Why Is M8 So Expensive?

[steve_ries]

Why it the M8 so expensive?

 

Taking into account we can buy a good digital for "considerably" less than 5K

why is the M8 almost 5K? Is this actual product we are buying or product

hype. Why can't someone build us a good digital body for our M lenses for 1

or 2K? Don't get me wrong I love Leica but this just seems excessive.

 

Regards to all,

 

Steve

[wai_leong_lee]

Actually 5k is cheap. You're paying for quality (as in luxury) materials and branding.

[yang_wen]

1k to 2K is the price of a used M6 or M7... How can a new M8 be that cheap? Why would Leica make the M8 that cheap if the used film bodies are selling for those prices?

[steve_huff1]

Why is the 50 Noctilux $3899? Why is the 28 F2 $3k? Why is the M7 $3500 for a film body?

Why? Becuase they can and do sell them at these prices. There are people who can afford

these cameras and lenses and that is the market that Leica sells to. I think the prices are a

bit out there, and I feel a new M7 should go for $2k, not $3500 - I feel the M8 should be

around $3500, not $4800, I feel the Noctilux should run $2k not $3800 , but I still bought

a brand new M7, 50 cron and Noctilux. My friends say Im crazy, and honestly, my DSLR

photos are better than my M7 photos, but I have never enjoyed shooting like I do with the

M. I just wish I could afford a new 35, 24 and 90 - But Im BROKE.

 

If Leica came out with the M8 at $2k, they would of killed their film sales 100% - Think of

the M8 as an M7 with motor M, which would run close to $4800 - Now see the value of the

M8 as it is digital, built to the same quality standard, and has a built in continuous

shooting mode. It's a deal if you compare it to the M7 or MP.

 

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...

 

http://stevem7.zenfolio.com/p159175107/

[beepy]

So, one thing is the case with digital cameras more so than film cameras is the basic

technology is still changing and improving with regards to resolution, noise, in camera

image processing (even for raw capture - when will bit depth go up in volume digital

cameras). I liken this to the obsoleteness patterns of computers. 2 to 3 years and

capabilities are doubled at the same or lower price.

<p>

The beauty of a film camera was invest in fine optics and use a variety of film (the

technology of which matured some time ago) and rarely swap out a body (especially in the

Leica class of camera).

<p>

Assuming Leica company viability, and success of the M8, then expect a new improved

digital high end Leica in three years? I can't see how you can be successful and avoid the

technology treadmill.

[neilambrose]

<p>Why? In essence, two reasons:</p>

 

<p>The first reason is because Leica is a brand - and a premium brand at that. It's got

nothing to do with what it *could* be sold for -- only what it needs to be sold for in order

to maintain brand positioning. And a brand is an image, an emotion, an aspiration..... not

a set of components.</p>

 

<p>The second reason is amortisation of tooling and manufacure costs over the

anticipated life of the product and estimated product volume. This is the minimum that it

*should* be sold for.</p>

 

<p>And somewhere between these two figures is a degree of price flexibility that gives

the distributors something to play with as promotional incentives - which is generally a

few percentage points below the higher figure.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p><em>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...</em></p>

 

<p>Kind of justifies everything :-) Those are very fine photos, Steve.</p>

[greg lockrey]

Econ 101...Supply and Demand.

[vinay_patel]

"Taking into account we can buy a good digital for "considerably" less than 5K why is the M8 almost 5K?

 

I drive a Chevy Tahoe and can't afford a Rolls, yet I don't go on Rolls forums ranting and crying that a Rolls isn't worth the cost. It would make me sound like an envious have-not with a chip on my shoulder.

[george_caramanna]

Dont delude yourself to thinking that a leica digital camera is going to hold value like the film stuff. There has not been a single digital device that has retained value over time.

 

I just purchased a used creo eversmart pro scanner. I paid top dollar for it at 3K. New 5 years ago it was 30K. No joke. Look at the prices of used phase one backs or leaf or whatever. Digital products drop in value faster than a jet without fuel.

 

If you buy it forget about the money. It will be worth less than you bought it for - before its shipped to you.

[nolan_ross]

People will pay it. The film camera's always held their value but with digital I doubt it because the technology changes and the electronics age and break...But people that pay for it will be very happy to have such a cool camera...For many people it will be the perfect choice of technology, quality and function...nolan

[steve_levine]

Because people will believe anything they are told.

[vinay_patel]

"Dont delude yourself to thinking that a leica digital camera is going to hold value like the film stuff."

 

Yes, film cameras have really held their value over the last few years, makes me wish I'd bought a truckload of Hasselblads and Canon 1Vs instead of that vacation house :-)

 

"It will be worth less than you bought it for - before its shipped to you."

 

I'll bet you I'll still be able to sell my M8 for $500 over cost six months after I get it. Yes it will depreciate, but until there is an M9 it will be the only Leica digital body out there. It's not even remotely the same situation as with Canon and Nikon where a new body with a bigger LCD and 2 more megapixels comes along every 18 months and people trade up like their old camera suddenly turned to dirt.

[vinay_patel]

BTW, buy a new M7 for $3500 and put it up FS as soon as you leave the store. It'll fetch maybe $1800.

[lee hamiel]

I'm surprised it's not more:)

 

With that said - once you dissasemble a Leica lens or Hasselblad lens or prism you can see what goes into the build quality - same goes for Linhof from a build point of view.

 

It's up to you - like buying a Saturn, Pontiac, Chevy or BMW or MB it's your choice - don't have to buy and can walk away.

 

For Leica to sell a digital M8 for less than their M film bodies would also be a kiss of death - I myself prefer to enjoy M film bodies for what they are and for now use a D200 for digital.

 

Interesting that the appeal of the D200 was the ability to use all of the Nikkor lenses I have besides new ones & I do believe that this is the niche market that Leica is counting on given all the lenses that previous users have.

 

I'm also going to guess that Leica research probably came up with a stat that Leica M film users (most) are the last bastion of holdouts for the digital age & it's a ripe market with money to spend:)

[jake_tauber]

With its superior build quality, it will stand up to years of fondling.

[steve_jacobs2]

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

 

You can get a camera for $3k-- the epson rd-1

[dennis_cheng1]

If you have accumulated quite a few Leica M lenses, spending $4-5k on M8 is not too bad.

[vic_.]

Steve Ries, If you ammortize the M8 on a per picture basis, or over time, it works out to be quite cheap, as Al K showed in his one-penny-per-day Leica M2 experience.

<p>There are more egregious examples of overpriced goods and services on the market.

<p>(1) Aquafina and Dasani water (sold by Pepsi and Coke) cost around $1.00 per bottle. That's filtered tap water. Extremely high margin, more than the margin on Vinay's hourly billing rate. Whatever happened to drinking out of a water fountain. As George Carlin said in a skit, "Why is everyone carrying around their own personal water supply?" Two a day equates to $500 per year for tap water. In the high end restaurant business, bottled water is the highest margin product.

<p>(2) Starbucks coffee. Granted it tastes great. There are people who have at least two coffees a day. That's $5 per day, times 250 (working days) = $1,250 for coffee per year. The M8 would be cheaper per year.

<p>(3) Beer on tap costs bars 7-10 cents a glass, yet people think nothing of paying $3.50 to $4.00 per glass, half a pint. If you have a drinking habit, and a low income, welcome to hell.

<p>(4) Look around you and you will see countless such examples of people willing to pay for things a lot of them can ill afford.

<p>Then again, if you're making gazillions, it's chump change. So it's a question of where you are on the demand curve. One could always get a second job, peeling carrots at the local diner, and save up for a Leica. Or something else.

[mark_amos]

Even if the M8 used drops in value significantly in a few years, its value will depend on what else is available for M. If they come out with an M9, and it costs $5400 or something, then I don't see anyone with an M8 having trouble dumping it for $2000. I know that is a bigger drop than Leica film M buyers would be used to, but the fact is that you may not be able to get an alternative, and that would still be a decent bit of money return for the use. I would buy an excellent condition used M8 for $2000 before I'd buy a new R-D1 for the same price. I'd probably buy the M8 used over a new Zeiss digital M (if they come out with one) if they were the same price. A new Zeiss or Epson/Cosina would have to have clear superiority in image quality for me to buy it over a used M8 if the price was even close. I'll bet that in a year, Cosina will have an RD-2 for $2500 and Zeiss will offer one for $3400, and the used M8 will go for $3600. As stated: supply and demand for what the product does, and the M8 is not just a digital camera; its a digital camera that takes M lenses.

[ronald_moravec1]

That might be a fair question if Leica was making lots of money. Would they make more if pricing were cut? I don`t know. If there is a large markup of cost and sales would increase, big if, then they could cut pricing.

[pico_digoliardi]

It is about two things, tightly coupled: TRADITION and EXCLUSIVITY.

 

Certainly, it is highly unlikely the M8 will have the qualities of the classic Leica M cameras or better than any of the many digital RF cameras to follow; it will be broken or obsolete in three years. Price puts certain customers into a "special place" they seem to enjoy. I really don't know what part of the universe they live in, but it is certainly as akin to drugland delusions as to reality. You know, the folks who feel so special wearing a Rolex when time could care less.

 

Pity them.

[runkel]

I don't understand why it makes any sense to opine about what you "feel" something should cost without knowing the costs of the various inputs. If you don't know what it costs Leica to manufacture, say, a Noctilux, how do you form a meaningful opinion about what the retail price should be?

[stephen_w.]

Supply and demand was never a mechanism for luxury goods, as they are not a commodity.

[Jim_Tardio]

They would sell a lot more lenses if they sold the M8 for $3000.00.