Who else thinks Leica needs a more affordable camera?

I have been thinking about Leica's continual price increases, and have come to the

conclusion that this is the exact opposite trend than the one which would lead to greater

solvency for them.

 

Even adjusted for inflation and other common factors, Leica is charging more than twice

what they were in the 1950s for essentially the same camera. The margins for lenses are

even larger.

 

Clearly there is a market for lower cost M mount alternatives, as Cosina has been tapping

into that market very successfully for years now. The new Zeiss Ikon seems to be doing

what Leica should have done a decade ago - making a high quality camera at a less than

insane price point. Value oriented photographers are either going to choose cheaper but

equally capable gear, or go for a medium format solution, and either way will come out

ahead of where they would if they chose Leica (M OR R). I would not put down those that

buy M gear, but if you're buying it new then you are a collector who isn't really concerned

with the cost of anything, a dedicated fan, a pro, or you are way over your head in debt. I

would assert that all the collectors and fans in the world aren't enough to keep Leica in

business. As I said above, pros are probably going for MF (or digital) instead. Who does

that leave as Leica's base?

 

Sorry if this seems like a rant.

I do... for example, Apple has the top of the line stuff like Powerbooks and their lesser line

like iBooks. Why can't Leica do the same?

I would disagree. For more affordable there is the new Zeiss Ikon or the Voigtlander Cosinas. Look what happened when Mercedes Benz started an affordable line----it diluted the brand greatly. BMW stayed strong, high-end and held their reputation and now seem to be eating MB up. Troubles aside I think Leica needs to stay Leica. Cheaper cameras will not save them.

Adjusting for inflation, Leica cameras cost less now than in 1954.

"Even adjusted for inflation and other common factors, Leica is charging more than twice what they were in the 1950s for essentially the same camera."

 

Make that more than twice what they were in 2001. Back then you could pick up a new M6 TTL for $1600 w/ full passport warranty if you bought on a Leica Day (10% off) plus the $200 rebate.

 

Leica's pricing policy in the last two years means more and more folks will buy used. That's the only way users will find anything "affordable".

Back in the 1970's Leitz and Minolta partnered in the development of the CL, which they both marketed. Some long Leitz telephotos were offered in Minolta mount, and Minolta telephotos were produced in Leicaflex mount. The R4 was essentially a Leicaflex mount Minolta.

 

A lot of people who might have otherwise bought an M5 were quite content to buy a CL at about half the price. The M5 was considered by many to be too large, and early production only hung verticaly on the strap. The CL hung that way too but was nice and small. With the re-introduction of the M4 as the Canadian made M4-2, followed by the M4P, Leitz tried to avoid the high cost of German labor. That's still a big factor today. The bigger question now is really whether there's a significant pro market for a film based rangefinder system.

I personally wouldn't have any interest in a lesser quality and lower price camera or lenses from leica. If I am going to buy new leica stuff I want it to be the best quality they can produce. I will leave the cheaper stuff for zeiss or cosina which seems to be doing quite a job producing rangefinder stuff for a lower cost. A good show by them that gives the rangefinder shooter quite a choice today. Now if you are saying that you want leica to produce the same quality at a lower price and make sure that the cameras and lenses are the same as they are now, well then, I'm all for it, but face reality this aint going to happen outside of dreamland.

 

How are these cameras twice what they were in 2000. I just checked b&h and saw that they are around 3200 dollars with a rebate for a free m motor or a leicavit, the motor is around 600 bucks new, probably the same for a leicavit, but didn't check. If you are going to add all the rebates you received in 2000 and use that to argue you should do the same thing for today.

 

Not that these cameras haven't gone up in price, I'm not arguing that. I have seen most anything from Europe go up in price the last year though, so I would imagine leica products would too.

 

"I would not put down those that buy M gear" - Ya, okay, from the look of your previous posts on this forum I'd say your being less than truthful.

Peter, I am not suggesting such a course of action. Leica could use a lot of techniques to

lower the manufacturing cost of their cameras without necessarily selling Cosinas. Maybe

they need to be introduced to the concept of random sampling, which revolutionized

manufacturing more than half a century ago. This step alone could cut costs

tremendously. I don't think the choice is either Leica or crapola - that's a red herring. If it

were true than every Leica lens would be the best lens on the market for its specification,

which is simply not true at all. Obviously one camera and one lens for $2000 is not

catering to the value oriented customer.

 

Richard, I would disagree with you. BMW sells plenty of crappy cars - they have low end

versions in the 300 and 500 series that are really not very different than a higher end

Toyota or Honda, but are priced at a $10K premium.

 

The point is not to have a lesser quality Leica product, but to use modern technology to

reduce the price of Leica's goods. Obviously the strategy of continually increasing prices

and lack of innovation in production (I wouldn't consider issuing an MP that looks like an

M3, or putting a hammertone finish on a camera to be innovation) is hurting and NOT

helping Leica.

just curious....hard to make tyhe direct comparison because of the switch over to the Euro, but i'm fairly confident that the dollar is significantly weaker compared to the Euro/DM even from a few years ago...this could certainly account for any recent price increases based upon the exchange rate of the currencies...

It might account for a 25% increase, but not a 80% increase.

Yup, the dollar has slid in relation to the euro, and that probably accounts for a lot of the price increase in the U.S. Does anyone know what the increase has been in euros?

Street price of new M3 with 2/50 Summicron in 1954 : $447USD (source Modern Photography Magazine 1954)

 

Current equivalent: $3233.68USD (source Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)

 

If you cannot find a new M7 with 2/50 for less than this price I'm sure people on this forum can help you out.

 

A new Volkswagen sold in the US for less than $900USD in 1954. That's $6510.78USD today. I'd say that Leica has done a fine job of keeping prices in line for quality handmade goods from Germany.

Since Voigtlander and Zeiss Ikon fill out the market, I think it's fine that Leica doesn't make

an entry level system. What they should do, however, is reintroduce the Leica CL in some

form or another.

For Leica to try to for a mass market camera would just cheapen the name. One doesn't contemplate Rolls Royce producing a "car for averyone".

 

Your comments about random sampling suggest that each individual Leica is inspected/tested. As one who has toured the factory, I can tell you it just isn't so. Whilst 1/3rd of production time is in QC, Leica M's are "batch sampled" I.e. models(sampling) are removed at various stages through the assembly process for checking. If something is amiss, then the whole batch is pulled and checked.What is individually checked and matched are the tolerances in the various components. For example, if a certain machined part of a lens shows a "+" tolerance, it will be matched to a part with a "-" tolerance where this is appropriate. Every individual batch is tested NOT every individual item within the batch. That is Random Sampling the Leica way.

That's what we pay for and I personally wouldn't want it any other way.

Yes but the VW sold today is NOT the same auto as it was in 1954 (by the way when they had virtually no market here for their funny little cars)

 

BUT aside from the M7 the Leica today is basically the exact same camera as that 1954 M3 But with a huge drop in build quality, sevice, value everything.

 

The VW on the other hand is now a very high quality product competing nicely with the world market.

 

The comparison is very flawed.

" for example, Apple has the top of the line stuff like Powerbooks and their lesser line like iBooks. Why can't Leica do the same?"

 

I just got a B&H catalog in the mail. I see a Leica C2 for $169.95, a C1 for $399.95, a C3 for $429.95, a CM for $1,095.95, a CM Zoom for $1,295.95. Sounds to me like they are doing exactly what you are suggesting.

 

I remember once seeing the Amtrak president talking about their pricing. He pointed out if you charge to much, you don't sell anything, if you charge too little, you sell a lot, but don't make any profit. At some point in between, there's a peak-profit point, and it's not chosen for the convenience of customers. If Leica thought they could make more money selling the same thing at twice the price or half the price, I'm sure they'd do so.

 

It's amazing to me, to think at a time when it's sort of surprising that anyone still sells a film-based rangefinder, I can look in that B&H catalog and on the same page i find film-based rangefinders made by FIVE different companies.

They should have done this with the Minox brand while it was part of their stable...

Sorry to be diasgreeable; but, "affordable" cameras (something of course we'd all love) is not what Leica is about. Leica is about "superlative" cameras - design, engineering and finished product.

 

So no, I do not think they should... I think they should "stick to their knitting" and simply achieve what they have achieved in film within a range of "superlative" digital cameras. Two ranges of the best in their class should sit side by side.

 

What has lead to Leica's financial distress is the fact that they did not embrase the digital era with similar superlative digital media based cameras. Now they should "cut their cloth" to suit their niche markets - again, "superlative" cameras (and, while it goes without saying, optics of course)!

I would think that a camera / lens combo for $2K, while not being exactly a 'value'

purchase, would sell a lot more units than a camera / lens combo that's $6K.

 

Do you all think that Leica is incapable of producing a quality camera / lens combination

for that price point? That's my real question.

 

And as others have mentioned, the M7 is not as high quality a product as the M3 was. The

lens lineup is quite innovative, but spherical elements are a commodity now, and certainly

cheaper to procure (and higher quality) than the hand ground elements of a half century

ago.

 

Unlike a Rolls Royce, a Leica is a tool. Perhaps the way for Leica to go is to create cameras

on a one-off basis for $30-50 thousand apiece, and charge $10K for a lens. They could

cut 90% of their labor force and still probably turn a better profit than they are now.

 

When you get a Leica M7 or MP, you aren't getting a substantially higher quality product

(anymore) than, for example, a Zeiss-Ikon or even a Bessa. Certainly, they aren't

extremely reliable, or even AS reliable as they used to be. Cost cutting measures have

been loudly derided - and by the dedicated Leica fan base!

 

This isn't me complaining that I can't afford a Leica. I certainly can. This topic relates

more to getting what you pay for, and I think if Leica was able to make a product that

targeted a broader audience they would be able to leverage that broader customer base

into higher profits.

I'm fairly sure that (i) this idea has already occurred to Leica, and (ii) nobody in Leica will pay much attention to any suggestions made in this thread.

 

What I don't understand is the combination of (i) the insistence above that Leica products are superlative and that Leica QC is rigorous and uncompromising, and (ii) the first-hand accounts in other threads here of things going wrong in nearly new expensive Leicas.

 

But what do I know -- after all, I don't have an MBA.

As demand shrinks, price must go up, all other things being equal. (Law of Economics)

 

The market for film cameras, in general, is shrinking. Hence, unless you are clearing out old stock, newly produced cameras must sell for more.

 

Add in the sliding dollar, and I don't see how Leica can charge less.

 

Remember I said all other things being equal? Of course, if they could dramatically reduce their cost base, they could charge less.

 

But can they? And would people still crave Leica's if they are not made lovingly by hand in Germany, but are instead mass-produced in China?

 

Leica is not just about quality, but about luxury. An M is now basically a luxury good. With luxury goods, dropping prices does not increase sales-- on the contrary, it can dilute and destroy the brand.

 

We are fortunate to live in these times when it seems things get cheaper each year (PCs, cellular phones, airfares-- just to name a few) so that the concept of price increases is alien.

 

But price increases is part and parcel of life, it's basic inflation, and in fact modest inflation is necessary for the economy as a whole.

 

Yes, Leica could perhaps produce more affordable M's, but they prob decided they just have no bandwidth to compete with Cosina, and they would rather concentrate their resources on getting the digital M out. They probably realised that with the digital revolution, there's no point making cheap film rangefinders if no one wants to buy them any more...

To Andrew:

 

The DMR is innovative, although some people feel that it's years too late and too few megapixels.

 

But do you see Canon or Nikon trying to protect your investment in film bodies? No, they'd rather you buy new bodies from them every 18-36 months.

"But do you see Canon or Nikon trying to protect your investment in film bodies? "

 

Nikon F6 and FM3a. Both still compatible with 40 years of lenses.

 

Even the new Nikon D200 (due next month) is also compatible with AI/AIs lenses and will meter with them also.

Wai-Leong Lee,

 

in which way does Leica protect our investment in film bodies? Rollei sells film under their brand, Leica doesn't!

 

And a $6000 digital back for a R8/R9 or a $3000 Canon EOS 5d as an adition to a Canon EOS 3? Then you can shoot film and digital without changing backs, just as we did with B&W and color :-)

 

Not to put down the DMR, it's a great idea and delivers on its promisse.

I guess you could just buy second-hand. If indeed the new cameras are the same as the old ones then there's your solution. ;-)

 

What Leica needs more than an affordable camera is a *digital* camera (i.e. digital M) - something they should have done two or three years ago.

 

I believe in quality - and good design, oh yes indeed - at low price points though. Just look at the value you get from a DSLR or a digital compact these days. Amazing.