People complain Nikon D3x, but no one complain the M9 price

<p> I felt something is fishy going on the Internet, you see even Ken Rockwell doesn't complain about the expensive Leica M9. But when Nikon D3x started out a little more expensive with higher pixel count, people are in rage. I remember there was no waiting list or shortage for the Nikon D3x when it came out. However, lots of people still waiting for the Leica M9, that is, a manual focus camera without AF focus, no Matrix metering, no zoom lenses available and no 5fps, no liveview and list could go on and on.<br>

One thing Leica is good at are the lenses. They are the BEST, but could easily break your saving, marriage and wallet. </p>

<p>You got it very wrong I am afraid. It is not about the best lenses, it is not about technology, it is the very tiny little red dot that people are paying for. It is called "status". People feel superior when they wear a Rolex, driving a Ferrari, or having relationship with a dozen Hollywood stars. The same goes for owning a Leica. Any mumbo jumbo made the press releases were just excuses for them to shell out the plastic. The poor will argue the price-performance ratio, but the rich will just buy them like the average people buying a cup of coffee.</p>

<p>I can see where Alan is coming from with his very generalized statement. No doubt there are some owners who prize their Leicas for exactly the reasons he states but I doubt they read many posts on these forums.</p>

<p>Leicas are limited production. Supply/demand. That's it. Nikon cranks out as many D3X cameras as it's factories can make, Leica produces as many M9s as it's can make. Leica isn't set up in terms of production facilities or staff to mass produce a camera. Nor do they want to. They wisely recognize the cachet of owning a product which is limited in production, uses old-world production techniques and has a long and proud history. And they charge for it. That should be OK, Alan. Nikon likewise charges for all the technical wizardry. And that's OK too.</p>

<p>Isn't it great that both types of photographers still have companies producing "their" types of cameras? Let's be happy about the fact we have such wonderful options and tools available to us and stop making divisive comments.</p>

<p>There's no mystery about this as Leicas have always been expensive so everyone expects it. But for Canon and Nikon to have an $8,000 camera that, perhaps, is more of a surprise.</p>

<p>Although the status may have something to do with it, I am not so sure, as Canon and Nikon users are equally passionate about their brand. However, there is a mystique about Leica partly due to their longevity: the M9 is the latest of a line of cameras reaching back to 1954 which can still use all the lenses from that period (and further back if you mount screw mount lenses). Their optical performance is also legendary which helps too.</p>

<p>Leicas were always more expensive - so there was no surprise with the M9 (I actually expected it to be priced even higher). Also, the customer base is much smaller for Leica, as is Leica's production capacity. For Nikon, a price of $8000 was a first - and though the camera was priced the same as the Canon 1Ds when it came out - by the time the D3X appeared, that price had already dropped and everyone was expecting Nikon to price it accordingly.</p>

 

<p>Alan Chan, if that's the case, then why do I cover up the red Leica dot and the white 'M9' lettering on my rangefinder so that people don't notice me when I shoot?</p>

<p>I sold all my Canon dSLR gear and switched to the exorbitantly-priced Leica (at least 2x overpriced) because it's the only serious digital rangefinder around. Believe me, if Kyocera came out with a digital Contax G3 with autofocus that actually worked, I'd sell all my Leica gear and switch to that system in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>Until that happy day arrives, the overpriced Leica is my only choice, and it allows even a novice like me to produce acceptable images from time to time, as I can understand its controls and worry about the actual art of photography rather than dorking around with an oversized, attention-getting, poorly-designed computer the size of my head with a lens and sensor attached, which is what dSLRs have become.</p>

<p>So, perhaps next time you'll think twice about presuming to speak for others whom you don't know and whose motives haven't been revealed to you by divine insight.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can see where Alan is coming from with his very generalized statement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd be surprised if Alan can see where he's coming from. Most people I know that use Leicas do so because of the type of photography they do - it's the right tool for the job. For an example, look <a href="http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/miguelgandert/index.html">here</a> - Miguel uses Leicas because they are small, unobtrusive, and have an unintimidating presence. People who believe what Alan does don't have the faintest idea about who uses the equipment or why.</p>

<p>Lots of people complain about the price of the M9. You have to be very rich or very dedicated to buy the M9 at current prices. Low availability probably tends to keep complaining to a minimum since not very many are seriously considering buying them because there are not that many available.</p>

<p>The advent of the M9 was my golden opportunity to buy a used M8 at a semi-reasonable price and I'm enjoying it a lot, especially since the M8 works very well as an IR camera.</p>

<p>And complaining achieves what? I always say "if you gotta ask, then you probably can't afford it".</p>

<p>I don't know if more people feels the same as me about M9.<br>

Considering its price, I know M9 lacks many things other cameras have. Nevertheless I find M9 a very simple camera to use.That's why I use one, and it performs just as I need. Wonderful lenses and camera package. Just a simple camera without any odds and sods. That's it.</p>

<p>Well, the complaining makes me feel better! Maybe it encourages Leica to work on a lower cost option -- I have some hope of an M mount X1 like camera someday. I think it would be a good idea for Leica to work on the equivalent of a Canon 5D, something a bit less pro at about half the price or less. May never happen granted, probably won't.</p>

<p>At my age I'm not sure how many more cameras I'm going to buy. In a few years when the M10 comes out, maybe I can get a bit of a deal on a used M9.</p>

<p>Leica has to amortize their research and development costs over such a small number of units sold that they can't afford to do market segmentation they way Nikon and Canon do. They can only afford to develop the "top of the line" option.<br>

Leica have insanely higher labor costs than Nikon and Canon do. Nikon and Canon can't even compete making equipment in Japan, I presume most models are made in Thailand, China, etc.<br>

Leica is barely profitable at the moment. Nikon and Canon are typcially profitable, although they may be bleeding in the current recession. (Nikon's primary product line of semiconductor fabrication equipment is deeply cyclical, and must have terrible sales at the moment. Canon is more of a pure consumer products play.)<br>

Ken Rockwell is tweaking Nikon about the D3X because he thinks it's a cynical market segmentation ploy, and that they are taking a much higher markup on it than their lower models. Just like Intel charging $999 for the unlocked "gamer" processor chips. But, in both cases, we don't know the real chip yields!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You got it very wrong I am afraid. It is not about the best lenses, it is not about technology, it is the very tiny little red dot that people are paying for. It is called "status". </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to had that the M9 is the ONLY compact full frame digital camera with interchangeable lens and simple user controls rangefinder on the market. The perfect tool for many of us "status" hungry monsters.<br>

Anything with a logo written all over it is STATUS mumbo jumbo.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Last winter I was shooting in Japan for two month, with a Nikon DSLR. Even though the Japanese are extremely polite, forgiving and patient, you are really pushing it. <br>

It dawns on you when you see other folks loaded with their D700 and MarkII's. For street photography the full frame, 8 frames per second, auto-everything DSLRs are quite obnoxious, frankly. We look and act like guerillas with Bazookas. Even a medium format Rolleiflex is more appropriate (below).<br>

Next week I am flying back to Japan, this time bringing only two film rangefinders. (I wish I could afford the M9).<br>

</p>

<p>I saw this thread at the P.net home page and had to read it. As much as I'd enjoy owning and using an M9, it isn't in the cards for me. I don't think it ever will. But a hang-up I find hard to get over with all the big brands is the fact that these "computers with lenses" aren't likely to last 30, 40, 50 years or more like the old mechanical camera easily do. I shoot Pentax. I own two, a nearly 40 year old fully manual K1000 and a modern K20D dslr. Which one is still going to be making pictures in 15 or 20 years? The K1000 will. (Assuming 35mm film is still made.) Will the electronics in the modern dslr last that long? I'm doubtful. So to drop many thousands of dollars on electronic cameras without also earning a good living with it to me is a difficult thing to convince me of.</p>

<p>OP Chuck T writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"when Nikon D3x started out a little more expensive with higher pixel count, people are in rage."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of like this? (by the same OP)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ReqV</p>

<p>Three comments:</p>

<p>1) One's perception depends on where one hangs out. Those who spend time on the Nikon forums -- like the OP -- are going to hear (and <em>put forth</em>; see link above) more complaining about the D3x price, while those who spend time at the rangefinder forums (like rangefinderforum) are going to hear more complaining about the M9 price. I personally think the D3x may be slightly overpriced (but it will come down) while the M9 is not. I say this about the M9 because...</p>

<p>2) With the D3x, Nikon essentially produced what Canon had already done for the same price (and what Sony has since done for about one-third the price): a rugged, high-megapixel, full-frame DSLR. But with the M9, Leica did what no one else had done before (and no one has promised to do yet): make a full-frame sensor camera that accommodates even wide-angle lenses with an extremely short flange focal distance. (Leica = 27.5mm from the sensor; Nikon = 46.5mm. That's a huge difference.)</p>

<p>3) Over the past few decades, Leica products have generally been priced significantly higher than Nikon equivalents (e.g., <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332585-USA/Leica_11891_50mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M.html">Leica 50/1.4</a> vs. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585343-USA/Nikon_2180_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4G.html">Nikon 50/1.4</a>; note which one is backordered, by the way!). Regardless of other considerations, many people don't expect Nikon to cost more than Leica, and that probably explains the reaction to the pricing of the two companies' respective top-of-the-line models.</p>

<p>Fascinating thread, people.</p>

<p>I think the general assumption is wrong for this thread in that, when it was first announced many people on this forum complained about the price, to deaf ears at Lecia. As it turns out, Leica can't seem to make enough of them at the extravagant price they charge, so in that sense, they aren't overpriced. Just that most of us can't really afford it. But looks like it's been a good move for Lecia.</p>

<p>People do complain about the price of the M9, just like the Nikon D3x. They just don't get as much sympathy. ;-)</p>

<p>read <a href="00T0Pb">HERE</a> about when I first mentioned that an M9 was coming (funny looking back at that thread now). Yes, it was expected to come in more expensive than it is, but it's still about $8000 too much for a digicam.</p>

<p>It really is all about supply and demand. When demand dries up cost goes down. Nikon prices (especially lenses) have risen dramatically since former professional Canon shooters started abandoning the brand in droves because of problems with autofocus and started purchasing Nikon gear. The M9 is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If I thought it even remotely had a chance of having the longevity of an M film camera I would consider one myself. But since it probably will be outdated within a year or two, no thanks.</p>

<p>The "unobtrusiveness" thing is fluff. All anyone has to do is watch James Nachtwey in "War Photographer" to see that you can be perfectly unobtrusive with a motor-driven pro SLR and an f/2.8 zoom. It's all about your presence and how you project yourself to people. Leica can basically charge whatever they want for the M9 because it's the only digital solution that will allow people to use Leica M lenses with the FOV they were designed for. Every other available solution throws away a larger part of the image circle. And I also think that Leica M lenses are among the very best available in 35mm format.</p>

<p>But for my money? I'm looking at the Pentax 645D. Not much more than what a D3X + pro zoom or an M9 + Leica prime costs new, and will likely blow them both away in imaging quality.</p>

<p>To Jose Amado:</p>

<p>Can't find anything in your very nice portfolio of interesting images that was taken with an M9. Mostly Fuji f30 and Canon G5. One with a D-Lux4, which is a rebadged Panasonic.</p>

<p>Both dSLR's and Leica M's serve their purpose well. Carl Follstad's original post couldn't have put it any clearer and wiser. Yet, to fully appreciate the feeling of a Leica M, digital or analog, one has to use it for years under various photographic situations. It may be the lenses, it may also be the red dot--can't tell for sure. But, would you believe that some of us have also gone so far as to propose a digital MP without screen, menus and the like--just a mere CCD as a replacement for the vanishing film? That may mean something in how we see our Leica's.</p>

<p>Well, I guess that my style of photographing would not depend critically on a Leica or a Nikon (I mostly use primes, and then a great part of them is manual focus). Truly I could get a better photograph from the Leica 35mm/f1.4 at 1.4 (if it exists...) than from Nikon's equivalent lens. However, with the D700 I can double the ISO value and take the photo at f2, with only a little more noise. So, when shooting raw and using, e.g. lightroom for conversion (i.e., the same software), then I guess that any difference in quality would get smaller. In short, digital Leica has more high ISO noise but better lenses, and d700 has worse lenses but better high iso performance. In the end, it boils down to individual preferences, given that you do not have to count your money. (A little off topic, though).</p>