Well Flexers, this is getting 'heavy' isn't it? All this talk of systems engineering, quality, technology. My day job involves safety. Now safety is a subset of quality, given the current definitions of both words; however, I have often heard the term 'build quality', and a while back tried to discover the difference between 'quality' and 'build quality'. You may not think this relevant to the current discussion; unfortunately is is very relevant, and maybe the crux of the question. Broadly speaking, 'quality' is measurable, whereas 'build quality' is subjective. The two terms are often loosely interchanged, and this blurs the real issues. I thin k we can safely say that Leica has always produced goods of measurably high quality. To a large extent, it has also provided goods with high 'build quality'. The issue is, Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al generally provide goods of high 'build quality' too (except perhaps their cheaper plastic offerings); the fact that any may not have as good measurable quality as Leica is not necessarily within the customer's perception of the actual product is where the dilemma arises. So: 1) do you aim for purely 'build quality' as the marketing yardstick? 2) if measurable quality is not within the customers' perception, are you going to be able to charge a premium for it? Let me illustrate with car attributes: Customers today are regaled by claims of high build quality by all manufacturers, and this has resulted in some 'must haves': 1) maximum showroom appeal; 2) accurate shut lines; 3) attractive paint finish without blemishes; 4) good economy rating (at the legal test points in the fuel/ignition map) 5) safe handling 6) at least 3 starts EuroNCAP 7) and so on.... By and large these attributes are addressed by all manufacturers from the cheapest to the dearest. Under the skin, all manufacturers tend to fit parts from much the same 'parts bin'. Beneath that glossy surface lurk parts from India, China, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Peru, South Africa. But the end product is still 'Made in Germany', 'Made in France', 'Made in Sweden'. Yes, some customers remain brand loyal; but the brand content they are getting is very different to what they got say 30 years ago; the important issue is that the product meets customer expectations, and then the customer will believe that his/er brand loyalty is justified - even if that means paying twice as much for similar quality (measurable quality) components in a 'lesser brand' vehicle. So, to Leica. Leica has to operate in a 21st century market, like it or like it not. That inevitably means some compromise; I think I and Doug Sharp are as one in this: manufacturers today can't afford to supply things exceeding customer expectations. If they try to charge more for some invisible attribute - however 'nice' this may be - the customer won't pay if he/she doesn't need it. On the other hand, providing extra for the same money is a road to lost profits, and ultimately ruin. There are plenty of competent, reliable cameras out there, with high brand reputations and profiles to compete with - and some of those famous names have fallen by the wayside of late - without having a problem such as the DMR. The DMR is an excellent example. Expensive, supposedly the best, Leica name (but arguably not Leica 'made') ...... and faulty. The DMR has clearly tarnished Leica in many eyes (David, for example...? ;-) and increased the size of the next hurdle to be overcome if Leica is to be successful. But - it has excellent 'build quality', doesn't it? If it performed to customer expectations in every way, it would have a band of ecstatic owners, wouldn't it? But it has fallen short, and almost certainly should be taken by Leica as a dire warning of things to come, if Leica management doesn't get itself into the 21st century - fast! You can't live off a reputation grown in the 1940s and 50s for ever! Quoting Doug again: 'But then again , do customers really want an AF Leica? Isn't it a definitive characteristic of Leica SLR users that they prefer to have complete control of the process of photography - focusing, DOF etc? Maybe just give us reliable focus confirmation. Dyed in the wool Leica R owners don't "trust" AF anyway , as a rule.' How old is the typical R user, Doug? 55? 60? A classic example of a shrinking customer base. Only one word to say here: 'Rover'. Gathering expertise and competence is the name of the game, the Leica we know today will probably become a simple "centre of excellence", and one of the components in a group comprising the other branches (and their particular areas of competence) swallowed by Kaufmann and co and planned to be the core concerns in the Leitz Park project. With the best will in the world, this will not be enough. 'What does Lee consider to be "The Competition" as such: I expect, primarily Canon and Nikon - so what do they have that Leica doesn't? A large age-diverse base of customers world-wide! And a long history of RELIABLE products. Mould-breaking innovation - remember the Nikon F? And what can Leica offer as a Unique Selling Proposition to gain a competitive edge and a profitable market share?' A complete and fundamental rethink of where it is, where it wants to go, and how to get there. Oh - and a thorough and realistic of what its customer base will be in , say, 10 years' time. Cheers Keith PS - anyone else read Stefan Daniel's back page article in AP this week? Seems the M8 is the icon for the future..... ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/