My sincere apologies Andrew, I had overlooked your question.
As far as I am concerned, Leica are fast losing my attention - and the plot - by releasing me-too specified cameras months or years behind the big boys. They are a minnow compared to practically every other company and the only way a minnow survives in such circumstances is to do something unique - or at least very different - superlatively well. This they used to do in the film era. The M8 was a necessary evil - cobbled together from bits and bobs it kept them in the game. It was only the largesse of Dr Kauffman that kept them afloat at that time.
Today their products are bloated (M typ.240) in both features and girth or missing the point - and, as time will tell, the market, with mis-steps such as the X Vario.
They must be kicking themselves that they abandoned their early digital partner - Fuji - and got into bed with Panasonic. Their documented unwillingness to go any further with micro four thirds puts that relationship in the "barren" category.
What should they do?
1. Abandon the X2 and XV. Introduce a range of APS-C interchangeable lens cameras with a high quality EVF, full weather sealing and a small range of high quality AF lenses to match. Make it unashamedly a Pro tool. Give it an M mount, to accept legacy lenses and the best sensor money can buy.
2. Bring out the next M without live view or video. Slim the body by making the mount protrude. Again, make it a Pro tool.
3. Set up a proper Pro support programme.
4. Ditch Panasonic. Get into bed with Fuji (if they will have them) - that would be the quickest route to 1. above.
5. Sack the marketing department and employ someone who understands Digital Customer Experience.
6. Discontinue the S2 - it cannot compete
7. Test products properly before bringing them to market
8. Announce products when they are actually ready to be released
9. And finally
10.Stop trying to be like everybody else.
Sent from another Galaxy
A counterpoint of sorts to your post above.
To start, I am mystified by this doomsday scenario that is so often described regarding Leica's future viability as a camera maker. One look at their financial performance over the last couple of years would seem to indicate that not only is the company in a healthy financial situation, but is growing in a camera market that is actually shrinking. According to the company´s first quarter 2012-2013 results (the latest I could find information on) EBIT margin is in excess of 20%. Assets have increased by approximately 20% from the same period last year to 205.3 million euro. The workforce has also grown. This is very respectable performance for a company that not so long ago was at the brink of bankruptcy. To me, it looks like they are doing something right.
As to your recommendations, I will respond to them
seriatim:
1. Why must they abandon the X2 and XV? Are they unprofitable models for Leica? Again, given their financial results, I would assume that they would not continue to produce models that are money losers for them. As to introducing a range of APS-C interchangeable lens cameras with EVF and autofocus, this sounds a lot like what Fuji is doing with their X lineup, and Sony with the NEX. Why exactly would anyone need another Fuji X-Pro, except with a red Leica dot?
2. What is wrong about having the M feature live view and video? The way they are built into the M they do not interfere with the camera operation in any way if you choose not to use them. Curiously, the addition of live view is the one feature of the M that may lead me to upgrade from my M9P. I fail to see how the inclusion of live view makes a camera any less "pro". As to the M being bloated in girth, I own both an M6TTL and an M9P, and while the difference in girth is noticeable, it is insignificant. Considering all that goes into a full frame digital body, it is by no means a small feat that Leica were able to keep the digital M bodies as compact as they did.
3. Ok, although I have nothing but high praise for the responsiveness of the folks at Leica NJ.
4. I honestly don't care if they ditch Panasonic, except that I must assume that the partnership is profitable for Leica, in which case it would seem foolish to give that up.
5. Please see my comment above on the Leica financial results. Sacking the marketing department of a company that is producing excellent results in a shrinking market does not sound like a sensible idea.
6. Compete with what? Are Hasselblad, Phase One, Rollei, etc. doing better? In any event, the S2 has been discontinued and replaced by the S. Again, hard for me to believe that Leica would continue to invest in an unprofitable camera line. Besides, the camera is unquestionably superb.
7. I will not argue this one, other than to say that it seems to be a common problem among all major camera manufacturers. A few examples of the top of my head: Fuji X10 orbs, X100 sticky aperture, Canon 5D falling mirrors, Nikon D7000 sensor crud (oil from the mirror, I believe), Canon 1D Mark III autofocus, and a few others I cannot remember right now. And, never mind the continuous firmware revisions.
8. Again, common problem among all major manufacturers, made more difficult in the case of Leica because of the size of the company. However, if the Leica marketing team were really not up to par, maybe I would be able to purchase an M today instead of next year.
9. And finally,
10. This one I simply do not understand, particularly in light of suggestion no. 1. Seems to me that bringing an APS-C interchangeable lens system to market would be more "trying to be like everybody else" than what they are doing now. The Leica M and S products are nothing if not unique. The X2 and X Vario are also fairly unique products. I just do not see who exactly is this "everybody else" Leica are trying to be like.
Regards,
Antonio
