n an earlier thread Godfrey states "They [Leica] are not so much innovators as finishers ....".
I do not disagree with the statement, but wonder when/why the transformation from "innovating" to "finishing" -company occurred.
Gandy, Putts and others indicates that the mother of M's; the M3 was a highly innovative camera and was far ahead of its time.
From my understanding of company dynamics, innovation does not just appear out of nothing. A company has to nurture and support it from within, it has to be rooted in its culture and requires encouragement from management. A M3 wouldn't just happen by accident. What happened?
Obviously a company such as Cosina has proven that there are plenty of innovation to be made even in a niche market like rangefinders -why didn't at least some of these come from Leica? I do not think Cosina's initiatives has taken business away from Solms, the opposite is probably closer to the truth.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), November 07, 2001

Answers

Niels, I believe that M/SM Leicas are the classic Leica-branch supplying beautifully finished cameras are being precise optical- mechanical devises simultaneously, while the R-series Leicas are very modern cameras with plenty of innovations. What would be an idea of converting a classic item of engineering art into a triviality of pop- art :?) It looks like converting the James Perday’ or Goland-Goland’ samples of gun making art into the M16 or Kalashnikov, or the Grand Complication from IWC into a digital wristwatch from know-not-whom.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), November 08, 2001.

Though I love what Voigtlander is doing - making rangefinder cameras that everyone can afford - I don't see them as being innovative. A basic chassis that has been around for years in the guise of the Nikon FM10 and others, screw mount lenses that have been around for decades. All they've really done is make a inexpensively made Leica style rangefinder that sells well, but if Leica made would likely not sell because no one would accept 'cheap' from Leica. The Leica M is definitely a specialized camera. It does what certain things better than any camera in the world (Voigtlander included - you probably won't see a lot of them in places like Kosovo or Afganistan). Modernizing it completely to compete with the most current electronic wonders just isn't feasible. There are certain classic designs - Porsche 911, Rolex watches, the classic trenchcoat - that are (IMHO) best left as they are.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 08, 2001.

When did Leica stop being innovative? Oskar Barnack died in 1935.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 08, 2001.

Leica ought to wisen up and have a budget line for Leica although probably not the same name so as to not mistake the Leica logo with the lower priced equipment competing against the Voigtlander/Konica outfits. Perhaps this budget "Leica" series can be called something like "Luxa" or etc...

So basically what we need is a polycarbonate/aluminum M6 budget camera which accepts the M mount and a polycarbonate/aluminum/magnesium R-mount SLR body

plus affordable lenses for the masses...

And then this "Luxa" company can feed off its wild profits into the parent Leica company to develop professional lines :) No doubt... I would like to see this asset to the marketing dept. in Leica AG.

Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 08, 2001.

I agree with Bob. The M camera is a mature design and does not need improvements. Perhaps eventually there will be an aperture priority one but hopefully no more than that. If you want "innovation" go buy a G2. I find such "innovation" just gets in the way.

If you want a cheaper model, go buy a Voigtina and quit bugging Leica. If it is a snob cheap camera you want, then get some spare red dots and stick them on. There is very little money to be made in the low end. Leica has a nice high end niche carved out for itself and just does not have the where-with-all to compete with the big boys in digital and AF.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 08, 2001.

Innovation takes many forms.

I never saw the Leica M as an innovative camera. What was so new about it even in 1953? The Contax II had the combined/ coupled viewfinder-rangefinder 15 years earlier, a much more innovative shutter design, etc. Leica's M was tried and true technology adopted and polished to a new degree of quality.

Is Cosina being innovative? Yes, the 12 and 15mm lenses are pretty neat, but is there really anything truly new there? They seem like developments of existing optical technology to me. Perhaps their innovation is the business acumen to apply mass production economies to the manufacture of quality optics allowing them to deliver product at a very affordable price.

I dunno. I'm not a business/technology theoretician. I just like to take pictures with good equipment. Leica is not the only provider of good equipment.

The digital camera that Matsushita is doing in collaboration with Leica for optics (the Panasonic DMC-LC5) looks very good to me, in the same vein as the Canon G2 and Sony DSC-85. I'm waiting for it to arrive before I decide on a digital camera.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), November 08, 2001.

What about the latest 35/1.4 asph or 90/2 asph, there´s a lot of inovation there, or 24M and latest 28 summicron, or R8.

For me the M4P doesn´t need any inovation neather a classic M6, just it´s lenses can become evolutionary, acording to film evolution; M´s are perfect, specialy if you know to use them; otherwise we would need and we do, new camera designs to cover our limited capabilities as photographers or our desires for new toys.

I mean if Photographers like Bresson, Klein, Kertez, Salgado, Winogrand, Maiselas, Appleby, Dixon or Huges have done what they have with the M system, I understand evolution is not needed in the tool system, but in the human capabilities to use it.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 08, 2001.

I speculated in some other thread that a career as a camera body engineer at Leica has to be more boring than the Maytag repairman's job.

Imagine, you are a bright young 24 yr old German engineer, in a country that is fabled for mechanical engineering. It is 1964 and you join Leica to work on M cameras.

Flash forward. It is now 2001 and you are graying and 61, ready to retire. You look back, and all you've done is stuffed a couple of metering circuits in the body design.

What is your recruitment pitch for fresh young people to join the department now? And exactly how would you attract mechanical engineering talent today, in 2001, of the caliber of the folks who designed the M3 in order to keep up the quality of innovation at your firm-with so barren a history to point to?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 08, 2001.

Mani - again as with Porsche, Rolex, Berber. Cartier and countless others, you attract them by telling them that you will be working on the best of the best. And that with incremental improvements they will continue to keep them the best. That if they want to design the latest 'flash in the pan - whom no one remembers in 5 years' to go work elsewhere. I'm truly amazed by the number of people who slag Leica for what it is - the best at what it does. There are a slew of other cameras out there. No one is twisting your arm to buy Leica - buy what suits you. Otherwise you are just looking for prestige. You want what YOU think is best (unfortunately we can't get three people to agree what that is) with the Leica red dot - except for those who think that progress would be getting rid of the red dot!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 08, 2001.

Bob, the product is terrific and the best of the best, I agree. And Leica is to be commended for working hard to keeping it in the market. Not to mention the lens department which is absolutely cutting edge.

But to clarify my point, which is about the limits of the talent Leica can hire for future work, there can't possibly be much attraction from a career standpoint in working on camera body design for a firm like that. So even if they wanted to, innovation will come slowly-bacause they won't attract the best thinking people. Plateaus are not a challenge to people who want to climb.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 08, 2001.

Sorry, I just couldn't reist here. ... a challenge to people who want to climb. reminded me of Edmund Hillary, who, having been asked why he climbed that thing, said "because it's there". Oskar Barnack, I think, had he been asked why he built that thing, would have said "because it's not there".

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 08, 2001.

There are few things, if any, I would change on an M. I am quite happy w. my M4 and it offers qualities not available in any camera today except possibly the M6.
I did not mean to suggest that the M6 should be replaced by an inferior plastic-multi-auto-thing, I too like it as it is.
The reason I mentioned Cosina was more in line with Godfrey's argument: Emphasis on the business aspect rather than the products (although the are closely related).
I still would like to know if the contributors of this forum had speculated why/how a company that was once the preferred choice of professionals, serious amateurs and had a market leading position, has become what it is today? (Yes. Still producing fine products, but with only a shadow of the role it played in the past).

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), November 09, 2001.

Niels, I am only one of many, many contributors here on the forum, but I also have the same interest which you have here (I think). That is, I too keep on asking myself "why Leica?" but also "why not Leica?" One of the basic answers I repeatedly hear from truly professional photographers (not only here in postings, but here in my own town, personally) is that they always have at least two cameras (and all their lenses). Their preferred choice is almost always a Leica M and a Nikon F2 or F4 or F5. (Yes, they may have e.g. an additional 'Blad etc, but they always start off talking about Ms and Fs.) They insist on explaining (usually because I asked them anyways) that each one does it's own thing, each one has it's own market leading position here, and he can't live without both. Just my two pfennigs worth.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 09, 2001.

As to the business aspect of Leica being more innovative, and especially when it is coupled with 'more accessible' (cheaper RE:Voiglander). I know it seems to many that this would be the best way for Leica to generate cash - bring out a less expensive camera to bring in the masses. But history tells us that when companies associated with 'expense' and 'class', and Leica is one of these, that these excercises tend to fail. Witness Porsche in the 70's with the 914's (a truly inexpensive car built mostly from VW parts, not to be confused with the current Boxter which is still out of most peoples reach). Rolex and their quartz watches (to appeal to the 80's person). Auto companies that bring in major American help (where is Lamborghini now that it has American (by this I mean mass production thinking. There is a watch company in Switzerland (BlancPain) that produces very expensive watches (start at something like $15000.00 US) in the old world tradition (small building, overlooking Lake Genevea - a garden in the back that workers are told to asked to tend when they're feeling stressed at the work bench). They have about 30 staff, and each is expected to produce 1 watch a month (I think my figures are correct). The best watches in the world some say. No modern innovation at all, some say. The BEST watchmakers in the world line up to work there. Sometimes the NEWEST and BESTEST isn't.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 09, 2001.

Bob, I get what you are saying! Finally :-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), November 09, 2001.

Bob is right in my estimation. Leica tried the cheap camera before and it almost ruined the company (the CL). The last thing they want to do is reduce prices, and I also doubt there is much long term market increase possible with r/fs. Leica have that market. VC are trying and people say they are selling - but who can give us figures? How many people are buying their products and are they enough to pay for the costs that have gone into producing the VC line? Who knows, but just because they are around does not mean that the VC line is profitable - Father Cosina might decide it was all a noble experiment and shut the whole thing down. This seems to me just as likely as them carrying on. After all r/fs are a specialised niche. Leicas do not have to be innovators - that is not their function, necessarily. What they represent is a pinnacle of mechanical and optical quality.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 09, 2001.

"I understand evolution is not needed in the tool system, but in the human capabilities to use it." r watson

Hey, Robert ! ! What a philosophycal statement ! ! And what a big truth . . . I feel that's exactly why I've been shooting M3/50mm Cron B&W always exclusively for so long, trying to make the best out of my own limited capabilities. And this gear is the best tool I have came across to do that. I suspected it. Now I know it . . .

Regards, amigo !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), November 10, 2001.

I have to disagree that the CL "almost ruined the company".

Something like 85,000 CL's of various types (leica, Leitz-Minolta, & Minolta) were made from 1971-1976. Which is FAR more than M production during that time. So the CL can hardly be used as an example of why Leica should not make a lower cost "M" platform. Now possibly Leica made a stupid move in it's marketing/profit sharing agreement with Minolta, I wouldn't know. But it wasn't anything wrong with the camera itself that caused any problems at leica. I got the figure here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), November 10, 2001.

Actually Josh the CL didn't make a lot of money - though even as you point out that may be due more to what had to be paid to Minolta, etc. Recently Polaroid is case in point. They make lots of film, in fact have a captive market pretty well (Fuji instant is making small inroads), yet they are in trouble. It'll be years before we know what's gone on behind the scenes. But 'philosophically' both the CL and M5 were duds. Statistics showed that the CL did not do what Leica hoped it would - get people into the system to buy M5's. Like the Minilux it sold mostly to people who had cash and wanted a nice compact camera from the worlds best (though there's nothing wrong with that). But it never surmounted its reliability problems. Unfortunately it was not all that unreliable (some problems with the meter are of course, but not much else). However, amongst Leicaphiles it was always knows as the 'camera that wasn't, and didn't work right either' - though again statistics don't bear this out. I don't have a problem with Leica trying an entry level camera - if it was made as well as the CL, which is probably made as well as, say for example, the Hexar. But when people talk of copying Cosina (and you do have to love 'em) I think your treading on this ice. Introducing a plastic bodied RF, with lightweight plastic lenses (as was suggested earlier) would probably end up being an expensive (on Leicas part) failure.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 11, 2001.

Nice to know you think so Iván, it was one of those poetic days, when even cloudy, sun shines on. Los mejores deseos. Roberto

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 12, 2001.