Who else thinks Leica needs a more affordable camera?

OT:

 

Ben S. do you not have a bizz to run?:

I love Leica glass but as prices keep going up and up I find myself looking into used high quality medium format equipment. I think Andrew is correct in this assumption. I really don't like the idea of using a 4-5K rig for certain applications where I may have my equipment stolen.

Stephen, OT FYI I ran several businesses for many years, R&D and manufacturing for the healthcare industry, dental, orthopedic and podiatric. Retired about 5 years ago, but still sit on a couple of corporate boards and do a fair bit of consulting for other businesses as long as it doesn't cut into my golf or travel.

But Leica lenses are very, very good, wide open and have a color signature that is distinctive. And as for the Leica M most here know that it sets a standard for quality 'feel' and a type of metal mechanical engineering thats almost vanished now. Why ask for anything less of a benchmark in its class? What use is the Leica brand if it does not stand for the quality it has until low (I'll overlook the embarrassing forays into renting the name to videocam manufacturers and Leica's own compact cameras).

 

Charging as much as a mid-line Canon DSLR given the low volumes produced is not exorbitant pricing. And the M lenses easily meet the standard of (say) Canon L lenses, which too are expensive, but compared to Leica, sell by the boatload. And Leicas are useable for decades, delightfully so, in the opinion of most Leica owners.

 

I agree with Roger Hicks. There is a natural tendency to overestimate how dear something is if you have to pay for it all at once. That is why hire-purchase or installment payments work as a marketing tool. Few would write a $26,000 check for a car. Many will sign up at $400/month in car payments.

 

Staying with that thought for a moment $ 6,000-$7000 Leica kit (M body plus three lenses) amortized over a conservative 15 years of use is very inexpensive indeed. And I'll bet you more than one Leica owner here will attest that they already have, or will most likely in the future, use their Leica for more than 15 years.

 

I guess there is more than one way to size up affordability... You may be taking the gloomy view on Leica prices, Andrew, no offense :-)

Guys PARDON !!! But most of you (who argue Leica is to expensive) are totally wrong.

Compare at top notch product like a M with top lenses with a top notch product of another industry like the swiss watchmakers - and Leica is exactly that in cameras, what a Patek Calatrava in for Watches.

Compared to the 10.000eur (12.000USD) of a Calatrava, I get a full BP/MP set with 3 BP lenses + Leicavit ... so what would I take.

The Watch is totally egoistic as it?s only for the wearer - the camera is more sozi, as you can make pictures of the world around you and have the best gifts in the world.. classical portraits shot wide open with BW film... Leica is damn cheap...!!!

If you want an <i>expensive</i> camera, get <a href="http://www.lokomotifkamera.com/arricam.html">one of these</a>. It goes for a little under $200,000 - lens and film magazine sold separately, of course.

Wai-Leong:

 

I agree that cost must increase as demand decreases, if all other factors are equal. I do

not agree that all other factors are equal now to what they were. Leica cameras are mainly

produced in Portugal, where labor is quite a bit cheaper than it is in Germany. This is a

pure cost cutting measure (with no disrespect for the Portugese work force). They are not

lovingly hand-made in Germany - they are finished in Germany, and only barely just in

order to apply the Made in Germany mark.

 

Leica made its reputation not on luxury, but on fine optical and mechanical craftsmanship.

Leica's lens quality has climbed since the beginning, but so has the competition - often at

a greater rate. The fact that Leica is viewed as a luxury brand now has more to do with

clever marketing by their fashion industry than anything else.

 

I'm not arguing that high quality goods can be sold for the same price as cheaper goods.

My argument is partly rooted in the fact that Leica views its customer base as luxury

goods consumers rather than photographers.

 

I find your second post quite puzzling - because Canon and Nikon and other (primarily

Japanese) camera producers introduce new cameras, which embody innovation, rather

regularly does not in any way dilute the value of older cameras. My EOS 10D and 1n don't

know that they are both 'obsolete' - they both take photographs as well as they day they

were sold. I think you have a different view of protecting an investment - because Leica

only comes out with new cameras infrequently, they tend to hold their value on the used

market for a longer period of time. The flip side is that it takes much longer for actually

useful innovations to reach the user. Also, once the new model comes out the used value

of the old model decreases, which is also normal for any camera. I generally don't need to

upgrade cameras all the time (after I get a 5D I really can't see upgrading again for a good

long while), so I am rather unconcerned with used values. In fact, I got the 1n for cheap

because it was obsolete - so much the better for the used market buyer. But unless you

are buying collector's items, and keeping them in a locked cabinet, cameras are a horrible

investment by themselves - a guaranteed loss! Any depreciation in a user camera (a tool)

is offset by the fact that it is for shooting and not accruing worth.

 

 

Lawrence, I think you are right on.

 

Trevor, the iPod isn't a sheer luxury item. Neither are other Apple products. Could you

name a Dell or HP that has a 1.5 GHz bus with dual dual core processors? Of course not.

How about an operating system and developing environment which competes with Apple

but is much cheaper? Didn't think so! Apple represents actual innovation brought to the

market and real value. Most of its competitors are ill though out, not as durable, and

priced almost as high as the iPod. Many of them lack what many people view as essential

features such as a real high speed interface (Firewire). If Apple was in the same class as

Leica, then why is Apple riding on cloud nine while Leica swirls towards the bottom of the

toilet bowl?

 

 

Craig, I'm not worried. I'm simply curious as to the reasons why Leica will not explore

options which will benefit photographers, if they are a photography products company. I

would argue against the assertion that the cost of an M is a small percentage of the

system cost - it's over $3000! I understand Leica's current place in the market well - it is

a luxury goods producer, focusing on exclusivity, rather than a camera and optical

company focusing on photography and photographers. If this discussion is revealing

unpleasant facts about Leica to you then I think you should reflect on that.

 

 

Roger, it doesn't have to be exactly the same as an M. They could use a modern shutter,

for instance, which are available as an assembled part that you can slap into a camera

body and is much more reliable and tougher to boot. As I said above, they could use more

modern automated testing on the lenses and cameras. There are many other ways that

Leica could take advantage of innovations to produce a product that offered more value to

the customer. I don't know if you could accept that if you insist that a Leica needs a cloth

shutter. I wouldn't be quick to judge the Zeiss-Ikon as being inferior to an MP - heck, I

read about problems with brand new MPs and M7s all the time! This is something we'll

only know after they are out for years. The Rolls is sure a fine car, but one could spend a

lot less money on another car that outperforms the Rolls in every way except touchability

and looks. For example, the Silver Seraph barely pushes 320 HP - my Olds 98 TS has

almost as much (about 285 to the wheels after the 4" pipes, better muffler / filter,

supercharger rebuild, baffle and resonating chamber removal, and MEMCAL 2620), is

CONSIDERABLY lighter, and has much better bucket seats (by Lear). It also has an all

leather interior and rose burlwood detailing. Other features are comparable as well - ETC,

ELC, ESC, suspension, etc. I viewed and sat in a Seraph at the auto show last year, as well

as a Maybach, and was not overly impressed with either. BTW, it's no redneck Olds - it

looks identical to a stock 98. It's a rare car that can best the 98, and an even rarer driver

that would try! So what does the Rolls have on the Olds? Exclusivity.

 

 

Jim, there's only one problem with your view of the situation - Leica LOSES money when

somebody buys a Bessa or a Zeiss-Ikon instead of an M. The current situation is

completely unlike old times, when Leica made cash on either an M or a CL sale.

 

 

RJ, this is not an issue of affordability. It's an issue of value, which are two separate

considerations. See above posts for why.

 

Bob, I do agree with you. The scenario I mentioned above, where M bodies are $30-50

thousand apiece, and lenses are half that, is where Leica will be in 15 years if they stay

their current course. If they are around at all. I am interested in seeing them come out

with products for photographers instead of their trend of producing luxury items. They

used to justify their prices with mechanical and optical quality that was a clear cut above

the competition. Now the differences between Leica and the competition in optical

performance and reliability are not nearly as evident.

 

Mani, I would agree with you that Leica lenses HAD a certain signature, but their newest

optics are almost universally recognized as having less of a Leica glow than their older

classic lenses, in exchange for greater sharpness and contrast. And I would disagree that

L lenses are overpriced - they are built solidly and perform (for the most part) as good or

better than anything else out there. They hold their value as well as Leica lenses, and

some even appreciate over time (200 f/1.8 and 50 f/1 in particular). I also agree that if

you amortize the cost of a Leica over a long period (including the cost of CLAs every few

years) they don't look so expensive. But the person most interested in highest quality will

be spending that money on a medium format rig, like the Mamiya 7, or considerably less

money on a Fuji or Bronica RF, and be getting much better quality to boot.

 

It seems that there are basically two kinds of opinions here. Those that agree with me,

who would like to see Leica around in 20 years making products for photographers, and

others who are more of the opinion that Leica's rightful place is with the Hermes bags and

Patek Phillipe watches, which are outperformed in every significant way by hordes of

alternatives which lack the luxury status. I do NOT agree with the thought that Leica has

always occupied the luxury niche in the market. They used to justify greater prices by

having a lot of added optical and mechanical utility compared with the competition, which

they do not have for the most part any more. This luxury branding of Leica, in my

opinion, is a recent development. I also feel that the current owner has reinforced this

luxury status to the detriment of Leica.

"Who else thinks Leica needs a more affordable camera?"

 

A freshly CLA'd M3 or M2 can be gotten for less than $1,000. A mint, like new, M6 (freshly CLA'd) can be easily gotten for less than $1,500.

... finanlly, when I hopefully will die with 99years - there should be some stocks, a rusty 911 (german sportscar) 2-3 nice watches, some old pictures from my wife and me... and of course the well used leica collection... the only real stuff, next generations will be fascinated about... a M is like an egyptian pyramide.. made forever until it is stolen... ahahhah

Bill, that's not helping Leica stay around at all.

 

And Robert, when I die my Minox B and the Rollei TLR I am thinking about getting will still

operate... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

What's your point? It's a proven fact that the Leica is no more reliable or repairable than any

other mechanical camera. AHAHAHAHA

By the way, just for the record, I don't want Leica to end up producing $30,000 cameras, nor do I think there's much of a market for those.

 

On the other hand, a .72 MP with a 75/2 Summicron is "only" about $6000 new, and in my opinion it produces a quality of photograph better (not astronomically better, but still better) than what you get out of any current DSLR kit you can get for ANY price, much less a comparable price - albeit at a significant cost in flexibility. From this point of view, the MP is priced right for today's market - if what you're trying to achieve is the highest possible image quality.

 

I'm essentially making a diminishing return argument here - squeezing the last 2% of performance out of any technology drives the price way up. Hence the MP/75 Summicron combination is going to be very expensive compared to cameras which are 95% as good, just as the D2X is going to be very expensive compared to DSLRs which are 95% as good.

As an aside, Robert, maybe you could be buried with your Leica. ahahahaha

 

But they're not forever. There are many critical injuries that a Leica can sustain.

I don't want Leica to make $30K cameras either, but that's the way they're headed. If Leica

keeps up the price increases, eventually the market for new Leicas will collapse entirely

and their only option will be to join Patek Phillipe. Make one last giant run of camera

bodies and lenses, and sock 'em away in a warehouse somewhere. Retain the repair staff

and of COURSE the executives, and sack everyone else, and then sell thirty cameras and

fifty lenses a year for $30K per piece.

 

This is the track they are on TODAY. Mr Schptig(sp?) is, as I noted in another thread, not

the bold innovator everyone hoped for, but just another figurehead nailed onto a slowly

sinking, but beautiful and proud, ship of the line.

"<I>... Leica views its customer base as luxury goods consumers rather than photographers.</I>"

<P>

This seems more true of the M line that for the the R system. The M system is where Leica has chosen to market artificially-limited special models which differ from mainstream product only in outward apperance. I suspect Leica is now using the luxury models to keep the cash coming in while modern photographic tools are under development and I would hope that the special editions become a footnote in historians' tales of how Leica survived its turn-of-the-century crisis.

<P>

<I>"after I get a 5D I really can't see upgrading again for a good long while"</I>

<P>You might want to replace it once Canon makes a similar model with a better viewfinder.

<P>

<I>"cameras are a horrible investment by themselves - a guaranteed loss!"</I>

<P>

In most cases I agree wholeheartedly. When I damaged my 280 f/4 APO last January I should have purchased an interim identical lens. When my lens came back from Solms four months later I could have sold the interim lens for $1000 more than its January market value.<P>

I agree with you re: the M cameras' cloth shutter. Unfortunately because of the M's long tradition Leica got fried in the marketplace when they changed the body shape for the M5; similarly the extra height and reversed SS dial of the TTL and M7 caused quite a fuss among many long-time M users. Modular shutters can be far less expensive than the M's traditional shutter and if the R8's shutter is any indication they can be every bit as quiet as the cloth shutter. Leica's been playing it safe with the M's shutter for too long, and will have to adapt and risk losing traditionalist customers or it's viability as a photographic tool will be further eroded.<P>

<I>"their newest optics are almost universally recognized as having less of a Leica glow than their older classic lenses, in exchange for greater sharpness and contrast."</I>

<P>

I can't say anything about M optics 'cuz I have never used any - on the R side of the business the current lenses are unsurpassed. Yes there are lenses from other makers that are nearly as good in some ways, or surpass R lenses in some ways, but I'm of the opinion that every lens I carry should fit every camera body I carry so I'm not going to pick one camera and lens from one system 'cuz it's the best in class and one caemra and lens from another system for a different task 'cuz it's also best-in-class. I want one system that gives me best-in-class or nearly so over the range of tasks I ordinarily encounter. That's the appeal of Leica lenses and the R system for me. The lenses have it all together: sharpness, contrast, reasonably good bokeh, close minimum focus distance, full-aperture performance, minimal light fall-off or distortion, first-rate handling and construction. Sure you can get many of these qualities in select lenses from other makers. I can get all these qualities in most of the lenses from one maker, and they all fit my camera bodies.<P>

<I>"the person most interested in highest quality will be spending that money on a medium format rig, like the Mamiya 7, or considerably less money on a Fuji or Bronica RF, and be getting much better quality to boot"</I>

<P>

For many applications this is true. It's not true where size and weight constrain the choices to 35mm or smaller, or where the medium-format systems don't offer the tools to accomplish the task. Can you imagine what the medium-format equivalent of a 560mm lens would weigh?<P>

As a previous poster noted IMHO Leica missed an opportunity with the Minox brand: Minox could have been the entry-level Leica system, both M and R. I agree that an entry-level product will benefit the company, but it should not carry the Leica name. The Leica name should be reserved for the top-of-the-line product, only.

I mostly agree with you, Doug, but I know you have priced out R gear. It's always four to

twenty times the cost of the competition. The image quality is usually great, but for most

people that is too much of a stretch. They are not always unsurpassed, however. Usually

excellent but not always the best.

 

I'm not arguing against purchasing Leica gear. I just question whether or not they can

survive with their current strategy.

Andrew as I see it their current strategy is temporary. They've indicated their direction with R, in particular the DMR, and it's M's turn now with the upcoming digital M. The special editions are a stop-gap strategy... I hope!

hey Andrew and all other crowds out there... in the stock market there is a rule, which never fails... and it goes like this...:

 

"you never have to sell a good stock" !!!

 

In regards to Leica, this means that as long as prices go up, you stay invested in your 8 to 10 M bodies and 35 lenses... as "the trend is your friend" (another broker wording.. hahah) when prices show a overheating..(around 45.000eur per body..) then you better get out... this is when we will take pictures with biochips... you can load your camera with 8year Gauda or Racqulette cheese and have the nicest bookeh in the universe... ahahahhahahha

Robert, you are making less sense with each post.

 

And Peter, I don't want to spend the $40,000 or so that it would take for me to replace my

Epson / Cosina and Canon gear with Leica products - if I even could find replacements for

some gear which I can't! I have used but not owned Leica lenses and an MP. They was very

nice, but for my money it wasn't 4-20 times as nice.

A reality check:

<p>How many of the above posters have actually bought any NEW Leica M gear in the past 30 years (bodies and lenses only)? Gray market doesn't count.

<p>As for the rest of the Leica Forum, I would hazard a guess and say that less than ten percent of the economic Einsteins have actually bought NEW non-gray gear. Possibly lower than that.

The issue is you want a new product line to get people to by new, to try, without taking out a second and third mortgage to get a camera and a asph lens. Minox could have become a fine entry level system for M and R lenses. You need cash flow to keep a company alive. While Uber-High-End marketing is a fine place, you can not forget your primary market, photographers. Collectors are getting older and older and few are joining the ranks to replace them.

 

Building 4/3, Nikon and Canon mount lenses would cost little in R&D money and would generate positive cash and great PR. Leica lenses are unique, special and I would bet, the apple of many photographers eye. They could buy a lens, try it and perhaps become converts.

 

So they buy other bodies, get sell them our lenses. Find our niche and own it.

 

B2 (;->

Peter, now I know you aren't current with Leica's prices.

 

Looking in my Canon bag right now, I have a 1n, a 10D (which will soon be supplemented

by a 5D), a 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, a 50mm f/1.8, a 28-135 IS, a 100 Macro USM, a 135 f/2.8

SF, a 300 f/4L IS, and 1.4x and 2x TC's. In my RF bag I have the R-D1, a 15mm Heliar, a

21mm Skopar, a 28mm Skopar, a 40 Nokton, a 55 f/2.8 Industar 61LD, and a APO Lanthar

90.

 

Let's break down the prices, all new from B&H, not including rebates, and all USA

warrantied (which is how I buy most of my camera gear). Then let's look at what the

equivalent Leica kits would cost me.

 

EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5: $370

 

EF 28-135 IS: $420

 

EF 50 f/1.8: $80

 

EF 100 f/2.8 Macro: $470

 

EF 135 SF: $370

 

EF 300 f/4L IS: $1150

 

EF 1.4x II: $290

 

EF 2x II: $290

 

And because the 1n has been replaced by the 1v, and because I'll be using a 5D instead of

the 10D shortly, I'll use those prices instead. I like to have one dedicated film body, and

one digital.

 

Canon 5D: $3300

 

Canon 1V w/PB-E2 and GR-E2: $2000

 

My Canon kit comes in at $8740, not including incidentals like batteries and memory

cards etc. This is a pretty complete setup, and I feel no need for the 300 f/2.8 or the 500

f/4 or 600 f/4. I may get the 400 f/4 DO because of its compact size, sooner or later. But

let's leave that out of the picture.

Wow, this thread has produced some posters who have nver appeared here before!

Next comes my Epson R-D1 kit + lenses.

 

15mm Heliar: $345

 

21mm Skopar: $335

 

28mm Skopar: $290

 

40mm Nokton: $380

 

55 Industar 61-LD: $20 (from Russia)

 

90 APO-Lanthar: $320

 

And the R-D1, of course. It's $2800.

 

Not including incidentals, my RF kit cost me $4490.

 

Now, let's start by pricing an M. I'll go ahead and price out lenses without taking into

account the FOV, as I hope to replace the R-D1 with something full frame sooner or later.

I'm also sticking to Leica brand stuff, when available. When it isn't, I'll use a compatible

higher end lens such as a Zeiss.

 

M7: $3300

 

For the 15mm length, I'll use the Distagon as it is a notch above the Voigtlander, and Leica

offers nothing similar.

 

15 f/2.8: $3800

 

Leica doesn't offer a lower cost 21, so I'll use their 21 f/2.8

 

21 f/2.8: $3200

 

Leica doesn't offer a 28 f/3.5, so I'll use the 2.8

 

28 f/2.8: $2300

 

Leica doesn't offer a 40 f/1.4, so I'll use the 35 f/1.4 instead:

 

35 f/1.4: $3000

 

50 f/2.8: $850

 

Leica doesn't offer a 90 f/3.5, so I'll use the 90 f/4:

 

90 f/4: $1400

 

Giving me a M system cost of $17,850. Even though I am often getting an extra stop with

the Leicas, I have no choice about this. This is Leica pricing exercise.

Leica does not need to make an affordable camera for us. We already own their film camera and lenses. What they need to do is become a partner with a Japanese company that can make a high quality digital camera and then help them build a high quality Leica lens for it, all for $400-$600. And they are. It's Panasonic; it's an aspheric Leica lens of high quality made in Japan (perhaps China), and it's exactly what everyone here is asking them to do. So, go buy one. They also keep coming out with new and better models with higher resolution. What more can they do? Does anyone really expect them to catch up electronically with Panasonic, Sony, Cannon, etc.?