Re: [Leica] digital M (what's the benefit?)

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Where did all this feeling "it must neglect" the "cash cow of the M
series" come from? Over the past few years Leica has redesigned its
21-28-35-90 and 135 mm lenses, and now produces at each of those focal
lengths, and at 24 and 75 mm, what are arguably the world's best...Okay,
they need to re-do the 50 Summilux, but aside from that, where's the
"neglect."

What's quite obvious here is that you don't like the idea of digital,
and you don't like the idea of Leica going digital because you're afraid
they'll DROP the M line...So say so. But there is no evidence they would
drop the M line, and, I would argue, adding a really good digital body
to that line would increase the market for the M substantially....

B. D.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 
> Bill Harting writes:
> 
> > None of which is to say that it is not important
> > for an imaging corporation to be on the digital
> > bandwagon (Kodak? Polaroid?) It is, and especially
> > so for a small outfit like Leica ...
> 
> It's the other way around.  Leica and similar small companies simply cannot
> afford to jump on bandwagons just for their PR or marketing value.  They can't
> afford the R&D or the tooling or the design costs.  They are essentially forced
> to neglect a modest but sure thing in the hope of obtaining a modest but very
> unsure thing, which doesn't make much sense.
> 
> This is why the Leica R has not been a great success.  It's not that there is
> anything wrong with the R, it's just that all the big boys got there twenty
> years earlier and are so good at what they do that Leica offers no clear
> advantage for a single-lens reflex.
> 
> If for some reason Leica feels it must neglect the cash cow of the M series, it
> needs to find another niche market that Nikon and Canon and Sony have not
> touched and are not likely to enter.  It will never be able to compete in any
> domain head-to-head against these other manufacturers.  The R survives mainly
> because of superior glass, I think, but it's still a tough road, and sales are
> still shrinking.  The M does much better because nobody else is really competing
> with Leica that strongly there: not only is the glass superior (as with the R),
> but nobody builds bodies nearly as well as Leica in this category of camera.
> There are a few competitors, but they are much tinier than Nikon or Canon and
> thus far less of a threat.
> 
> > ... if they are to continue to function as a
> > viable concern with at least some pretensions
> > to independence.
> 
> They've managed for over 75 years thus far.  I'm sure people have been
> predicting doom and gloom the whole time.
> 
> > And so to continue make gear that will enable me
> > to keep making the kind of pictures I want to make
> > and practice practice practice this craft.
> 
> I'm not so sure.  The company does not have the resources to produce thirty
> different product lines.  A strong emphasis on any new product will either take
> people away from the existing products or require hiring more.  Taking people
> away from existing products may hurt lines like the M; hiring more people will
> cause serious problems if the new products don't do so well.  Neither course of
> action seems terribly wise to me.