Why Is M8 So Expensive?

Somebody\'s willing to pay for all that Barfignewton.

The red dot is made of a rare precious stone called "gyp"sium.

Luxury goods are commodities as they are sold.

 

It doesn't matter what it costs to make, only that people are willing to pay more for it than the cost of materials and manufacture. Leica's goal is to sell each unit for as much as they can without diminishing volume sold to the point that they are making less profit than if the camera were less expensive.

Go get a quote on 10,000 of those CCD sensors from Kodak, including the tooling for a custom microlens array, and you'll see a lot of why they are so expensive. The Kodak sensors aren't cheap.

 

Also consider that labor must cost 3 to 5 times more per hour (including tax overhead) in Germany than where Canon makes their DSLRs.

"Why can't someone build us a good digital body for our M lenses for 1 or 2K?"

 

Steve, even the Epson RD-1 (6 MP, 1.6x crop factor) was $ 3000 when it came out, if I am remembering correctly. So Epson could not make a digital body for M lenses for the price range you mention.

 

BTW, have you priced Canon top of the line dSLRs lately. They are not exactly cheap. And if you have upgraded any of your dSLR cameras you have paid even more money.

 

The price of the M8 represents the R & D costs and the labor costs of a small company for which there are no economies of scale.

Its all relative as such the theory goes....

Why are Leicas considered an investment instead of a camera?

 

A 1DsII costs $3,000 more, and people think of THAT as a camera. And they *know* there'll

be a replacement along in 18 months...

 

JC

The costs of doing business are higher with small companies because they don't have the volume to compete on ecomony of scale. Distribution costs in the US alone is probably as high as the manufacturing end. Small companies now survive of internet direct sales but Leica can't do that.

From my soon-to-be-released textbook, Consumer Psychology 100.5 for

Chumps, page 83: "The more a consumer spends for something, the better

she or he feels about it--and about her/himself."

 

Afta buyin' da book, I's gotta bridge fuh sale too. Ya game?

http://www.ptbarnum.org/

IMO it also has to do with the sinking value of the US$. IIRC the original T-E was like

$2500US like 5 years ago. Today it is $3500US. Inflation during that time should make the

cost more like $2800US.

"Expensive, yes. Worth it? I think so as for me, it's a life-long, one time purchase. I just started adding some of my M7 shots to an online gallery page..."

 

 

 

You bet! Until the M9 is released on the market.

Epson inkjet ink is $800 per liter (in the US, more where I live), perhaps $600 if you allow for a very expensive plastic cartridge w/ little ROM chip. Now that's expensive. Here in New Zealand, with our costs for E6 film plus quality processing, the cost of an M8 would buy you about 250 rolls of processed film. So maybe that M8 isn't so expensive after all.

At $4795 I think it is a tad overpriced.

$3499 would have been painful, but still acceptable.

$2999 would have been a miracle.

 

Overall I think Leica's products are becoming overpriced and that may have an awful lot to

do with their sales taking a nosedive.

 

I purchased two of my M bodies, my R6.2 and two lenses new, so I have been

willing to put my money where my mouth is.

 

But that was before the price increases.

 

M Bodies went from $2499 to $2999 and are now at $3500. $2500 was hardly a bargain,

but feasible and considering the high quality of an M camera very acceptable. $3500 is a

little nuts and I can't see myself spending that kind of money.

 

Same for the current prices of the lenses.

 

$4795 for the M8 body is an awful lot, unless you are a working professional or just really

well off.

 

I'm a diehard Leica shooter with more gear than I care to admit, but I'm not sure if the M8

is 'enough camera' to justify that kind of money. After a certain point something can

become overpriced, no matter how good or unique it is.

 

There are several factors to explain why prices have become so high.

 

The euro/dollar exchange rate is not working in favor of US buyers.

It is very expensive to manufacture goods in Germany, given the high wages and overhead

that companies have to pay.

Energy prices are up, which makes everything more expensive.

Sometimes companies will raise prices, when their sales slowdown to maintain profits.

I can't imagine Leica being a ultra efficient manufacturer.

 

In any case I hope Leica sells a boatload of them. I would buy one if I landed a job that

required digital and paid for the camera. Then it wouldn't matter that it will be obsolete in

24-36 months.

 

But in the end my reasons for not getting one are personal. I'm not a PJ who needs to meet

tight deadlines or transmit from the middle of nowhere over a satellite phone. I prefer the

way film looks. I rarely shoot color and have more Tri-X in my fridge than food. I have a

good scanner, so in a sense I am digital. So, for the moment I'm pretty content.

In the short run, M8 sales will prove a saviour for the imaging side of Leica AG.

 

However in the 4-5 years or so it will take them to develope a FF M8.2 or whatever, the price of M8s will drop drastically, expressed as a % of their new purchase price. Much more so than have their film Ms have in the past, or the future. That is the pace of the digital world.

 

Don't know what the Bill of Materials looks like for the M8, but suspect the RF is still the most costly part (and it is a new one). Add to that the sensor, and the LCD screen which are new parts to any M (the purchaser always bought his own film before), and then the price is not surprising. Don't forget they have to amoratize some completely new tooling also.

 

To the central question of why are any Ms so expensive? Because they are crafted and assembled in a country where skilled (very) labor combined with a social system make it so.

 

Best,

 

Jerry

I guessed it would be $6,000. so I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

The acceptance of the price is based on expectations and ability to pay. Value and

investment issues are also relative to what you will use the tool for.

 

The expectation is one of top build quality like their film cameras ... at least the chassis

and finish (the electronics remains to be seen). The ability to pay is relative ... An Aston

Martin to a multimillionaire is what a Saturn is to the average worker. Value/Investment is

also relative to whether it will make money, or whether it's another toy in the toy chest.

 

The notion that there are other digital cameras out there for less isn't quite true. For now

it's the only one of it's kind ... a digital rangefinder in the 10 meg class featuring a M

mount with a viewfinder showing framing windows for existing Leica focal lengths,

including the 24mm.

Hi, Steve. In the digital cameras, the sensor is the most expensive part. The Leica M body is very expensive, too, for materials and engineering and the final result are 4.800 dollars. I still use and will use my M2, M5 and MP...

Ciao.

I feel some of it may be on what Leica believes the market can absorb. When Leica was raising the prices of their film cameras recently and periodically I thought some of that was too lessen any gap between a film M and a digital M. Call me cynical, but I expect Leica is making a very health profit of each digital M. My first new car back in the early 80's cost less then two of these cameras.

First, I'll give them credit for bringing the M8 under the 5K mark. Leica is a small player in the world camera market, operating from an expensive base, which is Europe.

 

For the photographer who has built up a range of Leitz optics and is already using the M system, it is costly, but it is a timely transition. The ergonomics is a small camera with near total user input with regards to the output. The build quality is second to none.

 

The mainstream SLR market is completely different with larger economies of scale, that is auto focus and zoom lens oriented.

Given the relative size of the market vs the R&D costs, I thought they brought it in at a pretty respectable price.

Economies of scale. Leica has a smaller total number of units that will be sold based upon their limited purchaser base and physical capacity to produce units. Thus, the entire cost of R&D, overhead, administration, cost of goods and production and advertising must be spread over a smaller number of units resulting in a higher unit price. Frankly, I am pleased they came in at $4800 and not $7995, so that more people can step up and buy one. Really, whatever price will sell the entire production and ensure reasonable profitablity is the bottom line.

Check out the price of a 1Ds MII (Canon) or D2Xs (Nikon)...same price range as the M8. You can't compare a plastic Rebel Xt to a Leica.

Think about all the money you're saving on film (while you're spending all those hours at your computer "tweaking" the thousands of "free" exposures you're able to make). Seriously, do the math, either shooting a roll of B&W developed with a contact sheet or color neg proofed 4x6, and how long will it take you to recover the cost of the M8? One year? Two years? If you can't justify it on that basis stick with film and stop worrying about what the M8 sells for.

When it comes to price comparisons, for whatever they're worth, why are so many people comparing M8 with 1DsII? The 5D is more than enough match for it at half the price of M8 body, and a full frame sensor to boot. When the M8 image quality equals of trumps that of 5D, we'll have something to talk about. Until then, it's just the best effort from Solms in the rangefinder category.

 

I'm sure the M8 will be a great camera, and in capable hands it will produce excellent pictures. I am looking forward to seeing the pictures.

Nels...because the build quality of the 5D is not upto that of the 1DsMII, which is on par with the M8. You can't just compare 'performance'...otherwise that Mercedes should cost no more than a Ford.