The premature death of Leica

[John Camp]

I would venture and say that today Leicas are not (anymore) the top quality piece of photographic engineering they used to be... they lag behind in several technological specs and breakthroughs. Which is normal, as technological giants like Canon, Sony, and Panasonic, could make the transition to digital in an easy way.

They've lagged behind technologically since the Vietnam War, when several influential PJs dumped their Leicas in favor of Nikons (mostly for the long glass.) Then David Hemmings used Nikons (and made the film-advance sound famous) in the movie "Blowup," which is the movie that made photography fashionable. (Yes, Spanky, you can take pictures of naked young girls and drive around in Rolls Royce convertibles if you use a Nikon.) When Leica tried to catch up with the R (probably the best glass in any SLR, ever) each iteration was always a couple of generations behind the latest Japanese product. While the Japanese lenses were probably not quite as good as the Leicas, there were a lot more of them (a much bigger choice) and they were 95% of a Leica...and 95% was good enough for virtually everyone.

It's true that Leica has managed to hang on, but I'm not sanguine about their future. I've had both Leica film and digital cameras, and the fact is, they're incredibly expensive and a struggle to work with. You can do great work, of course, but it's despite the design, rather than because of it. IN MY OPINION, there's no quality of a Leica in which that same thing is not done better in some other style of camera. There are smaller, faster, high quality cameras, and there are larger, faster, high quality cameras, and Leica has always had pretty severe quality problems since the advent of digital, because with digital, they must necessarily involve themselves in seriously advanced electronics, which has never been their expertise or part of their history.

If a photographer has a really good eye, and the patience to learn how to use them, his/her work with a Leica can be as good as that of any other camera, within the limitations of the available lenses. It won't be as quick to use, and it won't have a lot of electronic goodies found routinely even in very cheap Japanese DSLRs, but the work can be just fine. But IN MY OPINION, that's despite the design, not because of it.

[Telecaster]

Yeah.

Last year I bought a pair of lightly used M8.2s, not because I particularly needed them but 'cuz my Epson RD-1 is nearly worn out mechanically. And I love rangefinder cameras. They're what I learned with and still feel most comfortable using. I've been enjoying these two a lot despite—or maybe even because of—their many (electronic) operational quirks. But I imagine if/when both have died that'll be it.

-Dave-

[NancyP]

Leica has a large medical products division. We use some of their pathology products (microtome, cryostat, automatic slide stainer) at my hospital. I suspect the big profit comes from that division, and that the camera division is more or less coasting on its name.

[JV]

I wish I got a nickel on my bank account every time somebody predicted the death of Leica...

[Telecaster]

Leica has a large medical products division. We use some of their pathology products (microtome, cryostat, automatic slide stainer) at my hospital. I suspect the big profit comes from that division, and that the camera division is more or less coasting on its name.

That's actually a different company: Leica Microsystems. In 1996 the camera division was spun off as Leica Camera AG. There's a Leica Geosystems too.

Leica Camera has proved resilient enough that I wouldn't count them out any time soon. But I do think their products—the cameras anyway—are becoming ever less relevant to photographers. They've become a luxury goods maker. I don't begrudge them this at all…they'd likely be out of business had they not gone this route. But in the long term I think they'll have to reinvent themselves yet again in order to survive.

-Dave-

[BJL]

In looking for technical details on their website I see that the M only has a 24MP "sensor" (what I would refer to as the 'detector').  Does anyone know if Leica has a detector manufactory, or do they buy them from someone else to a Leica spec?

That CMOS sensor is a custom design for them by CMOSIS, which in turn outsources the fabrication STMicroelectronics (STM): see this press release from CMOSIS

By the way, since they are called "sensors" by the entire industry and in every photographic publication and website, why do you propose that alternative name?

[ErikKaffehr]

Korean war actually…

Best regards
Erik

They've lagged behind technologically since the Vietnam War, when several influential PJs dumped their Leicas in favor of Nikons (mostly for the long glass.) Then David Hemmings used Nikons (and made the film-advance sound famous) in the movie "Blowup," which is the movie that made photography fashionable. (Yes, Spanky, you can take pictures of naked young girls and drive around in Rolls Royce convertibles if you use a Nikon.) When Leica tried to catch up with the R (probably the best glass in any SLR, ever) each iteration was always a couple of generations behind the latest Japanese product. While the Japanese lenses were probably not quite as good as the Leicas, there were a lot more of them (a much bigger choice) and they were 95% of a Leica...and 95% was good enough for virtually everyone.

It's true that Leica has managed to hang on, but I'm not sanguine about their future. I've had both Leica film and digital cameras, and the fact is, they're incredibly expensive and a struggle to work with. You can do great work, of course, but it's despite the design, rather than because of it. IN MY OPINION, there's no quality of a Leica in which that same thing is not done better in some other style of camera. There are smaller, faster, high quality cameras, and there are larger, faster, high quality cameras, and Leica has always had pretty severe quality problems since the advent of digital, because with digital, they must necessarily involve themselves in seriously advanced electronics, which has never been their expertise or part of their history.

If a photographer has a really good eye, and the patience to learn how to use them, his/her work with a Leica can be as good as that of any other camera, within the limitations of the available lenses. It won't be as quick to use, and it won't have a lot of electronic goodies found routinely even in very cheap Japanese DSLRs, but the work can be just fine. But IN MY OPINION, that's despite the design, not because of it.

[Telecaster]

Korean war actually…

Well, yes, Nikon rangefinders became popular with (some) western photojournalists during the Korean war. Or at least the Leica Thread Mount versions of the lenses did. But the Vietnam war was the first to be covered to any degree with SLRs. Lotsa folks had a Leica with a 28/35/50mm lens hanging off one shoulder and a Nikon F with a 135/180mm hanging off the other. My dad's friend Ben, a military photographer during WWII and later an occasional news service stringer, used such a rig during the 1960s.

-Dave-

[John Camp]

Korean war actually…

Best regards
Erik

I was actually referring to SLRs -- the Nikon F came out either in '59 or '60. Interestingly enough, though, one of the most famous WWII and Korean War photographers, David Douglas Duncan, covered the Korean War with a Leica...fitted with a Nikon rangefinder lens.

Yeah.

Last year I bought a pair of lightly used M8.2s, not because I particularly needed them but 'cuz my Epson RD-1 is nearly worn out mechanically. And I love rangefinder cameras. They're what I learned with and still feel most comfortable using. I've been enjoying these two a lot despite—or maybe even because of—their many (electronic) operational quirks. But I imagine if/when both have died that'll be it.

-Dave-

Too bad you didn't get to me a little earlier -- I have a virtually pristine Epson RD-1, and I've sold off the last of the Leica lenses I used with it. I haven't parted with it yet because it's such an interesting little camera. Every camera ought to have at least one mechanical needle, just because they're cool.

[eronald]

The japanese priced their products for Mr. Everyman. And they were not cheap "copies" - they have a genuine love of photography and photographic equipment, it is almost a national obsession.

Leica made one more mistake, their lenses were designed for stopped down use initially, I think, eg. F8 , and the japanese DLR lenses were fast lenses designed for wider open use eg. F4-5.6 at the time. At least that's what we used to say when I was a kid, comparing the cameras we had around.  The japanese dSLRs were fast cameras for fast use.

Edmund

I agree, Leica is safe … for the time being. And cameras like the Q [which almost certainly was designed in collaboration with Panasonic], may portend a change of direction for the company, or at the very least an attempt at a serious new branch in direction; one many would welcome given the positive reception the Q is getting. Niggles aside, the Q is almost exactly what a fully modern Leica should be, IMHO. Do more of this, Leica.

As to the rest, yes, Leica missed entirely the importance of the SLR by the late 1960s, and the reflex's desirability in the field gave it a serious leg up over the rangefinder, particularly when coupled with the excellent system support Nikon was building out around the F. That's where the tide really turned.

By the mid 1970s, the arrival of electronic control systems in cameras further tipped the scales to the Japanese manufacturers, because electronics know-how is directly in their wheelhouse. This trend simply increased exponentially into the world we live today, where the capture medium itself is now electronic.

Along the way that's been a tough place for a master of mechanical engineering to find itself. Partnerships with Minolta [and now Panasonic] notwithstanding, there's no question that Leica has played to the luxury / fashion set to raise revenues [why shouldn't they?], by touting "old-world" mechanical craftsmanship combined with rare earth elements and collectible editions. Not sure that's a strategy for long term success in the current photographic climate, however.

Through all of this, however, Leica's lenses have remained the single highest quality lineup on the planet. There's no denying that.

And to end where I began: Leica, put your engineering gears in overdrive and let's see an interchangeable lens version of the Q with one or two new state-of-the-art wrinkles, and with four or five good optics matched to it at a [relatively] reasonable price point. That would sell like hotcakes, IMO.

[jrp]

Leica made one more mistake, their lenses were designed for stopped down use initially, I think, eg. F8 , and the japanese DLR lenses were fast lenses designed for wider open use eg. F4-5.6 at the time. At least that's what we used to say when I was a kid, comparing the cameras we had around.  The japanese dSLRs were fast cameras for fast use.

Currently, the Leica lenses are in a different league, wide open, from Canon / Nikon lenses (the Zeiss, Sigma Art lenses are, however, of a similar standard).  What keeps me with Leica is that the lenses are much more compact and lighter than their autofocus / stabilized peers.

[AlfSollund]

They've lagged behind technologically since the Vietnam War, when several influential PJs dumped their Leicas in favor of Nikons (mostly for the long glass.) Then David Hemmings used Nikons (and made the film-advance sound famous) in the movie "Blowup," which is the movie that made photography fashionable. (Yes, Spanky, you can take pictures of naked young girls and drive around in Rolls Royce convertibles if you use a Nikon.) When Leica tried to catch up with the R (probably the best glass in any SLR, ever) each iteration was always a couple of generations behind the latest Japanese product. While the Japanese lenses were probably not quite as good as the Leicas, there were a lot more of them (a much bigger choice) and they were 95% of a Leica...and 95% was good enough for virtually everyone.

It's true that Leica has managed to hang on, but I'm not sanguine about their future. I've had both Leica film and digital cameras, and the fact is, they're incredibly expensive and a struggle to work with. You can do great work, of course, but it's despite the design, rather than because of it. IN MY OPINION, there's no quality of a Leica in which that same thing is not done better in some other style of camera. There are smaller, faster, high quality cameras, and there are larger, faster, high quality cameras, and Leica has always had pretty severe quality problems since the advent of digital, because with digital, they must necessarily involve themselves in seriously advanced electronics, which has never been their expertise or part of their history.

If a photographer has a really good eye, and the patience to learn how to use them, his/her work with a Leica can be as good as that of any other camera, within the limitations of the available lenses. It won't be as quick to use, and it won't have a lot of electronic goodies found routinely even in very cheap Japanese DSLRs, but the work can be just fine. But IN MY OPINION, that's despite the design, not because of it.

The design will affect the handling including how qiock to use. The Leicas are unique in the way that they allow the photographer controll and hence qiock to use.

In my opinion there are no competition in handling from other companies. I see this in all situations where the cameras are used to photograph. Those using other brands simply use much more time to set-up their cameraes before they can shoot. IMO the work of photographers using other cameraes can be better or worse for the final result, but will be slower in work and these photographers will miss moments causing no result.

Actaully I belive one see this best on compacts. IMO there are no other brands designed as well as Leica for photography, instead the others brands overwhelm the user with user interfaces and functionallity not useful.

[JV]

IMO there are no other brands designed as well as Leica for photography, instead the others brands overwhelm the user with user interfaces and functionallity not useful.

It is all very personal, isn't it?

In his review of the Leica S MR mentions the 25 external buttons he has on his Pentax 645Z.

To me having 25 buttons sounds like an absolute nightmare but one has to acknowledge that everybody is different.

[michael]

It is all very personal, isn't it?

In his review of the Leica S MR mentions the 25 external buttons he has on his Pentax 645Z.

To me having 25 buttons sounds like an absolute nightmare but one has to acknowledge that everybody is different.

A lot of people have picked up on this issue.

It comes down to modeless vs. modal. Do you want a dedicated control for each thing, or a few controls that (depending on the mode they're in) do many different things.

I can work with each, but frankly, after a few hours with a "simple" camera (like the Pentax 645z with its 25 buttons and knobs) where almost every function is obvious from the moment you pick it up, to a camera like the Leica S, where almost every function is hidden, is a revelation.

Cameras such as the Sony A7II and A7RII, which have about 10 customizable buttons strike a mid-ground.

They're all usable to one degree or another. But digital cameras are complex beasts, and getting to the point where settings become intuitive and quick takes time. Once mastered (and customized) they can all do the job. Some are just more fun to use than others.

Michael

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My vote goes to buttons, dials and presets. Just to say, dials and presets don't play well together. You cannot reset a dial.

Simplicity is beautiful, but when simplicity is not at hand, beauty will do…

Best regards
Erik

A lot of people have picked up on this issue.

It comes down to modeless vs. modal. Do you want a dedicated control for each thing, or a few controls that (depending on the mode they're in) do many different things.

I can work with each, but frankly, after a few hours with a "simple" camera (like the Pentax 645z with its 25 buttons and knobs) where almost every function is obvious from the moment you pick it up, to a camera like the Leica S, where almost every function is hidden, is a revelation.

Cameras such as the Sony A7II and A7RII, which have about 10 customizable buttons strike a mid-ground.

They're all usable to one degree or another. But digital cameras are complex beasts, and getting to the point where settings become intuitive and quick takes time. Once mastered (and customized) they can all do the job. Some are just more fun to use than others.

Michael

[JV]

Cameras such as the Sony A7II and A7RII, which have about 10 customizable buttons strike a mid-ground.

Personally if I had to pick one user interface it would be the Leica T.  Very user friendly and intuitive it fits my brain the best.

But digital cameras are complex beasts, and getting to the point where settings become intuitive and quick takes time. Once mastered (and customized) they can all do the job. Some are just more fun to use than others.

+1 with the caveat that everybody's idea of fun is different!

[Rob C]

I will follow this up with another stereotype: people who believe that have never shot with a Leica for more than a few frames.

Gee wiz, in order for a designer label to work as a fashion statement, it kinda has to be recognized. The vast majority of people on this big green/blue ball have no idea what a Leica looks like or what it is. Not to mention my Monochrom doesn't say Leica anywhere that is visible.

Who has the fashion statement?

Dave

Yes, but!

To be a statement, the statement has to be recognized as such, as you write.

Prada, all of them, mean nothing down at the supermarket. At a society function, the other ladies know perfectly well what's on the other woman's back, even if it's only there in part. Ditto a Rolex, on a wrist, of course, not a back. I imagine that apart from other owners, the only people aware enough to care are thieves.

Leica, of course, means nothing to most people. But it does mean lots to keen photographers, and there are many of them. It probably shares the same uncomfortable recognition from the same thieves as cherish the thought of the watch.

So, in both cases, watch and camera, the objects obviously are statements, statements of ability to purchase.

But that's cool; not a problem. I coveted a Rolex the first time I saw one because, as with the lllG Leica, the first I recognized, they represented the most beautiful bits of engineering that I had ever seen. I bought the Rolex because of that, and only later did I discover that James Bond shared my taste as did most of the other fashion photographers whose work I admired. So, I was lucky: it was beautiful fashion statement, secret survival device, and made me a star snapper. (I better say the last two points are made in jest; you never can tell how folks will react.) But I never bought any of the Leicas because Nikon served my needs better.

But there's trouble in Rolex Paradise: not all Rolexes are created equal.

Rob

[tom b]

Rob,

When I did the "Overland", that is travel from Singapore to Britain overland, I bought two things. I bought my Leica CL and I bought a cheap Casio digital watch at Duty Free that I thought nobody would want to steal. I had around twenty offers to buy my watch, nobody cared about my lovely little Leica, who knows!

Cheers,

[AlfSollund]

...
So, in both cases, watch and camera, the objects obviously are statements, statements of ability to purchase.
...

True. But from this you cannot deduce if this is why someone purchases a Leica, nor how important this is as a criteria for purchase. If there were a camera offering the same capabilities as Leica's you could try to compare and deduce if this statement mean something. But there isn't, and you cannot.

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
So, with the the 'corrosion' problem that affects the sensor on a number of Leica M9 cameras one could say that these camera suffer from a rather short longevity, but then again, Leica has simply replaced these sensors with identical ones and have spent time and money to solve the problem more permanently. They just sent this notice, and it applies to any M9 owner regardless of whether they are the original or subsequent buyer:

"Update CCD Sensor of the Leica M9/M9-P/M Monochrom and M-E camera models
We are very pleased to inform you that we have successfully completed development on our new generation of CCD sensors and conducted subsequent quality assurance testing under practical conditions. As a result, Leica Camera AG can now begin replacing the sensors in the M9, M9-P and M-E models that were affected by corrosion with sensors from the new generation.
Sensor replacement for M Monochrom models will also begin shortly. We will inform you of the precise date of this as soon as possible.
On this note, we would like to remind our customers that we can only offer replacements for CCD sensors for cameras affected by this particular problem; prophylactic replacement is not possible.
We thank you for your patience and for your loyalty to the Leica brand."

And yes, only Leica users notice another Leica, no one else notice or cares, and if they notice do it is to ask about how tough it is to buy film these days.

So Leica's may not suffer from premature death after all.

Jean-Michel