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!
Another Kaufmann Interview (English)
- Thread starter robmac
- Start date
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
and the link:
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/5316/the-future-of-leica.html
just trying to highjack your thead, Rob .-)
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/5316/the-future-of-leica.html
just trying to highjack your thead, Rob .-)
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Rob
I agree with you about the lower priced M. Let's hope it's the small one.
As for the R10 . . even on this forum the enthusiasm for the D3 makes it seem difficult to see how they can compete. They could certainly manage the 'photograhic' side, they might be able to manage the image quality, but it's hard to see how they could compete with the software and facilities side . . . and if they need to bring out a new autofocus lens range . . . It's a really tough ask.
Terry
New member
Help understand the small M.....I thought the M8 was pushing the limit on size because you needed the base length to for more accurate focus.
Not small M, lower-priced/end digital M.
They've stated and logically it holds true that if they intend to keep the M as their 'flagship' product (K's words), they need to get it into more hands. To do that they need to get the price down and the market awareness up (I'll ignore service turn around for now).
If they go it alone, would requires a margin cut (in hopes of higher volumes), polycarbonate vs. metal housing, maybe a different choice of sensor - a more off the shelf unit that includes an AA filter, etc. That said, the most logical choice would be do it through a higher-volume manufacturing partner with a stronger marketing and service operation. It will be interesting to see what their strategy will be.
How about a wild-hair thought? Nikon buys Leica. Immediate access to RF glass and digital RF design that can be re-costed by them. Ownership of a premium glass line that they can design their AF system into. Turn Solms into a design and (maybe) an a la carte or bespoke manufacturing shop for a line of premium kits. Sony also makes sense for other reasons, but Nikon seems more appealing. Like I said, just some wild speculation while my brain warms up for the day ahead.
Oh, there is also an Economist article on Leica (don't have link)if anyone is interested.
They've stated and logically it holds true that if they intend to keep the M as their 'flagship' product (K's words), they need to get it into more hands. To do that they need to get the price down and the market awareness up (I'll ignore service turn around for now).
If they go it alone, would requires a margin cut (in hopes of higher volumes), polycarbonate vs. metal housing, maybe a different choice of sensor - a more off the shelf unit that includes an AA filter, etc. That said, the most logical choice would be do it through a higher-volume manufacturing partner with a stronger marketing and service operation. It will be interesting to see what their strategy will be.
How about a wild-hair thought? Nikon buys Leica. Immediate access to RF glass and digital RF design that can be re-costed by them. Ownership of a premium glass line that they can design their AF system into. Turn Solms into a design and (maybe) an a la carte or bespoke manufacturing shop for a line of premium kits. Sony also makes sense for other reasons, but Nikon seems more appealing. Like I said, just some wild speculation while my brain warms up for the day ahead.
Oh, there is also an Economist article on Leica (don't have link)if anyone is interested.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Rob - nice idea, but don't you think that Panasonic is a more likely candidate?
Panasonic is more likely, but i can't see Panasonic getting the best value out of it - and from our perspective P would suck. They'd get more from/for their assets and deliver us stronger goodies if bought by a well-heeled SLR manufacturer.
I can't see Panasonic selling $3000 lenses - or even $1500 lenses for that matter. Nikon, if interested in a RF re-entry could use all of L's assets - even in their P&S line if the Panasonic/Leica JV legalese would permit.
Just wishful thinking on my part.
Hate seeing a firm such as Leica with such a strong technical asset/knowledge base running the RISK of imploding and extinction by going it alone in some David vs. Goliaths op, when their assets and strengths would be leveraged X fold (from the perspective of customers and shareholders) by being folded into one of the Goliaths.
I can't see Panasonic selling $3000 lenses - or even $1500 lenses for that matter. Nikon, if interested in a RF re-entry could use all of L's assets - even in their P&S line if the Panasonic/Leica JV legalese would permit.
Just wishful thinking on my part.
Hate seeing a firm such as Leica with such a strong technical asset/knowledge base running the RISK of imploding and extinction by going it alone in some David vs. Goliaths op, when their assets and strengths would be leveraged X fold (from the perspective of customers and shareholders) by being folded into one of the Goliaths.
Last edited:
Jono, while in certain respects you may be on target I would have to add that not everyone is looking for a D3 competitor from the next Leica R. Yes, the D3 is a winner but that is not what I want from the Leica R10 (SL10) and I would be disappointed if it were. I will agree that to appeal to a larger audience, auto focus would be a great benefit but I would be happy with manual focus only. Same with clean ISO 3200, etc., not essential.
Depending on the criteria used, sometimes the D3 is a clear winner but other times it is still no match for the DMR, IMHO as we say on the net.
jonoslack
Active member
HI Chris
You mustn't misunderstand me - I don't mean the D3 per se (it's not quite what I want either). It's the principle of the D3 - so effortlessly accomplished - that I'm talking of. Soon there will be a 24mp version as well. I quite understand the Leica magic, and I definitely subscribe, but there are only so many compromises I'm willing to make to get it.
As for manual focus only - I don't think there will be many would would be satisfied - it limit's it's scope so much - of course, if they bring out an 18mp full frame body, which is fairly small, weatherproof, uses all the old Leica lenses 'as is' and will also fit a new range of autofocus lenses - I'll probably be there myself . . .
woodyspedden
New member
While a Nikon buyout would make business sense it would not achieve Herr Kaufmann's goals. He is eminently passionate about Leica and that is why he bought every share. He is committed to pouring more of his estate's wealth into the company (where else are they going to get the 30 million Euros he refers to for R&D) and is determined to rebuild its reputation. So my opinion is that product development will be slower than if bought by Nikon but it will be all Leica and Kaufmann will make all the decisions.
Woody
robsteve
Subscriber
Jono:
Are the pastural scenes you shoot moving so fast you need af
I think that is the market where AF has lttle impact.Robert
Well, lets hope Herr K's goal turns out to be the right one in the bright light of history. Sometimes an avid (and obviously very wealthy) collector the best CEO does not make.
Last edited:
Yes, I meant it in the same way as well.
>Leica magic, and I definitely subscribe, but there are only so many compromises I'm willing to make to get it<
One of the points I was trying to make is that for some, maybe only a few, they will not see it as a compromise.
best -CHARLES-
Edit: Actually he reminds me of a couple of well known and very wealthy CEOs (who shall remain nameless) I knew VERY well as an analyst. Driven, they took their firms from startup to a top market position. Now wealthy due to their respective firm's growth, they were all passionate about they're company's technology/products established engineering reputation and future 'legacy' in the market, were very hands-on... and basically all round nice guys to have dinner with. Not one idiot among them by any definition.
That said, their focused passion (like that an avid collector of X) was also their greatest weakness; for they lacked that objectivity and situational awareness that outsiders viewed the firm with and within.
To a man they had an unrealistic perspective of competitive threats and subtle (and sometime not so subtle) changes taking place in the market. They also, with some exceptions, typically had a senior executive suite staffed with like-minded technocrats. The result was that things invariably started to go pear shaped for each firm in question.
At that point they, again, to a man, refused to make the cold hard decisions necessary to haul things back. They (and their senior most staff) believed too much in the technology and firm's reputation accordingly to step back and take cold perspective necessary to realistically determine just what it would take to not only survive but re-establish a position of defendable strength in the market. Eventually each firm in question either faded into obscurity or was acquired for chump change at the 11th hour.
In this case lets hope the resemblance is only fleeting.
That said, their focused passion (like that an avid collector of X) was also their greatest weakness; for they lacked that objectivity and situational awareness that outsiders viewed the firm with and within.
To a man they had an unrealistic perspective of competitive threats and subtle (and sometime not so subtle) changes taking place in the market. They also, with some exceptions, typically had a senior executive suite staffed with like-minded technocrats. The result was that things invariably started to go pear shaped for each firm in question.
At that point they, again, to a man, refused to make the cold hard decisions necessary to haul things back. They (and their senior most staff) believed too much in the technology and firm's reputation accordingly to step back and take cold perspective necessary to realistically determine just what it would take to not only survive but re-establish a position of defendable strength in the market. Eventually each firm in question either faded into obscurity or was acquired for chump change at the 11th hour.
In this case lets hope the resemblance is only fleeting.
Last edited:
jonoslack
Active member
HI RobertJono:
Are the pastural scenes you shoot moving so fast you need af
Robert
Of course . . . BUT and it's a big but, the M8 does well for the pastoral scenes anyway. The D3 was bought because I do other stuff (some of it is even vaguely commercial) - I have some wedding work to do this summer, some PR work and concerts . . . and I like to do macro . .. for all of these things an SLR is important, and so is autofocus. An R10 would do most of the things I LIKE to do, but not all the things I need to do.
I wouldn't want to buy into a Leica dSLR system simply for the things I like and to have a Nikon system for the things I need.
Perhaps you've really proved the point - it would seem superficially that I am the perfect market for an R10 . . . . but EVEN I would not be interested in it if there was no autofocus.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Rob The difference is that he didn t grow up in the business and had nothing to do with the growth and success of the company. Unless I am mistaken his "family" owns a major packaging conglomerate in Austria. The business model in packaging is about the effective use of capital(capacity)....the firm that produces at the lowest cost wins. Packaging companies sell to food and consumer products companies. I haven t read anything that showed he has any of the appropriate experience to head up Leica. Better lessons could be learned at either Porsche or Zeiss. The family that owns Porsche realized they were cooked unless they played to their strengths and adopted lean manufacturing techniques. They hired Nissan engineering to help them design their factory for 911 s. They built a factory in Finland to build the lower cost sports car and a new SUV. They improved their quality to the top of their class. Zeiss gave up on consumer products and focused on industry with the exception of lenses and sports optics . They built effective partnerships with the Japanese and created products with decent quality/cost characteristics. Somebody needs a "great idea" ! sure hope we see some at Fotokina ....I love my M8s