Huge Leica a-la-carte price increase! [Archive]

wgerrard

11-25-2007, 06:23

I don't see any reason for Leica to see their costs increase because the dollar is dropping in relation to their currency, the Euro. The dollar's poor performance simply means that European products purchased with dollars are more expensive.

Are the quoted price increases across the board, for all currencies? That is, would a Berliner buying locally see the same jump?

If Leica is only changing their prices-in-dollars then it is simply a matter of math to see if those changes reflect more than the dollar's performance.

Meanwhile...

An American economist friend believes that most Americans neither know nor care that their currency is so staggeringly devalued...R.

I think that's very likely correct. I also suspect it's the case in any country or region large enough to minimize economic contact with imports and other currencies. These days, that includes Europe. Most Europeans are not flying to NYC to shop, or otherwise buying expensive American equivalents to brands like Leica. Their awareness of the dollar's poor performance comes from the media, and they are probably no more or no less informed about it than Americans.

Also, while it is true that most Americans lack passports and do not travel to Europe, millions travel to Canada and Mexico and the Caribbean. That, I submit, is the equivalent of Brits and Germans, say, flying down to the Costa del Sol for a week of sun and sin. Most Americans do not travel to Europe for the same reason most Europeans do not travel to the U.S.: It costs a lot of money. Much cheaper to fly RyanAir to a European beach, or Southwest to Vegas. Besides, Americans drive 1500 for holidays with granny. Europeans might traverse umpteen nations if they drove 1500 miles in one go. In pre-Euro days, that pounded home the lessons about currency values in a way that cannot happen in the U.S. (or, North America, for that matter.)

kevin m

11-25-2007, 06:39

An American economist friend believes that most Americans neither know nor care that their currency is so staggeringly devalued, because they only buy American-made goods...

If by "American-made" he's including goods made in China, then he has a point. Otherwise... :confused:

... and that some rednecks even take a malicious pleasure in the fact that Yurrupean imports, perceived as being bought only by The Rich, have gone up enormously in price.

This sounds too generic to be believed. I think the "malicious pleasure" here is more likely enjoyed by your friend when he spreads gossip like this.

I live right next door to "rednecks" (up here we call them "Swamp Yankees") and I don't hear any of this. My neighbor and I were talking the other day and we were both complaining about the weak dollar. Him because his favorite brand of chainsaw, Husqvarna, had gone up in price, (he clears land and wears them out regularly) and me because Jotul woodstove prices have gone up 50% in a year.

Attached is a pic from his annual "mud-fest." Lots of fun. Noisy trucks, mud and deep fried Turkey. :D

ClaremontPhoto

11-25-2007, 06:44

We use the Euro throughout most of Europe, but that does not mean that prices are the same everywhere.

However it does seem that base price of a Leica a la carte is €3.750 across Europe, equivalent to $5,500 dollars.

kevin m

11-25-2007, 06:49

However it does seem that base price of a Leica a la carte is €3.750 across Europe, equivalent to $5,500 dollars.

Wow. I thought that perhaps someday I might "treat" myself to an a-la-carte MP, but.....:(

nikonhswebmaster

11-25-2007, 06:51

BillBingham2

11-25-2007, 06:52

I agree that more americans that ever know about the devaluation of the dollar but reality has not hit them as hard yet. Walmart and others continue to maintain low prices on new stuff so they are missing the fact that the quality of goods is decreasing to keep the prices on average goods somewhat stable.

I think the price increase is because with the success of the M8 Leica realized that it was leaving money on the table in some cases. The ZI is out and I think has not had the impact on sales of new Ms it could have.

B2 (;->

ClaremontPhoto

11-25-2007, 06:57

I bill clients in Euro, and they often choose to pay in US Dollars.

This time last year a typical client paid $1,400, and this year it's over $1,600 even though my price is exactly the same.

mfogiel

11-25-2007, 07:37

I am not a Leica reseller, so I do not care.
Zeiss Ikon is a vastly superior film camera anyway, and so are the ZM lenses - all at 1/3rd of the price. In fact, I believe the difference is beginning to be too big from the marketing point of view - Zeiss looks too cheap... I don't think the sales of these a la carte cameras are big either, so Leica has probably decided "not to lose" on these by increasing the price well in excess of the Dollar devaluation.
The M8 on the other hand, is at the moment in a monopolistic position - especially with respect to all those that are holding these overpriced Leica lenses...
Therefore they keep the price high, because the demand is fairly inelastic. I made a quick calculation, that if I wanted to go digital with the M8, it would pay itself back completely in less than 2 years, and I am an amateur...
For the moment, the M8 is not for me, I want a full frame and a decent B&W imaging...
The Leica sclerosis can be best observed on the example of the last Summitar lenses - you can have a glimpse at the MTF's at Erwin's site. There's a lot of argumentation about how these lenses are "sufficiently good" and "inexpensive" - what a laugh...
The ZM lenses have better MTF's than the Summicrons at the price which is 50% of the Summitars - if this is not pure madness, then I don't know what can be...

Leica has simply overslept the opportunities of high quality manufacturing facilities present in the "Dollar zone", and is paying the price, while Zeiss is grabbing its market share.

We can only hope, that the new CEO has taken the lesson and is shifting the strategy, which is evident from the Summitar line launch - a pity it is so late...

I am willing to bet, Zeiss will introduce next years some high speed lenses which will challenge definitely Leica glass in the classic Summilux range, and most likely at a much lower price. We will see if Solms is able to react.

Ade-oh

11-25-2007, 07:39

Interesting. I bought an a la carte MP earlier this year and the configuration I went for was, IIRC, £2780. It now appears to be £3200! As far as I know, the British pound has been reasonably stable against the Euro during this period so it may not necessarily solely be a result of the decline of the US dollar.

digitalintrigue

11-25-2007, 07:43

It makes no sense to buy ala carte. Just buy an old M3, have Peter paint it, and put on some Camera Leather, and put the rest of the few grand into used lenses, or new CV or Zeiss glass.

Gabriel M.A.

11-25-2007, 07:53

I had just ordered an MP alacarte about six weeks ago, but I just happened to notice that since that time the base retail price of the MP/M7 in the configurator jumped about $1100 USD.
$1100 USD is about 700 Euros. If you factor in the rise in the price of petroleum, inflation, labor costs, not to mention rising prices for various metals.

Since wages in the U.S. remain about the same while the rest of the industrialized nations are moving forward, I can see why this looks like it's coming out of the blue (for those in the U.S.)

Or perhaps they're just doing it to stir around some buzz on "The Internets" :o

They should be publishing some press releases, otherwise these price increases do seem arbitrary.

jack palmer

11-25-2007, 08:36

When did it last go up? Because you'd need an increase of over 50% just to accommodate the difference between the maximum value of the dollar against the euro, and the minimum (under 90 cents to near enough $1.48). This is before you factor in the belief, held by many, that the dollar has further down to go yet.

An American economist friend believes that most Americans neither know nor care that their currency is so staggeringly devalued, because they only buy American-made goods, and that some rednecks even take a malicious pleasure in the fact that Yurrupean imports, perceived as being bought only by The Rich, have gone up enormously in price.

Cheers,

R.

Most Americans buy American -made goods? You've got to be kidding me. Most Americans shop at Wal-Mart and Target where almost nothing is American made. America makes very little that the average consumer buys, and quality made America goods are more expensive than a comparable import, so where did your friend get his economic degree?

Gabriel M.A.

11-25-2007, 08:43

Walmart is about shopping, not owning stuff. Bored people like to shop, and most of middle America is bored out of its skull. Well educated folks with nothing to do but shop, eat, watch media, and eat. Or at least they think that is all there is to do.
How that Pink Floyd song go? To paraphrase: "Got thirteen [hundred] channels of sh** on the TV to choose from..."

If you tune to the "news" channels in the U.S., nothing's happening in the world except fires and some "actor" in some newly glorified hot water.

So, in essence, "nothing" is happening. To paraphrase again somebody else, Stephen Colbert, "the good times, as far as we know".

The last time I did any shopping at Wal-Mart was about five years ago, and that was because it was the only thing off the freeway where we could get film (we were on our way to San Antonio)

Gabriel M.A.

11-25-2007, 08:47

An American economist friend believes that most Americans neither know nor care that their currency is so staggeringly devalued
Well, most don't care (or know) whether tap water has asbestos or arsenic, it doesn't mean that it's unimportant. But then again, most don't care whether food comes from McDonnald's or an organic farm, so there really isn't much room for "caring", as long as the short-term benefit is a few dollars saved.

Gabriel M.A.

11-25-2007, 08:59

I think if Leica made a full-frame digital M-mount camera for around USD $2000, even if they had to make it in China, the sales would be explosive.
The laws of physics are still observed in China, I believe.

dcsang

11-25-2007, 09:01

I have this "conspiracy theorem" in my noggin - the devaluing of the American currency is being done "on purpose" by the administration.

I know that here, in Canada, we had, for the longest time, a 70-85 cent dollar in comparison to the U.S. dollar. It was good for our economy in general due to the increase of trade that we could do with the U.S.

That said.. wrt Leica and their continuing price increases - I just wonder, with a general downturn in the overall global economy, is that such a smart idea on their part?

Dave

ywenz

11-25-2007, 09:11

That said.. wrt Leica and their continuing price increases - I just wonder, with a general downturn in the overall global economy, is that such a smart idea on their part?

Dave

The rich has not been affected. The gap has widened between the rich and poor throughout the world.

Roger Hicks

11-25-2007, 11:43

There are some impressive misconceptions at work here. I apologize for the lengthy post, but there are several important points to make.

First, exchange rates.

I've just checked the historic exchange rates. At its lowest, in late 2001, you could buy a euro for $0.84. A few days ago, it was just over $1.48. That's a 76% increase. Unless Leicas have gone up in dollars by more than 76% in 6 years, they are now cheaper, in hard currency, than they were 6 years ago.

Let's assume that they have in fact had to go up by 15%: a realistic sort of guess. 1.76 x 1.15 = 2.02. Have they doubled in dollars in that time?

Now consider it from Leica's point of view. One of the countries in which you sell is suffering from a steadily declining currency -- to the extent that you make little or no profit in that country. Unless you put up your prices in that country, many people in other countries are going to buy direct from that country and you will go bust. Cutting the prices in the country with the weak prices would be utter insanity.

You also have to consider the likelihood that the this enfeebled currency will continue to fall. Do you raise your prices every month -- every week -- or do you try and guess what will happen, and make bigger hikes, less often?

Second, a decreasing proportion of your sales are in country which used to be your best cistomer, but now has a collapsing currency. Do you build your whole marketing stragegy around that country, and hope that things get better, or try to work around it, especially with a view to increasing your sales in countries with a harder currency and a fast-growing rich class, who buy status symbols? Somewhere like India, Russia or China, perhaps?

Third, you are known for making the best cameras in the world (OK, not everyone agrees, but enough do that you'd get a very high vote). Do you therefore make a cheapo, catchpenny camera and write 'Leica' on it? Not if you have any sense, or pride. When you buy a Leica, you're paying a certain amount for the name (tradition, etc.) and a lot more for a very well-made camera. Admittedly Leica has done this to some extent with their digital snapshot cameras, but if they cheapen the M-name, they have no credibility left at all.

Fourth, if it were possible to make a full-frame digital M-fit camera for $2000, don't you think someone might have done so by now? If it were a half-decent camera, no-one would care if the brand were Xingtao or Chavez. If it were not a half-decent camera, what sort of fool would label it 'Leica'?

If you can't afford a Leica, or don't think they're worth the money, it's easy: don't buy one. But a Leica is still a pretty good camera, and those of us who are willing to go without other things in order to be able to afford one are less than happy about people who don't give a toss about quality, but just want to have something with 'Leica' written on it: the same kind of cretin that buys 'designer label' clothes and overpriced 'fashion statement' running shoes. We don't want to be dragged down to their level.

Buy a Voigtländer -- they're very good cameras. Or a Zeiss Ikon: at twice the price of a Voigtländer, they are indeed better in many ways. Ask yourself, though, why THEY haven't made a $2000 full-frame rangefinder digital camera. Or indeed ANY rangefinder digital camera (the Epson is off to one side). Partly, I know, it's because Kobayashi-san doesn't like digital. But it might also be that (a) it's too difficult to make it at the price and (b) it's impossible to make a decent full-frame at any price.

Finally, reflect that one of the reasons a Leica costs more than its admittedly excellent rivals is that it is even better than they are. The people at Voigtländer and Zeiss have no trouble with this truth: I know, I've talked to them. Nor have their customers. The people who whinge and snipe that Leicas are too expensive are not the people who buy them, and do not, therefore, figure very large in Leica's marketing plans.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks

11-25-2007, 11:50

Well, most don't care (or know) whether tap water has asbestos or arsenic, it doesn't mean that it's unimportant. But then again, most don't care whether food comes from McDonnald's or an organic farm, so there really isn't much room for "caring", as long as the short-term benefit is a few dollars saved.
You know that. I know that. And the whole point is that they neither know it nor understand it.

Cheers,

R.

RITskellar

11-25-2007, 12:00

Aside from all the other possible economic factors at work here, it is curious that the retail price of a stock MP/M7 has increased from $3495 USD to $3695 in recent weeks/months, but the base price of the a-la-carte MP/M7 has increased from $3495 to $4600 USD. So it certainly appears that there is more to this (alacarte) price increase than the value of currencies, etc.

I brought this up to begin with only because it was a curious, perhaps ambiguous, and unannounced significant price increase that affects the a-la-carte orders across the board. I was just wondering if anyone knew what was up with that?

varjag

11-25-2007, 12:14

If Leica does not realize the EURO is not the world currency, and move manufacturing into the American-Asian market then Leica is doomed.
However Canadian dollar is now worth more than U.S. dollar, and Australian is at record high. Could it be just that your government is really tanking your currency, and it's not a deliberate international plot by stupid Europe?

ClaremontPhoto

11-25-2007, 13:00

If Leica does not realize the EURO is not the world currency, and move manufacturing into the American-Asian market then Leica is doomed.

Why shouldn't the Euro be a strong world currency? It is already fast moving that way.

Leica could always move manufacturing offshore, but I can't see that Japan or USA will be any better for them than Europe for building cameras and lenses.

3js

11-25-2007, 13:15

Or maybe it´s because your economy is weak, so your dollar is weak? Those who invent the capitalism have no right to protest when it´s working against them... Sorry.:D

wgerrard

11-25-2007, 13:34

Roger was right to look at historic exchange rates, rather than the dollar's recent skid, to illustrate a telling point.

Truth is, I think, that we don't know nearly enough about Leica's (or any other maker's) internal operation to come to grips with this issue. What are Leica's costs? Where does Leica buy its raw materials? What's the lead time? Did they 'stock up' months ago or do they resupply themselves frequently and, thus, put themselves at the mercy of price changes? What kind of contract do they have with their labor force? When was it signed? How much cash do they have in hand? What's it invested in? Etc., etc.

On full-frame digitals: Isn't the controlling factor the cost of full-frame sensors? And their availability, which I understand is constrained by a paucity of fabrication plants?

patrickjames

11-25-2007, 13:35

I have an acquaintance who does title insurance. In the richest part of San Diego (one of the highest per capita income areas in the US) real estate is still booming. One of his friends who is a realtor there said that business has never been better. The decreasing value of the dollar does not hurt the rich because they can insulate themselves from it very easily. It hurts the poor and the middle class. Leica doesn't really sell any cameras to the poor or the middle class. The rich won't care how much it costs if they want it. The cost of a Leica is one or two car payments to them. Or less than a house payment. Everything is relative remember that. Do you really think all that much about buying a tv that is half your house payment? Probably not. Leica has to do what they need to do stay in business. My only problem with this is it will raise the cost of used equipment, which is what I can afford.

Patrick

RITskellar

11-25-2007, 13:53

Geesh, this thread took on an unintended life all its own. Sorry I asked.

patrickjames

11-25-2007, 13:55

......As for the poster who said, 'the euro isn't a world currency', well, the dollar wasn't a world currency until it took over from the pound sterling. What's the next reserve currency? Anyone have a stronger candidate than the euro? And when has the dollar looked weaker since World War Two than today? At the recent OPEC conference, redenominating oil in euros was discussed. I believe it will happen sooner or later. What price the dollar then? Two to the euro?

Cheers,

Roger

I believe it is going to happen and most people in the US won't know what hit them. It will be a very bad situation. There will be a "brain drain" for sure since the quality of life will be so affected. Why would you want to live here at that point? The future of the US will be a second world country with a powerful military and a populace that is complacent and not very well educated. That should be a scary thought for the rest of the world. For any of those here that are about to argue with me about this, get your head out of the sand! :)

Patrick

troym

11-25-2007, 14:04

A few thoughts in response to Roger Hicks's comments.

First, in the real world sophisticated businesses that export or import on a large scale don't automatically pass on the entire cost of fluctuations in currencies. Instead, they hedge against foreign exchange risk.

I would assume, given the importance of the US market to Leica, that they have been using hedging strategies to smooth out the effects of the decline in the dollar. Otherwise, they would have had to increase prices by a good deal more than they have done so far. As Roger observes, Leica prices haven't risen by the same magnitude as the euro has against the dollar.

Second, it simply isn't true that Americans don't feel the effects of a falling dollar (the rise in oil prices is an example). But those effects are largely muted NOT because American consumers "buy American" (anyone who's been shopping in any "big box" store in the US knows that's laughable). Instead, the effects of the falling dollar have been cushioned (so far) by the decision of China and Japan to keep their currencies artificially low against the dollar. So, for most Americans, imported goods from Asia remain relatively cheap. This amounts to a massive, ongoing loan by China and Japan to the US in order to prop up the export sectors of their economy.

Third, as John Connolly--Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon administration--once said to his European colleagues, "It's our currency but your problem." That was a nasty thing to say, but it remains true.

The current administration understands that truth. The rest of the world may complain about the falling dollar, but there isn't much they can do to punish the U.S. for it without driving the U.S. economy into a deep recession (which will have a negative impact on the rest of the world) or seriously devaluing their own currency and debt reserves.

There may come a point, however, when the dollar is put under so much downward pressure that a serious collapse becomes unavoidable. I doubt we're near that stage yet. But it is scary to contemplate.

Here's an interesting comment on the dollar's decline from the Financial Times blog.

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2007/11/our-currency-an.html

JeffGreene

11-25-2007, 14:04

Roger:

Welcome back! It's great to have you here again!

Roger Hicks

11-25-2007, 14:05

I believe it is going to happen and most people in the US won't know what hit them. It will be a very bad situation. There will be a "brain drain" for sure since the quality of life will be so affected. Why would you want to live here at that point? The future of the US will be a second world country with a powerful military and a populace that is complacent and not very well educated. That should be a scary thought for the rest of the world. For any of those here that are about to argue with me about this, get your head out of the sand! :)

Patrick
And a part of the problem will be that anyone in Europe who has visited the United States is unlikely to be terribly welcoming to American brain-drainers, when they remember the way they were treated by American immigration. The only comparable arrogance is in the UK.

Nor will there be all that many jobs for Americans in Europe: we have our own universities, etc., and there's not a lot in management that an American can do and a European can't. Though they could teach the French about customer service.

Finally, unless they can get a job with a big multinational, Americans will be pretty much confined to the only country they can understand the language, viz. Britain, and there just isn't that much room for that many Americans.

As you say, it's scary. And it's possible, maybe even likely. Fortunately it's not inevitable. we must live in hope.

Cheers,

Roger

varjag

11-25-2007, 14:15

On the positive side, U.S. of A. have seen things worse than that and is still around :) We'll see how it fares under next administration.

Roger Hicks

11-25-2007, 14:15

aizan

11-25-2007, 14:29

Here's an interesting comment on the dollar's decline from the Financial Times blog.

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2007/11/our-currency-an.html

very interesting, though i wish they put some leading in those paragraphs. i must have doubled half a dozen times.

Olsen

11-25-2007, 14:34

There are opposite opinions on the dollar... take Bill Emmot of the Economist, writing in the Washington Post.

"In fact, the surprise is that it hasn’t fallen further and sooner. The dollar’s fall does indeed reflect serious weaknesses in the American economy. But it is not bad news as such. It reflects the problems but forms one part of the solution to them. The economy needs American exports to grow if it is to avoid a recession, or just eventually to recover from one, and the falling dollar is encouraging such export growth. The really bad news would be if the dollar were not to fall. And really, it needs to fall further against the currencies of its big Asian trading partners, China and Japan, if America is to be able to cut its imports and boost its exports."

If Leica does not realize the EURO is not the world currency, and move manufacturing into the American-Asian market then Leica is doomed.

More thorough studies of the effect of the falling dollar shows hat it will take several years to build up the - once - exporting industry that USA had to former glory. Most of the US export industry has been 'outsourced'. The falling dollar is going to be 'devestating' to the US economy. Read my lips. Like: Taxes are going to increase since you have to pay the cost of the US government borrowing huge sums of money - without providing you with any public service.

But it is also going to be devestating for parts of the European industry. Like Leica. They stand the chance of going bankrupt because of the weak dollar.

kevin m

11-25-2007, 14:48

Incidentally, in response to an earlier post, my economist chum was indeed including Chinese goods...

You said: ...most Americans neither know nor care that their currency is so staggeringly devalued, because they only buy American-made goods...

So you're editing your post to include Chinese goods with the American goods, but the sentence is still all wrong. Since your friend is an economist, I'd expect that he could produce some figures to back up a bold statement like that, rather than gross, innacurate adjectives like "most" and "only." But the next part of that sentence demonstrates that you and your economist chum have no real interest in accuracy, anyway: ...some rednecks even take a malicious pleasure in the fact that Yurrupean imports, perceived as being bought only by The Rich, have gone up enormously in price.

Again, the "malicious pleasure" here belongs to you and your economist chum. Is it great fun to sit in a room of like-minded people and trade witticisms like this, formed of nothing more than your native prejudices, and an imaginary sense of superiority? :confused:

Olsen

11-25-2007, 14:49

Roger Hicks

11-25-2007, 14:59

You said:

So you're editing your post to include Chinese goods with the American goods, but the sentence is still all wrong. Since your friend is an economist, I'd expect that he could produce some figures to back up a bold statement like that, rather than gross, innacurate adjectives like "most" and "only." But the next part of that sentence demonstrates that you and your economist chum have no real interest in accuracy, anyway:

Again, the "malicious pleasure" here belongs to you and your economist chum. Is it great fun to sit in a room of like-minded people and trade witticisms like this, formed of nothing more than your native prejudices, and an imaginary sense of superiority? :confused:
The point about Chinese-made goods has already been welcomed: see posts 40 and 50. Quite honestly, a number of much better points have been made since, mostly by others, a few by myself, so I see little advantage in raking this one over.

Yes, it is great fun to sit in a room of like-minded people and trade witticisms -- try it sometime -- though I don't think I'd have described the above remark as a witticism.

Finally, I have increasingly come to believe that my admitted sense of superiority is sometimes imaginary, sometimes not. There are even times when I have a sense of inferiority, though they are less common.

Cheers,

Roger

Al Patterson

11-25-2007, 15:09

Roger,

When I first looked at Leica's they were $2695 new. If we up that by 76%, we get $4743 and change. So I think that they have pretty much raised the price in dollars about the amount the dollar has declined v. the Euro.

cmogi10

11-25-2007, 15:10

wgerrard

11-25-2007, 15:11

For a while. Maybe a decade at the outside. Then people will forget about it. The USA will cease to be a major player, and become a minor player. No one has an automatic right to sit at the top table forever: look at Britain, which arguably for most of the second half of the 19th century was even more of a superpower than the US was for the second half of the 20th.

I dunno. The dollar-pound rate has fluctuated significantly in the past without bringing doom to either economy. What's new is a unified European economy and the Euro, as well as the shift of cheap manufacturing to Asia. These are occurences that, while predictable, were not considered by most people while the Cold War was in full swing.

I'm not happy or terribly optimistic about the dollar's decline, but neither am I filled with fear and loathing. After all, a decade ago the American economy was booming and transformative. That it is not now is entirely due to decisions made, or avoided, by government and management. If intelligence and reality return to those disciplines, the future will improve.

I also don't accept the implied connection between a nation's superpower status and the prosperity of its citizens. As the USSR demonstrated, a nation can fund its superpower status by impoverishing its citizens. Likewise, I'm not so sure the average wealth of Britons declined in lockstep with the UK's loss of empire.

And, I'll second that endorsement of Mephisto shoes. I, too, have unhappy feet and learned a few years ago that paying a premium price for good shoes that are not a literal pain to wear makes a lot more sense than constant buying of cheaper shoes that turned out not to cut it.

Translate that to the land of cameras and it means that Leica is worth it if you can tell the difference. If not, don't worry about it. If something is worth it to you, and you can afford it, why fret about the price?

NB23

11-25-2007, 15:17

http://thewritewords.me.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/soapbox.jpg

Olsen heh? I agree.

peter_n

11-25-2007, 15:27

I'm looking at perhaps buying a new car next year, something different from the Volvos that I've driven since I came to live in this country. So I'm looking at cars like Saab and Audi (has to be AWD) and there is a new 2009 Audi with pricing on the car web sites already. This car's price has gone up by a miniscule amount over the last two years, and the 2009 model is 5 inches longer and 2 inches wider and with a more powerful engine and better fuel economy than the current model. It's made in Germany and on paper it is a big improvement over the current model and definitely not cost-reduced. So it strikes me (admittedly with a sample of one from another industry) that linking Leica's price increases with the dollar is tenuous at best.

kevin m

11-25-2007, 15:28

-- though I don't think I'd have described the above remark as a witticism.

Well we're in agreement on that. Inaccurate. Facile. Cliched. Tired. But not witty.

I expect better from you. Please, I live with these people - blood related to some. Some real wit on the subject would be appreciated. ;)

MikeL

11-25-2007, 15:43

USA is on it's way into a crisis that is going to spell 'difficulty' for the ordinary man & woman. As I have done before here; I advice the young and flexible of you Americans - and the many European students who might have met a girl or a boy and want to settle in USA; get out!

Sounds like something Vidkin Q. would say. Some of us like this country, and we're not just here to make a buck. That's just sad, but telling.....

Ade-oh

11-25-2007, 16:13

Trying to head for the meat of this thread, the retail price of a 'luxury' (for want of a better word) product like a Leica M is a delicate balancing act: too low and the margins are not worthwhile, too high and nobody can afford them. The simple fact is that with the advent of digital, the target market for Leica M's has changed significantly. 20 - and even 10 - years ago, they were a staple of photojournalists and those enthusiasts who sought to imitate them; nowadays they are fighting for a share of a relatively small niche market. Even if they maintain their share of the market, it's a much smaller market and currency fluctuations, as well as the decline in the market for 35mm film cameras, are bound to push prices up, slowly but surely, for new products.

I bought my a la carte Leica MP because I enjoy using Leicas - I already had an M6 - and because my Mother had recently died and left me enough money to indulge this particular whim. It doesn't take pictures any better than any of my other cameras: I hope the quality of my photography is mostly down to me. Also, I hope to still be using it in 20-30 years, which I'm sure won't be the case with any of my digital cameras. Buy a new a la carte Leica M now, and you'll get a decent price for it in five years' time: I doubt you will be able to for a Nikon D3.

Dogman

11-26-2007, 06:56

...and all this time I never realized the world economy rotated around the selling price of a 35mm camera.

Learn something everyday on internet forums.

:rolleyes:

Olsen

11-26-2007, 07:39

Sounds like something Vidkin Q. would say. Some of us like this country, and we're not just here to make a buck. That's just sad, but telling.....
I have no idea of what kind of advice Vidkun Quisling would have given young people in USA today. But his brother, a medical doctor, moved to USA just after the war and stayed there until his death. - Quite a few ex. nazis emigrated to USA after having served their jail sentenses. But things were a lot different back then. US living standard and governmental public service was a lot better than today, relatively speaking. Now things look far more promissing in Europe. Pension systems and free health care does not count that much when you are young. It sure counts at my age.

Life is a lot more than just money, as you mention. It is a lot about relations to family and friends and to a culture, - and to a landscape. That I can understand. But Americans have this advantage that if they want to move to a european country and work there they could easily get a work permit and so on. Much easier than people from other parts of the world.

What was a 'giant step for a man' back in the times when imigrants from Europe poored in through Ellis Island, is a small trip for most people today. Never has the world been smaller. New York is only a 6 hours flight away from most capitals of Europe. And the ticket to and fro costs - about - 1,000 $. It is not that terministic to take a job in Oslo or London as it was back then. And a thousand dollars look quite a bit cheaper from over here, as you can see out of this discussion.

My nephew sold his flat here in Oslo and moved to Shanhai, China, to start a shoftware company. But he visits Oslo a couple of times per year. His sister has bought a flat in Manhattan, NY as a sort of 'holiday residence'. My wife and I spends three weeks in Singapore and Malaysia each year as a sort of 'early spring summer holiday'. Except for weekends in Paris, London or elsewhere in Europe. My neigbour, architect from Huston Texas, works for a Norwegian company - in New York - but refuses to 'move' back home. It would ruin his excellent norwegian pension and he would have to pay medical bills himself. The other neigbour has a flat at Costa del Sol were he spends his 'oval weekends' and plays golf. People don't travel by oxcarts across the prairee anymore. They fly.

kevin m

11-26-2007, 08:01

People don't travel by oxcarts across the prairee anymore.

Wait awhile. They might come back into fashion. :D

Olsen

11-26-2007, 08:10

Wait awhile. They might come back into fashion. :D

Ha, ha, ha! you are absolutely right!

Tuolumne

11-26-2007, 09:05

ClaremontPhoto

11-26-2007, 09:26

The price before tax has gone up by exactly the same amount in Europe and the US.

The €3750 I mentioned earlier would be the price including sales tax (often around 20%). If we remove the tax element the camera price drops to €3125, which is $4600 or so.

Roger Hicks

11-26-2007, 11:19

The price before tax has gone up by exactly the same amount in Europe and the US.
Gosh! What an extraordinary coincidence!

That wasn't aimed at you...

Cheers,

R.

furcafe

11-26-2007, 11:30

Not sure how your question became the starting point for a discussion on the "Decline & Fall of the American Empire," but I would agree w/those positing that the price increase has mostly to do w/the peculiar pricing of the luxury market.

Leica is a luxury brand, & the a la carte service (implemented under prior management IIRC) is a specialized service that caters to only a tiny subset of Leica buyers & probably doesn't bring a lot of money in, anyway. If demand for a la carte is pretty inelastic, which is my guess, it would not be irrational for Leica to increase prices to make it more profitable. As a thought experiment, just imagine the opposite: would Leica really get a lot of new business by dropping a la carte prices?

The decline of the dollar mostly affects the size of the increase, but I doubt it's the main rationale for the price increase.

I had just ordered an MP alacarte about six weeks ago, but I just happened to notice that since that time the base retail price of the MP/M7 in the configurator jumped about $1100 USD. Now they start at $4600. Additionally, all of the options also saw significant increases. Though I am happy to have ordered before this happened, I am surprised at such a significant change.

Does anyone know when this happened? And why? Perhaps something to do with the lower value of the US dollar (although that doesn't seem enough on its own)? Perhaps Leica pricing strategy to further differentiate stock models from the custom? Just wondering.

Roger Hicks

11-26-2007, 11:33

Like most discussions here, this one is getting a bit over the top. I actually think the ala carte Leicas were underpriced. Maybe someone at Leica figured that out, too. I remember specing a number of ala carte systems online and thinking, "Wow, that's not so expensive for a custoem Leica." I eventually went ahead and bought an MP3 since that came closest to what I wanted and I thought it would hold its value better than an ala carte version. So, maybe the price increase just has to do with that simple fact: they were cheap for a custom luxury product. They fixed the problem. That's all.

/T
A bit like Range Rovers. GBP 1995 when they came out. They went up quite quickly...

Leica's view was

1 Most people don't buy Leicas very often

2 The extra for à la carte is not that great

3 Many people will therefore buy the Leica of their dreams

If the price increase is above inflation, maybe they found that they underestimated demand.

I'd buy one if I could afford one -- or maybe I wouldn't, because a black paint MP + Leicavit-M is already pretty close to my dream.

But I'd like a black paint M8 with no red dot, 'Leica' in script on the top plate. Right at the moment, demand is so great they have no need to offer things like that -- which might be another reason for à la carte price rises.

Incidentally, when they first told me about the idea, I said, "Great! Bespoke Leicas!"

They said, "No, we're calling it à la carte because we're not sure enough people understand 'bespoke'."

Cheers,

R.

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 11:55

This is very well put.

USA is on it's way into a crisis that is going to spell 'difficulty' for the ordinary man & woman. As I have done before here; I advice the young and flexible of you Americans - and the many European students who might have met a girl or a boy and want to settle in USA; get out!

Leave Brooklyn? For where? Maybe Portland (opps that is in the US), maybe Berlin, tried Milan and Madrid. Not so much.

I need the following to keep sanity:
1) Public transportation, with no need whatsoever for a car.
2) A large creative community supported by hundreds of galleries, museums and music venues.
3) A mixed population with at minimum 25% black, Asian etc.
4) Cheap Japanese, Indian, Italian, and Korean restaurants who will deliver to my house until 10pm.
5) etc.

Tuolumne

11-26-2007, 12:17

Roger Hicks

11-26-2007, 12:33

[B]I need the following to keep sanity:...
Ah...

Our definitions of sanity are not quite the same. Nor are our definitions of what is required to maintain it.

How about:

Beautiful countryside, very little traffic, good neighbours, good food, sustainable heating (another cord of wood arriving later in the week), no sirens blaring, no alarmist press, at most three days to drive to most of Europe...

Yes, there is a down-side. The nearest sushi restaurant is an hour away, that sort of thing. But if Italian food is so good, how come pizza is so popular?

Might I guess that you are either quite young; or have never lived much outside NYC; or once lived somewhere so awful that you are still besotted with the advantages of NYC? Or possibly two of the above?

If I had to live in the USA, yes, NYC would probably come a close second to San Francisco, but give me rural France every time. I've never spent more than a week in NYC at a time, but I've lived in LA and London (and several smaller cities such as Birmingham and Bristol) and my wife spent years in LA; and she agrees. I account myself very lucky.

Cheers,

R.

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 12:55

Ah...

Our definitions of sanity are not quite the same. Nor are our definitions of what is required to maintain it.

How about:

Beautiful countryside, very little traffic, good neighbours, good food, sustainable heating (another cord of wood arriving later in the week), no sirens blaring, no alarmist press, at most three days to drive to most of Europe...

Yes, there is a down-side. The nearest sushi restaurant is an hour away, that sort of thing. But if Italian food is so good, how come pizza is so popular?

Might I guess that you are either quite young; or have never lived much outside NYC; or once lived somewhere so awful that you are still besotted with the advantages of NYC? Or possibly two of the above?

If I had to live in the USA, yes, NYC would probably come a close second to San Francisco, but give me rural France every time. I've never spent more than a week in NYC at a time, but I've lived in LA and London (and several smaller cities such as Birmingham and Bristol) and my wife spent years in LA; and she agrees. I account myself very lucky.

Cheers,

R.

Owned a farm until 3 years ago, I have no illusions about rural life. Where my family is from if you were not German speaking, Methodist and white you won't... well you know, no need to flesh that out.

I hate cars...

PATB

11-26-2007, 12:55

I was hoping that the "decline of the US economy" and the housing market going south would allow me to purchase a decent home in one of Silicon Valley's more affluent neighborhoods. But alas, such is not the case (http://www.siliconvalley.com/thevalley/ci_7522085?nclick_check=1). I guess the "braindrain" that is being predicted in this post is not happening yet. The rich seems to be getting richer in the US.

If Leica is catering to the rich, Leica need not worry as there are quite a few people even in the US still willing to pay the price. Even with what I consider ridiculuous pricing, new Leica lenses are hard to find in the US. It doesn't matter to me as I cannot afford any more Leicas anyways :p

Roger Hicks

11-26-2007, 13:08

Owned a farm until 3 years ago, I have no illusions about rural life. Where my family is from if you were not German speaking, Methodist and white you won't... well you know, no need to flesh that out.
#3 then.

I see your point. My wife is from the (southern) shores of Lake Ontario.

But rural life can have its consolations as you get older.

Thanks for the elucidation.

Cheers,

R.

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 13:30

But rural life can have its consolations as you get older.

R.

My brother has always managed rural life, but I cannot. He lives in Mortlach, Saskatchewan... one can only imagine how cold it gets.

I am doubtful I will ever move rural at my age (60+) just too easy to find yourself dependent on others because of the car issue. My mom was near our family farm during the last few years, and she was a prisoner of her home since there was no transportation for the elderly at all.

But a small town in France or Spain, could work if it was small enough to walk or wheel around in. Being old, and unable to drive, in much of the US is awful. Many elderly are actually in nursing homes because they cannot drive (so they cannot take care of themselves).

You are right I have been in NYC too long.

Olsen

11-26-2007, 13:32

Leave Brooklyn? For where? Maybe Portland (opps that is in the US), maybe Berlin, tried Milan and Madrid. Not so much.

I need the following to keep sanity:
1) Public transportation, with no need whatsoever for a car.
2) A large creative community supported by hundreds of galleries, museums and music venues.
3) A mixed population with at minimum 25% black, Asian etc.
4) Cheap Japanese, Indian, Italian, and Korean restaurants who will deliver to my house until 10pm.
5) etc.

You can have all that in at least five capitals of Europe (London, Oslo, Stockholm, Paris and Berlin). Plus the advantage of practically free health care, education for your kids through collage and beond, and a good public pension. Lavish, actually. The number of blacks is not at 25% yet, but increasing fast. The restaurants you will find expensive at first. Untill you have got your first sallary. When and if you find these cities boring, NY is still only 6 hours/1,000 $ away....

I love NY too. My niece has fallen in love with NY and has bought this apartment on Manhattan. I can easily understand that it is a place that is difficult to leave. But. As my architect neighbor sayes it is far easier 'to make it' in Oslo.

Within many businesses Americans are regarded as 'very proffesional'. Like in oil, finance, science/higher education, medicine, aviation, weapons, chemicals, security, marketing, packaging, franchise, food & beverage, cars, mechanics, agriculture, earth moving, computer hardware, software, mining, fishing, hotels & restaurants, tourism etc. My neigbour Craig made it over here in architecture. A trade dominated by italians. Not bad, he? Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald even made it as a writers over here. At a time when this trade was dominated by the Irish. An almost impossible feat. There could be a great future waiting for quite a few americans over here. Start at the bar at the Ritz Hotel, Paris, and work yourself up from there. Say hello to 'the greatest bartender in the World', Colin P. Field from me.

Link here: http://www.ritzparis.com/home_ritz/home_ritz.asp?show_all=1

kevin m

11-26-2007, 14:00

NYC is a really horrible place to live if you don't have money. Every waking moment of life there you get your nose rubbed in the fact that you're "not rich" if you are not, in fact, rich. Schlepping your laundry down a third floor walkup in Brooklyn under the Cross Bronx Expressway to the laundromat on the corner might be fun in your twenties, if you're single, but it's absolutely exhausting once you become a parent. Which is why so many families leave the city, I guess. All the art and culture in the world won't cure your aching back.

And the neighborhoods where a person might find an affordable place to live are grimly ugly. I never knew there were so many depressing grey, ashpalt-shingled rental apartments until I visited my friends there. St. Louis, with all it's brick buildings, looks positively charming by comparison.

The city's a rush to visit, like a cocaine high; so much life and activity. But the price you pay to get that is just too steep. That's why the city's middle class all live a bridge or tunnel ride away.

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 14:02

I have to admit Oslo would be interesting, but Norway is one of the countries in Europe that make immigration almost impossible for the retired, so none of the wonderful benefits are really available, and US taxes would still be due. Canada is much easier, they welcome Americans, and you can split your taxes.

Paris and London have their charms, but too expensive for the return you get.

I however remain a Madrid/Berlin/Milan/Hong Kong kind of guy.

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 14:09

Roger Hicks

11-26-2007, 14:30

We all just pretend to be lively and active while you guys visit, when you leave at night we all go back to our ugly boring lives of terrible desperation in our ashpalt-shingled shacks.
What a lovely image -- thanks. Like the Far Side cannibals yelling "Quick -- Anthropologists!" and hurrying to hide their TVs and microwaves.

But a French village is different from what the French (inaccurately) call 'Anglo-Saxons' (I was born in a small village in [Celtic] Cornwall). Although the butcher closed last year, we still have another butcher's mobile shop 3 times a week; a fishmongers' mobile shop twice a week (and the oyster-seller on Sundays); a greengrocer's mobile shop once a week (before he leaves, he delivers on foot to his older customers who can't carry their purchases); a baker's; a general store; a pharmacy; even a hairdresser and an electrical goods store. And of course a post office and two café-bars, one of which doubles as a restaurant and hotel. This in a village of 1200 people, maybe 1000 yards by 2000 yards. One of our neighbours had to go into an old people's home recently, but to be fair, it was a few months before his 100th birthday. Many are active well into their 90s.

The day after tomorrow is the monthly lunch of the Societé des Ainés Ruraux, Society of Rural Aged: aperitif, 3 or 4 courses (varies) with unlimited wine, coffee, digestif (one of the members has a distilling licence). That's 8 euros, call it $12, a head. I am not planning to work in the afternoon...

There are many worse ways to live.

But there are many worse ways to live than NYC as well. As I say, if I had to live in the USA... And I'd not have said that 25 years ago, when first I visited the place.

Cheers,

R.

kevin m

11-26-2007, 14:56

...at night we all go back to our ugly boring lives of terrible desperation in our ashpalt-shingled shacks.

All of you? Not just the Yankees fans? :D

Ade-oh

11-26-2007, 16:13

Strange how this thread has migrated from the ruinous price of the Leica a la carte to lifestyle choices. For what it's worth, I have a house in central London and a house n one of the most rural parts of England, the border between Shropshire and Wales (I'm originally Welsh). I find that when I'm in London, I can't wait to get out to the fresh air of the countryside; when I'm in Shropshire, I miss London. Rural England can be miserable when the weather is bad - roughly September to July, most years - but London can be depressing too, particularly in January and February. Having said that, I'm in Washington DC just now which, from my four or five previous visits, seems to pretty grim the whole year round.

Anyway, we can always cheer ourselves up by taking nice pictures with our expensive Leicas, particularly if we bought them before the last price increase.

aizan

11-26-2007, 18:02

how could an upscale clientele not understand what bespoke means?

nikonhswebmaster

11-26-2007, 18:03

Washington is an endless series of mock palaces clearly built for clerks.
- Ada Louise Huxtable

how could an upscale clientele not understand what bespoke means?

Did someone mention "bespoke," referring to anything custom made? Not really in common use in the US, kind like expecting an American English speaker to understand what a "lorry" is or a car "boot."

swoop

11-26-2007, 18:09

I was really hoping to buy an a-la-carte within a year or two. I guess I'll just have to get over it.

Tuolumne

11-26-2007, 18:38

how could an upscale clientele not understand what bespoke means?

It is not idiomatic in the US, where it means nothing. It is idiomatic UK English. In the US you would say "custom". "Ala carte" is another strange redering for US English where it is used almost exclusively in restaurants. I remember the first time I read about "ala carte" Leicas I thought it was something you eat.

/T

MikeL

11-26-2007, 19:12

Why don't they use 'a la mode"?

wgerrard

11-26-2007, 19:53

Why don't they use 'a la mode"?

I'll take an MP with a dollop of vanilla and some hot fudge.

Once upon a time, I lived just west of London and spent much time and many dollars in the city. I loved it and envied anyone who lived in the West End. Now, every time I go back, I'm less enamored of the place as a potential residence. Like other "world class" cities, it's terribly expensive. Unless an American lives in NYC, Boston, San Francisco or the equivalent localities of equivalent cost -- migrating to London will quickly alter his lifestyle.

As I get older, I find that I want easy access to a small core of essential resources. Given those, I don't require much of an urban setting at all.

And, no snow, too. Man, I hate snow.

Tom A

11-26-2007, 20:21

I asked Dr Kaufmann at the LHSA meeting in Rochester last month." Are you going to try to accomodate the falling dollar in the pricing policy in the future?' His answer was quite blunt " There is nothing we can do about it. The policy is to try to keep the manufacturing in Germany and aim for the Euro market and Asia".
The labor cost is high in Germany, but not as high as the Leica prices indicate. Look at the Summarit lens line. They are using similar tecniques as Cosina/Zeiss, common barrels and sophisticated designs that does not require aspherical elements or ultra rare glass. A friend of ours is a designer of sports cars and Le Mans 24 hour racers " It is a big difference between a sophisticated design and a complicated design".
Leica is still doing ultra high quality optics, the 50mm f1,4 Asph, the 75mm f2.0 AA are most likely the top performers in optics today, but today I would not have bought them at current prices!
The Summarit lens line is a "medium" quality line, but priced at almost double the top line Zeiss ZM lenses and the VC top line lenses.
If you want Leica glass, either for bragging rights or emotional attachement to them, so be it. They will be potential buyers of f0.9/50mm Noctiluxes at $ 10K or 16/18/21 mm WATE's with strange finders for $5000+.

Over the last 4 decades I have used Leica almost exclusively, but I am eternally grateful that I can replace old lenses or add different lenses without having to go deep in hock and that is all thanks to the designs and products from Mr Kobayashi at Voigtlander/Cosina, Zeiss and Konice as well as other,Kobalux and Rioch among them.
I have traded or sold the Leica lenses that I feel I can get better performance from in VC/Zeiss etc. I keep some of the Leica glass, some because of sentimental attachement (21/3,4 S-A, my third gen 28f2.8, multiple 35's and 50's as well as my 75f1.4). These lenses are "tried and true" and I know what they will do when I use them and if I got rid of them, the cost of replacing them would be staggering and if it came to that - i would not do it.
Sooner or later Leica is going to have to adress the cost and sales prices to keep their customers.

IF and when the recession hits (and in some form it will, sooner or later) high end luxury items will be affected and Leica is one of those brands. There is a small core of pro's using Leica, but it is a diminishing pool and even they are flinching when faced with Leica prices.
For a long time, the true amateurs would look at what the pro's used and that was the main market for camera manufacturers. Neither Leica/Canon/Nikon could have survived on the pro-market alone (at best 10-12% of sales), but relied on the "silent" advertising of big logos and white, long lenses (smart move by Canon!).
Lets hope that Dr Kaufmann can get Leica on track and also make it a financially viable operation. They are selling a lot of M8's, but the debt still attached to the development of this camera and the R8/9 DMR is still outstanding and at some time the Bank's will want their money back!

Even the new M9 and the R10 will not be cheap to develop and Leica cant afford another M8 with the technical problems. It has to be a highly competitive camera, at least 12-16 Mp and full size sensor and though they have learned a lot from the M8, this is a new set of problems to deal with.
The question now is - are the customers willing to pay for this? A Nikon D3 is about $4000 with a huge array of lenses available, the Canon D5 and DS series is not excactly cheap, but it will give you good performance.
Hmm, maybe we will see a full size sensor Nikon Rf or a Zeiss Ikon and if they sell for $3500 Leica would be in trouble.
I would like to have a MP a la carte with dedicated frames for the 35 and 75 only, but at $4500+ I rather buy several R3 Bessa's and have the mounts changed on my 75f2 AA and my Summilux 75f1.4 to bring up the 85 frames in my ZM!

AusDLK

11-26-2007, 21:34

Leica lost me with the totally unsatisfactory M8. I love my M7 and may buy a used spare if I can find a 0.58 finder at a good price.

An "M9", even if resolved all of my objections to the M8 (which is highly doubtful), would be a very difficult buy for me. This camera will probably cost $8000 if it appears at all. Who can justify that?

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 01:22

Strange how this thread has migrated from the ruinous price of the Leica a la carte to lifestyle choices.

Not really. Leicas are a lifestyle choice.

Cheers,

R.

Paul T.

11-27-2007, 02:00

There is indeed a theory that demand for high-cost items is inelastic.

I have a house more or less paid for in London and the next 18 months look good for work, but I'm constantly staggered by the huge inflation in mid and high-cost items. Decent meals that cost $200 for two, three or four years ago, are now $400 for two. People spend $300 on Tod's loafers that last about two months, or $400 on biker jackets for their kids.

Small wonder Leica think/hope no once will notice a price increase. But eventually the people spending the money must strip the last pension fund or denude the last Russian oil well.

kevin m

11-27-2007, 03:25

Leicas are a lifestyle choice.

And that's too bad. It would be nice if they could return to the glory days of the M3 and be a technology leader again. There was a camera that, when compared to its competition, didn't need any pseudo-mystical language to explain its virtues. And they're recent obsession with making the "best" lenses possible, cost be damned, isn't helping them, either. Like sitemistic said, in most cases the way people use their Leicas - handheld, slow shutter speed, etc., nullifies most of the advantage those lenses have, anyway.

I think he's correct about the illusion of wealth that easy credit has provided, too. These "lifestyle choice" cameras will be much more affordable when they're being sold to pay off creditors. :(

pvenables

11-27-2007, 04:19

I suppose there will always be people who have too much money, or REALLY want something brand new and exactly to their taste who will stump up the cash to pay for an a la carte Leica. Each to their own.

I've preferred to buy an M2 and then get it serviced and painted by Peter at CRR in Luton [and in whatever colour I want, not just black]. If I wished I could go to Camera Leather and choose a covering from a far greater range of colours and textures than Leica offer.

I can end up with a 100% functioning, 100% beautiful camera for under £1000 - if Leica's configurator worked, I would imagine an a la carte camera would be close to £2500, if not more. I don't see why I should spend £1500 more, and probably wait ages for the camera in the bargain...

Paul

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 05:14

Tom, seems sad that Cosina has not taken this market more seriously.

I think they could build a great "M" body if they wanted to, but there is just not the "focus" that Leica has on consistent design/look and quality. Close, but not quite.

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 05:22

And that's too bad. It would be nice if they could return to the glory days of the M3 and be a technology leader again.
Dear Kevin,

How?

Isn't that a bit like saying that bicycles have had two wheels for too long, and we need something new?

I find it hard to imagine a better film M than the MP, and for those who want automation, there's the M7.

For digital, well, in the days when the M3 was introduced, it was comparatively easy for a microscope/camera manufacturer to develop a mechanically complex camera and make it on an artisanal basis: a sufficiently good mechanic could make most of an M3, apart from the castings and deep-drawn parts (which need not be made in very large numbers). Developing even the 18x27 sensor is financially far more demanding, not to say making it; and unlike many on this thread, I believe that Leica used an 18x27 sensor in the M8 because the very short flange-film distance meant they had to, rather than out of ignorance or spite.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 05:36

I've preferred to buy an M2 and then get it serviced and painted by Peter at CRR in Luton [and in whatever colour I want, not just black]. If I wished I could go to Camera Leather and choose a covering from a far greater range of colours and textures than Leica offer.

Paul
Dear Paul,

A simple thought-experiment.

A good fairy appears and says, "In six weeks, at no charge, I will bring you a brand new à la carte MP, or a reconditioned, tarted-up, 40-year-old M2. Which would you like?"

Not a hard choice, I'd say. I find it hard to believe that you could find a good M2, have it serviced, re-painted and recovered in much under six weeks, so the time saving is not much of an issue.

What you're saying, in effect, is that you can't (or don't want to) afford an à la carte Leica. Well, I can't either. But I'd rather have a new, ordinary MP, complete with meter and 40 years newer, than a 50-year-old tarted-up M2 with no meter. I considered your route some time ago (and I already have two serviced M2s I could have recovered and repainted). I decided it was a waste of money, much as I'd like a red Leica M. I'd rather save the money, and put it towards another MP.

Cheers,

R.

gregg

11-27-2007, 05:58

I had my eye on an a-la-carte MP with 0.85 finder and M7 rewind lever. Almost pulled the trigger until I went to the "configurator" in November to finalize it: $5600!!! More than a new M8 - get real.

Just found an M6J (0.85 finder) for $1450. Upgrade it with MP finder optics, CLA and a brand new vulcanite covering, ~$500. That makes a sub-$2000 equivalent for a working photographer, not a fashionista... I can write off my equipment but still can't justify a 2.5x difference.

I'm sure the price increase is, as previously mentioned, partly due to the exchange rate. The other part is likely lowered demand for film cameras - even as a luxury item it doesn't make sense to the unphotographically inclined.

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 06:22

I'm sure the price increase is, as previously mentioned, partly due to the exchange rate. The other part is likely lowered demand for film cameras - even as a luxury item it doesn't make sense to the unphotographically inclined.

For the latter, M7/MP sales are UP, not down, so that makes no sense at all.

For the former, assume a 15% true price rise (in Euros) since 2001 -- probably about right, for inflation -- and prices in US dollars should roughly have doubled since then. I don't think they have, but when I moved in 2002 I threw out a lot of old Shutterbug magazines.

Can anyone on the forum check the 2001 price in an old magazine or catalog and see if B&H was selling Leicas for $1850 in 2001? Because I just checked their on-line catalog and they're near enough $3900.

Cheers,

Roger

pvenables

11-27-2007, 06:25

alternatve

11-27-2007, 06:41

If the prices go up anymore higher, I think I'll discount new Leicas from my buying list in the future. It's just not worth the hype, and it's competitors, Zeiss and CV are good enough for a amateur like me. And I think it's quite sad, to price Leicas over what was its intended customer, photojournalists and photographers that go to extreme places to take pictures. I guess they have to rely on their Nikon, Canon, Zeiss or CV cameras then.

Samuel

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 06:42

In a sense I agree with Roger's point about Leica being a 'lifestyle choice' though I would qualify that to say that it's really film which is the lifestyle choice in photography. I made the point earlier: I'm expecting to still be using my MP in 30 years time (along with, I expect, all my other various film cameras - though I may not be able to lift the Pentax 67 then). I can guarantee that I won't still be using my Nikon D200: in fact most photography magazines are assuring me that it's obsolescent already. Equally, will anyone who spends $5000 on a Nikon D3 now still be using it in 5 years? The a la Carte Leicas carry a 5 year warranty and a guarantee that new parts will be available for at least 30 years (presumably if Leica survives that long) but in any case, they are robust, simple and reliable. If we generously allow the Nikon D3 a lifespan of 5 years before it is completely superseded by new technology, I'd suggest that the $5000-odd for a custom Leica film camera isn't such a bad deal. I've made the 'lifestyle choice' that I'm going to concentrate on film for my photography and not 'update' my digital camera any time soon.

Mind you, as a corollary to that argument, the M8 looks a somewhat dodgy route to go down!

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 06:57

As I said Roger, each to their own. I have no problem with anyone buying an a la carte MP at any price if that's what they want. It's their money. I know one can choose the viewfinder magnification one wants, which is very useful, and something which would be difficult to acheive going down my route.

I should have mentioned that I have an incident light meter and shoot 90% B+W so don't need a meter in-camera. I have also never handled an MP so can't say how much better it would "feel" than an M2, however cossetted. It's not so much I couldn't afford the extra £1500, more that I think I'll be getting 95% of the camera for under half the price, and that I could use the money I save on other things. I feel it's an alternative option to an MP, not necessarily a better one, just cheaper. Sometimes the law of diminishing returns has to kick in, especially with a four-month-old...

Hope life is good in France. I've always enjoyed your books. They've been of great use to me.

Paul
Dear Paul,

Thanks for the kind words and good wishes.

I fully take your point about value for money, and about being able to find the extra grand-and-a-half if you thought it was worth it. You could find the money tomorrow if it were vital for your child, for example.

But that doesn't really affect the can/can't afford it argument. Neither you nor I can afford to drop that kind of money without having to think about it: as you say, we have other priorities too.

I suspect -- though of course I don't know -- that most à la carte buyers don't really have to think all that hard about another few hundred quid on top of the price of a new camera: if they did, they'd buy a plain MP, as would those who, like me, have to struggle to do so. In other words, à la carte is not aimed at those who can just about afford a Leica: it's aimed at those who can afford it without a second thought.

The meter in the MP is a wonderful reminder that you've left the lens-cap on, even if you don't meter with it, and it takes the Leicavit -- though you could buy an Abrahamsson (spelling?) for the M2. But I also like the 75mm frame and the self-resetting counter. You can add the former to the M2 but not the latter, and as my favourite focal lengths are 35mm and 75mm, the M3 is a non-starter.

Cheers,

Roger

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 07:00

migtex

11-27-2007, 07:11

I'm still using All my Nikon's! Even the "Old" D2H.
Keeps taking the same quality photos as she did in December of 2003 (technically speaking of course, the pictures still have the same bad photo quality since ever I know me!).

Tom-A make it perfectly clear.
IMHO unless Leica joint-venture with one of the big boys to get some $$$ muscle it will suffer, badly (and that is bad because we all suffer in the end too).
Nikon can (and will) come out with a Digi RF. They need to grow on all fronts, on this Techie market (oh yeah is Techie allright) any piece of market is a good market and they (like Canon or Sony) can do it because are selling "short lived" DSLR's.
Thank God I may say.... we don't need another Leica situation, do we?
Beside,s I do "need" a Nikon RF, I know I will (even with M mount if it had to be.. hope not).

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 07:22

If you took $5000 and invested it for 40 years (the nominal lifespan of a Leica film camera) at 7% compound interest (not difficult to achieve), you would have nearly $75,000 at the end of that time, or you could have a broken down piece of junk camera. This makes "investing" anything over say $300 in a camera for anyone but a professional an act of indulgence. Yikes! :eek::eek::eek:

/T
Yeah, but that's only one definition of investment, and one that assumes you don't use a camera (or the money!) for that 40 years.

I'm still using my M4-P after 25 years. I forget what it cost, but it was several hundred pounds. Let's be generous and say it was 1000. Its residual value today is perhaps 500 (an over-estimate, but so was the 1000). So I've spent twenty quid a year -- call it $30, averaging exchange rates -- to own one of the best cameras ever made. If I lost it tomorrow, forty quid. This sounds quite like an investment to me.

Also, recast your investment assumptions on the basis of 7% (which I suspect is optimistic for a safe investment nowadays), using the last 40 years instead of the next.

Let's say you invested $500 in 1967. You'd have nearly $7,500 today. Whoopee! $75,000 may sound like a lot today, but given the way the dollar is going, I wouldn't even bet that it would necessarily buy a Leica in 2047.

How long would your $300 camera last, and what would it be worth after a few years? If you replaced it every 5 years, paying $200 for a trade-up, I'd still be ahead on the M4-P.

Cheers,

Roger

kevin m

11-27-2007, 07:25

Isn't that a bit like saying that bicycles have had two wheels for too long, and we need something new?

I'm not talking about film cameras, obviously. I agree with you that the two-pronged MP/M7 approach is all they need there. I could argue that if they put the modern M8 shutter in the M7 there'd be one more person actually using the camera to make money - me - but I realize the camera has become a luxury/nostalgia item so there's no chance of that....

It's digital, obviously, where real insight and innovation has to be made. You say that Leica is a luxury good, and I'd agree, but the people who buy those luxury goods have to have their egos boosted by knowing that working pros actually use their cameras, otherwise no sale. (Hence, until recently, the fascination with DAH, I'd wager.) Would the Ferrari 430 have a two-year waiting list if not for their F1 success? Would Porsche be the success it is if it didn't race? Would the humble (by comparison) Corvette be Chevrolet's image leader if it didn't compete with those cars?

The M8 is a nice first step for Leica, but the M9 had better up the ante a bit otherwise they're on the road to irrelevance.

kevin m

11-27-2007, 07:30

Then the credit crunch hits even the reasonably sensible...

And M8 owners are sensible? You think they all paid cash for their cameras?!:eek:

dcsang

11-27-2007, 07:33

I think Kevin just summed up my feelings on this issue.

Thanks Kev :)
Dave

(patiently waiting for a decent digital M to use in his wedding biz)

alternatve

11-27-2007, 07:46

Yeah, but that's only one definition of investment, and one that assumes you don't use a camera (or the money!) for that 40 years.

I'm still using my M4-P after 25 years. I forget what it cost, but it was several hundred pounds. Let's be generous and say it was 1000. Its residual value today is perhaps 500 (an over-estimate, but so was the 1000). So I've spent twenty quid a year -- call it $30, averaging exchange rates -- to own one of the best cameras ever made. If I lost it tomorrow, forty quid. This sounds quite like an investment to me.

Also, recast your investment assumptions on the basis of 7% (which I suspect is optimistic for a safe investment nowadays), using the last 40 years instead of the next.

Let's say you invested $500 in 1967. You'd have nearly $7,500 today. Whoopee! $75,000 may sound like a lot today, but given the way the dollar is going, I wouldn't even bet that it would necessarily buy a Leica in 2047.

How long would your $300 camera last, and what would it be worth after a few years? If you replaced it every 5 years, paying $200 for a trade-up, I'd still be ahead on the M4-P.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

I love to read your books on photography and I can see where you're coming from, but it does not make sense for a film camera, using technology decades old to cost so much. Nikon makes indestructable cameras in it's F and Nikkormat series and it didn't cost as much as a Leica in it's day. Domke makes great solid bags too, but the prices arn't overboard though still substantial. I cannot understand a price increase of $1-2k for a new Leica from the Zeiss Ikon, which is not a bad camera in it's own right. I believe you are comparing a Leica M4-2, which was priced at a reasonable amount during it's day, not the ridiculous prices at which the M8, M7 and MP are being sold now.

I have two things to thank Leica Camera Co though, killing my desire for a Leica MP for good and making me turn back to what I'm using now to take even better pictures, which should be the way. When the time comes for a Leica, then a older M series would suffice.

Samuel

kevin m

11-27-2007, 07:48

Thanks, Dave. I hope I'm not sounding too negative on Leica, but I'm so frustrated by them. I was shooting weddings with two M6TTL's long after it made sense to do so just because I love using the things so much. I rationalized the cost by saying that if a "pro" Canon film body cost $1,600 new and I could have a mint used M6TTL for the same money, then I was happy. And the used lenses were a pretty good deal then, too. But now.....YIKES!

If I want 'magic' and nostalgia, I'll take a clean M2, thanks, and not a camera that imitates its build quality with a last-generation sensor inside. :bang:

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 07:49

"$75,000 may sound like a lot today, but given the way the dollar is going, I wouldn't even bet that it would necessarily buy a Leica in 2047. "

If inflation is high, real rates of return become even higher. Remember when you could get guaranteed CDs returning 16% annually during the early '80s? Your calculus makes sense for a professional phtographer, which you are. I'm not sure it makes economic sense for others. Of course, it makes even less sense if you're buying a digital camera, whose residual value falls to zero quite quickly, and then you end up buying another.

/T

dcsang

11-27-2007, 08:07

If I want 'magic' and nostalgia, I'll take a clean M2, thanks, and not a camera that imitates its build quality with a last-generation sensor inside. :bang:

I concur.
I don't think our (and by "our" I mean anyone shooting weddings as a business) concern is ever wrt build quality or lenses or such but with a digital-M, after having used DSLRS, the M body sensor MUST produce files that are usable with minimal post processing in whatever RAW converter we're using. I know I can trust my Canon's to do that. I know the Nikon's can do that as well. I don't have the same faith in the sensor in the M8 though.

For those that already have the M8, I hope they're enjoying it. Honestly. But for me, when I heard that Leica was going to use that Kodak sensor, the same sensor that we've seen had issues in Kodak's DSLRS (when they were making them), I cringed and hoped for the best. Leica has gotten good results considering but hardly, imho, worth the price right now... maybe in the future but not right now.

There are just too many negatives for me in the M8 right now to warrant even attempting to use one in a wedding situation, and all those negatives are due to the sensor and nothing else (really) in that camera. I much rather use my M7 and suffer the pain of developing etc. for some secondary images rather than attempt an M8 purchase.

I don't think you're sounding too negative on Leica at all.... After all, we know that Leica can produce quality products that can be built to last; we just want the same quality put into the sensor within a digital body.

Dave

furcafe

11-27-2007, 08:20

I hear you re: the cost/performance ratio of the M8, but what exactly is the sensor problem?

I concur.
I don't think our (and by "our" I mean anyone shooting weddings as a business) concern is ever wrt build quality or lenses or such but with a digital-M, after having used DSLRS, the M body sensor MUST produce files that are usable with minimal post processing in whatever RAW converter we're using. I know I can trust my Canon's to do that. I know the Nikon's can do that as well. I don't have the same faith in the sensor in the M8 though.

For those that already have the M8, I hope they're enjoying it. Honestly. But for me, when I heard that Leica was going to use that Kodak sensor, the same sensor that we've seen had issues in Kodak's DSLRS (when they were making them), I cringed and hoped for the best. Leica has gotten good results considering but hardly, imho, worth the price right now... maybe in the future but not right now.

There are just too many negatives for me in the M8 right now to warrant even attempting to use one in a wedding situation, and all those negatives are due to the sensor and nothing else (really) in that camera. I much rather use my M7 and suffer the pain of developing etc. for some secondary images rather than attempt an M8 purchase.

I don't think you're sounding too negative on Leica at all.... After all, we know that Leica can produce quality products that can be built to last; we just want the same quality put into the sensor within a digital body.

Dave

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 08:25

Nikon makes indestructable cameras in it's F and Nikkormat series and it didn't cost as much as a Leica in it's day. Domke makes great solid bags too, but the prices arn't overboard though still substantial. I cannot understand a price increase of $1-2k for a new Leica from the Zeiss Ikon, which is not a bad camera in it's own right. I believe you are comparing a Leica M4-2, which was priced at a reasonable amount during it's day, not the ridiculous prices at which the M8, M7 and MP are being sold now.

There's no getting away from the fact that Leica is relying on consumer nostalgia to continue marketing the M-series film cameras but there is a hard core of photojournalists who still use them and will, I suspect, continue to while they're still being made. But it's also worth remembering that substantial numbers of photojournalists and others in related areas continued to use Leicas - and other RF cameras - throughout the era when Nikon and Canon film SLRs ruled the roost, when each new technical innovation - automatic exposure, programmed exposure, TTL flash, autofocus etc etc - supposedly sounded the death knell for Leica and other less 'advanced' systems.

Clearly digital technology has massive advantages in a substantial sector of the professional imaging sector, but not in all of it. As I said earlier, film is now a lifestyle choice: I rarely have hard deadlines for my photography and I enjoy the whole process of shooting, developing and printing film much more than I enjoy sitting at my computer Photoshopping digital images. Thus when I had some spare cash, I spent it on a new Leica reasoning that it was probably the last film camera I would ever buy, and that would give me a great deal of pleasure to use it over the years to come. Did it cost too much? Probably but for me it was worth it.

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 08:27

Olsen

11-27-2007, 08:30

I concur.
I don't think our (and by "our" I mean anyone shooting weddings as a business) concern is ever wrt build quality or lenses or such but with a digital-M, after having used DSLRS, the M body sensor MUST produce files that are usable with minimal post processing in whatever RAW converter we're using. I know I can trust my Canon's to do that. I know the Nikon's can do that as well. I don't have the same faith in the sensor in the M8 though.

For those that already have the M8, I hope they're enjoying it. Honestly. But for me, when I heard that Leica was going to use that Kodak sensor, the same sensor that we've seen had issues in Kodak's DSLRS (when they were making them), I cringed and hoped for the best. Leica has gotten good results considering but hardly, imho, worth the price right now... maybe in the future but not right now.

There are just too many negatives for me in the M8 right now to warrant even attempting to use one in a wedding situation, and all those negatives are due to the sensor and nothing else (really) in that camera. I much rather use my M7 and suffer the pain of developing etc. for some secondary images rather than attempt an M8 purchase.

I don't think you're sounding too negative on Leica at all.... After all, we know that Leica can produce quality products that can be built to last; we just want the same quality put into the sensor within a digital body.

Dave

As a very critical M8 user I see nothing wrong with the sensor. It is an excellent sensor! The first on the market with micro lenses and software that compensate for the CCDs' ability to tackle wide angle lenses. As I have mentioned before here; the M8 plus the WATE is the optimal digital wide angle camera. Curiously, this M8/WATE combo costs as much as the Canon 1Ds II with the new 16-35 mm 2,8 II which is comparable.

As for the RAW file handling the excellent and proffesionally dedicated Phase One LE is far better than the Digital Photo Proffesional and EOS Viewer that's in the 1Ds II-box. I agree with you that 'minimum post processing' is very coomfortable and 'the future'. Leica is not quite there yet. The best way to produce good jpg files is to shoot DNG's (RAW) and bulk-convert them in Phase One.

kevin m

11-27-2007, 08:38

...when each new technical innovation - automatic exposure, programmed exposure, TTL flash, autofocus etc etc - supposedly sounded the death knell for Leica and other less 'advanced' systems.

Why is "advanced" in mock quotes? Is there any doubt that TTL flash and autofocus are more advanced? It's almost easy now to get balanced flash shots with this technology. And long-throw portrait lenses work so much better on an autofocus SLR body it's not even a contest. Sure technology can get in the way, but it can absolutely deliver the goods, too. Are all the pro photographers who own such cameras fools......?

I love the M's, but I love them most for what they do best: No flash, discreet photography with lenses shorter than 90mm. Modern SLR's are so much better at everything else that you're practically tilting at windmills to use an M in those situations. And I say this as someone who walked the dancefloor with two SF-20's with Nikon off-camera flash cords strapped to my belt. :D

I'm with Dave: put a state-of-the-art sensor in the M8 body and I'm there. Heck, I might even buy retail. :eek:

kevin m

11-27-2007, 08:42

As a very critical M8 user I see nothing wrong with the sensor. It is an excellent sensor!

To me, the M is an available light tool. A sensor that caps out at a useable, what, iso 640 - half a stop faster than 400 speed film, doesn't cut it.

A useable iso 3200 is the new ante at the digital table, for my money. :)

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 08:46

" I'm with Dave: put a state-of-the-art sensor in the M8 body and I'm there. Heck, I might even buy retail."

Is this even possible? Given the fact that Leica had to add micro-lenses to an already extant sensor to get even a 1.3x crop factor, doesn't this imply they will always be using last generation technology. The alternative would be to custom develop their own sensor, which even in conjunction with a Japanese biggie, would seem to be prohibitively expensive for such a small market.

/T

dcsang

11-27-2007, 08:46

The sensor, by this point in time (or the time when Kodak developed it - 2006) should be up to clean ISO 3200 images. Sadly it's not. It's an "ok" sensor.. a sensor that I think would be great in a $1500 DSLR; but Leica's M8 is three times that price - so, in my mind, it's not worth it for me right now for the performance. I can justify having my M2 and M7 for personal shooting.. but spending $5000 (and now more with the price hike) on the M8; I just can't justify it.

The M8 and the WATE may be as much as a 1DS MK II and 16-35 L but how about the 5D? I don't need the 1DS MK II (nor do many of the wedding photographers I know); in fact, some are perfectly satisfied with the 40D (which also produces clean ISO3200 files at less than 1/3 the price of the M8 - body only).

All I ask is that the sensor be compatible with what's out there as of April 2006 - for the same price point - and I'd be into that M8 like a fat kid into a bag of pork rinds :D

Dave

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 08:48

Is there any doubt that TTL flash and autofocus are more advanced? It's almost easy now to get balanced flash shots with this technology. And long-throw portrait lenses work so much better on an autofocus SLR body it's not even a contest. Sure technology can get in the way, but it can absolutely deliver the goods, too. Are all the pro photographers who own such cameras fools......?

Of course not, but for some types of photography, a Leica M is as advanced as you need. It's hard to be subtle or discreet when toting around a Nikon F5, 80-200/2.8, flashgun and battery pack... and I have tried!

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 09:01

Roger,

I love to read your books on photography and I can see where you're coming from, but it does not make sense for a film camera, using technology decades old to cost so much. Nikon makes indestructable cameras in it's F and Nikkormat series and it didn't cost as much as a Leica in it's day. Domke makes great solid bags too, but the prices arn't overboard though still substantial. I cannot understand a price increase of $1-2k for a new Leica from the Zeiss Ikon, which is not a bad camera in it's own right. I believe you are comparing a Leica M4-2, which was priced at a reasonable amount during it's day, not the ridiculous prices at which the M8, M7 and MP are being sold now.

Dear Samuel,

Thanks for the kind words about the books.

It's precisely because the MP is made using decades-old technology that it does cost that much: it's extremely labour intensive. Over 20 years ago, the marketing manager of BMW UK said to me, "Of course we don't make them the way we used to. Nobody could afford to!"

As for 'reasonable pricing', you may be wearing rose-tinted glasses here. In the UK in 1967/8 a plain Nikon F with f/1.4 standard lens was GBP 192, while a Photomic T was 227. The then-new M4 was 265 with the f/1.4 Summilux (sorry, no body-only prices, shillings and pence omitted for clarity). Call it 10-15x inflation -- probably about right -- and an MP with Summilux is roughly comparable: not really 'ridiculous' (and I'd rather have the MP).

Having used both ZI and Leica, I can see where the money goes. As a reviewer in the British Journal of Photography said, if the three cameras (Voigtländer, Zeiss, Leica) were all made by the same manufacturer, and sold under the same brand, their relative prices would still need to be much the same.

Cheers,

Roger

kevin m

11-27-2007, 09:02

Ade-oh, I hear what you're saying, but sitemistic nailed it: a small SLR really isn't much bigger than an M. And while most SLR prime lenses aren't up to Leica standards, the better technology of the body they're attached to makes that a moot point.

I use a Canon 85/1.2 now in place of all the 75's and 90's I tried on the M, and while I might have preferred the look of my Summicron 90, the Canon not only equals it, it's more than a stop faster, and even mounted on a lowly Elan 7E body, it delivers far more keepers than the Summicron ever did. I can't even imagine what it might do on a 40D, nevermind a 5D!

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 09:17

"Most of these people are thinking constantly of resale value rather than photography."

Maybe they just ended-up overestimating how much they would like film and rangefinder photography. :D

/T

dandp

11-27-2007, 09:29

Just found an M6J (0.85 finder) for $1450.

That was an impressive find. Did someone not have any idea what they had?

Olsen

11-27-2007, 09:48

Looking at a real life style product; Ferrari, in 2001 the price of one of these small 8 cylinder models was about € 200.000 - which equaled about 200,000 $ back then - which equaled NOK (Norwegian Kroner) 1.680.000. (All figures before taxes). Six years later the same product (well, that's not all true. Included today are a lot of gadgets that were 'extra' six years ago) € 260.000 - an increase of about 5% per year. Not all that much when you think of that the price of aluminium and carbonfibers has doubled since 2001. But those € 260,000 amouts to $ 384.800 today - which equals NOK 1.991.600 - an increase of only 3% per year due to that the NOK has strengthened towards the € since back then.

I believe that the price of Leica gear has had an equal price development in the same period. In the US prices has gone up with 15% per year and a Ferrari costs almost the double today. Europeans have experienced an increase of 5% per year, up 30% in six years and we Norwegians 3% per year, 18% in six years.

How do Ferrari look at the world? They have sold 600 Ferrari's only in California in 2007... While the Middle East is a growing market; 300 units sold in 2007, up 35% since 2006.... But. Like Leica, Ferrari is not a public company. They don't tell us all. But I am absolutely sure of that Ferrari, just as much as Leica, has to look to new markets to compensate for a falling US market. And work hard to keep cost down.

Well. Some here mentioned that 'the rich people get only richer'. This is particularly true in the US. But look carefully at the people buying Ferrari's. The largest segment is 'young people who have become rich fast'. Real estate agents, stockbrokers and people in certain businesses can make a fortune one year. - The next year they are chased by the police for tax evasion.

Ferrari is a typical 'fast comes, fast goes'-product. The ferrari is far from a Leica. It is not a high quality product. It is a performance product which will last as long as you enjoy it. - The service bill after 100.000 km will put an end to all joy. Ferrari will be in trouble on the US market due to falling markets and bonuses in the financial world. Unless they can offset that volume loss in other markets. That's not easy over night.

We who are Leica buyers are slower flock of people. If we are rich, we are 'old and rich'. A long life of economical priority-making have made us think twice before removing the rubber band off our wallets. Most of us arn't rich as such, but we are in a comfortable possition. Enough to make priorities. We like quality and expects things to last. Buying a Leica a'la Carte ('custom', - an excellent American expression for it) is like buying a tailor made Holland & Holland shotgun. To have your initials sewed into the driver's seat of your Scuderia is not quite the same.

It seems to me that the US market is lost for Leica due to the dollar fall. Which is unfortunate. Both for Leica and it's loyal US customers. The survival of Leica is in the hands of consumers in virgin markets. Like the Middle East, Russia and China.

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 09:59

Whatever the situation, Leica cannot fly in the face of a Global economy. If Leica believes that Hong Kong, and Japan will save them, I can only wish them good luck.

Asia might work for Ferrari, since they are just entering the automobile era, but I wonder about Leica?

By the by [buy] they sold 5658 cars in 2006. 2006 was the 14th consecutive year of increasing sales for Ferrari North America ending with 1,635 units retailed. This represents a 5.5% increase versus 2005.

North America is the most important market for Ferrari, representing approximately 30% of the marque's worldwide sales.

Don't underestimate the wealth of the wealthy in the US. Their wealth is not measured in dollars.

I think the wealth and population of the US is hard to get a feel for, even for those of us here in the middle of it. Brooklyn almost has as many people as Norway.

Al Patterson

11-27-2007, 10:07

I have enough money in the bank to purchase an MP if I wanted to, but since I don't shoot weddings for a living and can't write it off as an expense I can't justify pulling the trigger. I do have a CL, so I guess I'm on the fringes of Leica ownership.

In my mind I think of the cost of any large purchase as the number of mortgage payments I can make with the money it would cost. Once I get over one month's mortgage payment as an expense, I need to really NEED something before I purchase it. Now while I want an MP, I don't really need one.

Time to invest in a Powerball ticket or three...

kevin m

11-27-2007, 10:08

Their wealth is not measured in dollars.

I'm just a mortal and I can't imagine anything that can't be measured in dollars. Help me out, here! :D

Olsen

11-27-2007, 10:29

North America is the most important market for Ferrari, representing approximately 30% of the marque's worldwide sales.

- Then it is worse than I thought. That kind of volume is impossible to offset to other markets.

Don't underestimate the wealth of the wealthy in the US. Their wealth is not measured in dollars.

I don't. Just look up the Forbe's List (http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.ht ml
and you will see the extremity of wealth of - some - Americans. Still I think that both Ferrari and Leica will meet the wall in USA in 2008.

Gabriel M.A.

11-27-2007, 10:34

If you took $5000 and invested it for 40 years (the nominal lifespan of a Leica film camera) at 7% compound interest (not difficult to achieve), you would have nearly $75,000 at the end of that time, or you could have a broken down piece of junk camera.
Wait, you mean if I took $5000 and invested it for 40 years at 7% the $75,000 USD will be worth the $75,000 in today's dollars or in dollars 40 years from now?

Or is $5000 in a Nikon dSLR setup a better investment? Just asking, because you've only considered a lowly super-defective nonautofocus-functioning rangefinder, and not a Nectar-of-the-Goddesses indestructible, non depreciable Nikon dSLR. :cool:

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 10:37

Gabriel M.A.

11-27-2007, 10:37

And M8 owners are sensible? You think they all paid cash for their cameras?!:eek:
Hey, my hips worked hard for that M8. I used the cash she gave me :p

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 10:43

I'm just a mortal and I can't imagine anything that can't be measured in dollars. Help me out, here! :D
Self-assurance/self esteem/confidence. Intelligence. Adaptability. Wisdom. Happiness. Health. Luck. Bravery. Resilience. Heredity. Steadfastness. Genius, or at least talent.

EDIT -- And rich friends, or even governments, who will bail them out!

I'm not saying that the financially wealthy have all of them, but they sure as hell have at least one of 'em, or they'd not be financially wealthy.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 10:47

I actually heard that M8 is going to be apart of the A la carte program soon. Wonder how much they will cost. Something tells me that Leica is going to sell more than one of those.
In May they told me 'Not yet'. I gained the clear impression that this was because they were working very hard indeed to keep up with demand for plain M8s.

Also, the production manager hates black paint. At least on the production line.

Cheers,

R.

Olsen

11-27-2007, 10:53

Olsen,
I don't know where you got the idea that luxury brands suffer during a recssion. Just type "luxury goods recession" into Google and you will see numerous examples that point out that luxury barnds don't suffer during a recession.

/T

Sure. A lot of luxury brands will do just as well in a recession. In pace with the growth of billionairs. But not neccessarily Ferrari. They are a typical 'strong market winner'. They were practically bankrupt in the aftermath of the Savings & Loans Crisis that hit the USA in the early 90'. The early 90' was also some years with a weak US$ and a slow 'Europe to USA' export.

Wonder how Leica did it back then... Can anyone tell...?

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 10:55

There's no getting away from the fact that Leica is relying on consumer nostalgia to continue marketing the M-series film cameras...
Well, that and the fact that if you want a current-production, interchangeable-lens RF camera, the choice is Voigtländer, Zeiss or Leica, and most people would buy a Leica if they could afford one.

In digital RF the choice is even wider. You don't like the M8? Fine: go to one of their competitors.

(Obviously 'you' in the wider rhetorical sense, not personally).

Cheers,

R.

dcsang

11-27-2007, 10:56

I actually heard that M8 is going to be apart of the A la carte program soon. Wonder how much they will cost. Something tells me that Leica is going to sell more than one of those.

The first thing I'd say is "Ok.. I'll take one, and there's only one thing I'd like that's customized over the standard production M8s. Please replace the sensor."

:D

Dave

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 10:59

It is important to note that worldwide Leica sales for fiscal year ending March, 2006 were only $128M. The company is now pretty much the avocation [for want of a better word] of one man.

That would be about the same as one Ikea outlet.

.

kevin m

11-27-2007, 11:20

Self-assurance/self esteem/confidence. Intelligence. Adaptability. Wisdom. Happiness. Health. Luck. Bravery. Resilience. Heredity. Steadfastness. Genius, or at least talent.

I'm not saying that the financially wealthy have all of them, but they sure as hell have at least one of 'em, or they'd not be financially wealthy.

Wow, you got "luck" right, anyway. Did you write speeches for the Gipper, perchance? :eek:

How 'bout this list:

Ruthlessness. Avarice. Moral depravity. Sociopathy.

All essential, and missing, elements in your rose-colored, Norman Rockwell snapshot.

Tuolumne

11-27-2007, 11:37

Kevin,
No, those are the politicians.

/T

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 11:48

Wow, you got "luck" right, anyway. Did you write speeches for the Gipper, perchance? :eek:

How 'bout this list:

Ruthlessness. Avarice. Moral depravity. Sociopathy.

All essential, and missing, elements in your rose-colored, Norman Rockwell snapshot.
Deliberately omitted, dear boy, because although I did think about such things, I'm not a relentlessly miserable bugger who is constantly snivelling about his lot. It's the first time in several decades I've been accused of being right-wing; I'm normally attacked for being a socialist. Shows I'm getting the balance about right, I suppose.

Believe it or not, it is possible to be wealthy without being a ruthless, avaricious, depraved sociopath, so your gloomy list is hardly a catalogue of essentials. I won't deny for an instant that vast fortunes have been built on all four of the heads you list, and there are a few that you have omitted save in your rather weak catch-all 'sociopathy': a murderous nature, sadism, skilled lying, religion (yes, the two can be distinguished, though not always) and greed (which again can be distinguished from avarice, at least by moralists and theologians).

But try looking on the bright side for once. You might find it a welcome change.

Cheers,

Roger

kevin m

11-27-2007, 12:39

Believe it or not, it is possible to be wealthy without being a ruthless, avaricious, depraved sociopath...

Yes, you did mention "luck." :D

Nothing wrong with your list, Roger, it just had the whiff of Pangloss about it, that's all. The best of all possible worlds... and all that.

Olsen

11-27-2007, 13:53

One little point here, very Off Topic and veeery political.

A small 8 cyl. Ferrari Scuderia does not cost NOK 1.991600 ($ 384,800) here in Norway. Hold on your hats - and your wallets: It costs more than the double; - about - NOK 4.000.000 ($ 733.944). Its' true.

The difference is tax. So, everytime you buy a car - about - half the amount you pay is tax to 'the federal' goverment. Still the sales of Ferrari's reached a reckord this year with some 25 + cars here in Norway - with about as many inhabitants as Orange County, California. - I would guess that Ferrari sold ten-fold as many cars in Orange County - to half the price, that is.

So, half the cost of the Ferrari's on the Norwegian roads contributes to health care, pension funds, roads, defense etc. Smart, he...?

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 14:09

In digital RF the choice is even wider. You don't like the M8? Fine: go to one of their competitors.

(Obviously 'you' in the wider rhetorical sense, not personally).

'A digital RF is like a talking dog...', discuss.

Why would anyone want one?

Awaits incoming.

Olsen

11-27-2007, 14:26

'A digital RF is like a talking dog...', discuss.

Why would anyone want one?

Awaits incoming.

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 14:27

6 months is a lot of time in the digital world. Milk them and then present the same product in a nicer box and milk them some more.:)
Quite. I took 'Not yet' to mean 'as soon as we can fit it in'. I don't think they knew quite when that might be -- but I'd be amazed if it didn't happen. There may also be a couple of interesting accessories in the pipeline.

Cheers,

Roger

sherm

11-27-2007, 14:31

Quite. I took 'Not yet' to mean 'as soon as we can fit it in'. I don't think they knew quite when that might be -- but I'd be amazed if it didn't happen. There may also be a couple of interesting accessories in the pipeline.

Cheers,

Roger

Yes indeed, I hope it's an even larger and more awkward electronic viewfinder for the 135 ??

Roger Hicks

11-27-2007, 14:39

Yes indeed, I hope it's an even larger and more awkward electronic viewfinder for the 135 ??
Mercifully not. These might actually be useful.

Then again, when I pointed out that the Multifinder is huge and heavy, I got a wonderful deadpan Leica look and the rejoinder, "Yes, but it is also the smallest and lightest available."

Cheers,

r.

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 14:47

Gabriel M.A.

11-27-2007, 14:54

'A digital RF is like a talking dog...', discuss.

Why would anyone want one?

Awaits incoming.
I have a better one: "whining ad nauseum about how bad is a camera/[or just insert noun here] that you don't own is like a talking dog".

No, wait. That's not a comparison. My bad.

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 14:57

A 100% VAT, that is cold! B&H Photo is always packed with Europeans hoping to sneak in a new camera, avoiding VAT.

Easy enough with a camera, not so easy with a Ferrari!

Actually, VAT is nature's way of telling you to sell your photographs, then you can register for VAT as a photographer and reclaim it.

Ade-oh

11-27-2007, 15:02

I have a better one: "whining ad nauseum about how bad is a camera/[or just insert noun here] that you don't own is like a talking dog".

No, wait. That's not a comparison. My bad.

:D

I don't have genital warts either, but with that advice in mind I'll wait until I've collected a few before passing judgement.

Tom A

11-27-2007, 16:18

We should remember that in 2005 Leica was bankrupt! It was a matter of weeks before the banks foreclosed on them. Dr Kaufmann was the white knight that saved them with a substantial infusion of capital, but the M8 was pushed through a bit too fast as was the DMR system for the R8/R9.
The M8 is selling well, but some of the problems that occured early on (magenta cast, focus problems and plain electronic "melt downs") has cost them. Some of these problems are insignificant, the IR problem was a bit of a misjudgement from Leica. If they had told from the beginning that the use of a "thin" IR cover could give a magenta cast and recommended IR filters for critical color work - we would all have applauded them for it. The focus shift problem is not new, some film M's have it with critical lenses and the M8 had it with some of my lenses (90f2 A-A and to some extent with the 35f1.2 VC and my 75f1.4) - nothing that I would consider critical or serious as it was a simple adjustment. The "melt downs" are typical of any electronic piece of equipment using high powered batteries (Apple lap tops, cell phones, PDA's) and Leica has been very good in replacing these problem cameras.
The biggest problem has been that Leica has had to assign staff to "fix" these problems, rather than develop the product further.

I did have the M8 for a couple of month, prior to it being released at Photokina last year. There are a lot of things I like about it. The familarity of the M-body, the
un- complictaed menu system, the M-mount compatibility and the image quality, particularly in mono-chrome. Sticking a fast lens, a 35f1.2VC or the 50f1.4 Asph on it and setting it at 1250 ISO can give pictures that are almost unobtainable with film!
I did not like the ergonomics on it. Too slippery and the lack of an advance lever (however arcane that sounds) made it difficult to hold. At Photokina I recommended that they make a horizontally ribbed cover for it - a "non slip" vulcanite. Tim Isaacs has adressed the advance lever problem with the Thumbs Up, but I have resisted getting a M8 for several reasons. Primarily, I am a film shooter and to switch would have to involve more than the "digital" convinience.

At that time (oct 2006) there was some discussion about a all mono chrome M8 with a 12-15 MP type sensor and improved high speed ISO. This was osmeting I would have been interested in, even at a premium above the "regular" M8.

The M9 should adress some of these problems, but a a la carte M8 will not do it.

I think that after Mr Kaufmann is through with his reorganization. we are going to see new products, lenses, cameras and all we can hope for is that the pricing policies are more aimed at "mere mortals" who have to consider spending money.
Leica will most likely always remain a premium product, they always were and should stay that way - BUT they also must provide a product commensurate with the prices they charge.
They have had almost a decade in which to face up to the competition from other Rf makers, both in regards to bodies and lenses. For almost 30 years they had no competition and could plod along at their own pace. They did "upgrade" lenses on the way, but most of this was massaging old designs in new barrells. The 21f2.8, 24f2.8, 35 f1.4 and f2 asph's and the 90f2 Asph were evolutionary designs. The only original thinking has really been the 50f1.4 asph and the 75f2 AA and possibly the new 28f2,8 asph.
Part of the problem is that most M-users are a rather conservative bunch and some of the lenses from the 50/60/70's are good enough for most work. The M-body, even in its latest form is ergonomically an almost perfect camera. You can switch from a 1954 M3 to a 2007 MP and it works the same - no learning curve, no need to read manuals and your old lenses work on either body! It is a remarkable feat by any manufacturer to have compatibility going back to 1924 (screw mount lenses with adapters). Leica is going to have to convince some of us to give up our old lenses or cameras to switch. OK, some remeber how much they paid for that M3/M4/M6 and the sticker shock will have them cling to these bodies. As for lens quality - a rigid Summicron 50f2 from 1960 is still a good lens, paying additional $3000-3500 for a 50f1.4 Asph is going to take some convincing!

msbel

11-27-2007, 19:03

This thread has been engrossing and I really should get back to work.

It is a challenge for me to undersand why a Leica would be tagged a "luxury" item for the elite who have nothing better to do than spend money frivolously.

I would beg conversely that Leica owners are dead serious about their passion, and not buying them as an emblem of crediblity or bragging rights. If they are buying them for validation, chances are it will be up for sale at some point (bring it on!)

Without a creative passion, I might as well hang it up. My therapy bills alone in one year would buy an MP, M7, M8's in matching colors, and lenses for each day of the week. I am not rich, but I will make an investment in something that sustains me over the long run such as a creative pursuit like photography.

My tool of choice? Leica for all the obvious reasons and some that are quite personal. Zeiss, CV, etc? Don't know much about them so not going to comment. Not my place to...I am sure they appeal to their owner base with the same passion and commitment.

I have kids and bills and car payments and work long hours, and yes, live in a not so steady economy. I make a good wage but not wealth, and I am grateful for it. A Leica for me was a dream twenty years ago. I used a smashed Canon AE-1, shot b&W, developed them in a sink, and loved it in my twenties. Now I use a Leica and the images are better, the lenses are incredible, and the build is like a tank.

And I am still having fun.

One question that I truly do not know the answer to...

In it's day were the Leica models from the 30's through 70's expensive relative the economy at that time and the marketplace of competitors?

M3?
IIIa, b, etc?
50/2 rigid Summicron?

Just curious. If so, that is quite a run for an overpriced product ;)

kevin m

11-27-2007, 19:52

I agree about the passion part. It's what draws me to the Leica M.

But my passion can be satisfied with a vintage body and a few rolls of Tri-X. Leica needs to have a digital camera that does something better than a DSLR. Something that makes a working pro reach for it not out of personal passion, but because the camera is the best tool for the job.

Roger's right, the camera is a luxury item now. Leica need to work on making the camera a necessity of some sort for a working photographer.

aoresteen

11-27-2007, 20:20

In the long run a declining dollar is good for the US economy. When manufactuers cost out components in the US, buying parts made overseas were cheaper than making them in the USA even with shipping costs. So manufacturing shifted overseas due to a strong dollar.

Now the reverse is true. The parts will cost more if made in Asia and shiped to the USA. This will shift production back to the USA, increasing local jobs. It also makes US goods cheaper than imports. USA made goods then become less expensive on the world market thus increasing export sales.

This will help lower the US trade imbalance. China stands to loose the most with a weaker dollar - that is why for years they have kept their currency undervallued.

Oil markets are based on the dollar - that's where the real issue lies. If the price of imported oil goes up, it will at some point cause the US to finally remove the BS regulations that prevents drilling for domestic oil. There is plenty of domestic oil - OPEC does not want the US to drill for it.

It's telling that Cuba will be drilling 90 miles from Florida yet US companies can not. Only when domestic oil production is allowed to compete with foriegn production will the oil price issue be solved.

My wife and I travel overseas every year. Do I mind that a trip to Italy will cost more? Not really. It is what it is. South America may cost less to go to but we go where we want to. The markets will adjust over time. A short visit isn't that significant.

Now if I were to take a job in Europe and have to live on the local economy I would have some concerns if I were paid in Dollars but had to buy everything in Euros.

kevin m

11-27-2007, 20:27

There is plenty of domestic oil - OPEC does not want the US to drill for it.

First thought: :eek:

then: :bang:

and then: :(

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 20:53

In it's day were the Leica models from the 30's through 70's expensive relative the economy at that time and the marketplace of competitors?

Well sure, but "regular" people did not buy the best ones.

When the M3 first showed up in the Sears Catalog in 1957 it cost $447. However Sears would sell it for only $48 down and 19.50 monthly.

In 1972 I was making $8000 a year as a college professor, so you do the math for 1957. Back then income tax was less percentage-wise, but $447 was a lot of money! ($3202.88 in 2006 dollars, 3439 with a meter) The current price for an M7 with 50mm lens at minimum is 4,595.00 for the starter set. So there has been an increase of only 30%, for a much more sophisticated camera with TTL metering. Over the period from 57 to now the price has been pretty steady, considering the improvements the camera is really somewhat deflated.

rxmd

11-27-2007, 21:11

Oil markets are based on the dollar
For the time being. There is really no reason why, for example, Europe shouldn't do the majority of its oil and gas trade with Russia or some Near Eastern trade in Euro; it's the largest market in the world. Technically the dollar isn't really necessary on the oil market from a European perspective. For oil exporters the euro would have the benefit that they don't have to increase their dollar prices continually against the falling dollar to make the same profits. What influence this would have on the dollar in practice is a matter of much speculation, but it would certainly lead to a further drop in demand for the dollar.

Philipp

amateriat

11-27-2007, 21:20

Oil markets are based on the dollar - that's where the real issue lies. If the price of imported oil goes up, it will at some point cause the US to finally remove the BS regulations that prevents drilling for domestic oil. There is plenty of domestic oil - OPEC does not want the US to drill for it. We also have an amazing amount of coal. The issue is: how much are we willing to sacrifice environmenatally for it?

There's also the little matter of "territorial imperative": Canada has piped up rather strongly about the sudden attention the Arctic Circle has gotten from the US and the former "SU", among others, in this regard. Frankly, I can't blame them.

It's telling that Cuba will be drilling 90 miles from Florida yet US companies can not. Only when domestic oil production is allowed to compete with foriegn production will the oil price issue be solved. Again, it's an issue of how much you are willing to pay, and in more than one way. Brazil recently discovered what may be major offshore oil/gas "reserves." But the world has changed: far more people in the world have a thirst for crude now. The oil price issue might be "solved" temporarily; then again, there were those who said $100/barrel oil was a "crazed tree-hugger's fantasy" a mere few years ago.

My wife and I travel overseas every year. Do I mind that a trip to Italy will cost more? Not really. It is what it is. South America may cost less to go to but we go where we want to. The markets will adjust over time. A short visit isn't that significant.
The markets will do what the markets will do. However, we are, as the ancient curse goes, living in "interesting times."

Now if I were to take a job in Europe and have to live on the local economy I would have some concerns if I were paid in Dollars but had to buy everything in Euros.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone. :)

- Barrett

rxmd

11-27-2007, 21:21

B&H Photo is always packed with Europeans hoping to sneak in a new camera, avoiding VAT.
Typically (a) amateurs who (b) can't reclaim VAT, who (c) will buy their camera in New York instead of Berlin if it saves them $15, who (d) don't mind if their warranty period is short and their warranty isn't valid where they live, and who (e) like to play a gamble with customs officials.

On German photo boards there are regular discussions popping up on this topic, and the consensus is usually that it isn't really worth it, because the extra money you pay in Europe actually gets you something in terms of warranty, and the probability of having to pay VAT plus import duties anyway, plus eventually a fine for forgetting to mention your newly acquired equipment to the customs man, is actually not all that low.

Philipp

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 21:27

Typically (a) amateurs who (b) can't reclaim VAT, who (c) will buy their camera in New York instead of Berlin if it saves them $15, who (d) don't mind if their warranty period is short and their warranty isn't valid where they live, and who (e) like to play a gamble with customs officials.

On German photo boards there are regular discussions popping up on this topic, and the consensus is usually that it isn't really worth it, because the extra money you pay in Europe actually gets you something in terms of warranty, and the probability of having to pay VAT plus import duties anyway, plus eventually a fine for forgetting to mention your newly acquired equipment to the customs man, is actually not all that low.

Philipp

Must be way more than $15 for much of Europe. You just cannot believe the crowds of Europeans at B&H Photo! Not like Abercrombie, but close, but there is no place like Abercrombie for crowds of Euros, typically I see people leaving with four or five shopping bags full of clothes.

I have never heard of reclaiming VAT, do pros not pay VAT on purchases of depreciated equipment in Germany? Sounds like you are suggesting Germans have friends with US passports recover it... e.g. fraud? Most large stores in Germany will help US passport holders reclaim VAT right on the spot.

mfunnell

11-27-2007, 21:31

Now if I were to take a job in Europe and have to live on the local economy I would have some concerns if I were paid in Dollars but had to buy everything in Euros.I wouldn't wish that on anyone. :)I spent some time in Hong Kong (the HK dollar pegged to the US dollar) as the Aussie dollar, which I was being paid in, went from somewhere north of US$0.80 to somewhere south of US$0.50. Not a lot of fun. Thankfully, my accomodation and allowances were being picked up locally in HK. Otherwise I would have been in all sorts of strife :eek:

Just recently the South Pacific Peso has ambled north of US$0.90 then settled back in the eighty-high-cent range. Some of us are rather well used to (and sometimes "used by") currency fluctuations!

...Mike

And, yes, I know the "high" Aussie dollar is, in part, due to the low US dollar. But its still up in terms of the "Trade Weighted Index" and, well ... there's more complexity there than I need or want to go into.

rxmd

11-27-2007, 21:41

Must be way more than $15 for much of Europe. You just cannot believe the crowds of Europeans at B&H Photo!
I've seen them. (I've also been sneered at because of my German accent. B&H is a very strange place.)

Another highly-imported commodity items are Apple computers, because Apple prices are traditionally about 30-50% higher in Europe than in the US, and have been like this forever independently of the dollar exchange rate, meaning that if you buy an Apple in the US at the moment you pay like half of what you'd pay in Europe, especially if you have affiliation with an educational or academic institution. Warranty is a lot shorter, but you can at least get some amount of world-wide support at least for laptops if you buy an extra Apple Care support plan. The customs gamble still remains, and you end up with an US keyboard, but neither necessarily has to bother you.

there is no place like Abercrombie for crowds of Euros, typically I see people leaving with four or five shopping bags full of clothes.
I know. Fairly self-explanatory, actually: clothes are a market driven by symbolic capital, and there is the symbolic value that some American brands still possess; and for clothes you typically have neither a customs declaration problem nor the question of where your warranty applies and how long the warranty period is. From a purchasing power perspective the US is currently a very cheap place to buy stuff. Not wanting to offend anyone, but for example buying clothes in New York feels a lot like buying them in Turkey or Kazakhstan.

Philipp

amateriat

11-27-2007, 21:47

I know. Fairly self-explanatory, actually: clothes are a market driven by symbolic capital, and there is the symbolic value that some American brands still possess; and for clothes you typically have neither a customs declaration problem nor the question of where your warranty applies and how long the warranty period is. From a purchasing power perspective the US is currently a very cheap place to buy stuff. Not wanting to offend anyone, but for example buying clothes in New York feels a lot like buying them in Turkey or Kazakhstan.

Philipp No offence taken; but this leaves a lot for me to chew on. :eek:

- Barrett

nikonhswebmaster

11-27-2007, 21:50

Not wanting to offend anyone, but for example buying clothes in New York feels a lot like buying them in Turkey or Kazakhstan.

Philipp

Even when the dollar was strong in the '80s buying anything in Europe was crazy, simply because the concept of a discount did not seem to exist. Even then I could buy an Armani suit cheaper at Century 21 in NYC, than in Milan, and I knew the cheapest places. I never bought anything in Italy other than food.

ClaremontPhoto

11-27-2007, 22:51

I have never heard of reclaiming VAT

The European VAT system works like this if you are in business and registered:

You collect the VAT from your customers, typically 20% or so, and save it until the end of the quarter. Then you pay it to the tax office.

But at the same time you're paying VAT for your own goods and materials. You keep a note of what VAT you've paid and deduct that from what you've collected.

Most quarters if you're a one person business you may collect perhaps €5,000, but have paid out perhaps €3,000 in tax. So you only pay €2,000 to the tax office.

If you don't have many sales in a quarter but you do have significant purchases (like a new camera) it can end up that the tax office pays you money.

We do our own accounts and are trusted to pay in the right amount. There are snap audits to ensure compliance.

(That's perhaps a reason why Robert White quotes VAT free prices, because for professional photographers the VAT is irrelevant. Sure you pay it upfront and then you get it back later.)

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 01:19

... the consensus is usually that it isn't really worth it, because the extra money you pay in Europe actually gets you something in terms of warranty, and the probability of having to pay VAT plus import duties anyway, plus eventually a fine for forgetting to mention your newly acquired equipment to the customs man, is actually not all that low.

Philipp
Dear Philipp,

The Germans are quiite relaxed as compared with the UK, then, where the camera (or any goods imported undeclared over about a 200 euro limit) can be confiscated. That's in addition to the fines... Many Leica buyers want to bring back the box, etc., with their new purchase and that's a REAL giveaway to the customs officials.

Another point you could have made was that flying to the US for the specific purpose of shopping is popular among not-very-bright nouveaux riches who don't actually work out what something costs them after they have added in air fares and hotel in New York, the cost of getting to and parking at their nearest airport, etc.

In order to get the 'best possible value' from their US trip, they then buy things that they don't really need (or even particularly want) because they are 'cheap'. This includes 'designer label' clothes, one of the most impressive wastes of money devised in the late 20th century. They therefore end up spending a lot more money than they would have if they had bought their Leica at home.

What they are really buying is the right to boast to their equally dim friends (a) how much money they 'saved' on a particular item and (b) "Oh, yes, picked it up in New York...." followed by a string of boasts. These are the people who are going to be hit very hard indeed by a recession -- which looks as if it is about to be triggered as a result of the actions of stupid, greedy and indeed dishonest policies on mortgage lending.

Your comment in a separate post about redenominating oil in euros, i.e. the euro becoming the next reserve currency, is unanswerable. My own belief is that sooner or later -- and quite possibly, sooner rather than later -- the euro will replace the dollar as the main reserve currency, just as the dollar replaced the pound sterling.

After all, the euro is being pulled in several directions at once by the member governments of the EU, instead of being subject to the successes and failures of a single government. That will almost certainly lead to a prolonged period of a low-value dollar (decades rather than years) thought it will probably recover sooner or later.

But extraordinarily many Americans seem to believe that the dollar has a divine right to be the reserve currency.

Cheers,

Roger

Paul T.

11-28-2007, 01:58

I reclaim VAT on work-related purchases (including a limited amount of camera gear) , and in fact there's only a marginal difference between the price of a MacBook in the UK and US. (I had to buy one, then return for a refund, as a loaner when mine was being repaired in LA). The whole idea of flying to the US for 'sale' goods is just another way of stimulating the rampant consumerism that helped get us into this mess.

And I've got a right to be angry. I live in London, but nearly 2/3rds of my income for the next two years is paid in $$$. I've not quite, sadly, reached the levels of Gisele Bundchen, when I will only get out of bed for a million Euros, and can refuse same sum in $$$.

rxmd

11-28-2007, 02:34

I reclaim VAT on work-related purchases (including a limited amount of camera gear) , and in fact there's only a marginal difference between the price of a MacBook in the UK and US.
You are lucky in the UK then. In Germany, the most basic MacBook model costs 1050 EUR, or approx. $1560; in the US online Apple store it costs $1100. Even if you could reclaim VAT for the German MacBook, you end up with 880 EUR or about $1310, still a difference of $200. Of course if you want to have comparable warranty you have to buy extra support plans for $250 to $350 so it's already not so feasible. The price differences between support plans, however, is not proportional to those between the models you are buying them for, though. So if you buy at the high end instead of the low end (such as a 17" MacBook for 2700 EUR = $4000, vs. $2800 in the US plus $350 global service plan) you can still save quite a lot of money. OK, it's not quite half the amount. But it's not accounting for any discounts either; if you know a student in the US, or have educational affiliation, you can still cut down on those prices.

The only reason I didn't do that when I was in the US is that Apple support sucks, especially here in Central Asia, where an IBM man will actually come out, by plane if necessary, to whatever village I happen to be working in to install some spare parts for my Thinkpad, while the Apple representative sits in Moscow, shrugging and drinking tea.

And I've got a right to be angry. I live in London, but nearly 2/3rds of my income for the next two years is paid in $$$. I've not quite, sadly, reached the levels of Gisele Bundchen, when I will only get out of bed for a million Euros, and can refuse same sum in $$$.
On a similar note I was very glad that the French foreign ministry, which pays me at the French institute here in Tashkent, switched over from dollars to Euros as the base for their accounting for research grants, as my research has suddenly got quite a lot cheaper compared to a couple of years ago.

Philipp

Ade-oh

11-28-2007, 05:34

Must be way more than $15 for much of Europe. You just cannot believe the crowds of Europeans at B&H Photo! Not like Abercrombie, but close, but there is no place like Abercrombie for crowds of Euros, typically I see people leaving with four or five shopping bags full of clothes.

As it happens there's an Abercrombie in London now which, when it opened at least, was staffed primarily by otherwise out of work fashion models and their ilk. I've so far avoided it, I can't take the comparison.

Having been in the US for work purposes for the past week, and comparing prices, it seems to me that the US is much cheaper for the staples of life, but that there isn't a huge amount of difference with regard to premium goods, once you factor in VAT and so on. I visited B & H a few years ago but didn't buy anything there: the queues were too long at 1030 on a Sunday morning and I had a plane to catch! What is worth Europeans checking out are the prices at the B&H and Adorama online secondhand stores, which are very competitive in my experience.

nikonhswebmaster

11-28-2007, 06:37

The European VAT system works like this if you are in business and registered:

You collect the VAT from your customers, typically 20% or so, and save it until the end of the quarter. Then you pay it to the tax office.

But at the same time you're paying VAT for your own goods and materials. You keep a note of what VAT you've paid and deduct that from what you've collected.

Most quarters if you're a one person business you may collect perhaps €5,000, but have paid out perhaps €3,000 in tax. So you only pay €2,000 to the tax office.

If you don't have many sales in a quarter but you do have significant purchases (like a new camera) it can end up that the tax office pays you money.

We do our own accounts and are trusted to pay in the right amount. There are snap audits to ensure compliance.

(That's perhaps a reason why Robert White quotes VAT free prices, because for professional photographers the VAT is irrelevant. Sure you pay it upfront and then you get it back later.)

People do that here also with sales tax, but frankly it is usually cheating.

While they can remove the sales tax from expendable items, they are only supposed to remove the sales tax from items used up in the process of providing the service, not capital goods.

Stores like B&H however are not the tax police and will in fact take a resale tax number from any business, and then let you sort it out with the tax man. So they sell many cameras without sales tax, even though it is technically not for resale to a customer.

Here you can get sales tax back, but usually it is simply not paid in the first place. The payment or non-payment is left up to the holder of the sales tax certificate, but of course an audit can bring you a world of pain, if you use it improperly as many small businesses do, hoping they will slip by. Currently they charge as much as 24 times the unpaid tax as a penalty.

In New York state where I live some business is totally sales tax exempt, such as software development, so if you use a computer full time for your work, you can pay no sales tax. This is because the service (creating software) is not taxed.

What you seem to be saying is for those collecting VAT for services such as photo sales, they are not taxed on capital purchases such as cameras? Does this include any business purchases, such as studio supplies, fuel, car etc?

.

kevin m

11-28-2007, 06:46

...is popular among not-very-bright nouveaux riches

This isn't an observation, it's a cliche - a gross generalization.

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 06:51

Having been in the US for work purposes for the past week, and comparing prices, it seems to me that the US is much cheaper for the staples of life . . . What is worth Europeans checking out are the prices at the B&H and Adorama online secondhand stores, which are very competitive in my experience.
For the first, sort of. You can often buy cheap, nasty versions of foodstuffs, or premium versions that are as good as the best you will find in any normal good store in Europe. Unsurprisingly, the latter are comparable in price. I'm thinking specifically of beef in California, where I lived for five years. The cheapest is silly-cheap, loaded with hormones and antibiotics; the best, at 2x-3x the price, is superb.

Also, choice outside the more cosmopolitan areas can be limited. Try shopping for food in Selma, Alabama!

If I happen to be in the USA (my wife is American-born) I normally buy Levis 501s, Fruit-of-the-Loom T-shirts (I think they're in business again?) and Craftsman tools, but not a lot else.

For the second, I heartily agree. Prices tend to be high for 'antiques' (the phrase is generously interpreted in most of the USA) and consumer icons such as Leica gear (hey, I came back to the thread topic), but other second-hand goods do seem ridiculously cheap and have been so for decades in my personal experience of 27 years and 50+ of my wife's experience.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 06:57

I live in London, but nearly 2/3rds of my income for the next two years is paid in $$$...
Two-thirds.... half... one third...

Commiserations. I'm not quite in the same situation -- it used to be between a third and a half -- but the percentage of my income that is in dollars has declined rapidly in line with the dollar, along (inevitably) with my overall income.

Cheers,

R.

dll927

11-28-2007, 07:02

This sure sounds like a bunch of economists debating things. The late John Kenneth Galbraith was once quoted as saying that economic prediction was invented to make the signs of the Zodiak look legitimate. Of course, he was from Harvard, so that could have influenced his thinking, too.

Whatever the economic reasons may be, it seems that Leitz is on a tear to make their equipment unreachable. Of course, anyone ordering that 'a la carte' stuff could probably spring for a Rolls-Royce, too. And in both cases, they could get pretty equal results from far less espensive purchases.

I have an M4-2 purchased in 1983, plus 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses. My total outlay for all of them was about $2,200. Yes, I've heard about all the 'improvements', new kinds of glass, new shapes for elements, etc. And even when I bought my stuff, the prices were not exactly cheap for the day and time. But I have zero intention of shelling out for M-8, M-7, or any of the other recent toys.

nikonhswebmaster

11-28-2007, 07:04

the euro will replace the dollar as the main reserve currency, just as the dollar replaced the pound sterling.

Anything is possible, but the dollar has over 200 years of stability under its belt, the EURO is only a few weeks old by monetary standards. Europe during the 20th century was not a very stable place, we shall see if they do better during the 21st. Everyone seems to believe they can all get along. My vision of Europe in the future still remains more like the movie "Children of Men."

All, swept under the rug.

RF-Addict

11-28-2007, 07:26

Sparrow

11-28-2007, 07:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
the euro will replace the dollar as the main reserve currency, just as the dollar replaced the pound sterling.

Anything is possible, but the dollar has over 200 years of stability under its belt, the EURO is only a few weeks old by monetary standards. Europe during the 20th century was not a very stable place, we shall see if they do better during the 21st. Everyone seems to believe they can all get along. My vision of Europe in the future still remains more like the movie "Children of Men."

All, swept under the rug.

Gentlemen there is an elephant in the room…………..and it’s an Asian elephant!
;)

Al Patterson

11-28-2007, 07:43

While the dollar is indeed weak, it is not a doom and gloom scenario. We all know why the dollar fell and as soon as teh elections are over next year, the dollar will make a recovery. It will take some time for it to get back to pre-Bush levels, but it will get there. Too much of the world economy rides on the dollar's back! As with most things in life it is not all black or white.

I don't see the dollar rising just because of a change of the occupant in a certain building in Washington. It is more complex than that. Now maybe if the new occupant and the other 535 officials exercise some fiscal restraint, then maybe we will se things turn around for the dollar. Otherwise, the dollar will stay low for a long time to come.

migtex

11-28-2007, 07:47

Gentlemen there is an elephant in the room…………..and it’s an Asian elephant!
;)

Selling Chinese Porcelain at cheap prices and accepts USD or Euro for cash....
which is then used to buy property anywhere on the world.
Oh yeah!

Tuolumne

11-28-2007, 07:55

I don't know why I feel compelled to keep reading this thread, which long ago ran out of steam. But I do! :bang:

/T

Sparrow

11-28-2007, 08:00

Selling Chinese Porcelain at cheap prices and accepts USD or Euro for cash....
which is then used to buy property anywhere on the world.
Oh yeah!

If only! Selling anything and everything in US$ keeping most in reserve and using the rest to purchase commodities on the world market.

What I don’t understand is why there hasn’t been a liquidity problem in the US and a big increase in oil and metal prices.

I wouldn’t worry……..the treasury can always print some more $$ :rolleyes:

Olsen

11-28-2007, 08:01

A 100% VAT, that is cold! B&H Photo is always packed with Europeans hoping to sneak in a new camera, avoiding VAT.

Cars are a bit special. There is a special tax on them in addition to VAT. More or less the same in Finland, Denmark and Singapore where prices, taxes included, almost double the price. If you have stayed overseas for more two years you can import a car 'tax free'. It is the typical thing for anybody who have been working overseas for a multinational company to do; buy a tax free car.

The Norwegian military has this 'special deal' for their employees. Norwegian soldiers serving in Afganistan can import a tax free car after serving only 12 months in Afganistan. They do stints of 6 months with a sallary of 500.000 NOK ($ 90.000) tax free. For a 12 months service they earn NOK 1.000.000 ($ 180.000) just enough for a hefty Mercedes SUV which they pick up when going home via Wiesbaden, Germany. - Not all are that lucky. A few have returned in a coffin. - Carried by a Mercedes....so...

VAT is 20% in Norway (Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc.) on all the rest; cameras etc. A large group of amateur photographers from Oslo (members of Oslo Kameraklubb) went to NY to buy 'stuff' well a month ago. Did you meet them?

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 08:14

Anything is possible, but the dollar has over 200 years of stability under its belt, the EURO is only a few weeks old by monetary standards. Europe during the 20th century was not a very stable place, we shall see if they do better during the 21st.
What do you call 'stability'? From $4.80 to the pound sterling before Bretton Woods; $2.80 until 67/68, then $2.40; near parity in the early 80s; years at more or less $1.50; now more than $2.

The United States in the 19th century was not a very stable place. Threats of secession (from New England) averted by a distraction in the form of the War of 1812; the Civil War beginning in the early-to-mid 1850s (Bleeding Kansas was the beginning of the war, long before 1859); and the Granger Movement and the Bimetallist dispute in the 1890s.

Nor was the early 20th century much better. Labour relations that verged on civil war and were calmed only by the convenient excuse of a European war, a crash caused by overheated capitalism in the 20s, a depression that was to a large extent ended by another European war.

What is more, Europe has learned a lot from its mistakes. That's what the EU is about. Despite a substantial minority who hate and fear the EU, the vast majority of EU citizens agree that with all its faults, the EU is better than the alternative.

I live in the EU; I travel extensively in it; and I talk to a lot of people. Even among those who say at first that they oppose it, most agree that it is better than a lot of squabbling nation states.

Bear in mind too that we in Europe have direct experience of the alternative. Both my grandfathers were killed at sea (evacuation of Crete, Russia convoys) and -- I've just walked 50 metres from my front door to check -- the village war memorial has a dozen names on it from the Great War. That's from a village of 1200 people now, maybe 2000 then. Many other villages did a lot worse. Check http://www.oradour.info/

More to the point, the US dollar has enjoyed just under 60 years as a reserve currency, and, as I said elsewhere, it has no divine right to that status.

Personally, I have considerable hope that the $ will recover and remain the reserve currency in my lifetime, and it may do so. But it will not remain the reserve currency for ever, even if it survives until the arrival of the Galactic Credit (deeply unlikely). It is only a question of when and how the change happens. To pretend otherwise is pure fantasy.

Sorry, I've never seen the film to which you refer.

Finally, in response to another post from another person, which Asian elephant had you in mind? Not the yen, which has already had its day. Not the RMB yuan, because the Chinese empire will disintegrate: when 60% of the land claimed as 'China' is in fact other occupied nations (Tibet, Uighurstan, parts of Mongolia, Manchuria) this is a virtual certainty. Maybe the Indian rupee? The Australian dollar? I'll back the Euro, thanks.

Cheers,

Roger

Olsen

11-28-2007, 08:21

Anything is possible, but the dollar has over 200 years of stability under its belt, the EURO is only a few weeks old by monetary standards. Europe during the 20th century was not a very stable place, we shall see if they do better during the 21st. Everyone seems to believe they can all get along. My vision of Europe in the future still remains more like the movie "Children of Men."

All, swept under the rug.

200 years of stabiliity? ?? He? It's been a rollercoaster ride all the way. And now it is going down. Hold on your hats!

Otherwise I agree with you on some of the assessments of Europe. But a few good things have come out of EU thing. And that is the Euro. What I am hoping for is that also Norway, Sweden and Denmark will pick it up. It is rediculous that countries of the size between Orange County and The State of Ohio shall have their own currencies. I am sure you will agree.

Europe is a wast place with nearly some 400 million people (370 million only in EU) with with a scoop of nations ranging from dirt poor Bosnia Herzegovina to super-rich Switzerland. Which makes it is difficult to generalize for the whole region. But Western Europe, I am sure, is going to fare much better than USA for the coming 20 years. At least. This I am pritty sure of.

kevin m

11-28-2007, 08:45

What is more, Europe has learned from its mistakes.

That dish is still on the stove, wait until it's at the table before you start bragging. :) The EU is a bold and laudable step, but you have some problems with immigration and race that make ours in the U.S. look rather tame.

Despite our racial problems here in the U.S. we have a large Black middle class now that didn't exist 40 years ago. The issue of race in America has become thankfully, wonderfully muddled. Class, status, race and economics are all jumbled up, which doesn't allow bigotry the easy foothold it once had here. Many Blacks whose forbears had fled the South during the Jim Crow era have moved back and changed the region immeasurably. And our immigrants, the legals ones, anyway, don't live in racially homogenous ghettos like they do throughout Europe. Anyone who immigrates to this country and wants to be an American only has to say it, and live here, to make it true. In Europe there's still the notion that to really be German/English/French, etc., there's an ethnicity hurdle to overcome.

I know it's easy, especially now with this President, to make fun of the U.S. and it's problems and shortcomings. ( You can't imagine the heated conversations I've had with family members who actually voted for him twice! :mad: ) But I don't think it's fair or accurate to write off the country just yet, or to imagine that Europe has all the solutions. We could obviously learn alot from you about the benefits of having a social safety net, for starters, (as if it wasn't obvious!) and you could still learn alot from us, even in our current, diminished state. :)

Sparrow

11-28-2007, 08:45

Sorry Roger I lack your certainly, or expertise, to argue for any particular Asian currency.
However I am very pleased we, here in the EU, are no longer “a lot of squabbling nation states”

Olsen

11-28-2007, 09:05

That dish is still on the stove, wait until it's at the table before you start bragging. :) The EU is a bold and laudable step, but you have some problems with immigration and race that make ours in the U.S. look rather tame.

Despite our racial problems here in the U.S. we have a large Black middle class now that didn't exist 40 years ago. The issue of race in America has become thankfully, wonderfully muddled. Class, status, race and economics are all jumbled up, which doesn't allow bigotry the easy foothold it once had here. Many Blacks whose forbears had fled the South during the Jim Crow era have moved back and changed the region immeasurably. And our immigrants, the legals ones, anyway, don't live in racially homogenous ghettos like they do throughout Europe. Anyone who immigrates to this country and wants to be an American only has to say it, and live here, to make it true. In Europe there's still the notion that to really be German/English/French, etc., there's an ethnicity hurdle to overcome.

I know it's easy, especially now with this President, to make fun of the U.S. and it's problems and shortcomings. ( You can't imagine the heated conversations I've had with family members who actually voted for him twice! :mad: ) But I don't think it's fair or accurate to write off the country just yet, or to imagine that Europe has all the solutions. We could obviously learn alot from you about the benefits of having a social safety net, for starters, (as if it wasn't obvious!) and you could still learn alot from us, even in our current, diminished state. :)

This is very well put.

Europe is a ugly place when it comes to race and imigration. - Sure, some places are better (like Sweden) than others (France, Norway, Denmark etc.) The riots in France is shocking and signs of total failure. And this Sarkozy fellow is not going to make it better, is he?

The same here in Norway. We have building industry boom that favours - Norwegians, ofcause, but also Poles and Latvians, while our large community of 2. generation Pakistanis are unemployed. So, they push drugs and rob Seven-Eleven's.

The irony of it is that most of the things that are good about Europe is something Europeans have picked up in USA.....

nikonhswebmaster

11-28-2007, 09:07

What is more, Europe has learned a lot from its mistakes. That's what the EU is about. Despite a substantial minority who hate and fear the EU, the vast majority of EU citizens agree that with all its faults, the EU is better than the alternative.

I know you are right, but Bosnia-Herzegovina really made me wonder if Europe will ever shake its thirst for religious blood. We here in the US seem to have caught the same infection, we are just not up to the next door neighbor concept yet.

I live in a bizarre place (NYC), I lose sight of that sometimes. I ride on the subway, and I am usually in the minority racially. I do not see others with my German-Swedish-Methodist features all around me. My favorite grocery is owned by nice fellows from Yemen, and I buy veggies from a Korean woman who everyone in the neighborhood adores. My bicycle shop is black owned, my camera store Jewish, and my carry-out is mostly Japanese.

I certainly agree about the social safety net, mentioned above, Katrina was a real eye opener.

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 09:16

[QUOTE=kevin m]That dish is still on the stove, wait until it's at the table before you start bragging. :)

No bragging. Statement of fact. I didn't say we'd learned everything, nor that the US has learned nothing. Merely that we've learned.

The EU is a bold and laudable step, but you have some problems with immigration and race that make ours in the U.S. look rather tame.

Highly disputable except in a few small areas.

And our immigrants, the legals ones, anyway, don't live in racially homogenous ghettos like they do throughout Europe.

Eh? Have you ever been (for example) to Chinatown or Little Tokyo or the Korean areas in Los Angeles? Sure there are ethnic concentrations in some European cities but many are far from homogenous, and there are countless people of many nationalities distributed all through the EU. I was just reading a newspaper report about my wife's sewing circle. Ukrainians, Poles, America, English.... None of them lives in a ghetto. My oldest friend is Hungarian: we were at school together in Plymouth, and he now lives in rural Cornwall.

By contrast, the village where I lived in California -- Guadalupe -- was well over 50% Mexican. Of course there were a lot of illegal immigrants, descendants of those who stole the land from its original inhabitants. And a lot of Mexicans, whom one can hardly regard as illegal immigrants in Texas and Alta California. Guadalupe used to be heavily Japanese, too, until WW2 and internment.

Have you lived much in Europe? More specifically, in a poor area like Easton in Bristol, where I lived for 12 years? That's as close as you'll normally find to what you call a ghetto -- not a very accurate or happy term, I'd suggest -- and our neighbours were English, Irish, Jamaican, Trindadian, Bangladeshi, Indian, Indians from East Africa, and even (across the street) Mexican.

But I don't think it's fair or accurate to write off the country just yet, or to imagine that Europe has all the solutions.

I don't think I said either. Stating the obvious, that the US dollar has no divine right to be a reserve currency, and will one day yield to another, is not the same as writing off the USA. Nor do I, when suggesting that the euro may replace the dollar, suggest that Europe has all the answers.

We could obviously learn alot from you about the benefits of having a social safety net, for starters, (as if it wasn't obvious!) and you could still learn alot from us, even in our current, diminished state.

Any country can learn a lot from any other: I'd not disagree for an instant. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the dollar has fallen far and fast, and has thereby called into question its fitness as a reserve currency. This is exacerbated by its heavy reliance on China as a supplier of cheap goods. The Chinese empire is itself of questionable stability, and is a large holder of dollars. Not good.

Do nothing, and the dollar may well continue to fall; raising US interest rates will strengthen the dollar, at the cost of a recession starting in the USA and spreading from there. Neither is an attractive option. I have not yet seen or heard any other credible suggestions.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 09:24

I know you are right, but Bosnia-Herzegovina really made me wonder if Europe will ever shake its thirst for religious blood. We here in the US seem to have caught the same infection, we are just not up to the next door neighbor concept yet.
I don't think it's Europe. It's the entire world. Consider Africa (especially Sudan); Palestine/Israel; Pakistan/India (especially Kashmir); Indonesia...

Have you read Dawkins's The God Delusion? A brilliant book.

As for the next-door-neighbour concept, have you heard some of those Southern Baptist radio programmes? The ones that say the Pope is the Antichrist? (I've actually heard that one with my own ears). Or remember Waco.

Cheers,

R.

nikonhswebmaster

11-28-2007, 09:37

As for the next-door-neighbour concept, have you heard some of those Southern Baptist radio programmes? The ones that say the Pope is the Antichrist?

Well I was raised Methodist, so I won't go there pope-wise, and boy is this thread odd and not about cameras (but surprisingly civil I might add).

I was thinking more of the concept of rounding up all my non-Methodist neighbors and -- well -- making them not... Not that my great grandfather would have fought the idea.

A lot has changed in my life, I grew up attending legally segregated schools, until my last year of high school. I have actually seen "whites only" metal signs on doors and drinking fountains, I have eaten in restaurants with wooden dividers down the middle. The worst was not living it, but not understanding it was morally wrong, I had no clue when I was a kid.

.

furcafe

11-28-2007, 11:05

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 11:14

The worst was not living it, but not understanding it was morally wrong, I had no clue when I was a kid.
My wife's late mother converted from Methodism to Catholicism. In upstate New York.

On the second, that's fascinating. I can see why you had no qualms about it. For a start, children can accept almost anything as normal -- after all, they know no other -- but they seem also to be at once naturally racist, and naturally inclusive. They shun the 'other', but don't include their friends in 'other'. At least that was my experience in Malta in the 1950s (my father was in the Royal Navy). My parents were VERY quick to stop me using any of the derogatory terms that some of the other children used for the Maltese.

(Point taken about thread drift. Next time I'll reply privately, but I only thought of that after I'd written this and I can't be assed to type it out again).

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 11:23

60% of the land may be conquered, but 60% of the population in most of those regions is not Tibetan, Uighur, Mongolian etc. China may very well split up @ some point in the future, as it has throughout Chinese history (most famously captured in the opening words of the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms), but I doubt that the main cause will be "minority" unrest.
Indeed, 90% of the population of the Empire is Han Chinese, and there has been a vast amount of colonization -- as there was in the Baltic States under the Soviet Empire.

Tibetans remain a majority (though not a big majority) in Tibet, which is a far bigger country than most people realize, and bigger still if you include the eastern provinces outside China's definition of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). I don't know about elsewhere, but I am assured that Chinese are even less welcomed by the Uighurs than by the Tibetans.

Like you, I'm not convinced that 'minority' unrest will cause the fragmentation, but I do believe that once the cracks take hold, they will spread very fast, and the 'minorities' in the occupied countries (I'd hesitate to say 'conquered') will take every advantage from this.

Cheers,

Roger

Al Patterson

11-28-2007, 11:24

While this thread has drifted quite a bit from it's original topic, it has been surprisingly civil. I'm not sure I even remeber any mods posting to this thread. (Don't have the time to verify...)

Anyway, since the dollar appears to be a bad investment, maybe I should buy me one of those al-la carte MPs and put it on a shelf somehwere. Gold is at a 27 or 28 year high, so that's out....

Roger Hicks

11-28-2007, 11:31

Olsen

11-28-2007, 15:04

Anyway, since the dollar appears to be a bad investment....

- Oh, don't say that. At least I did not say that. Buy on bad news, sell on good, is an old advice. The dollar is closer to the bottom now than earlier...

Anyway; look up these two buggers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_qK4g6ntM&feature=related

nikonhswebmaster

11-28-2007, 15:32

And anyone who is living in Europe and who has not seen Alfonso Cuarón’s The Children of Men

Rent it!

kevin m

11-28-2007, 15:32

Eh? Have you ever been (for example) to Chinatown or Little Tokyo or the Korean areas in Los Angeles?

Of course. But those are neighborhoods, not ghettos. The inhabitants live there by choice, they aren't compelled to do so by government programs. We have nothing like the current trouble the French are having in the suburbs of Paris now, or that the U.K. was having last summer. We are tearing down much of our government-funded housing that was built through the 60's and 70's because no matter how noble the intentions were, they simply don't work. And we never housed immigrants in them to begin with.

And, again, you can speak English in the most incomprehensible accent imaginable here, but if you say you're an American we take you at your word; while it's really a great turn of events that Europeans are now free to live and work about the E.U., I don't think the same thing applies there. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

kevin m

11-28-2007, 15:39

And anyone who is living in Europe and who has not seen Alfonso Cuarón’s The Children of Men

Rent it!

I'd say anybody living anywhere on the planet should see it.

The scene where they're carrying the crying baby down the stairs of the apartment building during a battle between rebels and government troops, and everyone stops firing to look at it is one of the best sequences I've ever seen in a film.

furcafe

11-28-2007, 16:28

And the latest reference to the Odessa Steps sequence in Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin."

I'd say anybody living anywhere on the planet should see it.

The scene where they're carrying the crying baby down the stairs of the apartment building during a battle between rebels and government troops, and everyone stops firing to look at it is one of the best sequences I've ever seen in a film.

rxmd

11-28-2007, 20:38

Of course. But those are neighborhoods, not ghettos. The inhabitants live there by choice, they aren't compelled to do so by government programs. We have nothing like the current trouble the French are having in the suburbs of Paris now, or that the U.K. was having last summer.
That's due, probably, to a different policy on immigration. On the other hand, the US has its fair share of ghettos, too, maybe usually not as a result of state policy but of economic disenfranchisement and state abandonment, but they're there nevertheless. You don't even have to look at things like the Katrina aftermath to find a lot of recent violence that reminds me about the trouble in the French suburbs.

However, I also think in the long run we should abstain from comparing each other's respective mistakes and problems in order to derive from this comparison the warm fuzzy fuzzy feeling that we're somehow better, respectively. I've seen this behaviour from a lot of people, Americans and Europeans likewise, and I don't think it leads anywhere. In the long run, we have a lot to learn from each other. And since much of this thread centered around the potentially hazardous impact of the American economic situation on a European company, we can see that our economies are so much connected that ultimately a problem for one is a problem for the other as well.

Philipp

Roger Hicks

11-29-2007, 01:13

The inhabitants live there by choice, they aren't compelled to do so by government programs.

. . .

And, again, you can speak English in the most incomprehensible accent imaginable here, but if you say you're an American we take you at your word; while it's really a great turn of events that Europeans are now free to live and work about the E.U., I don't think the same thing applies there. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Sorry, you've lost me completely.

For the first: eh? No-one is compelled to live anywhere by government programs, anywhere in Europe that I know of. Yes, there are poor districts, and sometimes there are riots. Quite unlike the United States, then.

If you say you're a European, people generally take take you at your word, unless they suspect you're an illegal immigrant. Again, this sounds pretty much the same as the USA. What does speaking English have to do with it?

If you say you're American we'll take you at your word, too.

I'm not trying, as Phillipp puts it, to 'compare mistakes'. All I'm saying is that Europe has learned a lot from two world wars in one century, and that probably (I rate it no higher) the EU has a great future. Sure, we need to avoid mistakes here -- but that's true of everyone, including the USA.

Cheers,

Roger

kevin m

11-29-2007, 04:26

I also think in the long run we should abstain from comparing each other's respective mistakes and problems in order to derive from this comparison the warm fuzzy fuzzy feeling that we're somehow better...

Phillip, rest assured that's the last thing I'm trying to do. I love a good lively discussion and I'm trying my best to speak clearly and honestly on this subject without throwing any brickbats. :)

If you say you're a European, people generally take take you at your word...

"European" is not an ethnic identity, is it? You live in France, correct? If you were to tell your neighbors "I'm French!" what would their reaction be? Would they understand what you were talking about, or would your words just puzzle them?

No-one is compelled to live anywhere by government programs, anywhere in Europe that I know of.

Are you sure? I thought that both England and France, at the least, provided housing for immigrants. :confused:

All I'm saying is that Europe has learned a lot from two world wars in one century, and that probably (I rate it no higher) the EU has a great future.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm honestly stunned and happy that the bold experiment of the E.U. is actually working. It makes me somewhat hopeful for the future. :)

And all I'm saying is that the issue of race plays out differently on either side of the Atlantic. National identity in Europe is still tied to ethnicity in a way it's simply not here. We have our white, Christian bigots who think America belongs to them, sure, but despite all the horrible noises they make, there's nothing in our Constitution that offers any protection to either their race or their religion. I'm sure the dinosaurs trapped in tar made a horrible racket just before they were sucked under, too, and our native ignoramuses must correctly sense that they're on the losing end of a cultural and population shift that will suck them under just as thoroughly. (If you look at "Fox News" as a death rattle, it makes it more bearable, anyway. ;) )

Erik,

Your list is, sadly, incomplete. Our history on race here is a well-known horror show. But I think we, too, have turned a major corner as well. It's not as public or as visible as the formation of the E.U. has been for Europe, but it's still a major change, even if quieter. Race here is no longer the, pardon the pun, black and white issue it was just a few short decades ago. Race is "a" factor in discrimination and violence, still, but it's no longer "the" factor. Education and economics probably play just as large a role now.

Ade-oh

11-29-2007, 05:14

Are you sure? I thought that both England and France, at the least, provided housing for immigrants. :confused:

Most European countries with welfarist systems provide relatively cheap social housing for those in most need, and often that means newly arrived immigrants, much to the irritation of the indigenous population. However, there is no policy of forcing immigrants to live in ghettoes that I know of: just as in the US, newly arrived immigrants often go to live in the cheaper areas until they have established themselves.

BTW, at the risk of opening another can of worms, many people in Europe are not entirely enamoured of the EU. A European customs union is a good thing, with many obvious benefits, but the political entity is a hideous, corrupt, Frankenstein monster of different legal and political traditions: undemocratic and unrepresentative; if our friends in the US sometimes complain about their Federal government, they should see the garbage which is spouted by the central EU institutions, about which the individual citizen can do absolutely nothing.

rxmd

11-29-2007, 05:14

"European" is not an ethnic identity, is it? You live in France, correct? If you were to tell your neighbors "I'm French!" what would their reaction be? Would they understand what you were talking about, or would your words just puzzle them?
Well, assuming that there is such a thing then I'm an ethnic German, living in Germany, but paid for by the French and German taxpayers working in a French institute (in Uzbekistan), so I'm somewhat a European success story ;) But yes, if I told people I'm German everybody would have an idea where to place me. But so would they if I said I was European; both identities aren't really mutually exclusive. I think you have similar overlaps in the USA too, where someone can have a strong Texan identity and still feel as an USian, etc. If they told their neighbors "I'm Texan", many people would have an idea what they're talking about. You also have all those Southerners who are proud to exhibit some kind of "Confederate", post-Old South identity, which doesn't make them any less USian. Still, Europe is much more heterogeneous in terms of identities, I think.

Philipp

rover

11-29-2007, 05:20

Please do continue the discussion but this is long past being a discussion about expensive cameras to something much more broad so I have moved it to a different forum.

Roger Hicks

11-29-2007, 05:37

"European" is not an ethnic identity, is it? You live in France, correct? If you were to tell your neighbors "I'm French!" what would their reaction be? Would they understand what you were talking about, or would your words just puzzle them?

[On immigration]

Are you sure? I thought that both England and France, at the least, provided housing for immigrants. :confused:

Sorry, you're still losing me.

For the first, 'American' isn't an ethnic identity either. It's a statement of where you live and a somewhat sloppy way of saying you are a citizen of the United States (there are lots of other Americans, too).

If I said I was French, they'd be very puzzled, because I'm a Cornishman (and that's a nationality; ethnically, I'm a Goedelic Celt, though the ethnicity of Celts is another much-disputed matter). But if I said 'je suis européen' they'd understand perfectly well. The ones who speak English would understand 'I am a European', too.

Are you perhaps making the point that there isn't a pan-European language? If you are, what of it? If you want to live somewhere else, learning the language tends to be part of the deal, like paying taxes in your new homeland. Though there are plenty of English who live in France and learn little or no French and hang out, from choice, in (very expensive, non-state-provided) 'ghettos'.

But as my wife says, she speaks appalling French, and is welcomed just about everywhere. Indeed, she says she feels more welcome in most of rural France than in much of the United States (her native land -- her father's side of the family were in the American colonies before the rebellion) or in England.

For the second, 'immigrant' isn't an ethnic identity, either, nor does anyone provide housing 'for immigrants'. I'm an immigrant, and no-one gave me a house. You are, I think, confusing this with social housing, which is provided at subsidized rents for the poor, and with poor areas, which are often (though not invariably) the same areas as social housing.

Some immigrants are poor, therefore some live in social housing -- just as the poor live in cheap housing in the United States. The main difference is that the landlord in social housing isn't trying to make a direct profit out of them. The worst housing scandals in France -- filthy fire-trap slums, in which people (often immigrants) have died -- have been about private accommodation, not social.

Housing for the poor is nothing new -- think of the slums of Salford, described by Engels himself as 'the classic slum', or the slums of New York ('How The Other Half Lives') or for that matter Bombay today -- and ask yourself how social housing is worse. It is not provided as of right, to everyone, and it certainly isn't provided on demand to 'immigrants', though the right-wing media (your point there is well taken) sometimes pretend otherwise.

Cheers,

Roger

kevin m

11-29-2007, 06:16

For the first, 'American' isn't an ethnic identity either.

Yes, that's my point, actually! Though some here would like to think there's an ethnic component to being American (again, think 'Fox News viewer,') it's simply not true, legally or otherwise. But there is, from what I've seen, still an ethnic component to being, say, German, Swedish, French, Italian, etc.. The E.U. seems to be changing that, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.

kevin m

11-29-2007, 06:27

But as my wife says, she speaks appalling French, and is welcomed just about everywhere.

Good. There's hope for me yet, then. Is je parle francais comme vache espanol an acceptable ice-breaker? :D

Berliner

11-29-2007, 07:40

kevin m

11-29-2007, 07:50

I pay a lot extra for goods not made in S/E Asia (for many reasons). I have for years.

Ditto. When offered the choice, I choose anywhere but "made in China," but that's simply no longer an option in too many cases. :mad:

Olsen

11-29-2007, 08:24

The dollar has significantly declined against the Euro, but America imports most goods from Asia and South America—NOT Europe. While the weak dollar is troublesome on a large economic scale, it is not, I believe as dire as many of you seem to think, (or wish—I get the strange feeling). Just more of the ‘panic society’ / ‘sky is falling’ buy-in/nonsense you hear from every media outlet. From seemingly intelligent individuals, it sounds rather dramatic.

There is hardly anything made in America anymore—Manufacturing in the US has become less and less competitive in a global marketplace. The reasons are many—unions, taxes, healthcare, wages, etc., —Not the Euro. Same problem in the EU—too expensive to pay an EU citizen to assemble DVD players. So, move the plant to China, hire a 1,000 poor villagers, pay them cents on the dollar, and problem solved—right???

I pay a lot extra for goods not made in S/E Asia (for many reasons). I have for years. I know first hand that it is nearly impossible to find goods made in North America or Europe, and increasingly so. The awakening dragon in the East is already becoming a problem (economically) for the US, and will need to be dealt with carefully sooner or later.

As far as the EU--I don’t think the cost of a Saab or Leica has significant impact on the average American just yet. The housing market, and inevitable credit crunch that’s coming does, and MUCH MORE SO…

You underestimate the importance of European export to the US. Saab, as you mention is in deep trouble. So is Saab's owner GM. It could weel be that Saab ends up in the hands of the Swedish government. - Because of poor exports to the US. And indeed Leica will be hit. We here in Europe will be hit by this 'credit crunch' too. For the first time - in 140 years - Brits are cueing in front of a bank wanting their money. Due to the US housing market collaps. Bank after bank here in Europe, even small counties in Norway tells of bad investments in hair-raising financial products with origins from the US housing market. We have seen nothing yet....

Roger Hicks

11-29-2007, 08:24

Yes, that's my point, actually! Though some here would like to think there's an ethnic component to being American (again, think 'Fox News viewer,') it's simply not true, legally or otherwise. But there is, from what I've seen, still an ethnic component to being, say, German, Swedish, French, Italian, etc.. The E.U. seems to be changing that, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.
OK, I misunderstood quite badly: sorry. This is because my own view -- and the mood I get from just about everyone I talk to -- is that many (most?) take it for granted that being a European 'trumps' (as it were) national differences. Being a German and a European is not all that different from being a Californian and an American, and the parallels (except among the European equivalent of Fox viewers) grow more marked with time.

Of course the old stereotypes come up in anger or (poor) jest, as they do in the United States: think of American 'Polish' jokes (which are Irish in England, Sikh in India and Tsangpa in Tibet), or 'greedy Yankees' or 'excitable Italians'. Then there is the German sense of humour...

But I'm still having a problem with 'ethnic', because these are for the most point nationalities; historically there are few completely distinguishable ethnic groups in Europe, though Celts (Goedelic, the red-haired, gold-bearded variety, and Brythonic, the dark variety) are sometimes held up as examples (others say these are purely linguistic groupings); Gypsies/Romany probably are one; and broadly, Slavs look different from the Mediterranean peoples.

Most so-called 'ethnic' conflict is however religious, nationalistic or economic (insofar as the latter pair can be differentiated). Internal nationalistic conflict is greatly on the decline as a result of the EU, which ties in well with your earlier comments about those who try to kick against history, but are already part of it, though they refuse to understand this. External nationalistic/economic conflicts are conducted mostly by individuals from North Africa trying to get into 'Fortress Europe', much as individuals from Mexco try to get into 'Fortress America'.

As for religious conflict: well, that is a LOT less overt in almost all of Europe than in much of the United States, and when religion is used as an excuse, once again, it tends to be those who are against history (e,g. the emancipation of woment, or an acceptance, no matter how grudging, of homosexuality) who kick and scream the loudest.

Most Europeans simply don't give a toss what religion someone else adheres to, and don't get excited about the one to which they nominally belong. Again I'd point to American 'Christian' hate radio or to the success of American televangelists, contrasting it with the decline of Catholicism in France. Our elderly curé died recently and now we have to share a priest with several other parishes. (I say 'we' but it doesn't really affect me). There's not even a mass every Sunday. When I first visited Fance, over 35 years ago, there were several masses on Sunday and usually at least one every day, in every village. Not any more.

To return to nationalism, we are also seeing a constant realignment/reassessment of what 'self determination' may mean. Belgium may conceivably fall in half, but both halves could easily remain in the EU. Spain could break into even more pieces (Catalunya and Euskadia leaving the main country for a start). There's a serious party in Italy that suggests sawing the South and North apart. And so forth, though some 'independence movements' are more realistic than others: Mebyon Kernow, in my native land, does not enjoy the same support as those seeking an independent Catalan state. Some 'independence movements' are merely a political fashion statement, though understandably, I'd hesitate to say which ones.

Power moves up to the EU and down to the regions, sometimes to the dismay of old nation-states like England: with something like five sixths of the UK population, England has historically been the dominant power in the Union. As a federal state, and for over forty years a divided nation, Germany has perhaps taken to the EU best. I'm slightly surprised there aren't more separatists in some parts of France, but with the possible exception of Euskadia again, there's not much: even the Bretons are muted.

And indeed, the vache espagnole is always much appreciated. Where did you learn the phrase? It's less well known than it should be.

Amitiés,

Roger

Roger Hicks

11-29-2007, 08:27

When offered the choice, I choose anywhere but "made in China," but that's simply no longer an option in too many cases.
Same here.

R.

nikonhswebmaster

11-29-2007, 14:00

Civil Rights and Black Power Movement's Period: 1955 -
1968: Orangeburg massacre

Three young men were killed, Samuel Hammond, Delano Middleton, and Henry Smith. Certainly unfortunate, but a "massacre" not in the European sense of the word.

Siege of Sarajevo 1992~1996 12,000 deaths, now that is a massacre.

I won't go near "our" recent exploits, especially since I consider Brooklyn to be a captive nation of the US.

rxmd

11-29-2007, 23:41

If I said I was French, they'd be very puzzled, because I'm a Cornishman (and that's a nationality; ethnically, I'm a Goedelic Celt, though the ethnicity of Celts is another much-disputed matter).
Just as a side note: "Goidelic" is primarily a linguistic term referring to the subgrouping of the Celtic languages that comprises Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic (Cornish on the other hand belongs to the Brythonic subgroup, with Welsh and Breton), so you're probably Brythonic rather than Goidelic ;)

It's interesting how, if one takes all these identities seriously, one ends up with a lot of confusion, because one tends to get geographic, linguistic, cultural and biological criteria all mixed up. I think what this shows is that in the end, identity is all a matter of choice!

Philipp

Roger Hicks

11-29-2007, 23:48

Just as a side note: "Goidelic" is primarily a linguistic term referring to the subgrouping of the Celtic languages that comprises Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic (Cornish on the other hand belongs to the Brythonic subgroup, with Welsh and Breton), so you're probably Brythonic rather than Goidelic ;)

It's interesting how, if one takes all these identities seriously, one ends up with a lot of confusion, because one tends to get geographic, linguistic, cultural and biological criteria all mixed up. I think what this shows is that in the end, identity is all a matter of choice!

Philipp
Dear Philipp,

For the first, see para 3 post 244. I was using it to point out the weakness of 'ethnic' classifications.

For thr latter, absolutely.

Cheers,

roger

FX trading

11-30-2007, 16:01

I am an FX trader, and just checked out the price increases- they reflect the falling dollar and pound, unfortunately. However, I agree that Leica should be more aggressive in their pricing, especially as we are going into a major recession and they need to keep production going.

Two solutions present themselves- either try *Bay (I bought a wonderful mint boxed MP a la carte earlier this year with highly desirable features for what is now 38% of the list price, with 3 years still remaining on the Leica Passport. Alternatively, get a user M6, and make your own customized version- you have no problems finding all parts, and these can be painted by various specialists (CRR Luton are especially good), as well as changing the leather, or even having original vulcanite put on.

It should be noted that Leica are now owned by a Private Equity group, an arrangement that is not necessarily very stable in the current market turmoil (which unfortunately continues to get worse by the month). Unless the new management show exceptional skill and dexterity, we may not in fact be able to buy new a la cartes (or any other German models) for very much longer- a very sad prospect, so let's try not to be too hard on them.

I sincerely hope that all goes well, and that the Private Equity owners do not impose short-termist objectives on Leica as a result of their own shortfalls. The SPD's Mr. Müntefering (of "locusts" fame) must not be proven right on this one!

kevin m

11-30-2007, 18:34

...the mood I get from just about everyone I talk to -- is that many (most?) take it for granted that being a European 'trumps' (as it were) national differences.

Sorry Roger, I would have replied sooner, but I lost track of this thread!

WOW, this is big. I haven't been in Europe since 1990 so I'm sure I've missed out on a lot, but still....wow!

As for religious conflict: well, that is a LOT less overt in almost all of Europe than in much of the United States, and when religion is used as an excuse, once again, it tends to be those who are against history (e,g. the emancipation of woment, or an acceptance, no matter how grudging, of homosexuality) who kick and scream the loudest.

Yeah, we're currently swimming against the tide here in the U.S., but I honestly feel that the 'majority' that steered us that way was a bit of electoral sleight of hand that won't work in the next election. The religion thing will take longer to fix here, but no matter how loud they are, they don't have a leg to stand on, as regards our Constitution, so the long-term outlook is actually pretty good, I think.

This has been quite a heart-warming and illuminating discussion. :)

nikonhswebmaster

11-30-2007, 19:05

It should be noted that Leica are now owned by a Private Equity group, an arrangement that is not necessarily very stable in the current market turmoil (which unfortunately continues to get worse by the month). Unless the new management show exceptional skill and dexterity, we may not in fact be able to buy new a la cartes (or any other German models) for very much longer- a very sad prospect, so let's try not to be too hard on them.

I sincerely hope that all goes well, and that the Private Equity owners do not impose short-termist objectives on Leica as a result of their own shortfalls. The SPD's Mr. Müntefering (of "locusts" fame) must not be proven right on this one!

Leica sure looks like a private company positioning itself for a sale to a giant, and who has deeper pockets, or closer ties than Panasonic?

steamer

11-30-2007, 22:18

Should be interesting when Panasonic owns the red dot. I wonder if we will see some innovative, well made, reasonably priced cameras and lenses, or if they continue the license to steal philosophy.

FX trading

12-01-2007, 02:39

Interestingly, it seems that one of the main reasons for Leica's projected move to Wetzlar is the need to expand lens production. Perhaps if (when) they are sold they will continue R+D and high-end optics manufacture at Wetzlar, with the bulk of production transferred to a convenient Asian location. It would be surprising if M8 component production were also not transferred to Asia, with (assuming demand justifies) the possibility of final assembly in Europe. However, a careful analysis of their current business would seem to indicate that their primary focus is on optics, which probably also show greater growth potential as well.

As far as analogue and special edition (including a la carte) cameras are concerned, I would suggest that if things get that far, Leica spin out to their German managemnet and workforce most traditional camera manufacture, together with servicing and parts, as this would probably enable them to continue ticking over albeit in a reduced format.

Roger Hicks

12-01-2007, 04:53

Sorry Roger, I would have replied sooner, but I lost track of this thread!

. . . a bit of electoral sleight of hand that won't work in the next election. The religion thing will take longer to fix here, but no matter how loud they are, they don't have a leg to stand on, as regards our Constitution, so the long-term outlook is actually pretty good, I think.
Dear Kevin,

No problem. I hope you're right about the religious bit in the US. I was going to say 'hope and believe' but I'm not sure how far my belief is influenced by my hope. In the long term, it is hard to imagine the American Taleban succeeding, and in the short term, there are heartening signs that they are losing their grip on the Republican party -- not least by shooting themselves in the feet over gay rights. So yes, I probably believe you're right, but after the incredible resurgence of religious loonies in the US, anything seems possible!

The separation of church and state may however be counterproductive. The UK has an established church and France is (I think) officially a Catholic country. To a considerable extent, this reduces religion to 'background noise' for far more people in the US, where the churches compete like any other business.

Cheers,

Roger

Ade-oh

12-02-2007, 07:52

This is because my own view -- and the mood I get from just about everyone I talk to -- is that many (most?) take it for granted that being a European 'trumps' (as it were) national differences. Being a German and a European is not all that different from being a Californian and an American, and the parallels (except among the European equivalent of Fox viewers) grow more marked with time.

I'm sorry but that is not a view I recognise at all and, apart from residing in Europe, I spend a lot of time travelling around it too. In my experience there is a certain amount of enthusiasm for the institutions of the EU from those who benefit directly but for most Europeans, the concept of a European national identity 'trumping' national differences would be meaningless. I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone talking in those terms: 'Fox viewer' or Guardianista.

Roger Hicks

12-02-2007, 11:31

I'm sorry but that is not a view I recognise at all and, apart from residing in Europe, I spend a lot of time travelling around it too. In my experience there is a certain amount of enthusiasm for the institutions of the EU from those who benefit directly but for most Europeans, the concept of a European national identity 'trumping' national differences would be meaningless. I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone talking in those terms: 'Fox viewer' or Guardianista.
Maybe I chose the wrong word: I never was much good at card games. But most see no conflict in being (for example) both French and European or Portuguese and European; EU citizenship overarches nationality.

Of course states/regions seek advantage, but so do US states, French regions or UK counties.

On the other hand, very few whom I meet see EU citizenship as being so awful that they would rather go back to individual countries without cooperation in the form of the European Union: they'd rather have the EU, with all its admitted shortcomings, than the alternative. That's what I meant, and I'm sorry if I stated it poorly.

Cheers,

Roger

Thardy

12-02-2007, 16:57

The separation of church and state may however be counterproductive. The UK has an established church and France is (I think) officially a Catholic country. To a considerable extent, this reduces religion to 'background noise' for far more people in the US, where the churches compete like any other business.

Cheers,

Roger

France is officially a secular country.

Ade-oh

12-03-2007, 07:25

Maybe I chose the wrong word: I never was much good at card games. But most see no conflict in being (for example) both French and European or Portuguese and European; EU citizenship overarches nationality.

Of course states/regions seek advantage, but so do US states, French regions or UK counties.

Roger,

I'm not trying to pick a fight but I really can't think of the last time anyone mentioned EU 'citizenship' (are we actually 'EU Citizens' as opposed to citizens of countries which are members of the EU?) to me and I've never, ever, met anyone who identified themself to me as an 'EU citizen' as opposed to French, German, Spanish, Polish or whatever. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the EU, but I strongly dislike its political (as opposed to economic) dimensions and I think that's a view which is quite common throughout the member countries. Going back to the dim and distant origins of this thread, my à la carte Leica MP has 'Leica Camera Made in Germany' engraved on the back: it doesn't mention the EU:D.

kevin m

12-03-2007, 11:24

We have seen nothing yet....

You may be right, Olsen.

And, BTW, here's what Michael Moore had to say about your country:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/michael_moore_4.html

Olsen

12-09-2007, 12:09

You may be right, Olsen.

And, BTW, here's what Michael Moore had to say about your country:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/michael_moore_4.html

I can't see what Michael Moore sayes about Norway. I don't want to download Quicktime to see it either. I kwow that he did not choose to present the norwegian health care system in his new film 'because nobody back home will believe it's true'. So, he choose the british system instead (I think, I havn't seen his film).

Comparing Norway with USA is irrelevant. Norway has 4,7 million inhabitants, USA, some 300 million. Comparing USA to 'Europe' (450 million) or 'members of the EU' (375 million) is more relevant. But then the picture gets a lot more equal, with Europe ranging from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Switzerland. Norway is more comparable to 'Orange County' California or 'Howard Beach', New York.

I can read some of the comments, though. Many americans seems to distrust our rehabilitation system of criminals. I am absolutely convinced it produces less crime. But the first crime stopper is our social wellfare system. Much of the violant crime you see in USA (and Europe) is out of pure despare. Help people in desperate situations and you will see less crime.