Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The Leica O has a die-cast body, something that didn't appear 'til the IIIC( the real O was made out of squashed pipe). Now we have a cast body, a new collapsible Elmar, and we're still making a self-capping cloth shutter. How much effort would it be to make an attached rangefinder? You'd have a better IIIA. Will that be the next step?, John Collier wrote: > > The resources "wasted" on the Leica O series amounted to two apprentice's > time. They still had the original tooling. All the special models you see > require very little development time and return huge profits. Leica has, > possibly accidentally, developed a huge collector's market that can be > depended upon to buy one of whatever they produce. In the last twenty years > Leica has produced many versions of essentially the same camera (the M6). > Development costs are very low and profits much higher than regular > production. These models do not take much time away from regular production > as the special finishes are usually farmed out. Leica does assemble them > but, considering the profit margins, they would be better off to go to 100% > commemorative editions! :-) > > What does cost money and time is the development of all the new lenses they > have been producing in the last ten years. The aspherical elements have > required new production techniques; very expensive. Without the these new > lenses, I think Leica would have disappeared. As it is we have available the > best lenses in the business and Leica has carved out a comfortable niche for > itself. Unfortunately this niche has been ravaged by economic turmoil in the > last five or so years. Many other high end companies are struggling as well > so perhaps there is little Leica could have done differently. > > As an counter example, I am purchasing a Nikonos V as they have just been > discontinued. The normal lens for this camera has had the same design for > forty years. It is OK but nothing to write home about. If Nikon had invested > R&D time into its Nikonos line, they would not be discontinuing it now.* > > John Collier > > * I am very familiar with the development and demise of the RS system. Lack > of proper R&D at incept doomed the system from the start. For your $10 000US > plus investment, you got a rebodied Nikon 5005!!!!! Needless to say AF > performance underwater (dark and low contrast) was very poor. People much > preferred the using housed high performance cameras such as the F5 or the > F100/90 series. I could go on but it is too sad a tale. > > > From: "Greg Bicket" <gbicket@home.com> > > > > While I am pleased for those who enjoy the novelty of the recent LTM > > offering, and try to resist the fashion to slather over one Leica camera > > style while dumping on others, my initial reaction to that effort was to > > think of the energy and imagination and resources lost to the M and R lines > > whilst Leica worked on O. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html