Is it just me or Leica's really starting to lose sight of reality?

[LowriderS10]

First, it was all the overpriced Panasonic re-badges (continuing with the $300 addition of the red dot to an LX100).

Then, it was all the M-digital cameras that lagged about 10 years behind everyone else in terms of technical specs like ISOs, video, burst rates, UI, etc.

Now, they're selling a digital camera...without a bloody LCD. But wait...it's only $18,500. What a bargain! This has to be one of the most idiotic, self-serving things I've ever seen! It's funny because on the M240's page, they laud the brilliant LCD and its usefulness...then on the M 60 (a 240 without a screen) they're talking about how amazing its omission is.

And who can forget the X-E. For a mere $2,000 (give or take, I'm using an average of the sources I've seen), you get something with ISO 12,500, no EVF, a non-tilting 2.7" screen and other nifty technology from 2005. In addition you get a fixed, non-interchangeable 35mm equivalent f2.8 lens. You know...for the kind of money that would get you an E-M10 plus a P14, P20 and O45.

Boggles the mind.

 

[RnR]

Sounds like you are suffering from Leica envy mate

 

[Superstriker#8]

Leica envy, really? Stating the faults of bad technology is envy?

 

[LowriderS10]

Sounds like you are suffering from Leica envy mate

Not even a little bit.

Leica owners should envy my awesome E-M5.

 

[demiro]

This could go worse than the PayPal Gift thread.

 

[Deleted member 16340]

They're a much smaller company yes? Especially when compared to Canikonylympusonic, probably. I think they're just struggling to keep up with the rapid pace and development of camera tech today. That'd be my guess, anyway.

 

[LowriderS10]

They're a much smaller company yes? Especially when compared to Canikonylympusonic, probably. I think they're just struggling to keep up with the rapid pace and development of camera tech today. That'd be my guess, anyway.

I think it's worse than that. A long time ago, Leica has crossed the line from being a camera company to being a fashion accessory company. Many, many people now buy Leica for the prestige and the name. Therefore, it seems that their #1 priority isn't to make a fine product for taking pictures, but to make a product that LOOKS good. They're purposely making things for the sake of making exclusive things (ie: removing the LCD from the M240 and selling it for an astronomical price as a limited production model). They're simply selling an image, not a product that makes an image.

They have tons of technology available to them via the agreements with Panasonic. I see no reason why they should be lagging so far behind the times. Most other companies that share products with different badges sell them at comparable prices (ie: the Chevy Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire)...not Leica/Panasonic. If Leica's version of the LX100 would cost as much as the LX100 (since it is an LX100), their sales would increase exponentially. But...they have to artificially keep the Leica name exclusive, even if most of their products truly do not deserve the Red Dot, nor do they justify the price from an objective point of view.

 

[pdk42]

Well, stating the obvious, Leica are way too small to be really innovative in sensors, processors etc. They simply don't have the funds. So, they have to live on their lens back-catalogue and whatever 'premium' marketing kudos they can garner from their name and history. I say good luck to them, but I can't imagine me buying one. I don't like the price/feature/performance equation at all. I'm yet to see a shot from a Leica that couldn't have been taken by virtually any good modern camera at a quarter or less of the price.

As regards the M60 - well, I agree that they seem to be living on another planet - a planet where an $18k camera isn't an expensive acquisition.

 

[kwalsh]

I don't own any Leica cameras nor do I ever expect to, but in the interests of Devil's advocacy...

First, it was all the overpriced Panasonic re-badges (continuing with the $300 addition of the red dot to an LX100).

They do include a ~$120 LR subscription with that. And they typically have slightly different firmware's and JPEG renderings. Yeah maybe that is not worth the $$$ but on the other hand there are plenty of people who refuse to buy a Panasonic because they love the Olympus JPEGs...

Then, it was all the M-digital cameras that lagged about 10 years behind everyone else in terms of technical specs like ISOs, video, burst rates, UI, etc.

I've not been aware of rangefinder users being interested in high burst rates. As to UI the M-series cameras have a UI that no other digital camera in the world has - namely a rangefinder. Doesn't suit my style, but some people will pay nearly any price for one.

Now, they're selling a digital camera...without a bloody LCD. But wait...it's only $18,500. What a bargain! This has to be one of the most idiotic, self-serving things I've ever seen! It's funny because on the M240's page, they laud the brilliant LCD and its usefulness...then on the M 60 (a 240 without a screen) they're talking about how amazing its omission is.

This is absolutely nothing new. Leica has put out ridiculous "special editions" of their cameras for decades. It is free massive profit margin to them from collectors and the like. Good for them for figuring out how to monetize their brand.

And who can forget the X-E. For a mere $2,000 (give or take, I'm using an average of the sources I've seen), you get something with ISO 12,500, no EVF, a non-tilting 2.7" screen and other nifty technology from 2005. In addition you get a fixed, non-interchangeable 35mm equivalent f2.8 lens. You know...for the kind of money that would get you an E-M10 plus a P14, P20 and O45.

And yet enough people bought them to be profitable. Not my cup of tea though.

Boggles the mind.

For your own health and safety don't Google "Hasselblad Lunar" or your head will explode.

 

[LowriderS10]

Well, stating the obvious, Leica are way too small to be really innovative in sensors, processors etc. They simply don't have the funds. So, they have to live on their lens back-catalogue and whatever 'premium' marketing kudos they can garner from their name and history. I say good luck to them, but I can't imagine me buying one. I don't like the price/feature/performance equation at all. I;m yet to see a shot from a Leica that couldn't have been taken by virtually any good modern camera at a quarter or less of the price.

Excellent points. I do like Leica for SOME of their stuff...ie: bringing the first FF mirrorless digital to the market (even if it was/is at an astronomical price and without modern functions like AF, etc). But...their consistent rebadge-and-jack-the-price of Panasonic compacts is getting old, and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. I grew up shooting film, and Leica was always a revered name. What they're doing now is like Bentley buying Ford Mondeos, rebadging them and selling them for $200,000.

I realize that they don't have the R&D budget of the bigger guys, but like I said...they've got a wicked glass-for-silicone deal with Panasonic...and they do spend an insane amount of money making pretty, but ultimately pointless cameras that sell (or don't) at crazy prices.

 

[LowriderS10]

I don't own any Leica cameras nor do I ever expect to, but in the interests of Devil's advocacy...



They do include a ~$120 LR subscription with that. And they typically have slightly different firmware's and JPEG renderings. Yeah maybe that is not worth the $$$ but on the other hand there are plenty of people who refuse to buy a Panasonic because they love the Olympus JPEGs...



I've not been aware of rangefinder users being interested in high burst rates. As to UI the M-series cameras have a UI that no other digital camera in the world has - namely a rangefinder. Doesn't suit my style, but some people will pay nearly any price for one.



This is absolutely nothing new. Leica has put out ridiculous "special editions" of their cameras for decades. It is free massive profit margin to them from collectors and the like. Good for them for figuring out how to monetize their brand.



And yet enough people bought them to be profitable. Not my cup of tea though.



For your own health and safety don't Google "Hasselblad Lunar" or your head will explode.

Good points, and kudos to you, good sir, for continuing the proud tradition of M4/3 discussions: Disagreeing by presenting facts, not name calling haha. This is why I love this forum.

Onto your points...the Hassy Lunar has to be one of the biggest embarrassments in recent photography history. I remember when that thing was announced and I thought "Wow...there goes another respected brand."

True, burst rates aren't the most important, that was just a comment about the GLOBAL way in which Leica Ms lag behind everything. Not too long ago when everyone was making beautiful clean ISO 6,400s Leica was struggling to top out at a noisy 2,500. Had ANYONE else brought that camera to the market they would have been run out of Dodge.

Very true about the special editions, but having a history of doing that does not make it any less ridiculous. The newest one - to double the price for taking away one of the quintessential and most useful aspects of digital photography - left me completely flabbergasted. i mean...to continue with my car analogies, it's like selling a special edition Lamborghini at twice the cost of a normal one, but it has no steering wheel, windows or suspension. But only 500 will be made, so get yours now!

So far no one has bought the X-E. I'm sure some will buy it...for the red dot. Not for its amazing performance.

 

[battleaxe]

I don't own any Leica cameras nor do I ever expect to, but in the interests of Devil's advocacy...



They do include a ~$120 LR subscription with that. And they typically have slightly different firmware's and JPEG renderings. Yeah maybe that is not worth the $$$ but on the other hand there are plenty of people who refuse to buy a Panasonic because they love the Olympus JPEGs...

Plus, 3 year warranty is standard. And in some places it's only a 100 Euro difference from what I have read.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I think Panasonic needs to learn a thing or two from Leica about pimping out their cameras. I barely see any Lumix MILCs in the wild and if I do, it's usually just a cheap GF3 or something.

 

[LowriderS10]

Plus, 3 year warranty is standard. And in some places it's only a 100 Euro difference from what I have read.

Okay, I guess that counts for something! At 100 Euro extra, the LR and extra warranty are worth it...

I think Panasonic needs to learn a thing or two from Leica about pimping out their cameras. I barely see any Lumix MILCs in the wild and if I do, it's usually just a cheap GF3 or something.

Same for Olympus...I rarely see OM-Ds, but the lower end ones are far more prevalent. What bothers me even more is that I see sooooo few with non-kit lenses. As nice as the kit lenses are getting, I'm a firm believer that a good higher-end compact (S120, LX100, etc, etc) is a far better option for most people than a DSLR/mirrorless with the generally slow, ho-hum kit lenses.

But what do you mean by pimping them out?

 

[Jonathan F/2]

But what do you mean by pimping them out?

People know Leica even if they know nothing about cameras. They're a luxury lifestyle brand! In fact people look at my Olympus bodies and just presume they're Leica cameras even if it blatantly says Olympus on the front! I think people just equate retro with the Leica brand. Olympus and Panasonic could do more to garner brand and mount awareness at least in North America.

 

[LowriderS10]

People know Leica even they know nothing about cameras. They're a luxury lifestyle brand! In fact people look at my Olympus bodies and just presume they're Leica cameras even if it blatantly says Olympus on the front! I think people just equate retro with the Leica brand. Olympus and Panasonic could do more to garner brand and mount awareness at least in North America.

Ah yes...absolutely...the first part of your statement is exactly my beef with Leica haha. It's a luxury lifestyle brand more than anything (such as a picture-makin'-machine) right now.

I wonder what Oly/Pana/M43 could do. I think they'd need a grassroots blitz...they really need to somehow let people know that DSLRs aren't the end-all-be-all of image quality. So many people STILL think that you have to have a DSLR (even with a kit lens!!) to have "professional quality" pictures. Last year I took part in a gallery exhibit, where I had pictures printed from my Canon 5D, my 5D Mark II (both full frame) and my OM-D. All in big, A2 sizes. I challenged anyone to correctly identify which one came from the mighty big-sensor DSLRs and which from the lowly little Olympus. No one managed to do it, and all of my exhibited pictures sold before the exhibit was over. Olympus needs to spread more awareness like that!

 

[OzRay]

I respect Leica for what they do and that they have pulled themselves (or the new owner has) out of potential bankruptcy. Leica lives in a niche market like Ferrari, Lamborghini etc, for the generally well to do, with more money than actual skill at using the product. I once almost got caught up in the hype and seriously considered a Leica M8, but then came to my senses and realised that I'm not a plastic surgeon or the like and I'd never be able to afford any of the desirable lenses, even second hand. Not only that, I wouldn't be able to use the camera for my work. As an aside, once while on assignment, I did see a photographer with a Leica hanging from his neck and a Nikon DSLR in his hand. It was the most incongruous sight that I think I've ever seen.

 

[biza48]

According to all the sources I have read regarding Photokina, the Leica stand is one of the busiest one, so they must be doing something wright...

 

[OzRay]

According to all the sources I have read regarding Photokina, the Leica stand is one of the busiest one, so they must be doing something wright...

A busy stand at Photokina doesn't necessarily translate to sales. I'll bet the Ferrari and Lamborghini stands at a motor show are also the busiest.

 

[alex66]

I have considered a Leica digital, I have an M3 and a couple of lenses already, but I just cannot put the money down for a used M9. I like the way they work and have always preferred the RF way of manual focus, the whole camera feels like a very precise machine more so than the Canon F1 I had or Nikon F3 that I tried. They are cameras for a certain mind set of working, but at £3k for a used M9 it just is too much for me to work with an RF when I can do everything I require from even a first gen µ43 body. They are sadly now priced in the high end luxury goods market but I think as they are such a small brand they would not be able to compete, remember the bodies are still made by hand and without massive investment for tooling up they can't really drop down in price. My favourite RF though was the Agfa Ambi Sillette, it was an awesome little camera.