Set to launch this month.
Thoughts?
It's pretty sad.
>>2806598
It's not a rangefinder with an M designation, the waterproof compact, or that full frame mirrorless, so it's not worth paying attention to.
"Leica" isn't even one company.
>>2806612
In this day and age, that's a really retarded thing to say.
>Whoring out to shady Chinese phone companies
Will this hurt the brand image for the type of people who buy them?
>>2806631
Are you serious or do you not know about the shittacular compacts and non-M digicompacts that they made?
>>2806631
Better than bankruptcy.
>>2806614
>he doesn't know there are 3 separate companies called "Leica"
>>2806631
Interesting question.
On one hand it will increase brand recognition.
On the other hand it cheapens it.
Overall I think it's probably a good idea as long as the lenses are better than most smart phone lenses.
That way even though it isn't high-end glass, it's still somewhat of a "luxury" item.
>>2806641
>doesn't know that essentially *every* major company is a collection of companies
>>2806649
I'm just more surprised they wouldn't try go for like the tier 2 Android manufacturers like maybe LG, HTC, or even Motorola first, but maybe they weren't interested in giving a boat of cash.
>>2806652
Canon isn't.
Nikon isn't.
Sony isn't.
>>2806668
HAHAHAHA.
You're seriously an idiot and literally 100% wrong on all three accounts.
>>2806670
So apart from Sony Corporation (SNE), what other Sony's are there?
You have:
- Leica Camera AG, a German camera and optics manufacturer
- Leica Geosystems AG, a Swiss manufacturer of surveying and geomatics equipment
- Leica Microsystems GmbH, a German manufacturer of microscopes and other precision optics
>>2806678
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_shareholders_and_subsidiaries
>>2806683
A subsidiary isn't the same as a completely separate company.
The 3 different "Leica" companies have no control over each other.
They just happen to use the same brand name.
>>2806678
Oh, and Canon's subsidiaries:
http://www.canon.com/corporate/information/group/
and Nikon's
http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/Annex5_6.pdf
I can think of almost no company of note that is a literal singular entity. It's dumb as fuck as a business to be a single entity for a host of reasons.
>>2806686
Yes, because breaking into subsidiaries isn't a first step to selling off business units/splitting them off.
Also, branding is controlled at a single point, so your point is actually wrong in its entirety in this case.
I'm not assed to bother looking into it, but I'm willing to bet that there's a holding company that maintains a good hunk of ownership of each of the spinoff companies. Probably quite a lot of crossover at the Board level as well.
>>2806686
Sorry, but no. Leica is ONE Company with three independent subsidiaries.
Just think about Volkswagen for a brief moment. They do own Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini and so on.. But all the marques mentioned do act independently. The same way goes for Leica /(Leitz)
>>2806696
Wrong
>>2806699
Amusingly, all the Leica companies are owned by a single parent company (that's why they're called "sister" companies), so while they are independent of each other, they're still controlled by the same company.
>>2806699
Here's the parent company btw: http://www.danaher.com/
>>2806598
Isn't it a Panasonic sensor
