[LRflex] Re: Drop the R?
- From: Juan Gea-Banacloche <banacloj@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:50:56 -0400
On May 14, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Doug Herr wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Noel Yates wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> What does Leica have that Canon and Nikon do not have? A rangefinder
>> camera system, film and digital (argentique and numerique, the French
>> words are so much more pleasant). Much as I love the R system
>> (Leicaflex to R3 for me) maybe Leica I will drop it and concentrate
>> harder on the M niche.
>
> A further narrowing of their product base will increase their
> vulnerability to market instability and whims and will reduce the
> opportunities for synergies between the product lines.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
I think Doug is right. The success of the M8 might be sustained, but
then again the war rangefinder-SLR took place decades ago, and SLRs
won by a landslide. A reason any camera company would like to be in
the DSLR business is that this is where the volume in sales (and
margin) is.
The truth is the R system has never been competitive, but it has
become less an less over the years. I happen to have handy the "'80
Photo Information Almanac", published by Modern Photography in
December of 1979. It shows the prices of all lenses of all
manufacturers (remember when Mamiya used to make 35mm SLRs?). Anyway,
let's choose Nikon, which in 1979 was probably king of the pro
business (before they started wondering if real photographers really
wanted autofocus-- another controversy settled more than a decade ago):
1980: Nikkor 20mm f/4: $488,50; Super-Angulon-R 21mm f/4 $960.
2007: Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 (AF): $484.95; Leica Elmarit R 19mm f/2.8:
$3995
1980: Nikkor 35mm f/2: $344.50; Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2: $837 (the
Summicron-M was only $333!!!)
2007: Nikkor 35mm f/2 (AF): 319.95; Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2: 2495
1980: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4: 256.50; Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4: $ 996
(the Summilux-M was $747!!!)
2007: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 (AF): 289.95; Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4: $2795
1980: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5: 302.50; Leica Macro-Elmarit 60mm f/
2.8: $801
2007: Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 (AF): $ 399.95; Leica Macro-Elmarit
60mm f/2.8: 2595 (same optical design as in 1980, mind you)
1980: Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5: $851.50; Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4.5: $:
1392
2007: Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (AF): 864; Vario-Elmarit-R 70-180mm f/
2.8: $7195
And on, and on.
I think this explains easily why so many members of the Leicareflex
list have not bough a NEW Leica R item in the last few years and
instead they have indeed bought many NEW Canon, Nikon, Olympus,
cameras and lenses (or are planning to do so). (The issue is
competitiveness, not if, adjusted by inflation, Leica R products are
cheaper than ever)
I have bought all my Leica R stuff on eBay or KEH or Adorama some
other second-hand outfit. I am afraid that unless Leica does
something with these prices, it is unlikely I will buy new from them.
I believe there is room for a "luxury" camera brand. Enough people
may be willing to pay 50% more for only 10% more real value for a red
dot, or (I am a Mac user, hence this comment) the "coolness factor".
But if you want to sell at almost 10 times the price of Nikon and
Canon, you better give almost 10 times the value. And in the time of
the internet, you shoul make sure your claims of superior quality are
real.
So AF, two cameras, two tiers of lenses (like the current Zuiko for
Olympus)... yeah, all this makes sense. But they better reduce the
prices if they want new users.
Juan
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
