Price vs. Cost of Leica

[frank granovski]

A camera system should cost no more than 1/4 of your yearly income. That's why I bought a Yashica Electro GSN for $10. <img src="http://www.8palm.com/wink.gif"> And don't forget, the best things in life are free if you don't shoot for that perfect 10.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Very interesting considerations Scott

 

But they should be somewhat tempered

 

You wrote:

 

>> 1. You just pay an arm and a leg to buy stuff touched extensively by human hands, particularly skilled ones. <<

 

I think you're wrong in considering human hands are still the top notch in terms of accuracy and regularity of work... It was true until the computer controlled fully automatized complexe assembly processses appeared. Today the best precision work and the most regular one is otained through this kind of machinery, not hand working. It implies a major investment but really pays in the end both in terms of quality, precision and highly accurate mass production. Leica didn't substantially modernized its production process in time.

 

>> 2. I marvel at the technology in my D70, but that said, alot of "new technology" in cameras seems to be Chinese (or Thai, etc.) workers working at slave wages, lots and lots of plastic and designs that accomodate loose tolerances. <<

 

There is absolutely no "loose tolerances" in an integrated circuit and high precision soldering machines do exist... You cannot compare a D 70 camera to a high end professional camera. Plastic is a name covering a considerable variety of materials, some are really on the cheap side, some are really of exceptional quality with better mechanical properties and more built-in durability than many metals. Another material category is composites, not singnificantly cheaper than metals but used on high end products like jet airplanes. Whatsoever, even a metallic material is able to be processed with entirely automatized tools with an unbelievable degree of precision.

 

>> AF is cool, but want manual focus smooth as butter? <<

 

I don't think AF is cool on anything but fast long tele-lens. You obtain faster and generally more predictable results using the old DOF scale technique and when it goes to full aperture focusing there is nothing like a rangefinder to reach maximum precision, even on dark and faintly contrasted subject, whilst keeping maximum discretion... AF is probably the less suitable feature between the modern ones fitted to SLR's to be trnsferred on a "21st century" small format rangefinder.

 

>> 6. Don't get me wrong. I actually wish Leica would produce an inexpensive polycarb body, feature rich, motorwind, electronic RF camera. I just don't fault Leica for producing their lovely, expensive traditional M bodies. <<

 

Sorry but my point is not a "cheap body" (it already exists, it is called a Bessa R) by itself, but a body which at least justify its price by very useful and relevant to the concept modern technological features. You have to remember you must pay the equivalent of a Nikon F6 body to get a Leica M7. The question is how you can properly tranfer what is relevant of this SLR technological feature to a modern high end rangefinder.

 

The shutter: The silence brought by the cloth shutter still in use on the M's should be compared to the additional noise a metallic (or composite) shutter makes WHEN PROPERLY MUFFLED ON PURPOSE... I don't think the Bessa's shutter had received any kind of treatment to muffle its noise and my Hexar RF shutter noise (proper) is hard to realize as the film is only wound up by the power of an electrical motor. Let's see what they will obtain with the Zeiss Ikon shutter... But what is certain is the cloth shutter option precludes high speeds and, even more important, precludes high synch speed.

 

Loading: I'm sorry to disagree with you, from personal experience an M is not really difficult to load in a quiet situation, but it is fundamentally a PJ tool and for having been complied to reload an M into some hectic situations like during a police charge on demonstrators, keeping the baseplate in your mouth not to lose it whilst reloading and protecting yourself from the crowd movements is not exactly the easiest task to perform nor the fastest way... With a Hexar RF you just drop properly the cartridge into its place somewhat pull the film, close the backdoor and you get the camera ready to shoot the first frame.

 

Exposure: Again, I don't refer to quiet subjects, when you have all the time needed to proceed. To capture the decisive moment it is better to cocnentrate on the subject and frame it as for the definitive shot, just having to trigger the shutter when the movement or the expression of the subject is convenient. This might occur under fast changing light... So neither the manual, nor the AE- AE lock methods are the best. Again from my personal experience this time with a cumbersome Nikon F4 the matrix metering is the best mode. Not to mention when you have to conceal your camera to get THE required shot with a short focal length: DOF method to be in focus without even pointing the camera to the subject and again matrix metering to expose your picture correctly with 95% chance to get it exploitable or when it is only practicable to take the picture over the heads of a crowd surrounding your subject by extending your arms above without really framing... And when it goes to more relaxed subjects you want to give the best possible "artisitic exposure" nothing equals the manual mode with a true spot meter. What is not realy needed are all the cross modes and programs the new SLR's are loaded with.

 

A high speed motor (and faster it can be as there is no latency due to a mirror) is also a suitable accessory. But it should remain an accessory (not like the relatively slow one of a Hexar RF) to allow for a really silent mode by removing it and relying on the old manual advance lever and retain maximum compactness when its use is not needed.

 

The finder: It is quite intolerable some modern M finders are so prone to flare because of a modification aimed at diminishing their cost!... and what about a variable enlargement factor finder? Why should we have to buy more than a camera body to obtain the factor we need which is different according to the focal length used and the maximum aperrture of the lens?... Again a feature a 21st century rangefidner should have.

 

Even if a rangefidner like the one I summarily describe the technological features above was priced the same as a present M7, I think it would be fully marketable today as you will get what you can expect for your money. This is certainly what precludes most potential customers to buy a new Leica M today, at least REAL USERS... Moreover (and it is all Leica's problem today) when they can buy the technological equivalent of an M7 (and even somewhat better in some aspects) for almost half the price of the M.

 

Fran�ois P. WEILL

[steve_york1]

Yes, Leicas have always been expensive. But they are a good value when measured over their entire useful life. What is different now from then is the film industry -- will film be available; what processing materials will be avialable; for those who don't process out own film, will good processing be available; will advances in digital technology outpace film quality, ect. It is these questions which make investing in a Leica film based system today somewhat disconserting.

[al_kaplan1]

Leica is marketing to the wrong crowd. I was talking to a couple of college kids a few nights back outside in the patio at Starbucks where smoking is allowed ~ yes, a surprising number of young folks still buy cigarettes ~ and one of them was telling me about how he got overcome by temptation and ran up his credit card by purchasing "a really cool looking set of rims" for his car for nearly $2,500, which was more than he'd paid for the used car. He'd already spent a fortune installing a sound system.

 

Any ideas about how Leica can covince a twenty year old that carrying an M Leica is "cool"? How a set of the latest aspheric glass will drive the chicks crazy? Or at least get the other guys jealous with envy? Some of them already have Al Kaplan T-shirts. Maybe I'll stick my 15 on one of my M bodies and start bragging about how "my camera cost more that a set of rims".

[dennis_couvillion]

"Any ideas about how Leica can covince a twenty year old that carrying an M Leica is "cool"?"

 

Al, to quote a well-known colloquial expression, you are "p*ssing into the wind" with that idea. ;>) (Sorry for the vulgarity, Tony...) The average twenty year-old who buys $2,500 rims for his Hyundai is not going to be of the temperament to buy or use an expensive old-school camera that makes him think and work to make pics. He can buy an inexpensive digicam, or even a cell phone cam, that gives him immediate gratification at a fraction of the cost. The average kid ain't gonna spend hours in the darkroom either.

 

With that said, I am surprised some times at the darkroom where I print to see young people learning how to develop and print film. But these kids aren't the of the $2,500-rims crowd. Some of them ride bicycles. :>)

[scott_mcloughlin]

Francois,

 

I don't think we are so apart as you may think, except maybe on the loading :-)

 

When I spoke of a "inexpensive, polycarb, feature laden" RF camera, I meant something much as you describe.

 

Inexpensive, not "cheap." Just in line with Nikon, Canon, Oly's, etc. value proposition.

 

I actually have an R in addition to my 2 M6TTL's, and while I admire its virtues (cheap, brighter VF than my M6's), it's not exactly what I have in mind :-)

 

"Feature laden" was just a stand in for modern metering (spot, CW and matrix, although I've heard matrix might be difficult on an M mount RF camera), a truly first class flash system (I like my Nikon's flash system), motor wind, self timer, variable magnification VF, some whether/dust sealing and so on.

 

And I'd prefer this in a body a little smaller than an M6/7/P and with some subtle but effective front/back grip contours.

 

 

 

If you search here or on CVUG or the LUG, you'll see my rants arguing for a "fully modern" M mount RF camera. In the production of such a camera, yes, modern factory automation should do the trick. I've advocated that Leica simply be acquired outright by a Japanese firm that has the electronics and manufacturing prowess already in house.

 

In spite of my "modern RF lust", I just still think there's room in the world for the mostly hand assembled M bodies. Goes with my all mechanical self-winding watch :-)

 

As for popularity, almost anything can be made popular. Yes, "kids" spend tons of money, whether on cars or deluxe stereo gear or $450 pairs of Italian boots or skis or $3K tricked out "Gamer" computers.

 

Retro can be cool too. I shoot B&W film in my M6's, and my extended family thinks this is really "cool" in a retro kind of way. I just turned a digicam weilding buddy of mine onto retro B&W shooting for his beloved jazz gigs using a loverly, cheap Nikon FE2. He just loves it, and lovely results too.

 

I have a "middle class" background, and yes, digicams are popular among my family and friends. But my bro', g'friend, several college buddies and friend and the like have all gone through a period of hobbyist B&W shooting.

 

Leica isn't even trying. Sometimes I think, "Leica - Prisoner of the LHSA." Not true, but the fondlers and collectors get too much air time for for a company that needs a new generation of shooters.

 

Leica reach out!

 

The affordable "fully modern" camera body I imagine would sell quite nicely to a new generation of shooter IF marketed.

 

In addition, for the retro crowd, I'd promote a Leica program to scarf up old M bodies and lenses, CLA the damn things and sell them nice and cheap in a body/lens kit. For the M3/M2/M4 bodies, either retrofit them with a meter or sell a little "red dotted" plastic Sekonic meter with it.

 

Sell 'em on the web and through dealers. Sell mailers for slide and B&W and C41 film processing (partner with Ophoto and Fuji and what not). Hell, sell some rebadged Fuji films on the web at a little discount to B&H.

 

"One man, one camera, one lens." It's kind of macho :-)

 

I just wish Leica would TRY. A man can dream.

 

Scott

[andy m.]

<i>...With that said, I am surprised some times at the darkroom where I print to see young people learning how to develop and print film...</i><p>

 

Yup, the darkroom I use is part of a University photographic society.

It is consistently used- always by young people- all of whom could presumably use digital. Some of this will be driven by the lower initial investment compared required to get into decent quality film photography, but much, I suspect, is drived by the magic of watching an image develop under the safelight ;-)

[al_kaplan1]

And if there are any young (or not so young) people reading this that live in North Miami-Dade/South Broward counties (Florida)who'd like to give the darkroom a try I have a pretty decent set-up. Email me at preacherpop42 (at) aol (dot) com.

[peter]

I ran the values through another price /inflation calculator and it arrived at a similar value in today's dollars. In a sense this does not surprise me. In the 1970s for example, a fairly basic SLR camera like a Pentax Spotmatic cost a small fortune, but over the next few decades advanced design and manufacturing techniques including the use of computer controlled machinery and the use of more advanced synthetic materials (eg plastics in place of metals) has substantially reduced the real cost of cameras. The same might be said for cars, and all sorts of whitegoods etc. But it seems especially marked with cameras where the use of electronic components has also had a major impact. The simple fact is that older style mechanical cameras were expensive and labour intensive to build, even if a company did not aspire to Leica standards of build quality. Remember too, the Leica of that era was a top notch pro machine, equivalent to todays top notch pro SLRS, which can also easily cost several thousand dollars to buy.

[les_lammers]

*In the 1970s for example, a fairly basic SLR camera like a Pentax Spotmatic cost a small fortune*

 

I paid $200 in 1972 for a Spotmatic II w/ 50 f1.4 at a Navy Exchange.

It was a months pay at the time.