The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The S2 PMA with David Farkas

woodyspedden

New member
SH are listing all the Leica factory inventory at 50% off list. Examples : New, full warranty; 100 APOs or 90 AA Rs for US$2110, 80-200/4s $925, 70-180/2.8 APOs $4500, etc, etc. In short, new full factory warranty gear at just above current (NA) used market. Bye, bye used market prices.

http://shop.shphotoshop.de/epages/e...ath=/Shops/es104977_shphoto/Categories/LeicaR

Some nice gear listed. Whatever price Boris got, it was a good one if he's making a decent profit at those levels. Me, I smell smoke ;>
That's great Rob. I am so glad to be wrong about this one. Wow though, it shows that Leica certainly must have cut their margins to the bone.......perhaps even sold these at their cost. What a time this is!

Woody
 

robmac

Well-known member
Yeah, shocked me. Some debate as to what the actual volume of gear on hand at factory (and sold to SH) was, but the prices, as you say were bloody good (for SH).
 

fotografz

Well-known member
What's missing in all these speculative "air" discussions is the very thing we do this for ... the IMAGES !!!!

Despite all the cluster bleeps with the M8, it stands there defiant and resistant to reason, business sense, and all the other things that would have sunk any other company ladling such nonsense onto it's consumers.

But the M8 images trump all that.

If the S2 delivers up such breath sucking photos, and this camera gets in the hands of some really good shooters, it will then be time to hide our women folk and children in the root cellar, because the financial Barbarians will come pillaging and raping. ;)
 

LJL

New member
What's missing in all these speculative "air" discussions is the very thing we do this for ... the IMAGES !!!!
Precisely, Marc. This is what I have been asking about from the very start. While all the details and speculations about service and stuff is fun, what the heck do the images look like beyond the LCD and the too small Web shots posted long ago? To paraphrase Cuba Gooding in "Jerry McGuire"...."Show me the images!!" ;-)

LJ
 

robmac

Well-known member
Robsteve, re: Goodwill and my Acme 'case'
--------------------------------------------------
No, no flaw. Goodwill left out on purpose as a base scenario.

What is called 'goodwill' is very often an excuse for injecting emotional or CEO ego-driven bias or justification into a business decision. The true intent of 'goodwill' within GAAP has been so perverted over the decades that it's now all but meaningless - within the context of company value.

That's why there are SO many huge impairment charges on balance sheets all the time. When I want to pay more for XYZ or justify another risky expenditure that my Board/auditors are not comfortable with (though most auditors will sign off on damn near anything if the consulting fees are good enough) and/or that defies common sense/financial reality, I bring out the 'goodwill' card.

Man, have I seen some doozy examples of that first hand. Not to mention the sweaty auditors (usually the same #$%^ who signed off on deals in the first place) when it came time to write off the HUGE %'ntges of what was once such a 'wonderful' transaction - and how to wordsmith that choice paragraph in the quarterly report.

1. Do the Acme scenario and come to a conclusion. No goodwill. Base case layer.

2. Then build a layer reflecting the 'goodwill' of the Leica name within the leicaphile community (where it is strongest but within a VERY small context) and the effect this will have on initial and ongoing sales $$$.. This layer will bias the decision, to some degree, fwd.

3. Then layer in the possible 'goodwill' effect of the name OUTSIDE the leicaphile community and layer that into the decision as well.

4. Optional (this is an interesting approach but very academic approach some of us once studied with some Stanford Research Institute folks): Assign probabilities, usually in a group of people, as to the likelihood of the individual layers coming in as projected.

What is really interesting is the probabilities some people pick vs. others and how assigning them can effect the business case go/no go. If you break the case into enough layers, you can easily start to see the REAL breaking points of the business decision/projected financials.

4(a). Take the layers and combine into a (weighted if step 4 included) outcome based on 1-3 (4) and see where your decision would stand.

Again all nice theory and debate, but we'll have to see where we stand this time next year.
 
Last edited:

robsteve

Subscriber
Robsteve, re: Goodwill and my Acme 'case'
--------------------------------------------------
No, no flaw. Goodwill left out on purpose as a base scenario.

What is called 'goodwill' is very often an excuse for injecting emotional or CEO ego-driven bias or justification into a business decision. The true intent of 'goodwill' within GAAP has been so perverted over the decades that it's now all but meaningless - within the context of company value. .
In an accounting sense, goodwill is the excess you have paid for a business versus what the assets are worth.

In my case, I was referring to the value of the company must also include its name/reputation. In your scenario, you must look at it as a company with a reputation in the market, not as a new venture.

Robert
 

robmac

Well-known member
As to the images agree.

However the M8s primary reason for success was dominance of a (small) market, loyalty of RF users, the build, the glass, the massive choice of LTM and M-mount glass from many vendors new and old (at various price points) and the lack of an AA filter.

It has a CCD sensor, but so did some DSLRs. For the positives (and given a lack of DRF choices) and IQ the sensor and glass delivered, users were willing to put up with the 'bleeps' and S&S.

That said, what are the S2s advantages vs Hassy, etc:?

- Glass - Yes, for a price premium (what can I say, I like Leica lenses..)
- AA filter - Nope, they all lack them
- Ownership of a market - Nope, they're the new comers
- Build - Call it even
- Lens selection (breadth) - Nope, S-mount only, maybe R via adapters, some time to roll-out.
- SLR Form factor - For some yes, for some no.
- Body features - In some cases, yes. But for how long?
- FL and CS shutters - Yes
- Integrated system - For some yes, for some no. Remember Hassy H3?
- Loyalty of Leica users - Yes, call it same effect on sales as say DMR?
- Price - Nope. Best case, priced like every one else
- S&S - nope, BEST case, same as everyone else's, with some time to roll/iron-out
- IQ - that will be splitting hairs. Resolution will be there. Color, etc - can it be replicated, if desired, in PP or must it be purchased via the hardware?

Different animal, different markets, different circumstances
 
Last edited:

robmac

Well-known member
I realize that. I am not talking buying Leica, I'm talking the goodwill (as you were) within the potential customer base effect's on the success of the product in the market.

Like GAAP intangible-value-based goodwill, it is also massaged as some see fit to justify product-launch decisions/ventures. It's really an intangible combination of goodwill, reputation & new product track record.

Obviously, what Leica is worth including goodwill has no bearing on success or lack thereof on products they launch.


In an accounting sense, goodwill is the excess you have paid for a business versus what the assets are worth.

In my case, I was referring to the value of the company must also include its name/reputation. In your scenario, you must look at it as a company with a reputation in the market, not as a new venture.

Robert
 
Last edited:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
But goodwill was usually amortized until FASB introduced SFAS142.
One more profit inflator.
Most goodwill eventually goes away but IMO ought to be considered impaired more often than it generally is.
-bob
 
Last edited:

LJL

New member
What Leica is worth including goodwill has no bearing on success or lack thereof on products they launch.
Not so sure that is true. The M8 is an example. It's "success", especially early on, was due in a large part because of the "goodwill" that it enjoyed as a company in the photo community. Folks knew things would be fixed or righted. Maybe response was not as swift as many expected, but an awful lot of folks hung with Leica despite the myriad of issues....and they are still doing it. Getting past the "semantics" (GAAP v. customer perception), it matters on both counts. Leica is NOT publicly traded, so it enjoys/suffers some of the exceptions made there. Just my thoughts on some of this.

LJ
 

robmac

Well-known member
Amen.

On GW amortization - the problem is/was that when you (inevitably) decided to unwind a deal (a.k.a "..puke out that #$%^ of junk that moronic *****-head bought...") the amortized GW never seemed to have kept up with the actual realistic market value :ROTFL: In short, no way in hell were you ever going to fine someone else as stupid/deluded/egomaniacal/hell-bent on 'building a legacy' as your last CEO was.

But goodwill was usually amortized until FASB introduced SFAS142.
One more profit inflator.
Most goodwill eventually goes away but IMO ought to be considered imaired more often than it generally is.
-bob
 
Last edited:

robmac

Well-known member
All very good points.

Goodwill (within this context) could be added to reasons' for the M8s success. The question is, is that goodwill unique (or of unique strength) to Leica vs. Hassy, Nikon, etc?

Also, how far does that goodwill expand beyond (or how fast can it be expanded beyond) the existing dedicated Leica community?

Don't know. GAAP GW or Customer GW - their both intangibles.

Not so sure that is true. The M8 is an example. It's "success", especially early on, was due in a large part because of the "goodwill" that it enjoyed as a company in the photo community. Folks knew things would be fixed or righted. Maybe response was not as swift as many expected, but an awful lot of folks hung with Leica despite the myriad of issues....and they are still doing it. Getting past the "semantics" (GAAP v. customer perception), it matters on both counts. Leica is NOT publicly traded, so it enjoys/suffers some of the exceptions made there. Just my thoughts on some of this.

LJ
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Any goodwill outside the Leica community will not happen - period!

If someone is not infected by the Leica virus, this company and their products simply do not have enough attraction to justify the high price tag.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Any goodwill outside the Leica community will not happen - period!

If someone is not infected by the Leica virus, this company and their products simply do not have enough attraction to justify the high price tag.
Interesting opinion.
 

carstenw

Active member
Peter, there is no Leica virus. The people who are fanatic about them are so for one of two reasons: 1) everyone from great-granddad and down had one, and 2) the truly excellent optics. Most of us here, if not all, and in camp 2. I certainly am. The lenses are just head and shoulders above the vast majority of the competition in 35mm-land. Let's see what Leica can do in MF-land.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Peter, there is no Leica virus. The people who are fanatic about them are so for one of two reasons: 1) everyone from great-granddad and down had one, and 2) the truly excellent optics. Most of us here, if not all, and in camp 2. I certainly am. The lenses are just head and shoulders above the vast majority of the competition in 35mm-land. Let's see what Leica can do in MF-land.
I'd be surprised if the lenses were not truly excellent ... maybe set new standards in some focal lengths.

It will be most interesting to see the "character" they deliver. Many later Leica 35mm lenses are clinically superior, but in the eyes of some Leicaphiles they lost the character that endeared them. IMO, this is why so many folks still love the Zeiss 110/2, and for me, the HC/100/2.2 also delivers a "character" that I love.

What is the most worrisome S2 aspect is price ... with a M24/1.4 @ $6,000. and a Noctilux @ $10,000. I can't imagine what these Leica MF optics will cost ... especially with a leaf shutter.

I was infected by the Hy6 "virus", and seriously considered the Leaf AFi, being VERY intrigued by the fast aperture Schnider AF "digital" optics available ... until I added up the price tag.

The cost was like a double dose of Zithromax for that infectious malady.

It makes you see clearer, and that in this lofty category of MFD IQ, the difference between one or the other is so miniscule that only hype, loyalty, owner justification and internet chatter can widen that gap to appear definitively superior.

I say, love the one you're with ... because, IMHO and direct experience, you'll have to delude yourself to justify Napalming your bank account with the money incinerating price for a miniscule move up ... if it's actually a move up at all.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The reality in MF is all you are buying between systems mostly is functionality, software and ergonomics. Right now today the Hassy and Phase run the same sensors except for the Hassy 50 and Phase P65. Obviously lenses and such but the image quality is pretty much on par with the other and I still don't buy the fact that lenses are the separators in it. When I can throw a old design lens that you can get on e-bay for 500 dollars and produces great image quality than you have to wonder how much the lenses really count. Nothing wrong with great glass ever but this is NOT 35mm shooting and different rules apply. Honestly every one of the S2 will look identical just like the M summarits do. They are all being made from the same glass and same basic design. Not that they are bad they will just all have the same character
 

woodyspedden

New member
Robsteve, re: Goodwill and my Acme 'case'
--------------------------------------------------
No, no flaw. Goodwill left out on purpose as a base scenario.

What is called 'goodwill' is very often an excuse for injecting emotional or CEO ego-driven bias or justification into a business decision. The true intent of 'goodwill' within GAAP has been so perverted over the decades that it's now all but meaningless - within the context of company value.

That's why there are SO many huge impairment charges on balance sheets all the time. When I want to pay more for XYZ or justify another risky expenditure that my Board/auditors are not comfortable with (though most auditors will sign off on damn near anything if the consulting fees are good enough) and/or that defies common sense/financial reality, I bring out the 'goodwill' card.

Man, have I seen some doozy examples of that first hand. Not to mention the sweaty auditors (usually the same #$%^ who signed off on deals in the first place) when it came time to write off the HUGE %'ntges of what was once such a 'wonderful' transaction - and how to wordsmith that choice paragraph in the quarterly report.

1. Do the Acme scenario and come to a conclusion. No goodwill. Base case layer.

2. Then build a layer reflecting the 'goodwill' of the Leica name within the leicaphile community (where it is strongest but within a VERY small context) and the effect this will have on initial and ongoing sales $$$.. This layer will bias the decision, to some degree, fwd.

3. Then layer in the possible 'goodwill' effect of the name OUTSIDE the leicaphile community and layer that into the decision as well.

4. Optional (this is an interesting approach but very academic approach some of us once studied with some Stanford Research Institute folks): Assign probabilities, usually in a group of people, as to the likelihood of the individual layers coming in as projected.

What is really interesting is the probabilities some people pick vs. others and how assigning them can effect the business case go/no go. If you break the case into enough layers, you can easily start to see the REAL breaking points of the business decision/projected financials.

4(a). Take the layers and combine into a (weighted if step 4 included) outcome based on 1-3 (4) and see where your decision would stand.

Again all nice theory and debate, but we'll have to see where we stand this time next year.
And further Rob, if you look through the 10K's and Q's from recent years and quarters, goodwill impairment is simply staggering. What in the past seemed pretty benign accounting has now risen up its head to flog the balance sheets

Woody
 

woodyspedden

New member
But goodwill was usually amortized until FASB introduced SFAS142.
One more profit inflator.
Most goodwill eventually goes away but IMO ought to be considered impaired more often than it generally is.
-bob
Bob

In my recent experience, auditors are becoming much tougher about impairment of assets including good will

Woody
 
Top