Leica was the only company that had lasted for so long where other Europeans had either left the market or got bought out. And they managed to keep the niche with its branding. Leica is like the Ferrari or Rolls Royce of cameras. People know that. Currently, China is a very big market for Leica and many of the photographers are extremely talented; skillset wise would blow away some of our best in North America and Europe and some of them use Leicas. So yes, Leica does not really need to design a camera though and it can keep its prices because there are rich people who can afford and are willing to pay. Think China.
There are companies who specialized in designing cameras for Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and all. You don't think that these companies do all the in-house designs do you? NOPE. There are shops set up in China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia and of course Japan who design cameras with provided specs from the major makers. These companies provide an extremely cost effective measure for many of these camera companies. It's been happening since the dawn of autofocus cameras or the fall of the film cameras too! It first started with point and shoots film then digital, then bridge cameras and now all the way to a full fledged DSLR or mirrorless body like the Leica SL in partnership with Panasonic. It simply makes business economic sense. It doesn't mean Leica can't design the digital guts. You are not giving Leica the full credit that it deserves. Leica has some of its best highly paid engineers and technicians who has a vast span experience over decades in color technology and other intricate aspects of what makes a Leica camera great. Unfortunately, if you are to use these forces to build the camera with German labour prices and resources; I'm afraid it's going to cost much more than $10,000.
You see. We are so spoiled by Made in China goods or Made in Taiwan goods. Why are electronic goods no longer assembled and made in North America? Because of the cost of labour. It's expensive and we the consumer aren't willing to pay for the increase regardless how patriotic our mouth said. In the end, it's your wallet that votes the purchase.
In the last 2 quarters, Olympus made a profit in their camera sales. I tend to believe Olympus MORE than other makers who would flood the back channels (grey market) to prop up their sales so they can make the quarterly finals look good for their shareholders. Since Olympus had been through the accounting scandals, they really can't cheat anymore because they are more scrutinized by both their shareholders and the market; whatever they achieve thus far is nothing short of commendable. And they are reducing their SG&A which is also good news.
Moving forward though, there are a number of things why it favours Olympus.
1, They are keeping their camera costs within the $1000 mark.
(This has traditionally been the sweet spot for the consumer upgrade market)
2, They are expanding their lens line.
(Lenses, not bodies, are where makers make their profits). Bodies are easily replaced. But lenses are not and have longer staying power.
3, They are offering innovation. Sony is also doing it too. Take note that Nikon and Canon had not had any major innovations other than the introduction of their D600 and D800. Everything else is refinements not innovation.
4, Panasonic re-participation in developing new m43 sensors and the organic sensor development. I heard some form of announcement will be made in the spring of 2016.
5, Panasonic's drive to make 8K video production ready for the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics. That's about 5 years away. As you know that in order to get 8k video, you need a sensor that is capable of 33MP stills; which means that 33MP or even 36MP stills with m43 sensor is not as impossible as it seemed. This probably has to do with their co-announcement of their organic sensor development as well.
6, m43 sensor has a good way to go towards. Why?
It's because current m43 sensors resolution are not as high as compared to that offered by their full frame counterparts and can be improved. These improvements will benefit also the cell phone industry as well because of the cost return scenario. But with higher megapixel full frame sensors; the cost will be even higher noting that it is more expensive to make full frame than it is to make smaller sensors which makes cost return an upstream challenge. So if you are to make a 36MP m43 and upscale it into a 144MP full frame sensor, then who will buy it?!? As you know, going 50MP or higher is only good for extreme cropping and printing big; both are favourable towards the pro-end. But even the professionals aren't making the same kind of money they used to and are not upgrading as often. A new sensor will also benefit from the latest design technologies. So in order for full frame sensors to match, the same upscale sensors will need to be made. But if the cost return is not economical and is not made, then full frame cameras will be stuck with older technology. In the end, smaller sensors would catch up with the technology or even exceed the larger format.
This was the reason why you had such fantastic development with autofocus and longer lenses and VR technology available ONLY first with film SLR bodies and then DSLR, but the same advancements did not end up fully with medium format bodies. Medium format bodies did not inherit the same sophisticated AF systems that 35mm and full frame bodies did. I suspect that moving forward, this will be the case with full frame sensor bodies.
There will always be people who will buy a Ferrari, a Porsche and a Rolls Royce. But these people are few are far in between. More likely, people buy a Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda or even a Ford. Why? Because they are practical and affordable. Sooner or later; all these bleeding edge technology will become affordable to the masses. Take a look at my Olympus E-P5; it's better than the first generation EOS 1dsMk II which costed $5000 + when it was new.
