| |
Jeremy wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
> >
> > Don't you think some of the lack of lens sales might have been due to the cost?
> > The Zeiss lenses are coming in at near half the price of similar Leica items.
> > Someone buying Zeiss or Voigtländer lenses might be able to afford more than two.
> >
>
> I am reluctant to raise the point, for fear of being thought of as a
> dreaded Leicaphile, but might one factor have been that those lenses
> were well made and were unlikely to have required replacement?
I was not commenting about replacement, but having a selection of more than one (or
two) focal length. It is not just Leica either. Older manual focus lenses often were
made just a bit better than newer autofocus lenses. Many companies older manual focus
lenses can still be used, so unless they get scratched or otherwise damaged there
would be little reason to replace them.
>
>
> Another factor might be that the shooting style associated with a
> precision rangefinder might not have lent itself to the use of very many
> lenses.
Maybe a bit better guess. Some people want to emulate a few well known photographers
of the past, and stick to one or two focal lengths. Seems a bit odd to do that with an
interchangeable lens camera body, but if that is what people like then oh well.
> The camera accomodates a narrower range of focal lengths than
> does an SLR, and there were a lot of shooters that satisfied themselves
> with a kit consisting of a "Holy Trinity" of lenses. It was the
> Japanese SLRs that promoted the concept of the system camera.
Zeiss and Leica both had extensive systems for their cameras prior to WWII. Even Nikon
had quite a system of parts and accessories for their rangefinder cameras. I think the
desire to use convenient zoom lenses, and longer telephoto lenses, is what drove the
SLR, though we could also claim that the ability to view through the lens was huge
draw for sales.
>
>
> The guys that bought--and USED--Leicas were not gearheads. The Japanese
> manufacturers were the ones who were more naturally oriented toward that
> market. I can't think of any Leica guys that walked around with a half
> dozen lenses in their kit, but there were numerous Nikon afficianods
> that did.
Using Bob M. numbers and comments again, it seems that medium format users were not
buying lots of lenses either. However, I don't think the low lens count purchases
compared to body purchases is strictly a Leica realm (my opinion). People today seem
to place more emphasis on the camera body than the lenses with 35 mm and D-SLRs, and
often spend more on the bodies than they do on the lenses.
I am less certain about the gearhead comment, since using a Leica is a very
mechanically interactive process (sort of like using a manual transmission). Look how
many comments came out against the M7 when it was introduced, yet that has become one
of the better selling modern Leica choices. Could we state that Leica users are
control freaks . . . maybe, but I think there might be more to the mythos or mystique.
It seems that Zeiss thinks there is a market for people who want to use a rangefinder
camera. Using a rangefinder is definitely a different approach to imaging than using
an SLR. Voigtländer have done well with the entry level rangefinder market, so maybe
there is some sales potential in the middle ground between Voigtländer and Leica.
It is interesting that Zeiss claim the lenses are based on Cine lens designs, rather
than 35 mm or medium format designs. In the motion imaging business, Zeiss prime cine
lenses are highly regarded.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
|
|