how can a R2 be so much cheaper

[frank_bunnik]

A few posts here read that the Voigtlander R2 is (going to be) a very nice camera, selling for about US$ 500,00. Sure, it has a smaller rangefinder, equivalent of the CL, but it is all metal and has almost the same specs as an M6, even a better synch. speed and some wrote that the viewfinder is even brighter than that of the M6/7.

 

<p>

 

I was always told that the rangefinder itself is the most expensive part of any M camera. How is it possible than that this camera can be sold for about a quarter to a fifth of the Leica price? Just a better production method? Not producing for a collectors market? Not keeping the price artificially high just to keep up with some myth? Just aiming at selling a lot of cameras and therefore more production, thus a possible lower price?

 

<p>

 

Frank

[Niels - NHSN]

Frank,<br>

First, if you hold the two products in your hands, I am sure you will

see and feel a diffence.<br>

Second, I work in a company which makes quality products, and I can

assure you that only a marginal improvement in quality translates

into a significant increase in production costs.<br>

Get the one that gives _you_ the most value for your money.<br>

cheers.

[kristian dowling]

Leica's pricing strategy could be a reflection of many things.

Myth, cost-plus pricing, price skimming, etc. No one could tell

you for sure. But supposodly, Leica still do some the M6/M7

production by hand, but not much.

 

<p>

 

I believe that due to their smaller productions lines, Leica needs

to increase prices to the maximum they believe consumers are

willing to pay (price skimming) in order to reflect their costs an

maintain enough $$$ to invest in R&D (ha!).

 

<p>

 

And they've been getting away with charging such high prices for

so long, that they are only pricing according to the market's

expectations, which if met or exceeded will bring good

business...as it obviously is.

 

<p>

 

If the market becomes saturated with substitute products such

as VC's R2, then we may see a drop in price. Although a drop in

price changes our expectations, and could possibly lead to

consumers perceptions of the product declining in value. Market

positioning of a product can be a very expensive process to most

companies, but Leica have achieved it through early innovations

and famous photographers using their cameras. They're not

about to just give it up but heavily reducing their prices.

 

<p>

 

Lastly, another way the M6/M7's price could drop is if the product

life cylcle becomes shorter than expected (due to various

competitive reasons/digital etc), and prices are reduced to clear

the product. Well if the success is going to be anythijng like the

life cycle of the M6, it would appear that a heavy reduction in price

is only a dream or miracle away.

[mostly sports]

Bear in mind that the price of a Leica includes maintaining a service

department that supports product for fifty years. Many companies drop

support after ten years. Also, the product is regularly discounted by

rebates and "Leica Days," where the dealers give a 10% discount on top

of the rebates. The quality of a Leica runs deep. Shutter, advance

gears, and so on are designed to give a lifetime of service. I'm sure

a hard user will wear out several R2s (enjoying less reliable service

in the meantime) while the M6 keeps going. But the R2 is a great

option. I'm sure you get the advantage of a production set up with

modern methods, automation, computer guided milling, etc. Leitz is

notoriously stodgey and conservative. The M7 shutter reminds me of

where Nikon was twenty-five years ago.

[carlin]

Also, a lot of Japanese

companies

like Cosina operate with other

companies 'under their

umbrella.' Many small machine

shops and manufacturers of

optical and mechanical parts

bid against each other for

contracts. Even if designed by

Cosina, the rangefinder would

probably be made of parts from

several of these small

companies. From what I've

read here and elsewhere, it

seems Leica keeps most of their

production 'in house.'

[bobtodrick]

One just has to look at the year-end statements of Leica for the last

few years to realize that they aren't artificially inflating the

costs. A lot of companies would have pulled the plug long ago with

the kind of profits Leica has. I agree completely that with any

product it gets to a point where any increase in quality has a hefty

price increase. Think of anything that you equate with hand built

quality. Will a Mercedes or Ferrari really get you there any better

than a Ford Escort? Does a Rolex tell better time than a Timex? In

a utilitarian sense we are all crazy here to buy Leicas, but for

whatever reason, if you want that little bit of extra 'oomph' you

gots to pay. Also look at it this way. Leica pioneered the modern

rangefinder camera and over 50 years pretty much perfected it. All

Cosina had to do was buy an M6 and copy it. Not much expense in that.

[david_kelly1]

Mostly its just economies of scale with the R2 sharing many parts with

other Cosina products. It's hard to exaggerate what an advantage this

is. Take for example the evenly-matched 180mm 2.8 Apo Leica R lens

and 180mm ED-IF AF Nikkor. This is not one of those cases where you

have to stop the Nikkor down to get it into the same ballpark as the

Leica; or where the Nikkor is harsh and too contrasty compared to the

delicate tonalities of the german product, etc. Instead both are

veritable dream lenses, there is nothing to distinguish their slides

or negatives on the light table. Yet today's price for the Leica lens

at B&H is $3,295 vs $734.95 for the Nikkor -or $589.95 grey market!

That's because, as Phillip Greenspun has pointed out elsewhere, the

Nikon lens is being mass-produced for a large professional market;

whereas Leica is making a few dozen each year most destined for

wealthy amateur

[allison_reese]

It's just another boy toy following in the same vain attempt to

emulate your heros by buying what they use(d): the ball/clubs which

Tiger uses; the bat/glove Bonds uses; the reel/rod you saw on TV; the

tools my mechanic uses; the camera/lens the "Pro's" use.

 

<p>

 

The cost for incremental quality is called justification and

rationalizing. My M3 is compact, but no lightweight. Just got it

cheap on a recommendation.

[allison_reese]

It's just another boy toy following in the same vain attempt to

emulate your heros by buying what they use(d): the ball/clubs which

Tiger uses; the bat/glove Bonds uses; the reel/rod you saw on TV; the

tools my mechanic uses; the camera/lens the "Pro's" use.

 

<p>

 

The cost for incremental quality is called justification and

rationalizing. My M3 is compact, but no lightweight. Just got it

cheap on a recommendation for class.

[Robin Smith]

Actually many (most?) Canon and Nikon owners are heavily into

equipment and the "boys-with-toys" accusation is just as true with

them too. In some ways Leica is different to this. Nikon and Canon

though have perfected their marketing speak and features to attract

precisely the boys-with-toys approach (ages 16-35), this certainly

accounts for a good deal of their success in the market. To read the

techno-babble in their camera brochures is an education in itself. We

all know it makes virtually no difference to whether you can take a

good shot or not - but by god it sounds good. No wonder Leica cannot

compete in this market!

[bobtodrick]

Actually I find Allisons statement kind of odd. I think most of

what I by is on the recommendation of people I respect, for whatever

reason, though I don't think hero worship plays a large part.

Someone whose recommendation you obviously trusted told you about

the M3, and you bought it. Through interviews I've read, and the

quality of his work, I 'trusted' Ralph Gibson's feelings on the

rangefinder Leica. His opinion I respect - now Superman - he's a

hero ;-)

[gary voth]

David Kelly has it exactly right. I own several Canon EF lenses that

are easily as good as my Leica counterparts (though most Leica users

would forever dispute this). The price/quality equation does not

always hold when comparing the best from Japan with the best from

Gemany.

 

<p>

 

Re. the Bessa: I owned an R and have played with a T (simiar all-

metal top plate as R2) and I can state with certatainty that these

cameras are no Leicas in terms of the quality of materials. They are

more like the mass-market consumer SLRs in feel (which of course is

their heritage). That does NOT make them bad cameras. But in this

case I think you really are getting something for your money when

buying a Leica body.

[eliot]

Frank raises a legitimate question. Why are Leica prices so much

higher than those of CV and do they artificially elevate their

prices?

 

<p>

 

Well for one thing, Leica is a very small company and does not

benefit from economies of scale. Cosina generates much of their

revenues from making inexpensive SLR camera bodies and lenses and

doesn't have to worry so much on generating a profit margin on every

single item it makes. Labor costs are still much lower in the Far

East than in Europe (even if much of the production is in Portugal).

Leica has to worry about expensive retirement plans and the like for

its employees too.

 

<p>

 

Having said all that, CV rangefinder lenses are well made but not to

the standard of Leica M lenses. I suspect the same is true for their

cameras. I doubt anyone will mistake a Bess R2 for an M6 or M7 in

terms of build quality. And the rangefinders are NOT nearly

identical. The Leica RF has a much longer baselength (and thus is

more accurate).

 

<p>

 

Bottom line: I'm sure you get better value for money with CV but if

you want Leica, you have to pay.

[zapata_espinoza]

<html>

<body>

<a>It is the manufacturing methods, stupid!

While japanese companies are up to the standards, Leica is pretty much left behind. Someone who prefers a hand-made product over one made by robots - doesn't know.

</body>

</html>