Leica M quality and pricing - don't make me laugh!

[richie chishty]

Dave Doyle:

 

<p>

 

Let's do it! :-)

[bobtodrick]

As a retailer (the largest in Western Canada) I'd like to dispel the

myth that we make huge money off of the poor Leica user. Case in

point, an M6 TTL (new). We pay the Canadian distributor $2800.00 CDN

for each body that I then sell for (to a regular customer) $3150.00, a

markup of 12.5 percent. If you can run a profitable business on that

(one which is a stocking dealer, has a repair facilility plus

knowledgeable staff) have at it. Our profit comes from accessories (I

will make 50 percent on that filter I sell you) and consumables, plus

good markup on used gear. But the myth that I drive home in a

Mercedes made off of the backs of the poor user is just that, a

myth.

[art_karr]

Now, my better sense says to ignore this discussion. Still, my

stupid sense requires some input.:)

 

<p>

 

All of my Leica equipment has always worked. My M3 just broke

[hey, it is 44 y old] and is being repaired. All of the Leica lenses

work and some are near 31 y old. All of my Nikons work, going

back to the F [there was this EL2, but we won't talk about it]. All of

my Nikon lenses work. My Blad stuff has always worked and

continues to work [500CM]. My Deardorff and Linhof still work as

does all of my Mamiya equipment.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, I will return to 35 mm. While I strongly prefer

rangefinders for what I photograph [this is now a hobby and not a

job], I will admit that Leica bodies leave something to be desired.

My ol'F2 has a shutter that is, still, considerably more accurate

than my M6. Neither touch the FE2 or F100. While I am an

adaptive person, I have never grown fond of the M6 finder. Yes,

for the price, Leica could do a much better job. Of course, IMHO,

so could Hasselblad. [the "hassel" isn't in there for nothing]. :)

 

<p>

 

Art

[giles_poilu]

Paul - If I buy a Rolls Royce, I would not expect to have to

undertake a personal pre-delivery 1000 mile test drive. If I buy a

Rolex I shouldn't need to check it keeps time ok for a month. If I

dine out at the Ritz I shouldn't have to eat half the food before I

accept the meal.

 

<p>

 

Leica touts itself as THE premier camera manufacturer. IT should do

the quality control not ME.

 

<p>

 

Bob - I am not 'slagging off' dealers with my comments (and no

personal experience). I have had a disgraceful experience

with 'Classic Camera'. I maintain if a dealer in London reduces his

M TTL new price from the Leica RRP of £1850 to £1450 and still makes

a profit (presumably!) then there is a large profit margin involved.

Rather more than the 12.5% available to Canadian dealers it seems.

[glenn_travis]

I've been told by a very, very reliable source, that Leica "seconds"

are shipped to the uk. Usually, they're never spotted. Mr. Poilu

seems to be a exception to the rule. About ten years ago, I checked a

35mm/f2 that seemed to have graphic in the lenses. And this was at a

very well known Photography Store in New York City. After that, I

learned that all Leica stock was to be closely examed by store

personel before it was given over to a customer. This is one of the

reasons I won't mailed order Leica. But are Leica's still worth the

bother and trouble? You bet!

[paul_chefurka]

Giles, our difference may be one of degree rather than kind. Let's

take your examples one by one:

 

<p>

 

"If I buy a Rolls Royce, I would not expect to have to undertake a

personal pre-delivery 1000 mile test drive."

 

<p>

 

No, you would expect your chauffeur to do it :-)

 

<p>

 

Seriously, every new car purchaser should do a walk-arouund

inspection with the dealer, and should take the car for a 10-mile

test drive before accepting delivery, no matter the price. I

certainly did that when I bought my last vehicle, which is also

German and cost a lot more than a Leica. People are not infallible,

and no QC system will give 100% reliability in shipped goods - at

least not at a price a consumer would accept. And what about

shipping damage?

 

<p>

 

"If I buy a Rolex I shouldn't need to check it keeps time ok for a

month."

 

<p>

 

Oh no? Again, inspect before delivery and test afterwards.

Especially with a Rolex - a mechanical watch that keeps notoriously

bad time compared to a quartz watch, checking the accuracy is only

prudent. After all, even if it has its COSC certification from the

factory, what about shipping damage?

 

<p>

 

"If I dine out at the Ritz I shouldn't have to eat half the food

before I accept the meal."

 

<p>

 

No, but you will inspect the plate when it's placed before you to

ensure that it's the one you ordered (the waiter might have been

distracted by your dinner partner and given you the wrong one), you

will check that the side dishes are the ones you requested, you will

check that the meat is cooked to the degree you ordered, and if any

of these are wrong, you will send the meal back. This is because all

this stuff is being done by people, and the price if the meal may not

completely obviate human frailty.

 

<p>

 

There are a lot of reasons things are expensive, and the expectation

of perfection does not necessarily attach to the price. Especially

with low-volume items where the QC is done not by machines and

statistical analysis, but by inspection by human beings.

[bobtodrick]

I think (IMO) that there is a misconception as to what your money buys

you in the upper end strata. Cars and watches, as well as cameras

have all been mentioned today. I've owned a few of each in my time

and these are my experiences. I've worn a Rolex for 25 years now and

two summers ago I was given a Samsung quartz watch that keeps way

better time then the Rolex ever did. Did I stop wearing the Rolex -

of course not because as well as telling time it makes a statement.

Another thing - I'll be able to hand my Rolex down to my son in 10

years and know that he can get a lifetime of use from it - I daresay

the same would probably not hold true of the Samsung. Cars. I've

owned a couple of Alfa Romeos, a couple of Volvos and two (I live in

North America) Chevies. The Alfas and Volvos were easily twice the

price of the Chevs, but guess what - they were no more reliable, and

actually cost more - an oil filter for the Alfa was $52.00 as compared

to about $4.95 for the Chev. However I felt a lot better behind the

wheel of my Alfa GTV then I ever did the utilitarian Chev, and that

was definitely worth something. Same with Leica (again IMO). Among

others I regularily (probably 30 roll/month) use a 44 year old IIIg.

Works flawlessly. About every 5 years it gets a CLA. Try that with

anything else. A fact! You cannot get repair parts for a Nikon F4

(introduced in only 1986, a pro camera). Again, like the Rolex you

will probably be able to use your M6 for the next 50 years (or as long

as they continue to make film). Leicas warranty is as good as any on

the market, but it does not say (though many people think it does)

that the product is perfect, will never break down, will make you a

great photographer, or teach your ki

[john15]

Perhaps when peole pay the sort of money that is required to own

Leica M equipment,they would rather deny [in some cases, rather

vehemently] that there could possibly be anything wrong the cameras.

Or that the buyer should employ himself as the final quality control

check or else caveat emptor. The assertion that Leica ships "seconds"

to the UK seems outrageous and downright fraudulent.It really does

seem that Leica QC needs a lot of improvement despite apologists

opinions to the contrary.

[ray_moth]

In my case, I bought a new Leica R8 camera, early this year, which

turns out to have a sticking aperture control ring. Lenses do not

close down to their selected aperture when the shutter is released.

This is a mechanical defect that should have been detected before the

camera left the factory. The little card bearing a QC person's

signature, which came with the R8 and attests to the camera's having

been inspected at various points during its production, is a joke;

all it does is confirm that the inspection was ineffective. For what

it's worth, my R8 was made in Portugal; this isn't important to me

but it tends to go against the theory some people have that

Portuguese-made R8s are freer from defects than German-made R8s.

 

<p>

 

IMHO, a defective product that gets as far as the customer before the

defect is discovered constitutes a serious quality failure. It incurs

additional costs for warranty repairs, it can alienate the customer

and it can damage the reputation of the manufacturer. I've heard

a "rule of thumb" that it costs 5 times as much to repair a defective

product as it would cost to make it right in the first place. Many

manufacturing companies have a zero defects tolerance, for these

reasons. Leica should bear this in mind, because it has a very small

and rather critical share of the market and cannot afford QC

failures.

[nesrani]

Frankly, I think some people are totally obsessed by the cameras

rather than what they do. If you want to spend hours a day inspecting

your toys for marks and defects, you'll find them. If you want a

camera which despite a few imperfections you can totally depend on to

get the job done, buy two of them and go and take the damn pictures.

I can guarantee you won't be worrying about flecks of dust in the

viewfinder when you find something worth photographing. Anything else

is just nitpicking.

 

<p>

 

Sure I'll justify the prices of the viewfinders etc - they do the job

and that's all that matters. £200 (which sounds a bit steep to me,

but still) is thirty or so rolls of E200 + processing. Where's the

problem?

[bobtodrick]

Agree with you completely Rob. As to the person that stated that by

the time a product gets to the end user it should be free of defects

(implying is seems that Leica does a poor job), there would be no

need in this case at all for warranties. Would you buy a camera (or

anything) without a warranty because the manufacturer states that he

has perfect quality control? Probably not.

What is interesting is that a post like this brings out all the

people with complaints, which gives the new user a bad impression.

But statistics (which are fairly reliable) have stated that Leica has

a far higher customer satisfaction rating than most manufacturers.

[john_collier5]

To me this whole thread illustrates just how many of us are

buying into the Leica Mystique. The whole legendary blah blah

thing.

 

<p>

 

Here is a simple test:

 

<p>

 

1) Do you really think that feminine hygiene products make your

female acquaintances as happy as the women on TV seem to

be?

 

<p>

 

2)Do you really think that buying a (watch, car, insurance,

camera, peanut butter) is going to bring you contentment, peace

and wisdom?

 

<p>

 

3) Do you think that the latest cleaning product is going to make

housework fun?

 

<p>

 

5) Do you take performance failures of your possessions

personally?

 

<p>

 

4) Do you really think that a camera makes YOU a better

photographer?

 

<p>

 

If you answered yes to any of the above questions....

[giles_poilu]

BTW despite my comments I LOVE my Leicas. Oh and, I would not be

seen dead driving a Rolls Royce nor with a Rolex dangling off my

wrist!

 

<p>

 

The best advice I can give through many years experiece of

owning/buying/selling and more than anything USING Leicas (!) is when

you find a good one (or lens) NEVER sell it. You will regret it.

[michael_kastner]

The great Mark Twain once said: "Everybody complains about bad weather

but nobody ever does anything about it".

[art_karr]

<b> Do you really think that a camera makes YOU a better

photographer?</b>

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't be much of photographer [better or worse] without a

camera. :)

 

<p>

 

Art

[peter_hughes1]

<i>Do you really think that a camera makes YOU a better photographer?

</i><p>Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. <p>Most people who use

Leica are rich amateurs with little talent who could just as well use

a $100 P&S but who want an ostentatious toy to impress their friends

and make them feel like better photographers than they really are.

The Leica is a part of their upscale consumerist lifestyle�BMW cars,

Rolex watches, custom made golf clubs, handmade suits, etc. However,

it is undeniable that the lenses are magnificent, the ergonomics

superb, and the feeling of confidence it instills priceless. For

those with the talent and sensitivity to appreciate such nuances, the

camera is an asset which can indeed improve one�s photography. For

the rest, well, their spending helps keep Leica in business, and

their constant upgrading feeds the stream of �obsolete� used

equipment reaching the market. In an age of the instant and the

disposable, Leica and Hasselblad are anachronistic dinosaurs which

should have died out long ago. Let us thank the Great Goddess of

Cameras that they haven�t. <p><a

href="http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm">Peter Hughes

Photography</a>

[jay_.]

One lesson I've learned in business is that consumer expectation is

not mitigated by price. People get just as upset when things go

wrong with something inexpensive. It's the amount of inconvenience

that determines the level of aggravation. If I were on a journey far

from home and my only camera body malfunctioned it wouldn't make me

more or less angry if it were a $2000 Leica or a $500 Bessa-R. S**t

happens. Have backups, buy what you'll enjoy using when it works

well, and if it breaks it can be fixed. Leicas have particularly

strong warranties. There are so many more deadly serious things in

life to get unnerved over than a camera.

[douglas k.]

"Most people who use Leicas are rich amateurs with little talent who

could just as well use a $100 P&S but who want an ostentatious toy..."

 

<p>

 

This statement is just indefensible, for two reasons: (1) it is

unlikely that the author has surveyed the tax records and photographs

of enough Leica owners to reasonably conclude that most are rich and

talentless; (2) "talent" is a nebulous concept.

 

<p>

 

You can complain about the income distribution and about specific

income disparities, such as low salaries for artists, teachers, and

nurses alongside high salaries for lawyers, admen, and computer

programmers; but in a market system people who can perform

highly-valued tasks tend to get paid more money -- that is the

incentive for them to acquire the education and skills necessary to

perform those tasks. And once they earn that money, they can spend it

as they wish. That freedom is what induces people to spend money and

time acquiring the education and skills necessary to become, say,

doctors and the like.

[john_collier5]

Do you really think that a camera makes YOU a better

photographer?

 

<p>

 

Look what these people are doing:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.toycamera.org/">

http://www.toycamera.org/</a>

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[john_collier5]

And I almost forgot:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.toycamera.com/">

http://www.toycamera.com/</a>

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[paul_chefurka]

Speaking as a rich amateur with little talent, I have to say that

none of my friends could tell a Leica from a Rollei from a Nikon from

a Holga - unfortunately they just don't seem to care much about

cameras. I was so disappointed when I found out I couldn't impress

their socks off with my new aspheric baubles.

 

<p>

 

So instead of trying to impress them with my Leicas, I decided to

actually take pictures and impress them that way. Unfortunately, my

egregious lack of talent foiled that approach as well. Now I just

show 'em my last bank statement, and that seems to do the trick. It

would work even better if the balance hadn't been so badly depleted

by my purchase of those ridiculous Leicas in the first place.

 

<p>

 

We rich talentless hacks will stop at nothing :-/

[Spearhead]

This is much more fun than the cable comedy channel.

[luther_berry]

Well, I definitely am not rich and probably am not highly talented

as a photographer. But I do appreciate fine quality photographic

equipment and enjoy using it to take pictures for my own pleasure. I

also continually strive to improve my photographic skills.

Am glad I don't have to qualify as a "talented pro" or have someone

else's approval in order to spend my hard earned money for Leica

gear. I'm happy with my choice and that is what matters to me.

[richard_williams3]

Giles, curious about your 'disgraceful' experience with 'The Classic

Camera' in London. Have you have bad service from them, or is it just

the prices you object to? Looking at their ad in the current issue of

AP, the M lens retail prices seem to be pretty much in line with what

they published in their catalogue a couple of months ago. Were they

actually selling any of these items at the (higher) quoted Leica SRPs

to begin with? The M body prices weren't formerly listed, so I can't

make a comparison. Note also that the current 1439 GBP price includes

the Leica cashback rebate (100 GBP?). For the record, I recently

bought a user IIIc body from this shop for little more than what it

would have cost on ebay (with a half case thrown in for free) and

found the service helpful and polite.

[giles_poilu]

Richard - The disgraceful service refers to a lens purchase a while

ago. The lens was clearly faulty on first examination and was sent

back for a refund. This was very curtly refused and when I called to

discuss the matter I was basically told "tough!".

 

<p>

 

I must add I have heard similar reports on this guy from other

customers of his and from other traders. It seems he likes to take

your money and then it's "goodbye". The world of Leica dealers is a

small one. I have dealt with nearly all the other well known Leica

people in the UK who have all been superb, especially Fieldgrass &

Gale, Richard Caplan and especially Hove Cameras.