Leica M9 why so much ?

<p>I was reading the specs on the Leica M9 that just came out recently. I'm still scraching my head why the camera costs so much ?</p>

<p>Because Leica knows people will buy them at that price.</p>

 

<p>If something isn't ridiculously expensive, how do you know you're buying the best?</p>

<p>When you are the only one in the world making something, you can charge whatever you want. And if there really is a demand for whatever that is, you probably should. That's capitalism.</p>

<p>Josh, haven't you heard? Capitalism is bad ... we all deserve M9s for free!</p>

<p>M9, the more I read about it, the more I want. </p>

<p>Actually, I think supply and demand and a few other criiteria have something to do with setting prices, not just the calculations of money wonks to see what they can get away with. Captialism is not a game wherein the rich and the few get to see how much they can gouge the rest of us.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Small production volumes, expensive labor, labor-intensive production due to lack of automation (hand assembly) and individually testing each camera, lack of vertical integration.<br>

If Leica were simply extracting a premium for a luxury product, they would be fabulously profitable like Louis Vuitton. In fact they have been consistently losing money over the last decade or so.</p>

 

<p><br />You have to consider how much other top of the line cameras go for when brand new. Cameras with new bells and whistles have always been expensive. Adjust for inflation $7,750.00 today, in 1954 dollars is between $667 and $967 depending on how you measure inflation. That is more than a Leica M3 of that year, but not by much. However, compared to the first camera with a lightmeter the M9 is no more expenseive. In 2009, £71 17s 6d from 1939 was worth: between £3,320 and £12,656 depending on how you measure it. That was the price of a “a Contaflex TLR in 1939 with an f2 Sonnar" per Robert White, Discovering Old cameras - 1839-1939, ISBN 978 0747802662). The MRSP in the UK for the M9 is £4850. Lot of money to be sure but no worse than normal. </p>

<p>It's only $7750 in the US? That's less than a Nikon D3X. Bit more than a Sony A850 with a few Zeiss lenses, but the Leica is smaller...</p>

<p>Remember the M8.2 is $6K, and the M9 is apparently a much improved camera so it was inevitably going to cost more.</p>

<p>(I thought the M9 was going to be priced like Canon's and Nikon's top of the line models were initially priced ($8000), so I was pleasantly surprised by the $7K price!)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, I think supply and demand and a few other criiteria have something to do with setting prices, not just the calculations of money wonks to see what they can get away with. Captialism is not a game wherein the rich and the few get to see how much they can gouge the rest of us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>W.A.</p>

<p>Re-read what I wrote. I described supply and demand.</p>

<p>People like Thomas Hardy always forget that there are (well, were) Communist Leicas. Called Zorkii and FED, etc.<br>

They work surprisingly well for what was a hand-built camera <em>design</em> produced in vast numbers to quotas aimed at the masses.</p>

<p>Who would wear gold jewelry if it were $1 an ounce? Lenin planned to make toilets in the subways out of gold, but it somehow didn't come to be. Anyway, Leica not only <em>can</em> charge so much, but <strong>has to do so</strong> to keep up its exclusivity and "bling" appeal.</p>

<p>The company is not profitable at the moment in fact has not been for some time. R&D must have been huge seeing two complete new systems released this year. If Leica can not improve their position soon we can all stop bickering they will dissapear or worse , taken over by the big C or N. Some opinion here is, prices are set with the view our products are far superiour and will sell by name alone think again , this is not how capitalism works.</p>

<p>I will say Leica has not done me any favors since I was hoping for a DSLR solution I have a large investment in R lenses some I now use on a 5DII. Loosing stop down focussing is a pain , so for the most used ones I switched to Canon EF. Do I like it , no not a bid.</p>

 

<p>Why does a Patek Phillipe wristwatch cost so much when you can wear a timex. Why pay thousands for an Armani suit when you can just throw on a pair of jeans? It's the jewel-like quality that gives it the high price, and the mystique of the name. It doesn't really matter that it might not match the performance of a comparably priced DSLR. It's the price of ownership for something, that, if living up to previous M series is a masterpiece of solid engineering geared to last for many years. When you think about it people spend far more on crappy mass produced cars that depreciate the moment they leave the showroom and cost hundreds a year to run and maintain. With that in mind a new M9 and a 50mm Summicron seems an absolute steal. A bit like buying a Mercedes for the price of a Kia. By the way, I wouldn't buy one. I've had M2's, M3's, M4's and loved the feel of them in my hand. I'm passed that now, but for someone with money to spare I'd say jump at it.</p>

<p>I don't know what Leica pays, but I suspect the Kodak sensor is more expensive than we give it credit for. That doesn't account for all the cost, but I'll bet it contributes to it.</p>

<p>The M9 really seems to be the best value of the current line - it snuggles right in with the Canon 1Ds III and Nikon D3x price-wise. It is a full-frame, high megapixel, professional digital camera after all - I hope no one expected a bargain. </p>

<p>I suppose if it does anything, the M9 makes the Leica film cameras look pretty over-priced at around $4400 new, compared with $1800 for a Canon 1V and about $2400 for a Nikon F6.</p>

<p>Anyone interested in the subject must read Mike Johnston's entry for 9/9/09 on "The Online Photographer." He makes great good sense of the magic of pricing in his "What Does 'Expensive' Mean?"</p>

<p>Regarding Leica's profitability, every 1,000 M9s will bring in USD 7 million in revenue - not too shabby! Given early reports of how quickly initial shipments are selling out, I won't be surprised if the model's supply-constrained for some time. If Leica could produce 2,000 units I bet they could sell them by the end of the year.</p>

<p>Its not really rocket science... expensive labour cost, R&D and relatively small production volumes makes things expensive. Seen a cheap Ferrari lately?</p>

<p>Because it has a computer attached. Film Ms cost only a third as much. </p>

<p>Well, I can't imagine Kodak gave them all the R&D to solve the rangefinder issue, and then provided an exclusive sensor for the M9 only ... at the same price as more mass produced sensors. </p>

<p>BTW, US street price for the M9 is about $6,790. not over $7,000. as is being quoted above. Which isn't a lot more than the intro price of the M8.2.</p>

<p>IMO, 18 to 24 meg is about it for 35mm sensors (unless there is a revolutionary development in sensor technology). Personally, I rarely need more especially for a rangefinder application ... more often it's overkill. </p>

<p>"More" may well come forth as time goes on, but this camera represents a place where a photographer can get off the up-grade merry-go-round. FF was what was needed, and now we have it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Captialism is not a game wherein the rich and the few get to see how much they can gouge the rest of us."</p>

<p>You're missing the competition part. Leice is the first to market with a full frame rangefinder. If the M9 is successful, then there will be competitors. In the meantime, buy a DSLR if the M9 is too expensive for you.</p>

<p>Josh, Robert: Sellers in a capitalist economy have the least interest in encouraging more robust captitalism. In fact, their interests run counter to that. The more they can control a market, the more they can determine price. Leica is an effective monopoly in that no one else sells rangefinders that that tiny market believes are of comparable quality. In addition, a critical part of a healthy capitalist economy is ease of entry for new sellers. The availability of digital parts from only a very few sources and the extremely high cost of setting up your own fabrication facility to make those parts significantly hamper the ability of new sellers to enter the digital RF space.<br>

As for the M9's cost: high profit margin on each one sold plus high charges from Kodak for what is essentially a boutique run of sensors. Add in more money if Leica has to pay Kodak to retain that capability for some number of years.<br>

We will see Zeiss and Cosina consider making digital RF's when the FF sensor price drops enough to allow them to sell the camera at $2000. Right now, I'd guess the sensor alone is in that ballpark.</p>

<p>Leica was almost going bankrupt. Now they have launched three great products. An APS-sized sensor compact which will let photographers do casual photography with high quality results. A Full Frame M camera which will allow photographers to take full advantage of the georgeous Leica lenses and a "Medium Format" DSLR with some of the finest lenses ever produced in the history of photography. They must have spent a ton of Deutschmarks to develop these impressive cameras and must recoup the money invested. I find it amazing that they actually managed to pull it off. I believe $7,000 to be expensive for an M9 and I believe that they would probably sell a lot more of these cameras if they were priced more reasonably. I think the bottom line is that they don't have the possibilty to increase their production numbers and have arrived at a selling price that will let them sell all of the stock that they are able to churn out. It's a supply and demand equation. If they sold them cheaper, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand - so they put the price at a "comfortable" $7,000 per unit. If I had lots of money laying around going to waste, I, for sure, would buy one. Mind you, I'd have to plunk down another $7,000 for lenses. Leica M's are a bit slow in handling but the results that one can get out of these cameras are top notch, and for many, worth the investment. Plus, they are really cool.</p>

<p>The Kodak sensor in the M8 was something like $400, the one in the M9 is <em>easily</em> $1000, maybe more. Why? Because the cost of any integrated circuit goes up very quickly with the area of the IC -- typically geometrically. There's that much more area that has to be defect-free, so the yield (percentage of useful chips on a wafer) goes down dramatically. <br>

The Intel Core i7 has a die size of 236 square mm. A full-frame sensor is much more than 864 square mm (there's several mm of support circuitry outside the sensor area), probably around 1000 square mm.<br>

An extra contributor to the cost burden of full-size sensors is that the semiconductor photo-lithography systems aren't designed for chips that large. So the exposure systems (known as steppers) can't expose an entire "die" that large. So that means that the exposures for each die (sensor) have to be four exposures from different masks (negatives) aligned perfectly. There are "seams" right through the middle of the sensor chip. That is a significant extra challenge, and further reduces yield.<br>

By the way, the only vendors of lenses for semiconductor photolithography are Carl Zeiss and Nikon. These lenses are incredibly expensive, the best lenses money can buy, incredibly high resolution, and all exactly the same. They make movie camera lenses look cheap. (Movie camera lenses, in turn, make Leica M lenses look cheap.)<br>

This also explains why cheap cameras have itty-bitty sensors. More on a wafer, higher yield.</p>