Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 > >