Leica M9 why so much ?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Leica is an effective monopoly in that no one else sells rangefinders that that tiny market believes are of comparable quality."</p>

<p>Leica sells into a small niche of the photographic market. It is not a monopoly because there are similar technologies that produce comparable results. As I said before - buy a DSLR if you don't like the price of the M9 (or buy a used M8). And hope that Leica is wildly successful and then wait other players to release digital rangefinders.</p>

[william_george1]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5329746">W.A. Gerrard</a> , Sep 11, 2009; 05:31 p.m.<br>

...Captialism is not a game wherein the rich and the few get to see how much they can gouge the rest of us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you missed that entire Enron incident.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>It's got to hurt before you can call it a Leica.</p>

[w.a._gerrard1]

<p>Robert: Leica is an effective monopoly. The availability of cameras from Cosina and Zeiss does mean it is not an absolute monopoly. But, the Leica brand and reputation are strong enough to offset that. And, I'm not complaining about the price of the M9 and I don't want a DLSR, thank you. I'm arguing that Leica can, as a practical matter, determine prices without being influenced by the classical free market model.<br>

William: Enron was an example of the kind of criminality that is inevitable in a market when sellers are allowed to grow until one or a few assume a dominant role. Deosn't need to be a capitalist market, either. Corruption and criminality were rife in the Soviet Union, especially in its later years.</p>

[berg_na]

<blockquote>

<p>so I was pleasantly surprised by the $7K price!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. The M9 is actually very appropriately priced, the prices for the Leica lenses are a different story though...</p>

[markci]

<p>*** I guess you missed that entire Enron incident. ***<br>

Yeah, and the Wall Street bailouts of last year as well.  Hilarious.</p>

[max cooper]

<p><a href="http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2009/09/leica-m9.html">Just my opinion</a> , for which I've already been called all sorts of names. I'm fine with Leica folks spending their cash on such a camera. I just hope it doesn't cloud their vision. And for the record, I followed the "most active threads" link on the front page of pnet, I'm not trolling and don't wish to start a fight.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Look at it another way. Its less than half the price of an S2. Despite some people still persisting in thinking that MP count is an indicator of picture quality, preliminary reports of the M9's sensor performance are suggesting that this Kodak sensor, along with the bigger one in the S2 are going to create a whole new paradigm in digital photography. If the Kodak sensors concerned are, as is being suggested, scaled down versions of the P65 back Kodak sensor, then we are all in for a treat.</p>

<p>For serious portrait studio and location photographers who think nothing of spending up to $80,000 for the best kit, the S2 represents phenomenal value and the M9, as its smaller brother, will walk out the door.</p>

<p>But we will have to wait for the reports from the pixel peepers to know for sure. We know who the top four website authors/editors/pro photographers are, don't we? Three of them are on the record as having ordered an M9 for their own personal use.</p>

<p>Whatever happens or is said, this represents a turning point, and based on image quality, a clear division now exists between pro and prosumer digital photography. It will place enormous pressure on Canon/Nikon/Sony at the pro level, and that's nothing but goodness. Apparently it also partly accounts for Canons rumoured decision to possibly delay the 1DsMk3's replacement until 2010.</p>

<p>The other issue to muddy the waters, and this partly due to the M9/S2 resolving capability, are lenses.<br>

We are already seeing images from the Canon 5DMk2 showing up some deficiencies in previously thought, brilliant, L lenses. I expect the same is happening with Nikons D3x. Its not something that would impact even an average pro level photographer, but it would possibly imapact a fine art photographer who charges $3000 for a mounted print.<br>

Still, manufacturers hang their hats on their pro lenses as much as anything. So there is now considerable pressure on the C/N/S guys to refresh their lens lineup and take them to a level closer to Leica and Zeiss. That will be difficult as these latter manufacturers still do their best stuff by hand.</p>

<p>Interesting times indeed.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Because they can.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>Riley hits spot on. Leicas and other luxuries cost what people will pay. It´s that simple. Goes for most other stuff as well by the way.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"Because it has a computer attached. Film Ms cost only a third as much."</p>

<p>Leica M7 $4400.</p>

<p>Leica M9 $6800.</p>

<p> </p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Even though I'll be the first one to rag on the costs of Leica lenses (they are undoubtedly great lenses, but the premium is a bit extreme I think), I can't really say that the M9 is too expensive given the cost of say a D3x. Clearly people are willing to pay that much and seeing that it's also a Leica, well, it's frankly downright cheap.</p>

<p>That said, putting that much money into a camera seems more than a bit extreme, unless I suppose you can justify it at a professional level. Given the many out there who are having a hard time even keeping food on the table, there even seems something a little prurient about it.</p>

<p>But I'm typing this on my expensive laptop, from a nice house, with a number of good cameras, and decidedly no issue putting food on the table, so I shouldn't talk...</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>German labour is expensive. Remember they dont have Chevys, its all Mercedes Benz or BMW.</p>

[canfred]

<p>Paul , unrelated it is but I would swap my E270 with a Chevy in an instant. The most unreliable car I ever owned perhaps on account of high labour cost and cost saving?</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Beemers are cheap in Germany. I've had them, Benz's, Subaru's, Toyotas, Volvo's. What am I driving atm? A 1966 Ford Falcon ute with a standard 302 V8 and auto. Its a bit crude, but like, a new gearbox is $350. A rec engine is $800. A whole new rear axle incl lsd is $1000. The last service I had done of the Subaru cost me $2500. The Ford? $100.<br>

Awesome value for money. Paid $1995 new for it. Its worth $12000 now. A new Ford ute with the same motor except for all the EFI stuff is $45000. Forget it.<br>

My next camera will be an M3 SS. I can get one including a Summicron 50 f2 for less than the price of a new D90. No meter? Who cares. Meters are for sissies.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>So does that mean a new Leica one bought 70 years ago was bought with less number of weeks wages than today?<br>

During my entire lifetime a new Leica was never low in cost; thus my take is when somebody is surprised a Leica is expensive; it marks them as new to photography.<br>

If somebody "discovers" a BMW costs more than a Ford; it marks them new to cars.<br>

If they "discover" that a Milwaulkie saw costs more than a Roybi; one might assume they are new to home building.<br>

In actual dollars; my 1973 Nikkormat FTn with 50mm F1.4 SC cost 301 buck by mailorder; deep discount; that when gas cost about 50 cents; today that camera is like 600 gallons of gasoline say 1500 bucks.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>Expensive is a relative term. If you want to go to an amusement park you have to buy a ticket. I would like an M9 but can't afford the price of admission. No big deal.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Look at the price of a new M7 (film) and the M9's predecessors (M8 and M8.2), and you're paying around a $1000 premium for the "convenience" of shooting full frame 35mm digital. When you take into account the size and weight advantages of the M9, $7000 doesn't seem, IMHO, that high a price to pay.<br>

<br /> I love film, don't get me wrong, but if I had to buy a 35mm digital tomorrow I would pick the M9. Why? Leica "gets it" now with digital. They did something which every camera manufacturer should have done years ago - remove the AA filter.<br>

<br /> Moire was an issue with low resolution cameras in digital's infancy, but not anymore. Unless you plan on only shooting fabric/textiles as high magnifications, all the AA filter does is soften your images, which you then have to re-sharpen!<br>

<br /> Canon and Nikon (and Sony) may have higher megapixel count cameras, but I'm willing to bet that after the first test results are posted, we'll see reports of the Leica M9 outresolving those 21-24MP behemoths.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Hi Tim, what makes you believe that the new M9 outresolving the much more up-to-date top DSRL's?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> They did something which every camera manufacturer should have done years ago - remove the AA filter.

 

I strongly disagree with that...

[leicaglow]

<p>Anyone study micro economics where the price is set when the curve of where a consumer is willing to buy a product and the seller is willing to sell it? Anyone... Anyone...</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Gee if I look back before Katrina; my total summer homes's insurance was equal to 1/4 of a M9's price. Today if I get wind insurance; it is equal to buying TWO M9'S PER YEAR. This adds to the existing fie and liability insurance already carried now; 1/10 of a M9. The house still stands without a 2x4 out of place due to Katrina. The chance of another flood at my summer houses elevation is one in 500 years. Thus one could pay insurance for 500 years; or buy 1000 M9's! :) To drop the wind rate a tad; they require elevating the house by 1.5 feet . Thus one can shell out say 50K and they dig a big hole and place a big air bag under the house and lift the slab house 1.5 feet up; and add crap under it. Lord knows how the sheetrock would fair; its abit nuts; your beloved governments rules. That 50k would not be recovered with the slightly less flood and wind rates in ones lifetime; thus it is a bad payoff filled with risks.<br>

In actual spendable dollars the M9 is about 4 times more expensive than my 1973 Nikkormat with F1.4 lens cost. Its about what I made in California as a consultant in the disc drive industry in one month about a decade ago. Today the M9 seems like alot to me too; supporting two homes</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the M9 is priced surprisingly low considering what the M8 costs and what the differences in specs are. Certainly it's a bargain compared to the current price of the M7. The thing to overcome for me at least is how to be able to afford Leica lenses, not the cost of the camera body. </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Robert: Leica is an effective monopoly. The availability of cameras from Cosina and Zeiss does mean it is not an absolute monopoly"</p>

<p>W.A. - It's not a monopoly because close substitutes exist. You can, as I said, get images with a DSLR. An M9 isn't the only way to produce an image. In addition, monopolists earn higher returns because they can affect price by withholding production. Perhaps you should review Leica's financial statements. I don't see any sign of monopoly profits, do you?</p>

<p>I'm afraid that your evidence is rather weak if you intend to bring an antitrust suit.</p>

 

[doug herr]

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1713391">Michael Axel</a> wrote: <strong>"Anyone study micro economics where the price is set when the curve of where a consumer is willing to buy a product and the seller is willing to sell it? Anyone... Anyone..."</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yup. I'm not complaining about Leica's prices.</p>