Who else thinks Leica needs a more affordable camera?

[andrew robertson]

Finally, the R kit.

 

Since, as I detailed above, I need 2 SLR bodies - one for film and one for digital, I will ahve

to take that into account. I will also take into account any motor drives, etc that will bring

the R into the frame rate of the 1v (yeah right!).

 

2 Leica R9 cameras: $5600

 

Motor winder set: $1100

 

DMR: $5950

 

21-35 f/3.5-4.0: $2900

 

Since there's no 28-135 IS, I would go instead with a 28 prime.

 

28 f/2.8: $2500

 

50 f/2: $1200

 

100 f/2.8 Macro: $3400

 

Because the 100 Macro won't reach life size like my Canon, add

 

Elpro 1:1 adapter: $470

 

Leica doesn't offer a 135 lens in the R system, but I like something between 100 and 300,

so add the only prime in that range:

 

180 f/2.8: $4000

 

280 f/4: $5200

 

1.4x TC: $1700

 

2x TC: $2000

 

For a total R system cost of a STAGGERING $36020.

 

I feel that I need each of the lenses I priced out in my kit. So, to replace $13250 of Canon

SLR and Epson / Cosina RF gear with the Leica equivalents I would need $54000 worth of

Leica gear. This doesn't include incidentals.

 

Hardly comparable.

[andrew robertson]

I forgot to add in my P&S.

 

Fuji Natura: $350.

 

Leica CM (although it's not nearly as wide or fast): $1100.

 

Damn. So this little exercise should illustrate that the cost of a workable Leica R and a

complete workable M system, for my needs, is roughly 4x the price.

[andrew robertson]

Larry, the question is why would somebody buy the Leica digital when they can get the

exact same camera with the exact same lens for substantially less from Panasonic? I don't

think their digicams are a big source of profit. They probably do get some for the Leica

(really Leica 'approved' and not even necessarily designed) lens on the Panasonic, but this

isn't a Leica.

 

They have done worse every year for years now, despite having digicams available for quite

some time. That strategy isn't helping them very much.

[andrew robertson]

You see, Peter, I was pricing out Leica systems similar to my Canon systems.

 

I wasn't shopping around for used gear, I was shopping for new gear with a factory

warranty. It doesn't help Leica one bit to shop around for used gear, and this isn't how I

would go for an M system or an R system if I was even remotely interested in the current M/

R lineups.

[simonpg]

Andrew, again at the risk of appearing disagreeable, my view is that you are working off a flawed premise:

 

<<Do you all think that Leica is incapable of producing a quality camera / lens combination for that price point? That's my real question>>:

 

It's not about simple production costs; pricing is about expected forecast sales volumes over a priod of time; recoupment of R&D over time; profitability over time against fluctuations in forecast demand.

 

Certainly no film camera maker can have "optomistic" sales forecasts today.

 

Just look at Canon's and Nikon's top end film SLR body prices and they have (ceteris paribus) far wider volumes over which to recoup manufacturing and R&D investments; they have far higher mass produced electronic components....... blah blah.

 

Do you really think that any manufacturer actually enjoys to raise prices especially in a shrinking market-place?

 

No way - Leica should stick to its knitting.

 

Next someone will suggest that Porsche should make a "people's car"!

[andrew robertson]

Simon, they do. It's called a Boxter.

 

I'm not suggesting that Leica go for the $400 market along with Cosina. I'm suggesting that

they go for the $2000 (camera + 35 / 50 f/2.8 lens) market.

 

As I and many others have pointed out before, their current strategy of raising prices is

steering them away from what should be their focused customer base.

[roger_hicks1]

Yes, I have bought a modest amount of new, officially imported Leica gear in the last 30 years, and I'm absolutely with Mani: amortize it over the decades and you'll see proof of the old adage that quality doesn't cost, it pays.

 

I'm still using the first-ever Leica lens I bought new (35/1.4 last generation pre-aspheric, maybe 20 years ago) and although the current aspheric is better it isn't enough better that I'm willing to change -- and the new lens also a lot bigger and heavier. I'm also still using my 90/2 Summicron of slightly newer vintage -- though I have yo say that I use the new 75/2 a lot more.

 

As for Olds vs. Rolls-Royce, if you're happy with an Olds, stick with an Olds. If you want a Rolls-Royce and can afford it, buy a Rolls-Royce. I'd need to be a lot richer before I considered either, but judging from friends' cars and their experiences with them, I'd buy the Rolls if I could.

 

I can however afford the occasional bit on Leica kit (not least because it is a professional expense for me) and as it gives me great pleasure for many years it strikes me as a very good buy.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[andrew robertson]

Heh. They don't make Oldsmobiles any more. But I wouldn't turn down an even trade Rolls

for Olds!

[lawrence_bochkis]

Porsche didn't make a "people's car," but they did introduce the Boxter, to the great dismay of many hard-core Porsche enthusiasts.

 

And it has saved their rear-ends. And, it is considered "best in class."

 

It is ludicrous to assume that Leica simply can not produce a full-featured M for less than they already do. That they are unwilling to do so is fully possible, and that they don't want to is also possible.

 

But to say that german workers, among the most efficient and skilled in the world, can not produce a competent, competitive product is simply asinine.

 

That the only other alternative would be "watering down" the brand name is also silly. Leica has only recently become a luxury brand...in the past, they were simply a very high quality brand. Granted, in the beginning, they were a luxury company, but that was 70 years ago.

 

In fact, there is an important distinction between a luxury item, and a high quality item. Disregarding other possible definitions for the moment, a luxury item makes a particular experience more sensuous, but performs a task no more admirably than a simple version. A high quality item in contrast, performs its task much better than a low quality item, and its reason for being is to accomplish that task reliably and precisely.

 

As such, a Hermes Edition Leica is possibly luxurious, but a run of the mill MP or M7 is a tool that performs its designated function better than, for example a Bessa R.

 

Anybody familiar with bikes, motorcycles, or any other such field knows that there are a number of very high quality manufacturers, who produce parts often by hand, to very high tolerances, and charge fair prices to keep up with their competition.

 

Nobody is advocating for Leica to become Vivitar, rather we are suggesting that to save the sinking ship, there must be some way to plug the gaping hole in the bow.

 

This discussion would be all academic if Leica were a healthy, going concern; unfortunately, they are as many people can recognize, at the end of their ropes. They are getting further and further in debt, and since a couple of years ago when they were profitable, serious competitors have emerged to take away their already drastically diminishing market.

 

Let's suppose for the moment that not that many people buy the digital M? I can't imagine for a moment that Epson, Cosina and Zeiss will simply stand by and let their products be usurped with noresponse. I also can't imagine that they are keeping close tabs on what Leica will be able to produce, and will be doing their best to equal or best it. Collectors are sure to buy a digi-m or two just for the novelty of it, but if people can get a reliable, high quality digital rangefinder from somebody else, they will do it.

 

Likewise, if Leica doesn't update their DMR soon, all those people who insist, swearing on their heart that the DMR is the best DSLR in the world will have to eat their shorts.

 

There has to be a meaningful way to cut costs and spur demand for their products, other than making crappy products. For example, is it really necessary to spend $100 to make a shutter speed dial? Is it that much better than a CNC machined speed dial made from magnesium, that would cost on the order of $2-3 and would be to the exact same tolerance?

 

Part of the problem in this discussion, and discussions like it is that there are no people that really know the truth about Leica's financial situations and plans....sometimes an "insider" or two pops out of the woodwork, but their comments are inevitably somewhat empty, and not backed up by any specifics.

 

Why would an M that costs less not be an M? I've touched the M, I've held the M, I've photographed with the M. Although I have yet to own one, I know that although they are lovely cameras, much of their loveliness comes from their spartan nature....they are a strange thing to call a luxury product. Since I have had the opportunity to use several M's over the years, I can say with some little authority that an M body is realistically no more sensuous to use than, for example a Hasselblad, a Nikon F5 or even the humble (but excellent) Canon 1V. The beauty of the Leica comes from its simplicity, and good design...it is not therefore a luxury item, at least inherently.

 

I picked up a Nikon F yesterday that I had lieing around the house, and I marvelled at its ingenuity. Although it may not have quite as close of tolerances as the Leica, it accomplishes its task very admirably, and the damn thing is decades old!

 

Except for the meter, modern Leicas have essentially nothing that an original F didn't have in terms of technology...to manufacture something that would accomplish the task admirably, and put more Leicas in the hands of photographers would do more for the brand than any amount of exclusivity imaginable. Nikon has a very storied name, and they not only produce high end film cameras and lenses, but also point and shoots. (so does Leica)

 

I say these things not just from the perspective of some foolish debutante, rather as the son of a long family of musicians. I myself am a sculptor. I have touched and felt the most finely crafted things in the history of mankind, and I know that a Stradivarius or a Guarneri is not a luxury product, but rather a tremendously fine instrument.

 

Leica's are not Strads, for the simple reason that Strads were individually hand-crafted by the most skilled artisans in history, and they represented the culmination of all artistic and scientific knowledge of what it was to make a violin at the time. Modern Leicas on the other hand are mass-produced in Portugal, with tooling that is decades old, by artisans trained to do the task by people who were trained to do the task, by people who were not considered "masters" at what they did.

 

There are only very few cameras these days that can claim to be "hand-crafted," and those are largely large-format cameras and Alpas. Leica's claim to exclusivity is artificial, and is destroying the company by not allowing their products to sell well.

 

Few camera shops sell the things anymore, because of Leica's antiquated dealer requirements and high prices...dealers simply can not get rid of the Leicas they have. As a result of poor sales, Leica has created an illusion of exclusivity that is artificial. Nobody in their right mind could say that Leica mad a choice to not sell more cameras than they have...it was a result of astute competition that they went from being a dominant company, to a small, dieing company.

 

Perhaps a real issue at work here among some of you is that you would like to possess an exclusive item? Perhaps people like me are simply not good enough to own a Leica, and are more fit to bottom feed with the Nikon and Canon crowd?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Maybe Leica should die - they are not very innovative. They've had 50 years to figure out how to make the same mechanical cameras more efficiently. The fact that the cameras are the same price, in real terms, as they were in the 1950's, shows that they can't cut it.

 

Leica has missed almost every major movement in the marketplace. They were late getting SLR's to the market. Late adding meters to their cameras. Late in doing anything digital. Autofocus? Not! Unless you buy a Leicasonic. High shutter speeds? No. Elctronic shutters (greater accuracy, even though traditionalist will balk)? No again.

 

Leica is a follower, not an leader. Granted, you get old world craftmanship. But that's not going to carry them into this century - unless they find a way to move manufaturing to lower-cost countries and still find a way to keep quality high. But even that will condemn them to a rapidly shrinking niche market.

 

Leica isn't going to innovate their way out of this mess. That's not what Leica does.

 

Best options? Sell Leica to Panasonic. Then there is at least a chance that the superb Leica lens designs will live on (and be produced in high enough volumes to be affordable). And kill the film cameras - all of the Leica affectionados buy used anyway.

 

Robert

[rj]

Andrew, value is as subjective as affordability, so the argument is the same.

 

I bought a new leica motor m and a 1.25 finder recently, warranty and all. The motor is a blast to use on my used leica m6ttl, too bad it doesn't work with my used m3. I am currently saving up (by selling other gear I don't use) and going to buy a 35mm chrome summicron new. Its my damned money and I can do with it as I please and I certainly don't have to justify the expenditure to anyone but myself and my wife. After years of using it I won't think of how much I paid for it anyway. BTW, I drive used cars for under 5 grand and fix them myselves so I can afford other things in life.

[raymond_tai]

Leicas are expensive because of high labor costs in Germany. Did you know a German

women can take a long term maternity leave and even after three years the company by law

is obligated to have the same job waiting for her? European socialism is much to blame

here. Surely Leica can automate the process and outsource like Daimler Chysler and VW.

The best bet though is to do what Zeiss is doing and find a Japanese partner.

[roger_hicks1]

Robert -- that's what it costs to make a Leica M, so it's no surprise that the price has remained roughly constant. In those 50 years the cost of skilled labour has risen dramatically, so there HAVE been economies.

 

Compare it with a BMW motorcycle: much better designed than 50 years ago, but not as well made. There's not a lot you can change in an M and still leave it as an M.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Everyone on the planet has been designing labor out of products. HP printers, for example, are much easier to assemble than laser printers of 10 years ago. and a dell Computer contains about 12 minutes of assembly labor.

 

The problem is that an M6 is still an M6.

 

Robert

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Let me rephrase that - it's fine to keep the M6 or M7 in the lineup as there is still some demand at the required price point. But the cameras needed to evolve into something that can be manufactured at lower cost. Leica should have been developing their own Cosina Bessa line 10-15 years ago (although to higher build and quality standards to fit the brand image).

 

Manufaturing can survive in high labor countries - you just need to be very efficient and produce exceptional quality.

 

All businesses must generate enough profits to reinvest in the product line. Leica can't do that by selling super-priced cameras. They need enough volume to generate cash to fund R&D and to pay investors.

 

I'd hate to see the brand disappear. But I don't see how they can keep on the current path and expect to survive.

 

Robert

[andrew robertson]

Simon, why is Zeiss bothering with the Zeiss-Ikon if they don't expect it to sell?

 

Peter, I have said that Leica lenses are very good. Not always unsurpassed, but usually

very very good and sometimes unsurpassed. But they carry price tags that are much

higher than competitors that perform just as ably (or so close that one might need an

optical bench to detect any differences). 'Noted Leica expert' (as his name is always

preceded) Erwin Puts marvels at the equal level of quality apparent in the new Zeiss M

lenses, for 1/2 or even 1/3rd the cost of the Leica competition, and he's an admitted Leica

fanboy. The aspherical elements are not lovingly hand ground by Germans with high

magnification monocles, they are pressed by Hoya in Japan. The other glass is bought at

commodity prices from whoever can offer the lowest bid, be it Schott or Hoya or whoever.

The assembly per lens probably doesn't consume more than a half dozen hours for even

the most complex design, and I would be surprised if it took more than an hour for the

easier designs.

 

Raymond, Leicas are mass produced in Portugal, where wages are among the lowest in

western Europe. The amount of German labor is probably inconsequential to the price -

slapping the red dot on and folding the box over doesn't even really demand extremely

skilled German labor.

 

I have a feeling that a lot of the price of a Leica isn't parts and labor, it's an attempt to

provide an unrealistic profit margin per item, a bilge pump if you will, for the sinking ship.

 

Even those of you who believe that a Leica should continue raising their prices must admit

that eventually they will be out of reach of everyone except the Sultan of Brunei and other

such luminaries. I'm pretty sure that, even though there are many well off photo.net

members, none of us are quite that well off.

[colin_elliott]

There was a special Leica M6 produced for the Sultan of Brunei.

He doesn't need to buy one.

 

"Who else thinks Leica needs a more affordable camera"

 

When I bought my new Leicaflex SL it cost me $625. This was 10% of my salary.

When I bought my new M6,for $2800 it was only 3.5% of my salary

Now that I'm retired, a new MP still only represents 6% of my pension.

 

We already have more affordable Leicas!!

[roger_hicks1]

Robert,

 

Yes, an M is still an M -- and that was my point. 'Design out the labour' and you have a very different product. A far bigger problem than an M being an M would be if it WEREN'T an M.

 

I'm with Ben on the internet sales -- I canvassed a similar idea for the Ernst Leica in my AP piece, though I proposed camera shows/mail order instead of internet. On the other hand I fear that for some people, being grovelled to when they buy a new Leica may be part of the pleasure of buying one.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[andrew robertson]

If you could design out a large portion of the labor, and end up with an identical item, how

would it be different?

[._._z]

You miss the most important point: if Leicas were made more affordable, the riffraffish,

dirty-fingered hoi polloi would be able to own them.

 

Then the snobs and dentists would have to find another camera.

[shiver_me_timbrrrre]

Andrew Robertson : "If you could design out a large portion of the labor, and end up with an identical item, how would it be different?"

 

It would say 'Made in India' or 'Made in China' or 'Made in the Ukraine'. Would that be different enough?

[Allen Herbert]

more affordable, the riffraffish, dirty-fingered hoi polloi would be able to own them.

 

I'm sure they can afford a secondhand M6,Z. Unfortunatily,as you are aware, they are spending all their cash upgrading to the latest DSLR every 6/12 months

 

It's a habit Z which you and they need to get undercontrol.

 

Buying the lastest Leica or DSLR will not improve your photography.However, it will give you the buying buzz,and for some a feeling of being a member of the superior elite.

 

Concentrate on your photography ,Z,cast aside those fleeting moments of illusion.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> It's a habit Z which you and they need to get undercontrol.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Allen thinks he knows what I spend my money on? I didn't realize that booze makes him

psychic.

 

Allen needs to getaspellchecker.

[Allen Herbert]

It's a habit Z that you and they need to get under control.

Allen thinks he knows what I spend my money on? I didn't realize that booze makes him psychic. Allen needs to get a spellchecker.

 

Okay, under control. My, my Z has become the voice of the riff raffish, dirty-fingered hoi polloi.

 

Bet he only drinks tea and sticks he?s little finger out.

 

The so-called voice of the riff raffish often do. Bet his some rich knob?bet he is.

[Allen Herbert]

Bet Z has got a big Zoom.....a big white one so everyone can see it?bet he has.

 

Bet he wears white socks.....bet he does.

 

Bet he has got a 18 million pixel camera....bet he has.

 

Bet he wears a white vest.....bet he does.

 

Bet he has counted all the pixels just to make sure.....bet he has.

 

Thanks for fun, Z;) all in good humour,Bailey.