or an 
electronic SLR with all bells and whistles this side of AF to make the best out 
of the existing range of new and second hand R lenses. The R8 looks nice and is 
ergonomically shaped, but in terms of size and build-in functions, it is a 
rather inefficient design:

1st, the R8 neglects the Leica users' fable for mechanical shutters and 
battery-less operation. Yes, I agree that mechanics are not more reliable than 
todays electronics and that spare batteries are a neglegible burden to carry, 
but I simply like the idea. With a hybrid shutter like the one for Canon's F1N 
and preferably one that could fit into the R4/5/6/7 body it would have been 
possible satisfy both wants, but Leica apparently was not willing or able invest 
in the r&d, but took a shutter "from the shelf" instead. 

2nd, the thin R8 motor winder could have been easiliy integrated into the basic 
body. What do you gain from a detachable motor drive/winder, if the basic body 
remains as bulky and heavy as a Japanese SLR with integrated motor winder/drive, 
but still requires batteries? 

3rd, with and without motor drive the R8 is not very efficient in terms of 
energy use and battery size requirement: The basic R8 requires the same two big 
3V Lithium batteries only for metering and data processing the Contax Aria in 
addition to that uses for film advance (which is even faster than the R8 motor 
winder). I believe this is the result of the R8's patchwork design, utilising 
Japanese components (e.g. the electronic shutter) that were originally designed 
and optimised for cameras with integrated motor drive, AF and, consequently, 
strong power supply. Although the R8 with attached motor drive is as big and 
heavy as a F5 or EOS1 with booster, the R8 gives only half the speed. A number 
of micro motors that directly couple with film advance, reflex mirror, shutter 
etc. require a less complex gear train and, consequently, make less noise, have 
less friction and, consequently, work more efficient. 

4th, the benefit of the new ROM chip is minimal: A dedicated flash with 
motorised zoom reflector will set automatically to the lens' focal length and 
the chip apparently feeds some data into the matrix metering software, but the 
F4's system worked without lens chip. In addition to that the chip may transfer 
focussing distance and other data, but not all contacts are used on the current 
R8. On the downside the ROM chip creates confusion when using non-ROM macro 
adapters or extenders and it is not compatible with SL cams.

In the non-AF and high-end SLR segment, Leica is indeed in some kind of 
"investment trap". The market is small and as such does not generate sufficient 
surplus cash to support the r&d investments that would be required to keep pace, 
at least partially, with the mainstream SLR market. Even with an improved 
product, the expected, moderate return on investment by additional sales would 
hardly pay back the required r&d investment.

Hans-Peter