Right,lets pretend,tommorrow Nikon release a small,light rangefinder.It's as quiet and well built as the M6.The lenses are superb,all the pro's test it and say the optics are better than Leica.Virtually overnight all the Nat' Geo',Magnum,etc,etc photographers switch to the Nikon.None of the pro's use Leica.

SO..........nothing changes at Leica,

Would people still buy them on their reputation alone?

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 31, 2002

Answers

Exellent question.

No I don't think they would,because National Geographic,Magnum,etc ARE their reputation.

As a pro Phil,would you switch?

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

Yes,of course I would.

-- Phill (philkneen@man.net), January 31, 2002.

"would people still buy them on their reputation alone?" What reputation? Their reputation is based on having the best lenses. In your make-believe future that would no longer be the case, so people would then need to buy Leica on the basis of them making the not-best lenses in the world. Second place, as I remember reading on a Californian t-shirt, is the first loser.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 31, 2002.

depends on the cost of this new nikon rangefinder... if it is a lot cheaper i would certainly switch. if its the same price i would probably stick with the leica simply because it is good enough for my needs.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), January 31, 2002.

Ok lets say the whole Nikon system is 10% more expensive.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 31, 2002.

Are Craig and Phill the same person?

[Phill and Craig appear to be the same person. If not, they're swapping places on the same computer. In this thread, the source IP address is the same for all posts from both participants. --Moderator]

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 31, 2002.

It has been said before,but no.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 31, 2002.

That's an awful lot of pretending to have to do. Why don't we add that the camera and lenses will also cost 1/4 of Leica's boot if we really want to do some serious pretending. Seriously, maybe Nikon would bring back the SP system (like they did their special edition Millenium camera)or come out with a completely new rangefinder, but even if it got rave reviews and was more affordable (and it probably wouldn't be), many Pro Leica users would continue to use what they are comfortable with. Changing camera systems isn't likely to improve ones work, rave reiviews or not.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 31, 2002.

Hi, all:

I came to Leica after much strugling and lots of evaluations. Enough to make the decision that this will be a definite RF system for me. Though not the only system. I own SLRs too.

But on the RF side, I absolutely agree with Andrews opinion: "Changing camera systems isn't likely to improve ones work, rave reiviews or not".

Sell everything, buy everything and learn everything once more . . .? Naaahh ! ! !

I wouldn't change.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 31, 2002.

Some would, some wouldn't. Even if the Nikon lenses were better, would they be that much better? I traded away a complete Olympus system to buy Leica rangefinder, but not for increased sharpness, but because when I tried a rangefinder I felt more comfortable with it for my style of shooting. Supposedly the lenses are better than the Olympus, but not by very much IMO. Another thing to consider is resale value. If the new Nikon was the same price as the Leica, but Nikon built a ton of them (because they are a far large company) they would not hold near the value Leica does. Some would say that the Hexar has done exactly what you propose, but Konica is disappointed with sales....

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 31, 2002.

Now if it had performance and the "feel" of quality to them like a Leica, or even better, yes indeed! It'd hafta look cool too, something I like about the Leicas. Anyway, in the meantime I'll be taking my Leica to an ice-sculpture contest in Colorado, and maybe some sand dunes. Where are people taking theirs?

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

No,

I don't think so, if they're(pros) happy and getting satisfying results why switch. But, for certain reason, like commercial value behind it, they may switch. Hey, it's like asking golf pros to switch clubs. They would, but depends how much(like Nike or Titleist) willing to pay them. We know the clubs are all good, but for pros, they make a living on them.

Wondering if any camera is taylor made for pro, who only uses the lable to boost the sale to the public? :) like golf clubs?

I think amateurs would switch faster than pros just for fun and curiosity(try) at beginning , but after pros switch based on $$(maybe getting the cams for free), then people are getting convinced that Nik** is better than Leica.

Fred

-- Fred Ouyang (yo54@columbia.edu), January 31, 2002.

Hey! Me and Phil the same person! Ok,we know each other and work together,but Phil is at home and I'm earning money!sorry Phil.

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

I think that something like this already happened. From the late '30s right up to 1953 Contax bodies and lenses were both superior to Leica. Lots of pro's switched -I've just been looking at John Loengard's book "What They Saw" with many picture of Life staffers from that period, and the 35mm cameras in those shots are mostly Contaxes. Yet people went right on buying Leicas. The brand ran pretty much on it's reputation until the the M3 and the Summicron appeared........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), January 31, 2002.

Is this site sponsored by Leica? I think it must be.

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

I'd first have to see how the Nikon camera looked against a black turtleneck sweater?

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 31, 2002.

Esnesnon siht no emit ruoy gnitsaw rof sttuf gnikcun lla era uoy kniht i.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 31, 2002.

Nah.

Too many people have too much invested in lenses. Over time you could expect the Nikon to take some market share, but it would take a while and Nikon's shareholders might not think it's worth the wait.

-- Will Woodford (woodford@sgi.com), January 31, 2002.

yes, people will still buy Leica.

you know why? because nikon's customer service suck ass. their warranty coverage suck ass. will nikon still repair your old N2000 camera? good luck.

i will buy a porsche boxter over a toyota supra anytime...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 31, 2002.

Using the new generation leica M lenses, I find it hard to believe it is possible to improve them any more. There are fast, small, and sharp. Any possible improvement will be marginal, hardly noticeable except to the most discerning eye with a loupe.

The only way to make a quantum leap in pic quality is for leica to be able to make a medium format rangefinder camera that is not much bigger than a M or at least the smallest in the market.

Yip, who is ever hopeful for a MF Leica !

-- Yip (koklok@krdl.org.sg), January 31, 2002.

Phil,

Your question suggests a "herd mentality," where buyers gravitate to brand name recognition, whether the manufacturer or the buyer(s). I will submit that if there was a "herd mentality" with Leica, then this forum would contain fewer posts lamenting Leica's marketing or product strategies.

There is indeed a herd mentality in the photographic community at large. I also believe that there are people who have purchased Leica gear because of perceived "status" or whatever. That is, there is a "Leica mystique" that many buyers find compelling. On the other hand, I can't say that I've ever used a 35mm camera that at the same time gets out of the way of making a photograph and facilitates making a photograph as the Leice M rangefinder.

I suspect that I'd have to own some sort of spectroscopy equipment to be able to discern the quality of Leica optics from "better" Nikon optics.

So, no, I can't say that "better" optics or endorsements would be sufficient for me to switch, athough some folks would.

-Nick

-- Nicholas Wybolt (nwybolt@earthlink.net), January 31, 2002.

Kcaj thiw eerga yldetraehelohw i.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), January 31, 2002.

Er, isn't this what actually happened, more or less, with Nikon S rangefinders, and later the Nikon F in the late 1950s, and early 1960s?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), January 31, 2002.

Well, from a marketing point of view, many people would change. There is almost a feeling among photographers that if they wish to be remembered, a Leica will help with that. Their aren't too many famous photographers at the moment that are seriously compared to famous photographic greats in history. Sure we have Salgado, Ellen Mark, Steve McCurry, etc who are all recognised and appreciated for their work. But we cannot forget about history, and sure many photographers like Eugene Smith, Bresson, etc didn't have much of a choice, but for Leica. But the fact remains that some of the worlds most influencial pictures have been taken with the logo "leica" on the camera. And this history will never be forgotton as long as the photos exist. Maybe if their were photographers such as Steve McCurry taking more meaningful pictures- as apossed to commercial style, a following of Nikon fans may grow.

The point is that Leica's past will never die, and the reputatioon is deserved through photographic merit throughout history, compared to, say a new Nikon rangefinder getting good marks from MTF graphs and used extensively by Pros all around. Lets face it....a company like Nikon throws their cameras at Pros like Steve McCurry, whereas people like Salgado actually choose Leica based on the quality, feel and reputation deserved from history thanks to people like Eugene Smith and Bresson. Nuff said.

-- kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I use both Leica & Nikon equipment professionally and for personal work. If FM3a was as quite as Leica, I would sell all my Leica & Hexar RF gear and buy FM3a bodies. Just as 8 years ago I sold all my Hasselblead gear and with the proceeds bought brand new Mamiya RZ + polaroid back + 3 lenses and Sinar P2 4x5 and never looked back.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), February 01, 2002.

Hello Phill.Interesting question..I think current professional Nikon reflex users may consider a Nikon r'finder at least just for fun.. but have you seen the price of the Nikon S3 "replica" new release? I don't think Nikon will be giving such a system away. Leica has weathered the storm and just as Michelin, the tyre manufacturer still makes tyres,Leica would still make their cameras.There are many Leica officiandos who won't shift ..many I think want to see "LEICA" on that lense,even though "Voigtlander", a veritable old name,resuscitated at a good price and quality,offers an excellent alternative. Should Nikon be testing the waters with the "new" S3,despite the company being a world leader in reflex cameras they should never underestimate the experience and prowess of the old Master. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I can't imagine any lens offering better performance at the same f stops than the new asphs. Would anyone ever be able to see such a tiny difference? I wouldn't be at all interested in swapping, unless the competition really had some stand out features like the F5's meter and TTL capability.

I wonder whether Leica has reached the end of the road simply because they couldn't improve their lens' performance without pricing them completely out of the market?

The only lens I'm ever likely to buy now would be a 24 or 21 f2 asph. Dream on.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 01, 2002.

I'm with Rob. Apart from my bullshit above, is anyone really going to believe todays magazines if they said that a nikon lens is defintely better than a Leica? Comming from Nikon, I wouldn't believe it. There is definate difference between the quality of Nikon and Leica, it's justa shame it took too long to realise it, and save for it!!!

-- Kristian Dowling (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

This is pretty ridiculous, but I couldn't resist.

Anything is possible, but why would nikon do this? Leica seems concerned with retaining the heritage and feel of their classic models (respectable), while Nikon is busy whoring themselves out to average joe because he thinks that it is the superior camera. Nikon was getting close, but lost ground (IMO) chasing the AF Dragon.

So I'm sure Leicas would continue to sell in the numbers they do- has Contax' G and G2 or the Hexar or the Voights dented Leica's appeal? No. There is no "competitive" camera.

But, if nikon could build a machine that could compete, it certainly would have to be better. I doubt that could happen. Honda's NSX-T smashed Ferrari's sales in the early 90's, so I could be wrong. (NSX- T vs. Boxster- hmmmm, that's a hard one, Dexter)

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 01, 2002.

I think a few people have lost the point of the question.Phil isn't asking if people would swap,he's asking if people looking for a rangefinder would buy Leica if the pros aren't using them.Let's be honest,we love to see an M6 around the necks of National Geographic photographers on the assignment pages. I feel Phils original question has been turned into a Leica IS better than Nikon.Remember,he did say 'lets pretend'

-- Alan (Alanwest@aol.com), February 01, 2002.

If we were all very honest we would all say the same thing.

"No,if Leica isn't good enough for the bigboys,it's not good enough for me.I'm buying Nikon"

-- Alan (alanwest@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

Phil, the question u should ask is :" If Nikon made a Leica M6 , would u buy it?"

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), February 01, 2002.

"The lenses are superb,all the pro's test it and say the optics are better than Leica."

'Course I'd have to test them myself first, but if they are indeed "better" (oooo, canned worms, yummy), then yes I'd probably switch. It's all about the optics, I don't care about the name.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.

Look at it in a different way. Let's assume that Leica manufactures an inexpensive, plastic bodied "point and shoot" compact camera, priced at around $280 - $325, and tries to compete with Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta and the other Asian camera makers. Hey, wait a minute, they've already done that, and I own one.

Would that make the casual "snap shooter" stop buying their cheap point and shoot cameras at Walmart, and order a Leica point and shoot from B&H? No, I don't think so. Instead, the Leica owner or prospective buyer is willing to pay a premium price not only for the first-class quality they feel exists with the Leica name brand, but also, create their own personal link to the long-standing Leica heritage that has developed over the years.

For me, the mostly manual M6TTL that I own forces me to slow down and think about what I'm doing, and have more time to evaluate the composition, before squeezing off a shot. That's what I want at this moment in my photographic hobby interest, as my Nikon N90S rests in the closet.

It doesn't take a Leica to help you enjoy the photographic experience. But for me, the choice is personal and not so easily explained. Perhaps like getting into a critique between California and French wines. Which is better? I say, just find what you like.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), February 01, 2002.

Perhaps like getting into a critique between California and French wines. Which is better? I say, just find what you like.

Get a good Australian Shiraz and that will trounce the super expensive French Bordeaux in body and oak while not trimming your wallet that much. Shiraz Bin 50, yeah, now that's what I'm talkin' about!

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.

Chilean wines are not that expensive....but i think in the same class with French and fine CA wines.

Nikon is great with AF SLR's (photo journalism).. RF? Nah i would stick with my Leica.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), February 01, 2002.

Most of you didn't really get the point of that question did you?

Oh well.

Anyway,I'm off to France for 2 weeks in the morning.Bye,Bye.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), February 01, 2002.

In a recent 10-year bout of owning a used-(and new) camera shop I never once sold anyone a Leica in a transaction in which there was any awareness that any pro anywhere still used them. It just never came up. Selections were made based on previous experience, my recommendation, obvious quality, suitability or just plain niftyness.

Of course I sold a lot of Nikons (and Canons of course) to customers who bought them because all the "real" pros used them.

So to answer your question, I think people would still buy Leica on reputation alone even if the competing Nikon was functionally equivalent or better.

Geographic, Magnum etc photographers are pretty much out of the eye of "serious" but really casual camera owners; they hang on every pronouncement from Moose or whoever.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), February 02, 2002.

Ok, now it's time to be realistic. The competitive actions that a company takes usually means two things. In this case... 1. Nikon has been happy that Leica sticks to what they've done for so long, leaving the market open for them and canon to fight it out for the major group of buying consumers. If Nikon did what Phil is imagining it would be sending mixed messages to consumers about the performance atttributes of their SLR's. 2. Nikon probably couldn't afford to take such a risk, both financially, and competition wise. Leica is tought to beat!!! ........ .....and with Leica releasing a new rangefinder this month, why the hell are we talking about this rubish for anyway.....hold your breath for Leica's new.....M?????

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

The answer: Yes. The answer follows experience with Nikon and even Alpa. I reach for my M6 TTL first with the R7 nearby and the IIIf in reserve for special days (B/W). I truly believe it has more to do with optics than anything else. In the eyes of my family and friends the improved product has been attributed to me. I know better.

-- Pete Steketee (Steks@aol.com), February 03, 2002.

This is the dumbest post in a long time.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 03, 2002.

Why's that then Peter?

-- Harry (harrytress@lastcom.com), February 03, 2002.

Harry, I'm not Peter, but here's my answer: This is the dumbest post in a long time, because it has more and more absolutely nothing to do with either the original question "Would people still buy?" or with Leica itself.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 03, 2002.

A couple of you need to lighten up a bit. Rather than demean someone else's answer perhaps you should spend some time formulating you own answers. I'm not a professional and my livelihood is not dependent upon photography. I enjoy my own photographs and I am most pleased with Leica optics. Somewhat like the "Bird in the hand ..." adage, I wouldn't change systems when I am pleased with what I have and happy with the results. I will keep feeding Leica optics to the "bird" I have. In fact, if some of you would jump, I might be able to obtain some of the more expensive lenses at "fire sale" prices. Truth is, that would never happen because you would insist upon selling your lenses at top dollar (or Euro) because of Leica's reputation. Regardless, I will keep saving the coins and I will pick up a Leica lens here and there, as I can. Whether you call it reputation or not, it certainly would be due to the product.

-- Pete (Steks@aol.com), February 04, 2002.

Where did Phil get to anyway?

-- Trev (treversutch@star77.net), February 04, 2002.