Leica output reminds me of car production, circa pre-1950's

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Lacking the technology to form metals at sharp angles, car makers used
round, flowing lines for their cars. Leica is the same. They can't
form cameras like the Japanese, so their bodies are limited to a basic
ovoid-cylindrical shape with sheet metal smoothly bent around it.
This new "P&S" (fixed lens) is identical in structure to the M9 except
for the physical height. Nothing wrong with Leica lacking the ability
to form metals more abstractly, except you have to cobble on a clunky
add-on grip to the M9 if you want one. I don't know if this one has a
grip add-on.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/LeicaX1/

All the other Leica digitals (except for the R9 module) have been
rebadged Panasonics.


I highly doubt that the reason Leicas cameras are the shape they are
is because they lack the technology to change the shape.

Rich wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:51 am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Lacking the technology to form metals at sharp angles, car makers used
round, flowing lines for their cars. Leica is the same. They can't
form cameras like the Japanese, so their bodies are limited to a basic
ovoid-cylindrical shape with sheet metal smoothly bent around it.
This new "P&S" (fixed lens) is identical in structure to the M9 except
for the physical height. Nothing wrong with Leica lacking the ability
to form metals more abstractly, except you have to cobble on a clunky
add-on grip to the M9 if you want one. I don't know if this one has a
grip add-on.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/LeicaX1/
All the other Leica digitals (except for the R9 module) have been
rebadged Panasonics.
I highly doubt that the reason Leicas cameras are the shape they are
is because they lack the technology to change the shape.

So why make the P&S in exactly the same shape as the M9? Why not a
little variation?
Extra tooling costs are the likely reason.

I doubt it. If a Leica doesn't look like a Leica, then it loses the
appeal of being recognisable as a Leica at a distance.
Cars are a good analogy. There's absolutely no functional reason why
the frontal design treatment for a Porsche Cayenne needed to replicate
the "look" of the 911. The original 911 was probably designed with
functionality, the low tapered bonnet line possible due to rear engine
design, distinctive lights due to what was available with technology at
the time. So is it retrophilia? It probably is IMO.
It's a triumph of form over substance - and a spectacularly successful
marketing strategy, when well implemented.

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:51*am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Lacking the technology to form metals at sharp angles, car makers used
round, flowing lines for their cars. *Leica is the same. *They can't
form cameras like the Japanese, so their bodies are limited to a basic
ovoid-cylindrical shape with sheet metal smoothly bent around it.
This new "P&S" (fixed lens) is identical in structure to the M9 except
for the physical height. *Nothing wrong with Leica lacking the ability
to form metals more abstractly, except you have to cobble on a clunky
add-on grip to the M9 if you want one. *I don't know if this one has a
grip add-on.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/LeicaX1/

All the other Leica digitals (except for the R9 module) have been
rebadged Panasonics.

I highly doubt that the reason Leicas cameras are the shape they are
is because they lack the technology to change the shape.

So why make the P&S in exactly the same shape as the M9? Why not a
little variation?
Extra tooling costs are the likely reason.

Rich, extra tooling costs are one thing and possibly not applicable
here but not having the technology is another. I think Leica go with
the shapes they do because it is tried and trusted and seems to be the
thing that appeals as much as anything else.