Michalm
Well-known
I love my r2a too it never failed me, sad news indeed.
Skiff
Well-known
The decisive factor is the following:
The demand for Leica film M cameras is increasing!
Leica has declared that on last year's Photokina. That is the reason why Leica has introduced the new M-A film M camera.
They now have three different models in their line, more than ever in their history.
So there is demand for film rangefinder cameras.
Leica does care for an effective marketing for their cameras. That is also the reason for their success.
Cosina Voigtländer failed because they have completely ignored the necessity for an effective marketing. They did nothing!
How stupid ist that! Leica cameras are 4x more expensive than the Bessa R models. It would have been easy to develop a working marketing concept on the excellent price-performance ratio of the Bessa line. And the unique viewfinders with 1:1 and the 21mm framelines.
But CV completely ignored that.
Today you cannot survive in a competitive market without marketing. Every young student in his first semester knows that. But not CV.
Furthermore they have a very bad distribution policy. They often could not deliver the products distributors and customers have ordered. If you don't satisfy your distributors and customers, you have a problem.
It is very clear: Not "the market" is responsible, but only CV alone. They simply failed. And it would have been not so difficult to make it better.
The Bessa III MF camera for example has all the qualities needed for a kind of "cult camera" at half the price of a Leica M7. But to make it cult, you have to do marketing.
Leica is doing this permanently. Therefore they have success.
The demand for Leica film M cameras is increasing!
Leica has declared that on last year's Photokina. That is the reason why Leica has introduced the new M-A film M camera.
They now have three different models in their line, more than ever in their history.
So there is demand for film rangefinder cameras.
Leica does care for an effective marketing for their cameras. That is also the reason for their success.
Cosina Voigtländer failed because they have completely ignored the necessity for an effective marketing. They did nothing!
How stupid ist that! Leica cameras are 4x more expensive than the Bessa R models. It would have been easy to develop a working marketing concept on the excellent price-performance ratio of the Bessa line. And the unique viewfinders with 1:1 and the 21mm framelines.
But CV completely ignored that.
Today you cannot survive in a competitive market without marketing. Every young student in his first semester knows that. But not CV.
Furthermore they have a very bad distribution policy. They often could not deliver the products distributors and customers have ordered. If you don't satisfy your distributors and customers, you have a problem.
It is very clear: Not "the market" is responsible, but only CV alone. They simply failed. And it would have been not so difficult to make it better.
The Bessa III MF camera for example has all the qualities needed for a kind of "cult camera" at half the price of a Leica M7. But to make it cult, you have to do marketing.
Leica is doing this permanently. Therefore they have success.
Last edited:
Fotohuis
Well-known
Look at Lomography. Their marketing is excellent and their films are ....... sometimes really crap.
Leica cameras are sexy to many, CV is only sexy to few. I'm not sure if CV had a lack of marketing everywhere. In Japan they seemed to be in the camera magazines and such. The stores that carried Leica, carried CV. I really think that film rangefinders at the mid price level just weren't popular anymore. Leica at the high end is and then you have the lower end fixed lens models that people like to buy in $50-200 range. Unfortunately, the fact that CV rangefinders sold for 50% of new on the used market most likely shows that there just wasn't a big market for them. I'm speculating though.
Leica's success is its emotional appeal as a luxury product.
Skiff
Well-known
Well yes, Robert.
And CV even made (very) good (Bessa 35mm rangefinders) to excellent cameras (Bessa III and Bessa III W).
So for these products offering a real value it is even much easier to make an effective, successful marketing compared to a company like Lomography selling often quite crappy products.....
And CV even made (very) good (Bessa 35mm rangefinders) to excellent cameras (Bessa III and Bessa III W).
So for these products offering a real value it is even much easier to make an effective, successful marketing compared to a company like Lomography selling often quite crappy products.....
Skiff
Well-known
Yes, because of the lack of marketing.
In Europe for example there was no CV marketing at all!
And due to CIPA, it is the biggest camera market worldwide.
The sex appeal of Leica is because of a very clever marketing.
Having good products is not enough in this modern economy.
Nothing is selling "automatically".
As a manufacturer you have to work for the demand, you have to create it.
And those companies who refuse to do that will fail (it is the same in the digital field: lots of companies with weak marketing have already left the market, more will follow in this declining market in the next years).
Last edited:
Fotohuis
Well-known
I am very satisfied with the C.V. Bessa III 667 camera. An unique design and in quality an excellent product. My problem with Ringfoto in Germany was/is that they could not deliver the camera on moments that customers want to buy that camera. Apart from the fact that the sales prices of the two MF RF's went out of range in the last two years. Starting at Eur. 1800 in 2008/2009 and ending for the Wide version close to Eur. 2800.
I'm not so sure that the only difference between CV and Leica is marketing... I mean all you have to do is touch and/or use both and you'll figure out there is a difference that is more emotional (fit and finish, etc) than practical (pure results based). That is the reason Leica can command the cash it can. Of course marketing comes into play, but a Leica needs to feel better in your hands than everything else in order to be successful with marketing.
zeissguy
Member
NOOOOO!!! This is terrible news! But thank goodness Cosina/Voigtlander will continue production of their wonderful lenses.
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
That right there is the direction I think CV should go with a digital RF. Take 1 generation older sensor where R&D has been paid for like mentioned Nikon D700, Canon 5D2 or even A7 (with mod?!). Take a older 2.5 inch 920k LCD is probably more than plenty. The point is, take something from the parts bin of a technical partner and provide a camera with sole purpose of photograph maybe achievable and profitable even at lower volume?
in my mind, take the A7 internal and fit it into the R3M body somehow(probably improve the range finder on the r3m a little the contact patch is not as easy to see)... No need for video, EVF and some other functions can probably really simplified the process of putting it on the market and if required to write own firmware, should be a lot faster as well. Not much software correction is needed if sensor come with thinner glass mod.
krötenblender
Well-known
Sometimes people change their mind, but all the speculation about a digital RF from Voigtländer should consider, that Mr. Kobayashi is not a big fan of digital, to say it mildly.
Read this from 2008:
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2008/12/speaking-frankly-contrary-mind-hirofumi-kobayashi
The text also explains much of the seemingly bad marketing of Cosina/Voigtländer. Being big fan of all things Japanese and having the highest respect for their innovative technologies, I would expect that Cosina would be able to create a good product in that niche. I mean, a R-D2...! If that does not happen, and with the always bad marketing, there must be a reason. Maybe there is just a lack of personal interest involved. Otherwise Cosina would probably have made some different decisions for years already.
Read this from 2008:
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2008/12/speaking-frankly-contrary-mind-hirofumi-kobayashi
The text also explains much of the seemingly bad marketing of Cosina/Voigtländer. Being big fan of all things Japanese and having the highest respect for their innovative technologies, I would expect that Cosina would be able to create a good product in that niche. I mean, a R-D2...! If that does not happen, and with the always bad marketing, there must be a reason. Maybe there is just a lack of personal interest involved. Otherwise Cosina would probably have made some different decisions for years already.
NeeZee
Well-known
Well, technically Voigtländer stopped producing cameras in 1971, but kidding aside I always liked what Cosina did with the Bessa series, although I never owned any of them (a couple of their Skopar LTM lenses though).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Considering that a largish part of Cosina's manufacturing facility would be dedicated to camera production I'd be curious to know their future plans. Just increased lens production maybe?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I see it as quite foolish to pronounce that Cosina "failed" and then tell why.
Cosina is a quite large, multi generational optical company. We don't know everything they do but I know it is quite varied and includes the manufacture of specialty optical glass. They did well before they ever got into RF lenses and cameras. We have no idea how much of their business was RF lenses and cameras and I suspect they are doing well now that they are no longer manufacturing RF cameras.
My guess is that they saw a market niche for RF cameras, capitalized on that niche while it existed, exited that niche when it looked like it was becoming unprofitable, and simply concentrated on all of their other products they manufacture.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The fact that Zeiss entrusted Cosina to manufacture their lenses says a lot IMO. That's no failed company! 
Bingley
Mentor
Counter Point: I have owned both the R3A and R3M. IMHO they are not flimsy at all. A joy to use. Very nicely executed and I never had had the VF out of alignment. Sorry to see them go. But that's life.
I had an R3A which had rf alignment problems but was otherwise a decent camera. I no longer own it, but was happy to pick up a new R2A several months ago. It's a pleasure to shoot, and it's nice to have an RF camera with mod cons.
Skiff
Well-known
Sadly you have not read what I've written.
I've written they finally failed in the marketing and sales of their film rangefinder section. I have not written that they have failed generally with all their production lines.
I am well aware of their other production sections, e.g. Zeiss lenses ( I am using Cosina made Zeiss lenses).
But if you look closely at Zeiss, they do a very intensive and good marketing for their lenses. So here is again evidence for my analysis, that today in the extremely competitive photo market marketing is the decisive success factor.
And just some sentences for all those extremely naive people asking for a digital rangefinder made by Cosina.
Let's pray that Cosina ist not so completely idiotic to make one and ruin the company by doing that. Because
- the whole market for digital cameras is in a strong decline
- also the market for digital rangefinders is in decline, and under big pressure by other mirrorless systems
- even the market leader Leica has severe problems fighting against the declining demand
- the used market is permanently getting bigger with used M8/ M9 cameras; Cosina would have also compete against that
- Cosina has no current knowledge and technology in designing a competitive, modern digital camera
- therefore they would need an extremely big R&D budget, but the niche in the niche in the niche in the niche market for another digital rangefinder is much too small to get any return on investment. They would only burn lots of money.
Skiff
Well-known
Exactly.
They even failed in the most simple part of the business:
Just to deliver the products of their programme.
I've heard of lots of other distributors who have experienced exactly the same problem like you Robert:
Delivery problems. And that for years.
Cosina screwed it up. Their fault.
JChrome
Street Worker
I would distinguish between "luxury rangefinders" and "basic rangefinders".
Is the demand for luxury rangefinders increasing? Apparently so. But please note that their margins are much higher than CVs. So if the demand increases slightly, that's impactful to Leica.
Is the demand for basic rangefinders increasing? Not sure.
You can't really compare CV and Leica. Two totally different brands and business models.
Although I would agree with you that CV needs better marketing.
www.stillthrill.com
Skiff
Well-known
I am not a Leica film M user.
Nevertheless I completely disagree that a film Leica M is a luxury product.
Because for about 4,000 bucks (Euro) you get a product you can use for 50, 60 or even more years.
That is not a luxury product, but just a sustainable, high-quality long-life product. Using this product is very cheap over the years.