Why spend for the tooling - don't tell me it's been in storage since the 20's - for an O-Series, a boutique item for sure, and not invest the $$$ on a new CL/CLE w/M7 circuitry/meter (not shutter, see below), orig. CL/CLE body - if you tell me that the 20's tooling is avail., don't tell me that the CL or CLE (better, hinged back) isn't - as a less cost alternative. I for one would consider it. price it 50-70% of the M7.

patch together the old qualities of the various M/CL/CLE w/newer technology: metal shutter, circuits.

For an orig. entry level Leica wish list, economically speaking, of course:

1/125 or better sync. (metal shutter ok, since flash is more obtrusive and compact size is less intrusive during daylight)

1/2000 or better top speed (see above), stepless speeds not nec., but appreciated

for the items above - outsource the maker (copal/prontar/cosina?)

CL/CLE size

framelines as appropriate: 28 (from CLE), 35, 50, 90 only and singly

display as CLE

auto and metered manual - M7

an extravagence, wishful thinking, non-economical, unreasonable?: backward compatability - reduce the meter sensitivity back to 0 EV and place the sensor closer to the shutter so that all lenses will meter.

another extravagence, wishful thinking, non-economical, unreasonable?: fully operable shutter speeds w/o batteries

this is do-able w/current and past Leica assets.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002

Answers

Because the CL nearly killed the company the first time around. Almost all the profit went to Minolta. Leitz sold a ton of CL's (nearly 65K) but made little. Probably not coincidentally (the fact that the M5 was viewed negatively by many M users didnt help), M sales went in the toilet. The company came >this< close to ending M production right there and then. But reportedly ELC proposed reviving the M4 (as the M4-2)with lower cost in construction in Canada. Thusly the line survived. Without the )ugly duckling, frequently maligned) M4-2 there would have been no M4-P, no M6, no M7.

A bargain M would have a lower profit margin than the M7, so unless they can drum up enough NEW buyers to pay for the additional production cost and NOT sap M7 sales, no way.

-- Marco Grande (Hektor73@yahoo.com), May 06, 2002.

Leica had nothing to do with the CLE by the way. That camera was all Minolta and Leica would not have the toolings for it unless they bought them from Minolta.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 06, 2002.

maybe your missing the point - ok then, take the o-series tooling and incorporate the newer technologies that did or currently exist in the Leica warehouse. although, with a new top plate. outsource! keeping qa/qc, which is done by leica now.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

Having owned a new Leica CL at one time, my thinking is that a very limited, if any, market exists for a "New" CL type camera. If that's what you want, get a Minilux, or a Konica Hexar RF.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

The answer is very simple: Lecia does not care for it's customers and is only interested in making collectable camera's! Just look at the number of "special" edition M6's.

A cheap M would make less profit. No, just look at the sales of the Contax G cameras. Those cameras sell for a realistic price for what is offered. A cheap M would probably sell so many camera's that it would make much more profit compared to the profit Leica makes from the M sales.

But no, Leica invests its limited resources in making a Leica 0. Rumours say that Ford is starting production again of it's T model. Is going to sell for about $ 500.000,00. But what the hack, you own a very special car.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.

Steve,

Do you really think a new version of the Leica CL has a market ?

Bessa R2 may be able to create a new market for small rangefinder cameras but as a system in itself as this “entry market” will probably go for the lenses made by Cosina instead of relying on Leica made lens. Both under economical grounds and because Leica lenses will more than often be difficult to use properly with an R2 due to the limited rangefinder base of the body (something it has in common with the past CL-CLE range). If Leica tries to sell a “CLE-2” body (admitting it can be sold about the price of an R2), most of the new users will go for Cosina lenses anyway. Leica has no modern assembly facilities to produce a quality entry body economically enough by the way…

I know this won’t be agreed by many Leica fans here, but the real problem for Leica is to have very outmoded and obsolete production tools for their bodies. The real “market” value of an M6TTL if it has no red dot to try to justify its price is not much more than the price of a Nikon FM3A body. The M7 only superior points when compared to the Hexar RF lie in a better magnification finder (versions 0.72 and 0.85) and a more silent operation. Yesterday I wrote an article on the LHSA site about the M4, the author agreed to the fact the M6 was far inferior in finish and reliability to the bodies produced during the 60’s and the 70’s (and of course earlier) which confirms my sensation when I compared an M6 to my late M5 body or even the M4-P I sold in 1992. Some Leica fan are trying to fool them by assuming the Konica Hexar RF is not up to Leica standard. By the 1970’s standards they are right but by today standard in Leica production their assumption is not substantiated by facts (for example, the Hexar RF top plate is systematically titanium). And the Hexar RF costs less than half the price of an M7. It seems the early batches had their share of teething troubles, but this is now a thing of the past and who will be blind enough not to see that even the M series had their bad numbers, even as far as the rangefinder tuning is concerned… And I can’t agree with Glenn Travis when he put the Hexar RF as a modern substitute for a CL… It is a direct competitor of the M7 range which can use any Leica lens but two with perfect accuracy. An Hexar RF customer will certainly be a better customer for the Leica lens range than a Bessa R2 customer (unless this one has already a Leica M or Hexar RF body).

Another important point to consider is what is said by Erwin Puts in his Leica M7 tests: negotiations did exist between Leica and Konica during the period of conception of the Hexar RF. They simply failed to materialize an agreement. This explains to a great extent both what is not found in the Hexar RF body (TTL flash, better finder) and what is still found in the M7 (same loading procedure, an old shutter). The investment in the M7 development was probably minimal and a stop gap in front of the Hexar RF. I think the assumption it cost a lot to Leica is simply void of any common sense.

I agree to a certain extent to what Steve says about the Leica 0 and will add the extensive development of special series as I consider these were and are wasted investments within a short sighted strategy of “boutique” items. Since the premature death of the M5, Leica failed to produce a state of the art body. For a while they were alone in the field of rangefinder cameras which has a very specific and irreplaceable utility as any user will tell. They sold, though with a limited market (as some potential customers nevertheless went to SLR’s for lack of ease of use of a TTL meter and huge price), absolutely obsolete M4-2’s and M4-P’s before broadening marginally their customer potential with the M6 (at least having again TTL metering). By the time the M6 was issued, it was already an obsolete body (which doesn’t mean it was not useable) by 35 mm standards. As Leica was still the only manufacturer of a SFRF camera, it was welcomed by many users. But today things are changing fast. At least two serious competitors has appeared in the field. One is devoted to market entry price as far as body are concerned and yet even in the field Leica is still without peer is currently issuing many lenses which are more than useable on an M body unless you have to push the use of your lenses up to very stringent conditions. The other competitor is offering a body which directly challenges the M7 at less than half its price… How long the real shortcomings of this competitor will permit the M7 to retain a technical edge in some photographic situation may be a question of months (let Konica issue a RF version with a more powerful magnification in the finder and the M7 edge will be reduced to a marginal question of noise and a TTL flash limited to 1/50th of a second). So Leica is now submitted to a two pronged offensive.

As far as Cosina Vogtländer is concerned, they’ll have some hard time to compete really with Leica bodies (or Hexar RF for instance) because they’ll need to produce a R3 with a rangefinder base equal or better than the M6 to be serious competitors. But hey seem to be extremely dynamic and this is not to be excluded. IMHO it would be a much better way to act than top try to introduce the AE feature in this manual body. So even the interest of the M6 should be challenged seriously at a much more reasonable price than it for the features included.

So what Leica should do to react ? I think they can react two ways. The first is to issue a much more modern high end rangefinder camera which can actually be sold the same price the M7 is (and discard the M7). This body will rely entirely on state of the art electronics and will include a modern AE with matrix metering for very fast action photography and a true spot meter in manual mode, a high synchronization speed for the flash (1/250th) but keeping the TTL feature all the way and correct the loading problem of the M body. They might even include a variable magnification finder with a high point exit. The second way is to keep the M6 into production but considerably reduce its price to be at the same level as the Nikon FM3A is (while standardizing in the old average magnification of 0.72 to ease production).

To achieve these goals they must anyway deeply modify their production process to reduce the costs and limit the rejection rate to a minimum without affecting the quality standard and if possible even making it go upper. This is perfectly realistic with the modern production tools but needs a considerable investment (they did it for the lenses). But the profit will not be their on short terms… However, I think it is the only chance the have to survive as camera body makers. Another possibility is to reach an agreement with a major Japanese camera maker which will ease the transition and help into the embodying of modern electronics.

IMHO it is a more viable business plan than to try to issue a modernized Leica CL.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 07, 2002.

I too owned a CL - not bad at all, but lacked the M feel. I think to be successful in this high-tech age where most products have an increasingly shorter lifespan, Leica really does not need to come out with new features all the time; it needs to concentrate on craftsmanship, building reliable products and first-class lenses - in other words, sticking to what it does best.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), May 07, 2002.

David,

Sorry to disagree but to say Leica doesn't need to come with new features all the time is something which is totally remote from the actual situation.

If you mean we (I mean the users) don't need gadgetry, I agree, but if you consider the present Leica M body range to be even remotely near state of the art, this is something akin to say a car produced in the 60's is still state of the art because it works well.

The question is why the Leica rangefinder cameras which kept a state of the art approach up to the M5, though avoiding gadgets (I mean by that fashionable and generally unreliable features which come and go), are now so backward in technology and priced so high... Don't try to mask you the truth, their maket is going to be thinner and thinner just because of that. By the way, they actually do not match the quality level they once had. Even the ubiquitous Jeep after long years of use has been replaced by the Hummer... It is time for them to wake up...

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 07, 2002.

Sorry - but it ain't gonna happen. There is the misguided thinking that "if we (Leica) build it, they will come". The rangefinder market is limited. Very!! We don't see that here because this forum is built on people who love/hate rangefinders. There's a reason THK dropped the Voigtlander in the US and Gentec has dropped it in Canada. There was a limited market for people wanting rangefinder, they bought them, and that's about it. Hexar's are languishing on most dealers shelves, and maybe the R2 will generate a little more interest, but again, probably only for a year or so. Voigtlander can do the R2 because it's built on a basic body whose tooling has long since been paid for, whereas for Leica it would mean a whole new R&D process. It's kind of like this. A friend of mine is a mameber of the local Ferrari club. Some of them have the feeling that Ferrari should bring out a 'starter' Ferrari for about a hundred grand - that people would line up to buy them. I don't know about others on this forum but a 100,000.00 car is not in my forseeable future. Just as most people want good dependable transportation in an automobile, most photographers want the incredible versatility of a modern A/F SLR, not the quirky peculiarities of a rangefinder. IMO of course.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

One reason, sales.

If the CL was such a success, it would be in production to this day.

-- Kevin Baker (kevin@thebakers.org), May 07, 2002.

Hi all,

Bob writes:

>> Sorry - but it ain't gonna happen. There is the misguided thinking that "if we (Leica) build it, they will come". The rangefinder market is limited. Very!! We don't see that here because this forum is built on people who love/hate rangefinders. There's a reason THK dropped the Voigtlander in the US and Gentec has dropped it in Canada. <<

May be it ain’t the lack of customers but the lack of proper material to sell Bob. Here in France it is yet impossible to find a V-länder 21mm lens… When I asked last year the French importer for a 15mm he said he had some in stocks but no conversion ring for M mount… As for the limited market of rangefinder I think that the market is nowadays largely what advertisement makes it… For years it was (too) often repeated the 35mm SLR’s were “universal” (they are just polyvalent or better they were before the AF generation). Surprisingly, when these SLR’s became way too cumbersome and heavy the 35mm rangefinder cameras knew a remarkable revival… The key to the marketing question is simple: convince people they can buy an affordable and up to date camera which wan bring back most of the quintessential qualities of small format and they’d better look for this system and eventually invest in a medium format SLR for other purpose if they ain’t sports or wildlife photographers for which subjects they are optimized… I don’t think Leica is able to do that because their camera bodies are much too expensive and devoid of all what modern technology can do to ease the use of a camera for spontaneous shots…

>> There was a limited market for people wanting rangefinder, they bought them, and that's about it. Hexar's are languishing on most dealers shelves, … <<

Where are the tests showing the customers the particular advantages of a rangefinder cameras in the most popular reviews? Where are the testers who dare to say AF is a gadget for any lens under at least 200 mm focal length and a pesky thing below 50 mm ? >> and maybe the R2 will generate a little more interest, but again, probably only for a year or so. Voigtlander can do the R2 because it's built on a basic body whose tooling has long since been paid for, whereas for Leica it would mean a whole new R&D process. <<

And why are other mainstream manufacturers able to produce all new models at least no more than five years apart ? Do you really think there are a lot of F5 or EOS 1 sold each year… The market is obviously limited for any high end professional camera… Leica is issuing a body which is no more state of the art the price you pay for an F5… But who will really need an F5 if they can buy an affordable state of the art SFRF body ? By the way the problem is not limited to 35 mm format or rangefinder cameras it is the same for medium format SLR’s…

>> It's kind of like this. A friend of mine is a member of the local Ferrari club. Some of them have the feeling that Ferrari should bring out a 'starter' Ferrari for about a hundred grand - that people would line up to buy them. I don't know about others on this forum but a 100,000.00 car is not in my forseeable future. Just as most people want good dependable transportation in an automobile, most photographers want the incredible versatility of a modern A/F SLR, not the quirky peculiarities of a rangefinder. IMO of course. <<

Sorry but I think the present AF SLR’s have much more quirky peculiarities than any rangefinder camera. The major one being the impossibility to really control the depth of field with short focal length because you have to accept the “quirky peculiarities” of an AF lens regarding the DOF indication on the barrel and the free revolving focusing ring combined with a very limited angular movement from minimum focus to infinity. Add to this the AF, which is the only mean to compensate for the lack of precision inherent to the reflex system at full aperture when compared to what a rangefinder can bring becomes just inoperative when you need it more: low light, low contrast situations and the problems associated with the movements of the mirror (and associated vibrations), the noise any SLR camera emits and the cumbersome and heavy bodies now associated with high end 35mm SLR’s… When taking this into account, the rangefinder limitations seem to be small practically… Of course lack of macro-photographic capabilities, but as far as the average and traditional macro-lens used by most 35mm users this was once addressed by leica with the dual range Summicron as few users in fact use the proper bellow or extension tubes for high magnification macro-photography… Long tele-lenses, tell me how many users actually have a powerful tele-lens and even how many times they actually use it if they are not specialized ? With a range of focal length now covering anything from 12 mm to 135 mm, most of the pictures taken in small format are possible… The choice of the people is much too often conditioned by an aggressive and somewhat dishonest marketing to which no one opposes… And by the way, Ferraris are just the equivalent of high end SLR’s this day too much performances where don’t need them and – at least in Europe – too wide to be used in the small city streets… But unlike the Ferraris, they are comparatively to their performances much more affordable.

Have a dynamic rangefinder manufacturer spelling the good word appropriately and offering a state of the art fair priced (for what is worth for the concept) body and we will see…

With the present manufacturing technologies the argument about the added cost of a rangefinder camera when compared to an SLR is totally void. The truth is Leica is still representative of THE rangefinder body and Leica is practising since the demise of the M5 a “boutique” strategy which permit them not to upgrade their production tools. I never thought a 35mm Rangefinder camera is something destined to the general public, but it would be a very tempting alternative to many professional and non professional experienced photographers if not grossly overpriced and plagued with backward technology. Finally who needs nowadays a camera able to sustain 40 years + of use? Not the everyday users of course, because the body won’t be state of the art then… And because it is very unlikely any kind of silver halide film will be available forty years from now…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 07, 2002.

Francois, I agree with just about everything you've said, but with a couple of clarifications. You are right to a large degree about Voigtlander IMO. In Canada they've done a real bad job of marketing - as you've mentioned, bringing in the bodies, 35, 50 and 75 lenses, with the excuse that if these sold they'd bring in the 12, 15, 21, etc. So many customers (I sell the things among others for a living) said "when they bring in all the lenses and accessories I'll buy into the system". A Catch-22. They don't bring in product, it doesn't sell, they don't think it's saleable. Your second point about where are the testers bucking the trend to push auto A/F. Again I deal with a lot of working pros. A number of local newspapers, two of them major dailies. Studio and commercial shooters. The hockey shooter for Upper Deck. Except for the guys who shoot only sports, none say they could not live without A/F, and many say they hardly ever use it. But what do the magazines all say we have to have - you guessed it, A/F, auto exp, auto wind SLR's. I do disagree about the F5 EOS 1 scenario. Nikon has stated they don't make money off of their pro cameras (especially the D1), but they make enough off of the millions of p/s they sell each year to keep the pros happy - which translates into good advertising. Unfortunately I'd bet more Nikon p/s are sold every day than Leica sells in a year, so that income base is really not available. But I think you are completely correct in the gist of your statement. We are being sold a bill of goods by people who have decided what we need and want and we are buying it. In another posting on this forum someone asks if you can shoot weddings with Leica - without A/F. To hear some people you'd think no good photography had been done before 1985.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

Someone stated that the R2 s largely made form parts that have paid themselves back already because they come from other camera's and that this is not possible for Leica.

At least from the M2 all Leica M's are almost identical (except for the body of the M5). Same rangefinder, same shutter, same body, same viewfinder, same shutterspeeddial etc. After 40 years the investment in these parts has not been paid back? Are you serious?

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2002.