View Full Version : M8 Price Hike
I was just informed, and I'm probably quite behind, but the price of the M8 went up another $1000 here in New Zealand recently. When I bought one of the first two that came into New Zealand I got it for $6500NZ. Now the best price I could get if for from the same place is $7600NZ. In all my time in the camera / photo industry I've never seen a digital product go up in price, let alone go up by over $1000. Then again, the price of milk has doubled here in the last year...
I just checked ... still $6500.00 here in Oz! That's a lot of money and you'd have to want one bad to pay an extra $1000.00! :eek;
When I bought an M8 last year in Korea, it cost roughly USD4100. Now it's $5223. I talked to my dealer and he said to expect another $500 increase in the next few weeks. Just what is going on here? Usually digital camera lowers in value as time goes on; but the M8.......It makes me wish I kept it a little longer so I could sell it after it reached $10000!
Will there ever be a time when the M8 comes down to under $3000?
As much as I love my M8, such pricing strategy does not make any sense. Especially under consideration of the innovation pace and of what can be had in terms of performance and cost with DSLRs meanwhile. A new 5D with used Leica R primes starts to look like a real bargain in comparison.
Absolutely ridiculous. I hope Leica would go out of business for good.
It's bloody criminal for what really is a very simple camera. Come on Zeiss, come on Cosina get your sh*t together ... and I'm not saying this because I don't like the M8 ... I've got nothing but praise for mine!
I'm just stunned that they would increase the price just before 'Photokina' ... it doesn't make sense! :confused:
Will there ever be a time when the M8 comes down to under $3000?
As soon as the $ goes up to two Euros for the Dollar......
As soon as the $ goes up to two Euros for the Dollar......
I think this is a case for a world currency! :p
It's bloody criminal for what really is a very simple camera. Come on Zeiss, come on Cosina get your sh*t together ... and I'm not saying this because I don't like the M8 ... I've got nothing but praise for mine!
I'm just stunned that they would increase the price just before 'Photokina' ... it doesn't make sense! :confused:
Maybe to make the price tag of what they are going to announce (R10?) looking less shocking.
Absolutely ridiculous. I hope Leica would go out of business for good.
Normally I would back the underdog and support Leica but im afraid I have to agree. If they hike the price up yet again without making some serious alterations to the camera, then it will be a disaster in an already disastrous situation. If it goes down that Leica raises the prices without offering anything else....I think the company deserves to die.
Yeah, I was shocked to hear it too. It's not like the exchange rate here has got any worse since the release. In fact, it got much better for a long time, until recently when it dropped back to normal rates.
It's even more crazy to think that to get any technical repair or service work done on it it would need to be sent back to Europe seeing as no one is qualified to do it here in NZ. If they did have a proper service dept here, or even if it was in Australia, which is close enough to home, it would make me feel a lot better about paying that kind of money.
infrequent
08-19-2008, 04:39
funny that a few days ago someone was talking about a discount because of dollar appreciation lately. what a laugh!
Ray Nalley
08-19-2008, 04:55
Leica seems to have a disconnect with the real world. But, they may know their market isn't at all price sensitive so will pay whatever they charge.
So simple as with gas - if [significant part of] buyers would decline purchases, gas would cost less. Same with M8. But people still pay asked price, so it's.
I agree with many of the sentiments here but specifically Keith's statement re: cosina/voigtlander/zeiss/nikon
Currently Leica is the only game in town for a current in production digital rangefinder. Yes, the Epson exists but they are usually purchased used and some folks have had issues finding one or two people to repair them when necessary. I'm not saying the Epson camera is a bad one, but it's no longer in production.
So, as with any product, if it's only one company making said product, then they can set the price at whatever the market will bear. And currently it looks like they're reaching to determine if the market is willing to bear the increase in price.
Dave
Leica seems to have a disconnect with the real world. But, they may know their market isn't at all price sensitive so will pay whatever they charge.
That's because there are so many collectors out there that would rather fondle their cameras and show them behind display cases than actually use them. :bang:
Seriously, If I ever became mega rich, I would buy all the 'anniversary' and 'collector'' set's I could find; use the crap out of 'em, then donate them to up and coming photo students.
It really kills me to see such fine photo instruments being left unused. I was in my local camera district the other day and many of the store clerks almost had a heart attack when they saw my MP around my neck. They couldn't believe I actually used it. They commented on how scratched up and dinged it was (it's actually quite tame compared to most I've seen on this board).
Why doesn't Leica take into account all the real photographers who helped them build their name? What will happen when many of the old timers kick the bucket and there's nothing left but young blood who have no interest in Leica because Canon and Nikon were the only things accessible to them when they were learning about photography?
Leica really needs to get away from the whole 'Luxury Item' Hermes way of thinking and start working on becoming a working man's camera company again. Even working paid pro's on the LUF are commenting on how the rising Leica prices are out of their budgets.
There's no doubt I literally went to hell and back to pay for all my Leica gear, but there's only so much a young man can take. I really do hope the company takes on a new direction. I have a feeling that what happens at Photokina 2008 will either make or break Leica.
ray*j*gun
08-19-2008, 05:23
What a laugh........Leica should be in the Rolex business.
Ray
Jodorowsky
08-19-2008, 05:32
My personal fantasy is that Leica are going to reward those who bought into the M8 with a free full frame sensor within the next year, as a way of apologising for all of mess/ misinformation/ mistakes they generated. It'd be a good way of wiping the slate clean.
Hahahaha!
J. Borger
08-19-2008, 05:40
Strange.... in Germany there are discount actions with the M8 ....!
Euro 800 money back for your old SLR or RF camera when you buy an m8.....
http://de.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/5819.html
Before that there were lens combi's with sharp discounts.
Must be the strong Euro having it's side effects .......
I also think that Leica must be totally confident that there is not another digital rangefinder about to appear on the market in the near future. We all speculate constantly, hopefully ... I think they know a little more! :rolleyes:
That's because there are so many collectors out there that would rather fondle their cameras and show them behind display cases than actually use them. :bang:
Seriously, If I ever became mega rich, I would buy all the 'anniversary' and 'collector'' set's I could find; use the crap out of 'em, then donate them to up and coming photo students.
It really kills me to see such fine photo instruments being left unused. I was in my local camera district the other day and many of the store clerks almost had a heart attack when they saw my MP around my neck. They couldn't believe I actually used it. They commented on how scratched up and dinged it was (it's actually quite tame compared to most I've seen on this board).
Why doesn't Leica take into account all the real photographers who helped them build their name? What will happen when many of the old timers kick the bucket and there's nothing left but young blood who have no interest in Leica because Canon and Nikon were the only things accessible to them when they were learning about photography?
Leica really needs to get away from the whole 'Luxury Item' Hermes way of thinking and start working on becoming a working man's camera company again. Even working paid pro's on the LUF are commenting on how the rising Leica prices are out of their budgets.
There's no doubt I literally went to hell and back to pay for all my Leica gear, but there's only so much a young man can take. I really do hope the company takes on a new direction. I have a feeling that what happens at Photokina 2008 will either make or breaK LEICA
Collectors? Of Leica M8-s??:confused:
I don't think there is one person at the Leica factory that sees their products as anything else than user products - except of course for special cases like the charity auction of the first M8 and the last clearance of Noctiluxes.
Nor do I know of anybody buiyng any of the current lineup as collectibles - there is no prospect of gain in collecting.
I don't know about your camera store - but at mine beat-up Leicas are a common sight and only rouse a comment like -fine camera -any nice shots lately?. or similar.
Tuolumne
08-19-2008, 05:51
They do what they need to do to make money. I'm surprised at all of the vitriol here. If their market is price insensitive then good for them for raising prices. They would be derelict in the fiduciary duty to the company if they didn't. It's called "leaving money on the table". No company wants to do that.
Another idea - this could presage the introduction of a lower end digital M at Photokina. Leica would likely need to create a price umbrella for it. Raising the price of the M8 could do just that.
And what's wrong with owning a digital camera that keeps appreciating in price? Isn't digital price depreciation what everyone said would be the undoing of Leica? Looks like they've found a way to make their digital camera APPRECIATE in value over time. Mirabilu dictu!
/T
Come to think of it, I think I just might start spending my money on Voigtlander/Zeiss out of pure support of concept. They are the ones that are actually driving the RF industry into the future by making their gear affordable and catering to the younger generation. It seems like all the new and young exciting talent these days are using Bessa's and Ikon's. If you don't believe me, just check the quality of photos you see and the Bessa/Ikon Flickr Group as compared to the Leica M/M8 Group.
Leica really needs to start catering to the younger 20 something crowd. We are the future Bressons.....
Collectors? Of Leica M8-s??:confused:
I don't think there is one person at the Leica factory that sees their products as anything else than user products - except of course for special cases like the charity auction of the first M8 and the last clearance of Noctiluxes.
Nor do I know of anybody buiyng any of the current lineup as collectibles - there is no prospect of gain in collecting.
I don't know about your camera store - but at mine beat-up Leicas are a common sight and only rouse a comment like -fine camera -any nice shots lately?. or similar.
Jaap,
while I don't doubt that, for the most part, the standard production of M's (M8's, M7's and MP's for example) are exactly as you state, that is; "user products" what about all those "special editions" that Leica issues?
Leica knows they have a market with collectors regardless of how many of us are "users".
I don't believe the M8 is (or could be) a collectible but there are definitely collectors out there or why would Leica have produced all those "wacky" M's in the past (Ein Stuck, Panda, Titanium, etc. etc. etc.)
Cheers,
Dave
Jaap, come on now....you know how Leica collectors are..... In the Leica world, the M8 is doomed to be a collectors item. It's the first digital M! 10-15 years from now I can see M8 going for the big bucks, regardless if their electronics work or are outdated. Case in point, I saw a collector the other day purchase a BNIB Digilux 2 for $1300 because he thought it would be a good future investment.....I dread to think that maybe he's right........
And what's wrong with owning a digital camera that keeps appreciating in price? Isn't digital price depreciation what everyone said would be the undoing of Leica? Looks like they've found a way to make their digital camera APPRECIATE in value over time. Mirabilu dictu!
/T
Well, we'll see if this holds true over time.
Current used M8 prices are in the $3500-$3700 range.
The M8 has already undergone one price hike (that I can recall). Undergoing a second price hike does not necessarily mean that the used prices will jump accordingly.
Cheers,
Dave
The UK list price is the equivalent of 8870NZ$ although no dealers here are actually selling them at that.
Plus Leica is offering a £400 cashback and 2 year passport at the moment.
Standard paasport on the M8 in the UK is 1 year.
Regards
SR
Ray Nalley
08-19-2008, 06:09
Or maybe if you aren't selling them anyway, it really doesn't matter how high you mark them up! I would guess this close to Photokina, Leica isn't selling many of anything.
Jodorowsky
08-19-2008, 06:12
I recently sold my M6 to raise funds for my M8. It was in excellent condition, but the guy I sold it to whinged like a baby because of a few hairline scratches on the baseplate. Turned out that he owned five other M6's and god knows what else. I really wanted to sell it to somebody who would appreciate it and use it, but I definitely got the feeling that it's going to sit on a shelf. Even if the Leica tech's don't feel as though they're creating collector's items, I suspect the powers that be know the market all too well, and although I don't have the education or common sense to know how the aftermarket affects what's produced, I'm sure there's some corellation that a cynical manufacturer knows how to manipulate.
The current technology creates a problem in that people aren't going to be as satisfied with what they've got for as long as they would've been after they bought a new film Leica. We always think we're just a eureka away from something that's going to create mindblowing images that mesh perfectly with our lack of skill (I'm speaking for myself, mainly:)) I sincerely hope the M8 doesn't become a 'cult' camera when they announce the M9, but there's no reason why it won't become 'collectible'. There'll be more than a few pristine examples sitting in storage as we speak.
So there you go. There's a point and a lesson in there. Somewhere.
SolaresLarrave
08-19-2008, 06:18
Absolutely ridiculous. I hope Leica would go out of business for good.
And who benefits from that? What purpose does it serve? :confused:
Be careful about what you wish...
Bottom line: Leica hikes the price of their only digital rangefinder. Instead of crying and deploring, we simply turn somewhere else... hoping there are enough rich buyers to keep the company in business. After all, without current new Leica products there won't be future used Leica stuff.
Time to go and use my cameras! :)
Tuolumne is right. Leica has what appears to be perfectly inelastic demand for its products. They are in a niche market serving the top end of the income bracket to whom price is not particularly an issue. They put their prices up once or twice every year, most customers know that and it will continue unless the demand for their products becomes elastic.
Can anyone remember when Leica prices went DOWN? Even the used market is rising. My MP has seen a $750 bump since I bought it last year.....
Jodorowsky
08-19-2008, 06:29
Just to add, the main reason why I hope that the M8 doesn't become collectible is that if and when I come to sell it, I don't have the buyer whining because it's not as pristine as the other nine he or she owns. Saying that, I fully intend to become rich or enlightened enough not to worry about whether or not I've just scratched the camera on a shirt button, or something.
Oh, not again!
Salaries and other cost factors has hardly risen in Germany since the M8 was introduced. (well, a few percent) - In euros.
In US$ - particularly, but also ozzy-dollars, the price - cost value, has risen dramatically, - in pace with the fall of the above currencies.
The Leica managment is not playing around with some fancy 'pricing strategy' or 'are cynical manufactorers that manipulate the market'. They are fighting for survival. Like a lot of high profile European exporters dependant on the US market.
The Leica managment is the ones that 'have contact with the real world'. Those claiming otherwise don't.
The price of Leica gear (petrol, Ferrari's, Gucci shoes,rice, grain etc. etc.) is indeed a result of the turbulance of the currency market these days.
I pointed to earlier here that the US dollar has indeed picked up 10% towards the Euro. We were discussing, heavily (at the OT Forum here) if this increase in dollar value was something that will last and pick up. - Or that we will see further slide of the dollar value. someone here pointed to that, indeed, Leica do run a campaign in USA these days offering a 500 $ rebate. Not bad, he?
It would not suprise me that Ferrari, Porsche, Gucci and - Eurofighter, Airbus, are offering similar rebates these days. - 'Now' is the time to buy that fighter jet that you have always wanted, - along with those yellow snake skin Gucci's - and a M8 to carry over your shoulder.
they can do what they like, but I have already been priced out of the Leica market. That might not matter to Leica - who knows. Now it is CV, Zeiss and possibly used gear. I use my kit and unless it offers the appriate bang fo the buck, there is no point. I think with the arrival of Zeiss ZM lenses, that point was reached some time ago. Now it is $4500 for an MP...I was left behind some time ago. Thanks goodness I own two bodies.
Olsen, If it truly is the value of the US$ you speak of that is driving the current Leica prices, than why haven't we seen such dramatic price increases in VC/Zeiss?
Jodorowsky
08-19-2008, 06:39
Good point well made, Olson. I would say though, that part of Leica's strategy for survival is going to have to be to continue taking advantage of one of their main attributes; the cachet and collectibility of their cameras. It's up to us how much we buy into that. I have no doubt that Leica continues to produce some of the best cameras ever made, regardless of their retail price or their myth. I was just lucky enough to be able to afford one.
Olsen, If it truly is the value of the US$ you speak of that is driving the current Leica prices, than why haven't we seen such dramatic price increases in VC/Zeiss?
Because the Japanese Yen hasn't appreciated as much towards the dollar as the Euro. That simple.
Whenever I am around with my M6 everyone is surprised to see that it is a film camera, they think its one of those cheapo panasonics with a red dot on it and thumb their noses at me thinking im stupid for spending extra money on a dot. Leica needs to ditch panasonic because they have a very poor image here in China where usually people are very keen about high grade "image" products. Only the select few who know what an m6 is would find it interesting, and for the rest its just a 500 dollar plastic sticker. I dont think that Leica sticking on the train and saying they are coming out with new digital cameras is very productive for their future, after all they seem really paranoid about mentioning panasonic makes their cameras or that its not a made in Germany thing anymore as much as it is a Portugal or Japan thing.
Anyway...Leica should team up with Volkswagen and make the Volkskamera, at least it would still be made in Germany.
Because the Japanese Yen hasn't appreciated as much towards the dollar as the Euro. That simple.
That could be part of it, but I still think that Leica is exploiting it's name and heritage to the collectors. They know the collectors will pay whatever price they put designated. It's like the old story of throwing a frog in a boiling pot of water: it will jump right out......but if you put a frog in a pot of water at room temperture and slowy increase the temperture to boiling.....
I love Leica and the tools they provides us, but at the same time, I hate the fact they are alienating those who actually want to USE their products.
On collecting: I remember in the 1970-ies to 1990-ies that Ferrari prices went through the roof, - anything red with a horse stencilled on it somewhere was worth at least 500.000 $ - until in the early 2000-s prices dropped to a realistic value, and a lot of traders went bankrupt.
Collecting as a speculation object is a volatile sport...
Anyway...Leica should team up with Volkswagen and make the Volkskamera, at least it would still be made in Germany.
I think you're on to something.... That would be an interesting line.
Whenever I am around with my M6 everyone is surprised to see that it is a film camera, they think its one of those cheapo panasonics with a red dot on it and thumb their noses at me thinking im stupid for spending extra money on a dot. Leica needs to ditch panasonic because they have a very poor image here in China where usually people are very keen about high grade "image" products. Only the select few who know what an m6 is would find it interesting, and for the rest its just a 500 dollar plastic sticker. I dont think that Leica sticking on the train and saying they are coming out with new digital cameras is very productive for their future, after all they seem really paranoid about mentioning panasonic makes their cameras or that its not a made in Germany thing anymore as much as it is a Portugal or Japan thing.
Anyway...Leica should team up with Volkswagen and make the Volkskamera, at least it would still be made in Germany.
I agree with you.
Panasonic isn't such a large player with a huge profit (like Canon: Close to 70% of the camera industry profit!) to spend on an 'experiment' like Leica. I am sure that Panasonic is the one 'profiting' from the red dot. Not Leica.
First of all: Leica is very good at making lenses. Secondly, they are good at making cameras. Making digital cameras, however, has turned the camera business up-side-down. It is only Canon that is 'really' profitable making digitals. Nikon is picking up, - but are for sale. Obviously, Nikon's owners thinks 'the camera business' is risky these days.
As I have said here many times before; it is not at all certain that Leica will survive.... The falling dollar just might 'kill' Leica - and a range of other European exporters. - Eurofighter and Airbus will be saved by heavy government subsidies. Along with 'tons of' French wine brands....
Had only 'Leica' been a cognac!
Tuolumne
08-19-2008, 07:29
The dollar has been gaining against foreign currencies. Many think this is the beginning of a longer term trend, due mostly to the weakness of foreign economies, rather than the strength of the US economy. A strong dollar helps imports to the US and hurts exports from the US.
/T
In the USA currently there is a $500 rebate until IIRC Sept 30th. Discretionary spending in the US this summer is way off. The M8 wasn't selling at $5495, and according to at least one popular Leica dealer I talked to, the $500 rebate hasn't boosted sales. So a price hike probably can't hurt sales that are already at a standstill. Mercedes and BMW have not raised their US prices in the percentage Leica has, because if they did they might as well just pull out of the US market.
Tuolumne
08-19-2008, 08:02
The WSJ has had a number of articles about how even premium brands, usually insulated from economic down turns, have been hurting in the US.
/T
Roger Hicks
08-19-2008, 08:12
Absolutely ridiculous. I hope Leica would go out of business for good.
Why?
This is a nasty, spiteful, divisive remark.
If you don't like Leicas, or can't afford them, DON'T BUY THEM.
But why hope they go out of business, depriving many good people of their jobs, and many others of the opportunity to buy cameras they like?
How would you feel if I said that I hoped your company collapsed tomorrow (or at least, that you were fired) and that you were left to starve?
Cheers,
R.
I thought that Leica had a program to update the existing M8's with a better LCD cover and quieter shutter, and perhaps a few more improvements. Couldn't the impending price hike just mean that future cameras have these improvements? Or are they already being sold with the improvements? I don't think the hikes will kill Leica, they are already ghastly expensive, but if you are well-off and want the best, you buy a Leica. I just wish that Epson would jump back in with a new/improved R-D2 with a 10mp sensor at a good price point, the R-D1 is a fantastic camera, handling, image quality, 100% viewfinder. There might even be a market for an entrepreneur to someday snatch up worn R-D1's, replace the shutter and imager, and sell it for 3500.00, half the price of the M8's successor. Hmm. Bob.
In the USA currently there is a $500 rebate until IIRC Sept 30th. Discretionary spending in the US this summer is way off. The M8 wasn't selling at $5495, and according to at least one popular Leica dealer I talked to, the $500 rebate hasn't boosted sales. So a price hike probably can't hurt sales that are already at a standstill. Mercedes and BMW have not raised their US prices in the percentage Leica has, because if they did they might as well just pull out of the US market.
I doubt that what you claim regarding lack of price increases from BMW and Mercedes is correct. I know for sure that Ferrari has increased (from about 200,000 $/€ for a Scuderia in 2001 to 400,000 $ today) their prices in USA with more than just compensation for the dollar fall. So has Porsche.
I can assure you: The pages of business newspapers over here in Europe is full of announcements of price increases of European goods to the US market, - market cuts, firing of staff etc. etc. The fall of the US dollar is dramatic.
allen_a_george
08-19-2008, 09:48
Panasonic isn't such a large player with a huge profit (like Canon: Close to 70% of the camera industry profit!) to spend on an 'experiment' like Leica. I am sure that Panasonic is the one 'profiting' from the red dot. Not Leica.
Not quite true. Panasonic has loaned Leica 20M euros (pg. 14 of Leica's FY 2007/2008 annual report). This was a surprise to me.
Anyways, I'm unsurprised by the price increase. No doubt, all the factors listed here - a captive market, the falling US dollar, and Leica's brand strategy - all play a role in that. Moreover, note that Leica themselves state that "For all product lines marketing and sales are uncompromisingly
geared towards the upper price segment." With that statement in mind, I doubt I'll ever be able to buy a new Leica.
SolaresLarrave
08-19-2008, 10:28
Leica should ditch Panasonic? Hah! I don't think it can make that choice. If anything, it'd be Panasonic deciding to ditch Leica instead.
In any case, why worry about a price hike? It's not the first, it won't be the last, and we'll be wringing our hands again in six months. If Leica priced itself out of my range, so are Ferraris and Rolexes. I'll turn to something else (Prius and Citizen) and be happy with it.
BTW, I'm getting a D700 for my next camera. Not soon, but next summer. :)
willie_901
08-19-2008, 10:42
What a laugh........Leica should be in the Rolex business.
Ray
Leica IS in the Rolex business.
Gabriel M.A.
08-19-2008, 10:58
Absolutely ridiculous. I hope Leica would go out of business for good.
Former PNut?
Gabriel M.A.
08-19-2008, 11:02
Normally I would back the underdog and support Leica but im afraid I have to agree. If they hike the price up yet again without making some serious alterations to the camera, then it will be a disaster in an already disastrous situation. If it goes down that Leica raises the prices without offering anything else....I think the company deserves to die.
Everything is going up in price around the world. It's about a 20% increase. How much is this part the Euro being a strong(er) currency, supplier's costs, etc.?
It is a very sad spectacle seeing many people here on RFF turning it into a PNut spin-off with "Leica" as its bashing focus.
Gabriel M.A.
08-19-2008, 11:06
Oh, not again!
Salaries and other cost factors has hardly risen in Germany since the M8 was introduced. (well, a few percent) - In euros.
In US$ - particularly, but also ozzy-dollars, the price - cost value, has risen dramatically, - in pace with the fall of the above currencies.
Many different folks from certain parts of the world know nothing of currency fluctuations, and how the rest of the world (meaning, not their self-revolving universe) is playing out.
A lot of things are going up; percentage-wise, things are going up disparately. But this sort of thing is just too much to put some brainpower to it. No time. Must get results *now*. Think later. Much later. Grunt.
POINT OF VIEW
08-19-2008, 11:11
You better buy now while the price is cheep. Quote , T. Boone Pickens
Ray Nalley
08-19-2008, 11:31
It really doesn't matter why the Leica M is going up. Once it's priced beyond what you can afford, the reasons are moot. The M8 will (has) become a camera for people of some financial means. It's not an entry level camera for a photography student. It's for people with lots of money to blow. And there are plenty of those around. ;)
Not quite true. Panasonic has loaned Leica 20M euros (pg. 14 of Leica's FY 2007/2008 annual report). This was a surprise to me.
Anyways, I'm unsurprised by the price increase. No doubt, all the factors listed here - a captive market, the falling US dollar, and Leica's brand strategy - all play a role in that. Moreover, note that Leica themselves state that "For all product lines marketing and sales are uncompromisingly
geared towards the upper price segment." With that statement in mind, I doubt I'll ever be able to buy a new Leica.
Can you show me the link to Leica's 2007/08 Annual report?
Roger Hicks
08-19-2008, 12:31
The 'logic' of some RFF people:
I can't afford a Patek Philippe watch.
Therefore Patek Philippe should make cheaper 'entry-level' watches in China.
If they don't, they will go broke.
Cheers,
R.
Leica too expensive, they deserve to go out of business?
Leica disconnected from the real world?
Why do people get so upset about Leica prices? Why do they get so upset about not being able to afford an M8?
Is it so important to have an M8? Is live not worth living without having an M8? Its just a camera, i.e. its nothing we NEED.
There are millions and millions of people on this planet that will never ever in their entire life be able to buy a camera, any camera! Do you think they are whining about Leica prices? Most likely not. They are busy struggling to survive.
And we think its the end of the world when Leica increase prices? THAT is ridiculous, in my opinion.
And for the people that cannot detach from this consumerist way of thinking. Buy a Canon/Nikon/Pentax/used Leica whatever and move on. But stop whining.
See Roger Hicks post for another point worth mentioning. Not very nice to wish for other people loosing their job just because you cant afford their product.
heh.. all I know is.. we're gosh darn lucky that Leica cameras are not a staple or commodity like rice or oil.. :D
Dave
It really doesn't matter why the Leica M is going up. Once it's priced beyond what you can afford, the reasons are moot. The M8 will (has) become a camera for people of some financial means. It's not an entry level camera for a photography student. It's for people with lots of money to blow. And there are plenty of those around. ;)
Ray,
A M8 costs 8,000 $ (20% sales tax included) here in Norway today. - And we have no rebate campaign I know of. Can I afford that? No.
Still, the M8 (+WATE w/frankenfinder) is the only Leica gear I have bought new. Ever. I bought the gear tax free in Singapore 1 1/2 year ago for far less i can buy it for now here in Norway. The rest of the Leica gear I have I have bought 2.hand - like my MP, Noctilux, 35 mm 2,0.
Leica has always been the camera gear that 'everybody' buys 2.hand here in Norway. Because it is so expensive. (- The only worldy consumers that found them 'cheap' were the Americans. Once). The first Leicas, of any numbers, arrived here in Norway with the German occupying forces in April 1940. - Starved German soldiers swapped them for a kilo of butter in 1945. They have never been more expensive...
For us Europeans, despite our strong currency and strong growth of salaries, we still have to pay a hefty tax bill - before we can buy a M8. Over here it comes with health care and a pension included, in a way. That's why all these airliners going from Europe to USA, these days, packed with European consumers that flock into B & H to buy cheap photo gear.
tbarker13
08-19-2008, 13:18
I too hate to see the price of this camera go higher. For a couple of reasons:
1) I want as many people as possible to have one, to create further demand for lenses, etc.
2) I want Leica to still be making digital rangefinders in 20 years.
I worry that they run the risk of pricing themselves out of the user and professional markets. I just hope they know what they are doing.
Of course this may be the point where someone is going to chime in about RFers not understanding business enough to offer advice to Leica. But judging from the company's financial situation over the past decade, that argument doesn't hold much weight.
We are talking about a company struggling to transform itself into something that can thrive in today's world. And I'm sure just about everyone on this forum is rooting for them.
Tim,
They run the risk of going bankrupt....
I too hate to see the price of this camera go higher.
I worry that they run the risk of pricing themselves out of the user and professional markets. I just hope they know what they are doing.
Of course this may be the point where someone is going to chime in about RFers not understanding business enough to offer advice to Leica. But judging from the company's financial situation over the past decade, that argument doesn't hold much weight.
We are talking about a company struggling to transform itself into something that can thrive in today's world. And I'm sure just about everyone on this forum is rooting for them.
I think you hit the nail. Reading from the outside there are enough reasons to doubt that they have a clear concept and strategy of how to grow their business to eventually succeed and prosper in a tough market place. And the global slow down of economic growth is not going to make things any easier in the foreseeable future.
It really doesn't matter why the Leica M is going up. Once it's priced beyond what you can afford, the reasons are moot. The M8 will (has) become a camera for people of some financial means. It's not an entry level camera for a photography student. It's for people with lots of money to blow. And there are plenty of those around. ;)
Rest assured that even people with a little money have some brain, sometimes. That usually is the reason for them being affluent.
Anyway, For many RFF members, I believe, it is not about of how much money they have, but rather how much they are willing to spend for something. What is the average cost of one roll of film, developped and stored, whether digitalised or not - about USD 20, I guess? Do the math and you will be surprised that for the equivalent cost of about 200 colour rolls, developped and stored (don't forget the scanner) you can buy a used M8!
BigSteveG
08-19-2008, 15:27
As long as people pay, the madness will continue. Anyone willing to fork over $5,500 will easily pay $6-7k. Leicas aren't really for pro or student photogs anymore. They are luxury items.
Man, I didn't think my post would cause so much debate! Then again, I should have guessed.
I don't have a problem with Leica being a prestige brand at all. Generally speaking, I'm prepared to skimp, save and wait so I can afford to buy quality things that I will enjoy using. I guess what's happening with the M8 though, because of the nature of what it is, a "consumer electronic device," is against the trends of most computer / technology. As technology evolves, todays hi-tech product will be cheaper tomorrow because there's something else better around the corner.
At the end of the day though I guess it's supply and demand. I don't know how much Leica build vs what they sell, but if they are can't keep up with demand then they might as well put the price up.
As for what's around the corner, I know of one thing coming but don't know of specifics or specs. Hopefully a few things will become clearer at Photokina.
Ray Nalley
08-19-2008, 16:01
The big problem is that "what's coming up" is apparently not an M9. And the M8 has probably sold about all is going to be sold.
heh.. all I know is.. we're gosh darn lucky that Leica cameras are not a staple or commodity like rice or oil.. :D
Dave
Word. :cool:
victoriapio
08-19-2008, 16:59
As long as people pay, the madness will continue. Anyone willing to fork over $5,500 will easily pay $6-7k. Leicas aren't really for pro or student photogs anymore. They are luxury items.
Ahhhh, but professionals also pay what , $7,000 for the 1dsmk3, $7,700 for the 600mm F4IS, and at least a $1,000 for any L lens. So would the top of the line Canon bodies and lenses be called "luxury items?"
No, it is just that some pros shoot with the best, whether the top Canons or Leicas :D Pros can shoot with much less expensive equipment but many choose not to, same with Leica.
I am not defending their price increase other than saying "supply and demand." When people stop buying the M8 either the price will drop or there will be no more Leica. Sotp buying the camera if you do not like the price.
This is what is scary, what the heck will the M9 COST?
Winfreid Scherle ... the vice president of the Zeiss camera and lens group said this when questioned after the release of the Z1 Ikon rangefinder ..... !
Q: There are rumors that Zeiss will eventually have its own digital rangefinder camera body that will accept the M mount lenses. True or false? Will it be Cosina-made? Full 24 x 36mm sensor?
A: At Carl Zeiss, we can imagine such a camera. But we feel that is not the right time to introduce such a camera now. Today digital technology is still developing fast and the initial value of a digital camera is lost in quite a short time. Carl Zeiss wants to protect the investment of its customers and will therefore require a high level of maturity of products before we can justify to offer them to our customers. At the time we introduce such a camera we want to be sure that the owner has invested in a long term value.
1. It is much too early to determine a manufacturer for such a camera.
2. Full 24 x 36 is, as far as we see today, for a variety of reasons the preferred sensor size of most serious rangefinder photographers.
Keep the faith brothers and sisters ... and cross your fingers and toes of course! :p
Some people contributing to this thread seem to attach an angelic innocence to Leica and would believe that they are a totally benign entity in this price spiral! :rolleyes:
I'm amazed how widely missunderstood the "supply an demand equation" seems to be. If volume demand for a product exceeds supply or grows faster than supply price increases work. Leica tries to counter revenue shortfalls resulting from slowing volume demand for new M8s with increasing its prices! This is exactly a recipe for failure!
So one dealer in NZ and another in Korea have increased their prices? Is there anything that says this is not simply a local issue, unrelated to Leica Germany? The price of the M8 in Australia is not set as it is in the US, you can find it advertised online in Australian stores for $6,500, $6,999 and even $7,500, I think the retail store can mark up the wholesale price at what ever they wish.
allen_a_george
08-19-2008, 17:53
Can you show me the link to Leica's 2007/08 Annual report?
http://www.leica-corporate.com/investor_relations/annual_reports/2008/index.html
Ray Nalley
08-19-2008, 18:05
From the 3 month 2008/2009 report, they are losing their shirts compared to last year and are praying that whatever they show at Photokina will at least help them to break even.
infrequent
08-19-2008, 18:26
@ray nalley - ah...this is how rumours start my friend... ; )
"Leica DigiCL to be announced at Photokina."
I moonlight in the photo retail industry where it's my job to know what I'm making per sale so I don't get fired. I know for a fact the price has gone up here but I'm not for a second suggesting that it's because someone is pulling a swift one. The margins are very slim, more so than with Japanese brands. Most likely the increase here is down to the global economy and isolated location. I also know that existing stock on hand will (should) be sold at the old price, seeing as the margins overall will remain the same. I'm lucky to have a very honest and trustworthy shop to deal with locally so I don't have to import via online shops. I repay good and honest service with repeat business. Besides, the exchange rate and potential warranty hassles would even it all out anyway. If I had the money, and considering my soul destroying hassles with pro labs handling my film developing of late, I'd seriously consider buying an M8 to use with my three M lenses. Ironically, I sold my original M8 because it wasn't reliable. I thought I'd fix that by going back to film. Now I can't trust any labs in town and have to send all my E6 work out to another city. Which costs big time (like the M8!) Talk about rock and a hard place!
So one dealer in NZ and another in Korea have increased their prices? Is there anything that says this is not simply a local issue, unrelated to Leica Germany? The price of the M8 in Australia is not set as it is in the US, you can find it advertised online in Australian stores for $6,500, $6,999 and even $7,500, I think the retail store can mark up the wholesale price at what ever they wish.
Seriously, If I ever became mega rich, I would buy all the 'anniversary' and 'collector'' set's I could find; use the crap out of 'em, then donate them to up and coming photo students.
You will be happy to find out that I use my LHSA MP-3 kit nearly daily. The guy I bought it off of got it for $8,000 new, sold it to me completely unused for $5,000, body, Leicavit and 50 1.4 asph.
Now as far as Leica raising prices...? I looked at the price of my three Leica lenses the other day and about passed out. 4 grand for the 28/2 and 35/1.4 asph and nearly $3,600 for the regular 50/1.4 asph.
If Leica keeps this up, they are done by 2010.
John Camp
08-19-2008, 22:03
The dollar is now rising against the Euro and other currencies, and has been for several weeks, and most folks seem to think this is just the beginning - the US is coming out of a recession as Europe begins to look weaker. So more changes may be on the way.
However, I wonder if it's possible that Leica is no longer manufacturing the M8, and is selling out the last remaining stock at the best prices it can manage? That is, if they could project that they could sell out everything they have for $5500, and not have to worry about reduced sales downstream because, for them, there *will be* no downstream sales, then maybe they would do that. This could be done as a runup to Photokina, where they introduce something new. Other photo companies often dump stock before a new model, because they will be hard to sell after a new model is introduced, but that tactic involves companies with thousands of outstanding cameras. If Leica were trying to get rid of only a few hundred or a couple of thousand remaining bodies, and could project a full sell-through at $5500, then why not?
I also wouldn't be surprised if a few collectors are beginning to sense that something is coming to an end, and that an M8 in new condition will be a rare and collectible camera in the near future. I think that might also be holding up the prices of the Epson R-D1, a camera with an outmoded 6mp sensor that still goes from better than $2,000 from Japanese camera stores.
JC
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 00:19
However, I wonder if it's possible that Leica is no longer manufacturing the M8, and is selling out the last remaining stock at the best prices it can manage?
Dear John,
I don't think I'm breaking any embargos by saying that based on my conversations with Leica (including Dr. Kaufmann) at Arles, the above is very nearly as far from the truth as it is possible to get.
Cheers,
R/
HiredArm
08-20-2008, 00:54
The 'logic' of some RFF people:
I can't afford a Patek Philippe watch.
Therefore Patek Philippe should make cheaper 'entry-level' watches in China.
If they don't, they will go broke.
Cheers,
R.
I don't think that's the entire logic at all from some people. I agree that an M8 is a luxury for most. I disagree that there isn't a market for a less expensive line of Leica digital rangefinder cameras. A $2000 camera certainly isn't cheap but there is a market for a less expensive digital rangefinder. One only has to look at the mystique of the Epson RD-1 which commands a high price still for "outdated" technology.
I think many people here tend to only think in extremes as in if it's not a M then it's crap, or if it's not as expensive than it's a cheap product. There is a large medium between a marquee product and a bargain basement one. I refuse to believe that Leica isn't able to make a high quality digital rangefinder camera for less than $5000 USD. It doesn't have to be to the same exact level of an M. Having a prestigious name is one thing. Continuing to not understand what the market can and will bear is the "disconnect" that a lot of people feel is a problem with Leica's business model. A price increase when you suffer a 38% loss is not a smart business move any way you cut it.
infrequent
08-20-2008, 01:26
@hiredArm - i don't think roger's comparison works out...atleast as far as the M8 is concerned. a patek phillipe is a mechanical timepiece that will be there for the next gen. a leica M8 certainly won't be.
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 01:41
I don't think that's the entire logic at all from some people. I agree that an M8 is a luxury for most. I disagree that there isn't a market for a less expensive line of Leica digital rangefinder cameras. A $2000 camera certainly isn't cheap but there is a market for a less expensive digital rangefinder. One only has to look at the mystique of the Epson RD-1 which commands a high price still for "outdated" technology.
I think many people here tend to only think in extremes as in if it's not a M then it's crap, or if it's not as expensive than it's a cheap product. There is a large medium between a marquee product and a bargain basement one. I refuse to believe that Leica isn't able to make a high quality digital rangefinder camera for less than $5000 USD. It doesn't have to be to the same exact level of an M. Having a prestigious name is one thing. Continuing to not understand what the market can and will bear is the "disconnect" that a lot of people feel is a problem with Leica's business model. A price increase when you suffer a 38% loss is not a smart business move any way you cut it.
No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.
Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?
Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?
Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.
Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.
Cheers,
R.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 01:41
Roger, you seem to suggest that contrary to slowing production of the M8, Leica plans to ramp up that production? That would seem to contradict their statement in the latest quarterly report:
"Leica Camera Group closed the first quarter with sales of € 26,999,000 (previous year:
€ 43,560,000). The strong decline is due to reduced sales of the M system and of digital
compact cameras, resulting from delays in the introduction of new products."
infrequent
08-20-2008, 01:47
@Roger - How would Leica's brand dilute because they switch production to Japan? I don't think apart from the collectors, anyone cares where the cameras are built as long the Leica ethos is there. I would rather see Leica in 20 yrs making cameras in Asia then struggling in Europe.
Surely the long term solution is to expand the customer base and secure the future. Not do a short-term price increase and cater to an even diminishing clientele.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 01:54
Increasing prices in the face of falling sales does seem more like an end game strategy then a plan for the future. But, I'll acknowledge that Roger does know things we don't where Leica is concerned, so Leica must have a rabbit to pull out of the hat at Photokina.
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 01:54
@hiredArm - i don't think roger's comparison works out...atleast as far as the M8 is concerned. a patek phillipe is a mechanical timepiece that will be there for the next gen. a leica M8 certainly won't be.
Why not?
If it takes good pictures, and continues to do so, what's to stop anyone using it in 50 years time -- IF Leica continues to support it?
Sure, parts may become unavailable: a risk with bought-in parts. But I remember the uncle of a friend cheerfully using his Leica A in the late 70s, because he'd got used to it in the previous 50 years.
Besides which, the parallel was not with durability: it was with luxury. If you want another example, consider a pair of Lobb shoes at GBP 2290 (+ 17.5% VAT in the UK -- call it GBP 2500 or $4500 US).
If I could afford Lobb Wellington boots (GBP 3238 + VAT) I'd probably wear nothing else. But I can't. I can't even afford Wellingtons from Gieves any more. My first pair in the 60s was GBP 12.50, the second, GBP 25, the third, GBP 65, and when they hit GBP 250 (thirty years ago) I stopped buying them. Clearly it is possible to make boots more cheaply. Do I say that Lobb and Gieves should make them? Of course not.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 01:59
Roger, you seem to suggest that contrary to slowing production of the M8, Leica plans to ramp up that production? That would seem to contradict their statement in the latest quarterly report:
"Leica Camera Group closed the first quarter with sales of € 26,999,000 (previous year:
€ 43,560,000). The strong decline is due to reduced sales of the M system and of digital
compact cameras, resulting from delays in the introduction of new products."
They're making M8s as fast as they can, and do not neglect the fact that 'introduction of new products' can include lenses, sport optics (a substantial part of the UK market in particular) and reflex cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 02:03
@Roger - How would Leica's brand dilute because they switch production to Japan? I don't think apart from the collectors, anyone cares where the cameras are built as long the Leica ethos is there.
This is a matter of opinion. My opinion -- and Leica's -- is that part of what they are selling is German mystique and tradition: the result of 150 years or more of fine engineering. What, after all, is an 'ethos' in this context?
Fire almost everyone in Solms; move the remainder to Japan (if they're willing to go); and suddenly 'ethos' rings very hollow indeed.
Cheers,
R.
infrequent
08-20-2008, 02:09
persist with the current strategy, they would be all gone either way.
Fire almost everyone in Solms; move the remainder to Japan (if they're willing to go); and suddenly 'ethos' rings very hollow indeed.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 02:11
Still having a problem with them saying they are losing money from falling sales and you saying they are making M8's as fast as they can. I'm not saying that you are not correct, just saying it doesn't make sense. Is Leica lying in the quarterly report?
Since everybody else gets to voice their opinion, I will do so too ;)
All of you that are worried about the survival of Leica, do you seriously believe that it is linked to making a cheaper digital version of a 50 y.o. camera? I would think that if they put out a “built in Asia” $2000 M-mount rangefinder, it would sink its teeth into the M8 sales (I probably would have opted for that one myself, instead of my M8). But would they make any more money?
I'm looking forward to see if Leica has plans for the Micro FourThirds format...
Not with the camera. But it might grow the RF market as a whole and lens sales would go up. That is where the money can be made. Same with DSLRs.
No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.
Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?
Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?
Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.
Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.
Cheers,
R.
There are several statements in your post I'd disagree with.
-Successfull manufacturing in high labour cost countries is a challenge, but possible, as other, and not to few examples' show (Porsche, BMW, Swiss Watch Industry to name some prominent ones). Direct labour cost is only one element among others when it comes to product costing. But it requires volumes (economies of scale) and lean (automated) processes to eventually be cost competitive. Leica's way of producing is still to labour intense. However, no matter where they would manufacture, there current business model might fail, i.e. in low labour cost environments workers skills are lacking and productivity is low in comparison.
What they need to survive in the long term is a platform stragegy (Porsche with its Boxster), to grow the market segment demanding for the type of products they produce, allowing to manufactue higher volumes with more automated processes to reduce costs/per unit.
- By offering a lower priced digital M-mount camera the market segment would grow and demand for lenses increase - this is where the volume opportunity is. Maybe not so much for the high priced Lux and Cron models, but with lenses priced in the ranges of their Summarits.
-Increasing prices when volume demand of ones product is falling (!) is from the text book "of how not to do it". Exactly this move ain't fixing revenue shortfalls.
Best
I have a hard time seeing how a $2000 dRF can grow the rangefinder market. I'm sure it would be popular among RFF members, but I can't really see that $2000 or $5000 would make that big a difference for those using a dSLR today, once you start adding lenses the sky is the limit when it comes to price.
Well, I bet there are for example LOT of professional photographers who are forced to use DSLR instead of digital RF. Thousands, tens of thousands. Todays prices in Leicas M8 and lenses are so ridiculous compared to Canon or Nikon that there is no option... $3000 for Nikon D700 or $5500 (or whatever it is, I dunno) for M8...an average rangefinder loving, but realistic "camera is a tool" thinking professional will not think a second which one to buy. Specially when he/she takes a look at the prices of lenses and the way how the camera performs and what kind of IQ it has. In a way, lot of photographers are just forced to be in DSLR world if they want to shoot digitally.
The bank account of the company who makes the first top quality digi RF in the price range of DSLR cameras will sing hallelujah. No doubt. M8 is not a such camera.
EDIT: Let's not forget that there are excellent CV and Zeiss lenses also available, you don't have to put your money into Leica glass. With the same money like in DSLR lens world you can get the lenses for your rf also... Gimme that 2000-3000 USD digital rf body and I am able to get 2 bodies and all the lenses I need with less money than what I would have to put today in 2 body DSLR setup.
I am not a business man, but I fail to see how a $1000-3000 good digi rf would not be the best thing ever for a camera company nowadays.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 03:39
Most pros aren't "forced to use DSLR instead of a digital RF." Most professionals shoot a range of assignments that demand the versatility of a DSLR over an RF. Just a fact of life. There isn't a huge unfulfilled market for DRF's among pros. If there were, Nikon or Canon would have filled it long ago.
Ok I have figured it out, its all so simple. The workers in Portugal must be getting a raise, thats the reason prices will continue to go up.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 03:48
Avotius, you could be onto something there. :)
People seem to forget that there's a whopping 451 employees in Solms - They don't even have a voicemail system when you call customer service (not that that is a bad thing) :D - so all this talk about ramping up production and creating a new line of camera etc. would be difficult, I think, for Leica to do without contracting out much of the production. This is just my opinion mind you and I'm no where near to Leica like Roger may be.
Oh, and if you're thinking of Portugal, ya, there's 477 employees there (yep, Portugal has more Leica camera staff than the "head office") whilst there are 190 "elsewhere" (I would assume that includes New Jersey).
Info is from this (in)famous article:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11413199
Dave
not everyone affords Porsche Boxster.
not everyone affords Leica M8.
Nissan GTR is still expensive for me :)
Leica doesnt worry about their HIGH prices because it exist Zeiss and CV beside it. So it is up greedy consumers choices.
Who ever needs more than a body and a lens?
Most professionals shoot a range of assignments that demand the versatility of a DSLR over an RF. Just a fact of life.
I beg to differ. Well, I don't know what "most" professionals do, but what I know and what I have seen any decent professional do not shoot "everything" - they focus a little bit on something. If you are specialized in sports photography there is no point of getting rf, but otherwise i don't see any reason why would you need DSLR and lenses from superwide to supertele.
Why do you think that for example in the 1990's and early 2000's lot of photojournalists used their Leica's instead of high tech af-slr's? Because THEY COULD. Now they can't if they want to shoot digitally.
Rick Waldroup
08-20-2008, 04:37
I shot professionally for years. I shot Nikon film cameras and then DSLR's. For my work, which was mostly PJ and event stuff, there is no way I would have used rangefinder cameras, especially Leicas (because of the expense of the cameras and lenses).
Not to say that you cannot shoot this way, but in all my years, I can count on one hand actually seeing working pros shooting Leicas or any other rangefinder cameras, for that matter.
I shot rangefinders (including a Leica for a while), for my own personal work, almost never for paying gigs.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 04:47
Well, I'm not sure "a lot" of pros shot Leica RF's in the 1990's and early 2000. Some did, but most shot SLR's, as they have since the 1960's.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 05:43
An interesting read on the current luxury market...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/15/lifestyle/luxe_in_flux_Gumbel.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008082008
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 05:59
Quite honestly, there's not a lot of point in my continuing to post in this thread. No, I don't know that they are still making M8s as fast as they can -- but I do know that they are pretty damn' busy at the factory, on other things, which cuts into M8 assembly time, so maybe 'as fast as they can' isn't as fast as it was.
What I do know is that my views on Leica seem to match better with Dr. Kaufmann's than with those of many RFF members who take an interest in the subject; and as he effectively owns the company, I'm not too unhappy about this.
It comes down to a simple truth. You don't run Leica; I don't run Leica; Dr. Kaufmann does. You may think that some of his decisions are wrong. History may reveal that some of them are/were/will have been wrong (the question of tense here is interesting). But in the meanwhile -- especially a few weeks before photokina -- there's not a vast amount to say. Embargos come off a few days before photokina; we'll all learn more then.
Meanwhile I'll go on buying what I can afford; I'll go on hoping that those who are richer than I will go on buying enough Leicas to keep them in business; and I'll try to correct some of the wilder misconceptions that surface from time to time.
Of course Dr. Kaufmann and others may have told me fairy stories for their own purposes, but I doubt it. Certainly, I'd have more faith in the CEO of a company than in nay-sayers on RFF.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
08-20-2008, 06:02
The 'logic' of some RFF people:
I can't afford a Patek Philippe watch.
Therefore Patek Philippe should make cheaper 'entry-level' watches in China.
If they don't, they will go broke.
Won't happen; they'll go "it's irrational to buy a watch when I can already ask a passerby or read it from my cellphone".
Assuming, of course, the cellphone is not so old as to not have a clock. :D
tbarker13
08-20-2008, 06:28
[quote=Roger Hicks;878604]Why not?
If it takes good pictures, and continues to do so, what's to stop anyone using it in 50 years time -- IF Leica continues to support it?
That's a huge IF in today's world of electronics. Certainly not one I'll be counting on.
But I'll say again. The company has earned all of the second-guessing that's taking place. Until Leica can demonstrate that it does know what it is doing, people are going to cast a very critical eye on any substantial moves.
I'll confess that I don't know enough about Kaufmann. But regardless of his past accomplishments, he has a long way to go before proving he can fix Leica. The stark reality is that history is littered with CEOs and owners who put their companies into the grave because of bad decisions.
I'm not saying that a price increase is going to doom Leica, or anything close to it. But at the same time, these guys at the top don't always know what's best.
I doubt that what you claim regarding lack of price increases from BMW and Mercedes is correct. I know for sure that Ferrari has increased (from about 200,000 $/€ for a Scuderia in 2001 to 400,000 $ today) their prices in USA with more than just compensation for the dollar fall. So has Porsche.
For the record, I did not claim that prices haven't increased. What I said was that they have not increased anywhere near the same percentage as Leica. From internet auto consumer sites:
US MSRP:
Mercedes E-350
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $50,550
Summer 2008: $50,900
Total price increase $450 (0.8%)
BMW 550i
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $57,800
Summer 2008: $58,500
Total price increase $700 (1.2%)
Porsche Carrera (base model)
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $72,400
Summer 2008: $73,500
Total price increase $1100 (1.5%)
Leica M8
Fall 2006: $ 4,795
Summer 2008: $ 5,495
Total price increase $700 (14.6%)
Maybe because the huge majority of them prefer it? (using dslr's over rf) Of course the majority prefers AF dslr's over rangefinder cameras. Of course people buy focal lenghts ranging from
super wide to super tele. I did not say they wouldn't. But I know that I do not need superwides nor superteles. And I don't need zooms either.
So you seriously believe that the *one* thing that stand in their way of liberating their art and profession is a $5000 camera and some lenses?!? I did not say anything like that. Stop putting words to my mouth. All I am saying that M8 is ridiculously overpriced for what it offers and if we had that $2000 dslr matching quality rangefinder body I would get it and that's it. And so would thousands of others do the same thing.
For the past three months at work I have shot quite a lot of different things... I have been doing reportage in "ISO3200 lightning" 500 meters under ground, night reportages in city, couple of trips to the sea, dozens of portraits inside and outside, soccer and all kinds of sports... etc etc. If we leave the sports photography aside there is not a single reason that I can think of why I could not have taken all those pictures with a rangefinder body. I tried to think a reason but I couln't figure anything out. On the contrary if I had the digital rangefinder body my back would not hurt because of the weight of the camera bag and I would not have to curse to the camera performance (af-issues). I would just be 100 times more comfortable with the tool I was using because I just happen to prefer rf over slr.
In my opinion Leica can raise their prices as much as they want. I am not going to buy M8 until it costs $1500 or less. If they make M9 which is actually a D700 / D3 level of quality camera then I would be willing to pay a lot more. On lenses my money goes to Zeiss and CV. If that kind of camera existed I would get it and forget the dslr world. Simple, my choice and I would not care what everyone else used. I would just use my digital rf-body camera with a smile in my face...like I do now with my M6.
Have a nice evening, over and out.
No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.
Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?
Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?
Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.
Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.
Cheers,
R.
Hear, hear!
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 07:09
All I am saying that M8 is ridiculously overpriced for what it offers...
Given that it is the only current-production digital rangefinder, I can't quite see how it is overpriced with respect to the (non-existent) competition.
That's what a digital RF costs at the moment. If you dont like it, can't afford it, or are disinclined to spend the money, that's fine. But it's not the same as 'overpriced'.
Cheers,
R.
For the record, I did not claim that prices haven't increased. What I said was that they have not increased anywhere near the same percentage as Leica. From internet auto consumer sites:
US MSRP:
Mercedes E-350
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $50,550
Summer 2008: $50,900
Total price increase $450 (0.8%)
BMW 550i
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $57,800
Summer 2008: $58,500
Total price increase $700 (1.2%)
Porsche Carrera (base model)
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $72,400
Summer 2008: $73,500
Total price increase $1100 (1.5%)
Leica M8
Fall 2006: $ 4,795
Summer 2008: $ 5,495
Total price increase $700 (14.6%)
You are comparing 'automn 06' with 'summer 08'. By late 2006 much of 'the air had gone out of the balloon' the dollar had done it's hardest dive. In NOK the value of the US dollar has fallen from (2001) NOK 9,98 to NOK 4,98 a few days in July of this year. Now it is back at NOK 5,20 - compared to NOK 5,80 one year ago.
At 73,600 $ the Carrera must be heavily subsidized. No wonder they are now imported from USA to Norway (Russia, etc.etc) instead at official prices from Germany.
Given that it is the only current-production digital rangefinder, I can't quite see how it is overpriced with respect to the (non-existent) competition.
That's what a digital RF costs at the moment. If you dont like it, can't afford it, or are disinclined to spend the money, that's fine. But it's not the same as 'overpriced'.
Cheers,
R.
But there is competition in m-mount lenses! I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive. I would call it "overpricing". Wasn't it few years ago when noctilux was $2500 or somethng like that... Then Leica decided to raise the prices many times and now $5000 for noctilux is concidered to be a bargain. To me it is "overpriced". To me that kind of price increase is just ridiculous. In fact it makes me a little bit mad. (I don't know the exact actual prices of noctilux now and before).
Now I will go and fondle my black M4 and take few shots with my 35mm Ultron before I sell it. 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/2 Ultron are almost on the way. Thank you CV for making us these nice product in such an affordable price! :D
Given that it is the only current-production digital rangefinder, I can't quite see how it is overpriced with respect to the (non-existent) competition.
That's what a digital RF costs at the moment. If you dont like it, can't afford it, or are disinclined to spend the money, that's fine. But it's not the same as 'overpriced'.
Cheers,
R.
Right! But for whinners, I recommend an used Rd1 then raise value of used Rd1 too :D I had backache with D70 and 17-70Dx lens. Now I enjoy Rd1 and a prime and the back feels good! :)
But there is competition in m-mount lenses! I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive. I would call it "overpricing". Wasn't it few years ago when noctilux was $2500 or somethng like that... Then Leica decided to raise the prices many times and now $5000 for noctilux is concidered to be a bargain. To me it is "overpriced". To me that kind of price increase is just ridiculous. In fact it makes me a little bit mad. (I don't know the exact actual prices of noctilux now and before).
Now I will go and fondle my black M4 and take few shots with my 35mm Ultron before I sell it. 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/2 Ultron are almost on the way. Thank you CV for making us these nice product in such an affordable price! :D
you sound like a healthy winner :D Look at Zeiss 15mm and 85mm prices.
Noctilux is unique and has rare glass. Hand-made. Short supply increases the price if demand is high.
Maybe you need learn some of economics lessons?
Gabriel M.A.
08-20-2008, 07:43
I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive.
Zeiss 85mm f/2 Sonnar ZM:
$2,912.00 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/361552-REG/Zeiss_1355732_85mm_f_2_ZM_Lens.html)
Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron ASPH:
$3,495.00 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162726-USA/Leica_11884_90mm_f_2_0_APO_Summicron.html)
Cosina Voigtlaender 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar:
$329.95 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/229181-REG/Voigtlander_45BA224B_APO_Lanthar_90mm_f_3_5.html)
Difference between Zeiss and Leica 90mm-s: about 16% difference
Difference between Zeiss and CV 90mms: about 780% difference
By your logic, Zeiss is way more overpriced than its next lower-tier competitor than Leica is than its next lower-tier competitor.
You can prove anything you want with a strong bias.
Zeiss 85mm f/2 Sonnar ZM:
$2,912.00 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/361552-REG/Zeiss_1355732_85mm_f_2_ZM_Lens.html)
Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron ASPH:
$3,495.00 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162726-USA/Leica_11884_90mm_f_2_0_APO_Summicron.html)
Cosina Voigtlaender 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar:
$329.95 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/229181-REG/Voigtlander_45BA224B_APO_Lanthar_90mm_f_3_5.html)
Difference between Zeiss and Leica 90mm-s: about 16% difference
Difference between Zeiss and CV 90mms: about 780% difference
By your logic, Zeiss is way more overpriced than its next lower-tier competitor than Leica is than its next lower-tier competitor.
You can prove anything you want with a strong bias.
There is no point comparing f3.5 CV lens to those others. Even if those Zeiss and Leica are both expensive I realize that those are special lenses and the price amount of $$$ is high. That is ok.
What about normal lenses like
50/2?
Leica: $1995
Zeiss: $700
35/2
Leica: $2795
Zeiss: $880
28/2.8
Leica: $1795
Zeiss: $880
etc etc...
The price difference is HUGE, but please tell me the is the quality so different that the pricetag is "OK"? I am not comparing those with CV because I think that it is well known that the build quality is not "leica quality" in CV even if they are really well built. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that Zeiss lenses should be top notch in that way also.
EDIT, added this:
You can prove anything you want with a strong bias. I am biased yes... I love to shoot with my Leicas. M2, M6 and recently acquired M4 are absolutely the most fantastic photographic equipments I have EVER used. I love my M6 and I think the 35mm v3 cron was the best lens I ever had. Fantastic in build quality, fantastic IQ. So I am biased towards Leica - I am the first to admit it. ...but with these prices my money goes to CV or Zeiss if I buy new lenses.
I would love to continue this, but I have to do some work now... Be well everyone.
HiredArm
08-20-2008, 08:43
No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.
Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?
Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?
Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.
Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.
Cheers,
R.
I didn't believe that I was implying that a lower end dRF model would be an instant fix for Leica at all but it would certainly help for those who don't want to (or can't) spend $10K+ for a camera system. I only implied that it would be a very good business move to grow the brand, make it recognizable again, offer a product for enthusiasts, photography students, and increase familiarity with RF systems. I don't see how that is a bad thing at all.
Case in point electronics tend to always be depreciable. It's not out of the question to think that a "lower end" product introduced two years after the flagship come close to the performance of a higher end product. Things tend to trickle down that way. Some people believe that the Porsche Cayman S is the best performing vehicle in the lineup (outside the GT3.) It doesn't have the best or highest specs performance wise but it's arguably the "most fun to drive. There are those who buy them because it's what they can afford. There are those who could get a 911 but who choose the Cayman S because it offers what they want or need. Going back to cameras Canon or Nikon would be unwise to only offer a 1DsMkIII and D3 as there only models and expect to be highly successful. Thus they have all the other lines. I believe that there are enough people who could or would support a "prosumer" model (as stated before) that could compete with the 40D, 5D, D300 and D700's of this world. Those camera's are all less expensive than a M8 but they all produce excellent imagery results for a fraction of the cost. Leica should try to eat into that market as it is still on the high end side of things.
As for the price increases, increasing costs amidst declining sales generally doesn't garner more sales in most cases. There's always an exception but I don't think this will be one of those exceptions. You are correct in assuming that I'm not a billionaire that could afford to purchase the company and run it exactly like I would want. That said, I don't believe one has to be a billionaire CEO to be able to make valid suggestions or opinion to one of their hobbies. People could go on all day about what would make a real Leica (Porsche, Rolls Royce, BMW, Rolex, or any of several luxury products) based on cost, location that it's built, etc. If it's designed by the company, built to the companies specifications, and functions as intended then it's the real thing in my opinion. "
But there is competition in m-mount lenses! I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive. I would call it "overpricing". Wasn't it few years ago when noctilux was $2500 or somethng like that... Then Leica decided to raise the prices many times and now $5000 for noctilux is concidered to be a bargain. To me it is "overpriced". To me that kind of price increase is just ridiculous. In fact it makes me a little bit mad. (I don't know the exact actual prices of noctilux now and before).
Bold and italics added by me.
Ok.. and I think that's what Roger (and some others) may be saying.
Why would that price increase be "ridiculous" to you?
Why would it make you a "little bit mad"?
I only ask those questions because you have stated those questions because you have clarified that Leica is "overpriced" in your eyes; ergo I'm guessing that you can't afford that sort of glass. If this is the case, then why would the price increases of something that you already can't afford make you "mad"?
Is it that you, ideally, would want to have the Noctilux at CV or Zeiss prices?
If so, that's fine. I mean, hey, I'd want one too.
Do I think that Zeiss or CV (Mr Kobayashi) would make a 50mm f1.0 lens and be able to sell it at the price of only $2500? I don't think so; but then again, that lens, made by Zeiss or CV doesn't exist so it's a moot question.
It may be better if, instead of complaining about pricing, we (or anyone who wants to) put our efforts into either a) saving enough money to one day purchase said Leica lens or b) writing away to Zeiss / CV to create such a lens and sell it at a "reasonable price".
I know that with option a) I would, someday, be able to attain the lens (given enough time and money saved) but with option b) there are no guarantees that the lens would ever be created.
Something to think about. . .
Cheers,
Dave
At 73,600 $ the Carrera must be heavily subsidized. No wonder they are now imported from USA to Norway (Russia, etc.etc) instead at official prices from Germany.
Porsche is betting on a strong euro and a weak dollar on the international money markets. The money they are gaining from this is used to subsidize their sales in the US to compensate the weak dollar. Should the dollar rise against the euro they would gain nothing in their bets but would not need to subsidize their sales in the US either. As far as I know all German car producers do this to some extend to minimize the risks from changing exchange rates and to stabilize their prices in the US.
Unfortunately this is probably more difficult for Leica than for the car producers because Leica would need to predict their sales volume in the US beforehand pretty accurately. :(
Bold and italics added by me.
Ok.. and I think that's what Roger (and some others) may be saying.
Why would that price increase be "ridiculous" to you?
Why would it make you a "little bit mad"?
I only ask those questions because you have stated those questions because you have clarified that Leica is "overpriced" in your eyes; ergo I'm guessing that you can't afford that sort of glass. If this is the case, then why would the price increases of something that you already can't afford make you "mad"?
Is it that you, ideally, would want to have the Noctilux at CV or Zeiss prices?
If so, that's fine. I mean, hey, I'd want one too.
Do I think that Zeiss or CV (Mr Kobayashi) would make a 50mm f1.0 lens and be able to sell it at the price of only $2500? I don't think so; but then again, that lens, made by Zeiss or CV doesn't exist so it's a moot question.
It may be better if, instead of complaining about pricing, we (or anyone who wants to) put our efforts into either a) saving enough money to one day purchase said Leica lens or b) writing away to Zeiss / CV to create such a lens and sell it at a "reasonable price".
I know that with option a) I would, someday, be able to attain the lens (given enough time and money saved) but with option b) there are no guarantees that the lens would ever be created.
Something to think about. . .
Cheers,
Dave
Dave, Dave, Dave. Why are you trying to bring reason into this? That's crazy talk!
;)
The 'logic' of some RFF people:
I can't afford a Patek Philippe watch.
Therefore Patek Philippe should make cheaper 'entry-level' watches in China.
If they don't, they will go broke.
Your contempt for your fellow forum members is well-demonstrated, but this is a new low even for you.
I can afford an M8, but I won't buy one because it's a poor value for the money. A toy, in short, and not the reliable workhorse the M6TTL or M7 are. Wonderful image quality, but piss-poor interface and reliability.
By your silly 'logic' I guess my having used M bodies to make money counts for nothing since I haven't 'proved' my loyalty by purchasing an M8. I would think Leica would love to hear from working pros who used their film cameras, but don't own the M8, but what do I know. Evidently, the current management agrees with your POV that Leica is now a luxury toy and not a working tool.
And who, BTW, is calling for manufacture in China. That's a strawman of your own invention.
It may be better if, instead of complaining about pricing...
Third option: Quit living in a fantasy world. The Noctilux was affordable until recently, and they traded owners frequently. It's only the recent high prices that make them seem somehow more desirable. Like the New Yorkers say, fuggetaboutit! :D
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 10:56
[QUOTE=kevin m;878845]Third option: Quit living in a fantasy world. /QUOTE]
Dear Kevin,
We are of one mind on this.
Cheers,
R.
POINT OF VIEW
08-20-2008, 11:03
Everybody that thinks the M8 is over priced, here is a solution that I’m sure you could live with. Have the German government take control of the Leica factory. Then they could force the company to sell the M8 and as for that mater, there entire line of lens at a price everybody could afford.
Like I said, Roger, your contempt for people who don't share your views is palpable.
Do I think that Zeiss or CV (Mr Kobayashi) would make a 50mm f1.0 lens and be able to sell it at the price of only $2500? I don't think so;
Let's take a quick look into the past (from the interwebs):
1997:
">Germany, used 1.0 Noctilux # 3.153.+++ (1981) ca $ 1.500 incl.
>hood.
>All us offers, given in this goup recently, are between $ 2.400 and
$2.800.
>Additionally, the International Price Guide (7th ed, June 1997, p 50)
says:
>1.0 Noctilux (separate hood) $ 1.500
>1.0 Noctilux (built in hood) $ 1.600
_____________
from the year 2000:
Noctilux for Sale - Respond via Private email only!
The lens is as new and its serial number is 368xxxx. It comes with the
leather case, white Leica 11822 box , factory paper work, Leitz front
and rear caps and Leica 13381 E60 UV filter. The price is $1,700 firm
and I am in the Los Angeles area.
_____________________________
From 2002:
- 35/2.0 summicron black, latest type before ASPH, mint, complete with lens caps, hood with extra cap, leather case and box, US$ 650 plus shipping - 50/1.0 noctilux latest type, mint, leather case and lens caps, no box, US$ 1650 plus shipping
____________________
There you go, it was below that $2500 not long ago. The Leica prices today are simply RIDICULOUS. I rest my case.
.
Sorry if you found my previous post rude, that wasn't the intention, but I can certainly see why you reacted. Sorry.
As for your situation: That was exactly the position I was in when I decided to just get the friggin' M8. I had a dSLR, I had all the lenses, and the huge backpack to carry it around in. But I didn't like using it. The size and weight made me leave the camera at home when I should have been carrying it around. And then there was the question of lenses. Every time I wanted a new lens for the M6 I had to "justify" it, weighing it up against the dSLR stuff that I had. I love film and analog to bits, but at times it is a chore to develop the film, or send it off for developing. Then there was the scanning.
The M8 was a saviour. Suddenly I could sell all my dSLR stuff (that more than covered the cost), and I could use the same set of lenses on both analog and digital cameras. Sure, it is not a D3 og D700. To me that doesn't matter: I wouldn't carry it around if it was. Sure, I would love to see an M9 with D3 ISO quality, and I would save up for it and buy it.
In the mean time I'm stuck with the M8. And you know what? It ain't that bad.
If you truly believe that you would be "100 times more comfortable with the tool I was using because I just happen to prefer rf over slr" - then I can not see the reason why you shouldn't get it (if you can afford it). Check the value of your dSLR and do the math. Don't let yourself be stopped by others opinion of what the value of the M8 is, the quality, whatever. Try it.
Once again, sorry for coming off as rude, not my intention at all. Whatever you decide to do: Have fun! :)
I hear you! No worries, you were not rude :) Sorry if I sound like rude... :) I see your point, happy that M8 works for you! But I have to wait for the M9... ;)
Let's take a quick look into the past (from the interwebs):
1997:
">Germany, used 1.0 Noctilux # 3.153.+++ (1981) ca $ 1.500 incl.
>hood.
>All us offers, given in this goup recently, are between $ 2.400 and
$2.800.
>Additionally, the International Price Guide (7th ed, June 1997, p 50)
says:
>1.0 Noctilux (separate hood) $ 1.500
>1.0 Noctilux (built in hood) $ 1.600
_____________
from the year 2000:
Noctilux for Sale - Respond via Private email only!
The lens is as new and its serial number is 368xxxx. It comes with the
leather case, white Leica 11822 box , factory paper work, Leitz front
and rear caps and Leica 13381 E60 UV filter. The price is $1,700 firm
and I am in the Los Angeles area.
_____________________________
From 2002:
- 35/2.0 summicron black, latest type before ASPH, mint, complete with lens caps, hood with extra cap, leather case and box, US$ 650 plus shipping - 50/1.0 noctilux latest type, mint, leather case and lens caps, no box, US$ 1650 plus shipping
____________________
There you go, it was below that $2500 not long ago. The Leica prices today are simply RIDICULOUS. I rest my case.
.
The one thing you neglect is that we are no longer in the year 2002, 2001, 1997 or even 2006 anymore.
As it has been said by others more insightful than myself; hindsight is 20/20.
I am referring to prices in the here and now. The Noctilux is no longer in production. Neither is the 75mm Summilux and look at what happened with prices there too. If you really think that Kobayashi-san can create that 50mm f1.0 lens and retail it for $2500 now (or in the near future), please don't hesitate to write to him or start a campaign to do so. There will be lots of folks ready to jump on board; including myself.
But until it appears, we are stuck with prices as they are now for an out-of-production rare lens.
Dave
The one thing you neglect is that we are no longer in the year 2002, 2001, 1997 or even 2006 anymore.
I am not talking about noctiluxes and those other rare out of production lenses. I am talking about the fact that EVERYTHING form Leica has gone through this comically high price increases.
One more example. the lens in currently on production and easily available if you want to buy one: 35mm m summilux asph
right now there are several 35/1.4's in ebay for about $3600.
Add from 2001: "For Sale Leica 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH. # 118xx ShutterBug Ex+ condition. Glass is perfect. One cosmetic flaw: where the lens is engraved "Summilux" there exists a bit of white paint about 1mm in diameter that apparently spilled over the "S" during manufacture. Black. Includes rear cap, shade, and box. Purchased new in 3/99. $ 1000"
Same goes with most if not all Leica lenses... Leica just decided to increase the prices and when you drum it long enough it becomes OK. Well, yes it is OK if the buyers decide so, but like I said I am not buying this at all. No way. Thank god there is Zeiss and CV.
You are comparing 'automn 06' with 'summer 08'.
Yes, because the fall of '06 is when the M8 first appeared. Summer '08 is...now. The M8 has risen almost 15%, ten times more than Porsche and almost twenty times more than Mercedes...all in the same time frame, with identical currency issues at work.
I am not saying that those currency issues aren't legitimate, nor am I saying that Leica wasn't justified. I am simply saying that to the US consumer, in light of M-B, BMW and Porsche not passing the dollar devaluation through to their customers, puts Leica in an unfavorable light.
Like I said, Roger, your contempt for people who don't share your views is palpable.
What's yours then? Look at your words yourself before you put this online. Let's get time to think about it. No hurry.
I am not talking about noctiluxes and those other rare out of production lenses. I am talking about the fact that EVERYTHING form Leica has gone through this comically high price increases.
One more example. the lens in currently on production and easily available if you want to buy one: 35mm m summilux asph
right now there are several 35/1.4's in ebay for about $3600.
Add from 2001: "For Sale Leica 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH. # 118xx ShutterBug Ex+ condition. Glass is perfect. One cosmetic flaw: where the lens is engraved "Summilux" there exists a bit of white paint about 1mm in diameter that apparently spilled over the "S" during manufacture. Black. Includes rear cap, shade, and box. Purchased new in 3/99. $ 1000"
Same goes with most if not all Leica lenses... Leica just decided to increase the prices and when you drum it long enough it becomes OK. Well, yes it is OK if the buyers decide so, but like I said I am not buying this at all. No way. Thank god there is Zeiss and CV.
Fair enough.
We are talking now about annual Leica increases which, to you, seem to be out of control and ridiculous.
I cannot justify Leica's price increases.
I haven't a clue how Leica calculates, justifies or warrants these annual increases in lens and/or body prices.
Now, do I care?
Not really - the only item I've ever purchased brand new from Leica is the M8. Everything else I've purchased that is Leica branded has been used, second or even third/fourth/etc. hand.
Has Leica made any money off of me? Yes, when I bought the M8.
That's about the extent of my loyalty to Leica and, in return, Leica's "loyalty" or "appreciation" for me, a customer.
So, do I get upset at the fact that Leica's prices go up every year? Not really. Why get upset if I don't intend on buying anything else "brand new". Do some of the used prices go up due to the "new" price increases? Sure they do, but not to the point that it is "ridiculous" imho.
I can buy a brand new 35mm Summilux (as you quoted here) for $3999.00 CDN plus 13% taxes. $4518.00 CDN for a brand new, never been used, Summilux. If prices on ebay are currently $3600 ($4068 after local taxes) then I would rather buy brand new and save myself the headache. But that's me. Not everyone is like me and not everyone is like you.
So with all this in mind, why does it irk you so much that these price increases occur if you do not buy Leica, nor can afford Leica? I'm not saying that you're a "lower person" for not being able to but I am curious though because if you have no intent of purchasing a Leica lens/body brand new, why the concern in the first place?
Will you be just as angry and hurt if Zeiss and/or CV decide to increase their prices by the same percentage (I believe 14% was touted) as Leica did?
And I do not mean any of this as a slight against you or anyone but I am really curious about this.
Cheers,
Dave
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 12:20
If I was saving my money for a lens that cost $2,000, but Leica is raising the price faster than I can save the additional money, that effects me directly and I would think I had the right to bitch about it, even though I'll now never be able to afford the lens.
If I was saving my money for a lens that cost $2,000, but Leica is raising the price faster than I can save the additional money, that effects me directly and I would think I had the right to bitch about it, even though I'll now never be able to afford the lens.
You absolutely have the "right" to bitch about anything and everything. It's a "free world" (as they say).
Does it change the price of said lens?
Nope
Will Leica hear your plea?
Maybe
I'm just saying that it doesn't really solve the problem you are experiencing at hand; it may make you feel a bit better, but it doesn't help the lens come into your price range any faster.
Cheers,
Dave
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 12:29
There just seems to be this increasingly shrill chorus (not from you, Dave) that insists that if you don't own a specific camera, you have no right to an opinion or comment on it. It seems to be a hammer used to prevent negative comments about a camera even when they are justified. Kind of strange.
So with all this in mind, why does it irk you so much that these price increases occur if you do not buy Leica, nor can afford Leica?
I would buy Leica if the prices were in this world where I am living. If the prices were close to Zeiss I would choose Leica. The main reason why these price increases bug me is that the products remain the same, but the price goes up...high up, fast and furiously. Faster than lightning. It just does not make me feel wanting to buy anything from them. If they make M9 as a full frame it will propably be something like $10000. 6 months later you can upgrade it with pink leatherette and pink soft release for additional $700...or similiar..
I am still waiting if someone tells me the difference why Leicas prices are justified compared ro Zeiss in lenses.
Roger Hicks
08-20-2008, 12:47
There just seems to be this increasingly shrill chorus (not from you, Dave) that insists that if you don't own a specific camera, you have no right to an opinion or comment on it. It seems to be a hammer used to prevent negative comments about a camera even when they are justified. Kind of strange.
Dear Ray,
'Even when they are justified'
Yes, but what's 'justified'?
Comments based on no experience at all should surely be discounted to some degree, as against those who have tried the same product -- though I fully accept that those who have spent $10,000 on something may be trying to persuade themselves, at least as much as anyone else.
Likewise, my comments about $4500 Lobb boots are probably less relevant than those of someone who wears said boots.
And (let us not forget) the 'shrillness' is not all from one side.
Cheers,
R.
Ray Nalley
08-20-2008, 12:52
One thing the shrillness from both sides has done is put Leica into a position where they need to knock one out of the park at Photokina. Can't wait to see what that is.
Yes, but what's 'justified'?
Well, that's been covered at length, but you choose to either denigrate the speaker or ignore the evidence.
The M8 is a wonderful camera for "personal use," which is evidently why more owners than not use it in that capacity. Lovely IQ, but quirky controls and hit or miss reliability.
All Leica needs to do is tweak it a bit and make it a fully fledged professional tool. That way we all win.
Yes, because the fall of '06 is when the M8 first appeared. Summer '08 is...now. The M8 has risen almost 15%, ten times more than Porsche and almost twenty times more than Mercedes...all in the same time frame, with identical currency issues at work.
I am not saying that those currency issues aren't legitimate, nor am I saying that Leica wasn't justified. I am simply saying that to the US consumer, in light of M-B, BMW and Porsche not passing the dollar devaluation through to their customers, puts Leica in an unfavorable light.
Leica's price increases were justified. They express the cost level of producing the stuff - in a deteriorating dollar. If this means that their huge volume of regular American customers won't buy Leica gear, then they will go bust.
Regarding the European car industry - Read their annual reports and get a feeling of what the fall of the US $ really means for them. - Or for just any industry.
I don't see why PMU is being jumped on for expressing his disdain of Leica pricing ... you don't have to personally suffer an injustice to be aware of it and being told "well just don't buy the stuff and it won't effect you" doesn't gel with me.
And Ray Nalley ... you're right on with your comment about Leica needing to hit the ball out of the park at Photokina ... I think in the photographic world Leice have struggled through the preliminaries but this is the world series now and they need to return home with a win.
Coach Kauffman needs this!
Do you think if I follow Lamborghini forum, I'd see lousy complaints of price of their cars? it should cost as a Toyota Camry according to people who like to dream :)
Do you think if I follow Lamborghini forum, I'd see lousy complaints of price of their cars? it should cost as a Toyota Camry according to people who like to dream :)
If you can afford to own a Lamborghini I wouldn't think that you have much in life to complain about generally to be honest! :p
Do you think if I follow Lamborghini forum, I'd see lousy complaints of price of their cars? it should cost as a Toyota Camry according to people who like to dream :)
I don't know anything about cars and I don't want to know :) But like you did notice yourself: because of the pricing of Leicas the company has finally become a "lamborghini of cameras". In other worlds it's status as a hc professional photographic tool making factory status is now gone and it is now just making super expensive jewelry. I don't care about jewelry either. Well, to be exact: for these past few years they have not been making new lenses to the market which just happen to be expensive -- they just decided to put bigger price tag to all those products that allready existed (in a much lower price...).
Did Lamborghini raise the price of their same car model the same % like Leica with their lenses? The fact is that maybe 5 years ago you could buy a 35 summilux almost the same price that now you will get 50mm cron. You can clearly see it from used markets.
To me these adds looks like I am reading adds from 1970's or something. But these lenses were sold second hand about 6 years ago:
-I still have my 50 Summilux for sale. This is the new version with the buit-in hood, and is in mint condition with box, case caps and paperwork. $950 or offer.
-FS: Near New 35mm summilux F1.4 M ASPH (Chrome Version) with hood, leather case and box, gray market, just have it for few month and few rolls on it. all lens and cosmatic are prefect. no difference compare with band new. $1359.00
-FS user Leica Summilux 50mm 1:1.4 M black w/ hood --- Cosmetic condition is poor but with the exception of a nick on the back element it seems mechanically and optically to be fine and the results I have obtained seem to confirm that. Caps and hood included. Price $525
-... a chrome 35mm Summilux ASPH lens I need to sell. ... in mint condition, ... $1550 for the lens
-FS: Leica 50 Summicron Anniversary ... Serviced last month by Sherry Krauter. Perfect glass. Some normal wear, no dents or scratches. $700 firm
-FS: Leica Summicron 35 ASPH Black Paint!
... Willing to sacrifice. Mint. Shade and cap included but no box. $1450 + shipping. Firm
You see...the prices are in totally different world compared to todays prices! And those were ONLY SIX YEARS AGO! That kind of price increase would be OK in much longer period. 6 years is like yesterday. And let's not forget that these much higher prices have been for a while now.
If I was saving my money for a lens that cost $2,000, but Leica is raising the price faster than I can save the additional money, that effects me directly and I would think I had the right to bitch about it, even though I'll now never be able to afford the lens.
I don't think it is a very sound financial policy to buy a camera/lens -any camera and/or lens, not just Leica- if you can barely afford it. There are more important things in life to teeter on the brink for....
I don't think it is a very sound financial policy to buy a camera/lens -any camera and/or lens, not just Leica- if you can barely afford it. There are more important things in life to teeter on the brink for....
this is wisdom, so overlooked this days. It applies to mortgages, cars, yachts, travels, watches - anything. Though this days financial orgs are happy to have another ant, bringing %% them each month.
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 00:08
I don't see why PMU is being jumped on for expressing his disdain of Leica pricing ... you don't have to personally suffer an injustice to be aware of it and being told "well just don't buy the stuff and it won't effect you" doesn't gel with me.
Dear Keith,
What puzzles me is where the 'injustice' lies.
Is it 'unjust' that I can't afford something?
I suppose I could look at it that way, but it would be more than a little arrogant to do so.
Cheers,
Roger
Dear Keith,
What puzzles me is where the 'injustice' lies.
Is it 'unjust' that I can't afford something?
I suppose I could look at it that way, but it would be more than a little arrogant to do so.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger,
Well ... injustice may have been a little over the top, granted.
I do think it's damned unjust that you have a dishwasher and I don't though!
Cheers ... Keith
I don't know anything about cars and I don't want to know :) But like you did notice yourself: because of the pricing of Leicas the company has finally become a "lamborghini of cameras". In other worlds it's status as a hc professional photographic tool making factory status is now gone and it is now just making super expensive jewelry. I don't care about jewelry either. Well, to be exact: for these past few years they have not been making new lenses to the market which just happen to be expensive -- they just decided to put bigger price tag to all those products that allready existed (in a much lower price...).
Did Lamborghini raise the price of their same car model the same % like Leica with their lenses? The fact is that maybe 5 years ago you could buy a 35 summilux almost the same price that now you will get 50mm cron. You can clearly see it from used markets.
To me these adds looks like I am reading adds from 1970's or something. But these lenses were sold second hand about 6 years ago:
-I still have my 50 Summilux for sale. This is the new version with the buit-in hood, and is in mint condition with box, case caps and paperwork. $950 or offer.
-FS: Near New 35mm summilux F1.4 M ASPH (Chrome Version) with hood, leather case and box, gray market, just have it for few month and few rolls on it. all lens and cosmatic are prefect. no difference compare with band new. $1359.00
-FS user Leica Summilux 50mm 1:1.4 M black w/ hood --- Cosmetic condition is poor but with the exception of a nick on the back element it seems mechanically and optically to be fine and the results I have obtained seem to confirm that. Caps and hood included. Price $525
-... a chrome 35mm Summilux ASPH lens I need to sell. ... in mint condition, ... $1550 for the lens
-FS: Leica 50 Summicron Anniversary ... Serviced last month by Sherry Krauter. Perfect glass. Some normal wear, no dents or scratches. $700 firm
-FS: Leica Summicron 35 ASPH Black Paint!
... Willing to sacrifice. Mint. Shade and cap included but no box. $1450 + shipping. Firm
You see...the prices are in totally different world compared to todays prices! And those were ONLY SIX YEARS AGO! That kind of price increase would be OK in much longer period. 6 years is like yesterday. And let's not forget that these much higher prices have been for a while now.
If I convert those prices to the US$-Dutch Guilder rate then, and convert to Euros, they sound just about right for today, not too much change at all. For instance - 1550 $ was 2300 Guilders is now 1100 Euro, add about 20% inflation to reach 1350 Euro, which seems not unreasonable for a private sale of a Summicron 35 asph, seeing they run between 1000 and 1200 GBP (=1300 to 1600 Euro) at ffordes, including three monthes guarantee. I would call the prices stable.
It all depends on one's perspective. If I were living in Zimbabwe (which thankfully I am not) I might consider a price increase from 70.000 Zim$ to 700 Trillion Zim$ over the same period a bit excessive....
HiredArm
08-21-2008, 00:43
Do you think if I follow Lamborghini forum, I'd see lousy complaints of price of their cars? it should cost as a Toyota Camry according to people who like to dream :)
I think this is the thinking where there is a disconnect. The is a lot of wiggle room for comparison in between a $200K+ automobile and a $25K automobile. A Lamborghini has ALWAYS been a maker of exotic supercars. Most understand that. Yes they are exclusive and they price in line with the competition - whether it's price or more importantly performance. There prices are inline with the Ferrari, Aston Martin, Audi R8, high-end Porsche, AMG V-12's, etc. A Corvette Z06 performs in line with most Lamborghini's and thus from a performance standpoint some may feel that a Lamborghini is overpriced since you get equal or better performance for less than half the cost. I would personally suggest people try to make analogies that aren't quite as extreme just to make their point.
I believe that's what most here are making a point of. Leica is the only dRF on the market, which everyone agrees upon, but it has marketplace competition - which some don't seem to understand. There are people who are going to cross shop it with the higher end dSLR whether it's the same exact operation, concept or not. Some feel it's overpriced simply because the performance alone doesn't warrant a substantially higher price than what the competition offers right now. Some lenses cost more than the body and as shown in many online art galleries the CV and Zeiss lenses produce IQ and color rendition near the Leica glass for less of the cost for most comparable lenses. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Leica offer a dRF for under $500 but I think the $1000-2000 price range is quite feasible even if they needed to partner with a larger company. Would it cannibalize some M8 sales - well that's quite possible but it's not like M8's are flying off the shelf that fast. Here's a quick question - What's better selling five camera starter systems at $2000 or one at $8000?
Dear Keith,
What puzzles me is where the 'injustice' lies.
Is it 'unjust' that I can't afford something?
Tell me where did I say that it is injustice? And you all tell me where did I say that I can't afford buying leica?
I just don't see the point of buying something hugely expensive if there are equally good options available at the fraction of the price. The brand of the camera or lens does not mean sh*t to me. Call me narrow minded, but I don't get it why others do buy them.
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 00:47
I don't think it is a very sound financial policy to buy a camera/lens -any camera and/or lens, not just Leica- if you can barely afford it. There are more important things in life to teeter on the brink for....
Dear Jaap,
The big problem here is how you define 'afford'.
The best definition I have heard so far -- it may have been yours -- was 'able to buy it without significantly affecting my lifestyle'
But of course, you may opt to buy one thing over another. Personally, I can't see why anyone buys expensive trainers, or new clothes for reasons of fashion only, or a new fitted kitchen every few years... The examples can obviously be multiplied.
I choose Leicas, good food and travel as things I can afford. I dismiss new cars, eating out (when I am not travelling) and a holiday home as things I cannot afford. To use your colourful phrase, if I went to the brink, I could buy a house in Hungary or rural Spain. Some might consider that a wise investment.
I don't. I prefer to live an easy life, not working too hard, not buying new Leica gear very often, rather than working my arse off to pay for more things.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 01:00
Tell me where did I say that it is injustice? And you all tell me where did I say that I can't afford buying leica?
I just don't see the point of buying something hugely expensive if there are equally good options available at the fraction of the price. The brand of the camera or lens does not mean sh*t to me. Call me narrow minded, but I don't get it why others do buy them.
'Injustice' was Keith's word, not yours. He has already agreed that this was a slight overstatement.
'Equally good options available at a fraction of the price' is another matter. You are no doubt referring to the dozens of manufacturers offering competing M-mount digital cameras for $2000 and below.
Often, the reason something is hugely expensive is because it is better. I'll go back to the example of Lobb Wellington boots: made to measure, infinitely reparable, extremely hard-wearing. Is that worth $4500 when you can buy a pair of cowboy boots at an outlet store for $45?
Well, yes -- IF you can afford $4,500. I can't so I wear $300 Mephistos instead. A pair of boots lasts me a couple of years.
You may well fail to understand why people buy new Leicas, just as I fail to understand why people buy 'designer label' clothes. We may both consider the purchasers of such things to have more money than sense.
But it's their money, and their sense, or lack of it. It really does come back to the simple truth: if something is not worth the money to you, or if you can't afford it, DON'T BUY IT.
Cheers,
Roger
Ray Nalley
08-21-2008, 01:32
The problem Roger is that if followed your philosophy would end most internet forums! :)
We all like to cuss and discuss all kinds of camera stuff, whether we own it or not, or could ever afford it or not. Heck, there are even hotly debated threads about cameras that don't even exist (the micro 4/3's concept for example). That's what forums are for.
Besides, if you limited debate to those who own or want to own the cameras, then you would just have a bunch of cheerleaders talking to themselves. And what fun would that be?
Dear Jaap,
The big problem here is how you define 'afford'.
The best definition I have heard so far -- it may have been yours -- was 'able to buy it without significantly affecting my lifestyle'
But of course, you may opt to buy one thing over another. Personally, I can't see why anyone buys expensive trainers, or new clothes for reasons of fashion only, or a new fitted kitchen every few years... The examples can obviously be multiplied.
I choose Leicas, good food and travel as things I can afford. I dismiss new cars, eating out (when I am not travelling) and a holiday home as things I cannot afford. To use your colourful phrase, if I went to the brink, I could buy a house in Hungary or rural Spain. Some might consider that a wise investment.
I don't. I prefer to live an easy life, not working too hard, not buying new Leica gear very often, rather than working my arse off to pay for more things.
Cheers,
Roger
Dear Roger, indeed, a matter of choices. Unfortunately, I am not very good at taking my own advice....:o
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 02:09
The problem Roger is that if followed your philosophy would end most internet forums! :)
Dear Ray,
Fair enough in one sense, but some people do seem to want to suspend the laws of economics (e.g. lower US prices on euro imports, when the euro is strengthening against the dollar) or even the laws of physics (putting a full-frame sensor into an M with existing technology).
"If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," and this is the way an awful lot of people seem to think about Leicas.
It's fair to ask, "Why do Leicas cost so much?"
What puzzles me is the people who, having been told why a Leica costs so much (expensive components, labour-intensive assembly in a high-wage area, limited production) then say, "Why not use cheaper components and build it on a production line in a lower-wage country?"
There's a simple answer to that. "Why would you?"
Cosina, in association with Zeiss Ikon is already doing that. If you want that camera, buy a ZI or a Voigtländer. But don't demand that Leica puts their name on it to satisfy your ego ("I've got a LEICA!") or because Leicas cost more than you can afford.
Above all, don't say that because you don't want/can't afford a Leica, no-one should be allowed to have one, and hundreds of people should be thrown out of work -- because that is what people are saying when they say that Leica 'ought to go broke' or 'deserve to go bust' or whatever.
Cheers,
Roger
Rather than discussing wether someone can/should/wants to afford a new M8 at new list prices, how about looking at it from a different angle.
How many of exisitng M8 users would immediately rebuy a new (!) M8 at the new list price if theirs got lost? Considering that sensor technology has advanced meanwhile (eg FF wave, high iso performance) and September will potentially bring further proof of sensor technolgy having still significant potential.
Or with other words, do present or potential M8 owners perceive the VALUE(subjective) of an M8 to be in the range of its list price.
As far as I'm concerned, I would definitely replace mine, if there was need, but with a used one. From my subjective point of view, Leica, meanwhile, has priced the M8 outside the market.
infrequent
08-21-2008, 02:27
and leica's head in the sand strategy is good for their employees?!
Ray Nalley
08-21-2008, 02:31
I think a lot of people are thinking that a cheaper Leica may be better than no Leica at all, which could happen if Leica prices itself out of business. Leica seems to be banking on the idea that there are enough buyers out there who are not price sensitive to sustain their business model. They may be right.
Whether a lower priced Leica DRF is a good idea (and I'm not completely sure it is) only time and Kaufmann will tell.
allen_a_george
08-21-2008, 02:45
Hmm - lots of extremes being bandied about here.
Considering labor cost: no doubt making cameras and lenses is extremely labor intensive and is a significant fraction of its total price. But I don't think offshoring production is a wise idea. Leica would lose existing skill, suffer re-tooling costs, teething and initial quality-control problems, and their public perception would be damaged. But you can ask "Are those employees at Solms making the best use of their time?"
This then becomes an engineering problem. Maybe some sub-components of a camera can be redesigned to eliminate labor on the line. Maybe some tasks would be better done by machines. Increased platform sharing between different models would reduce the setup and takedown time - when an employee has to change from doing one complex task to another. These are all process engineering improvements, and no doubt Leica is pursuing some of them.
Dear Ray,
Fair enough in one sense, but some people do seem to want to suspend the laws of economics (e.g. lower US prices on euro imports, when the euro is strengthening against the dollar) or even the laws of physics (putting a full-frame sensor into an M with existing technology).
"If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride," and this is the way an awful lot of people seem to think about Leicas.
It's fair to ask, "Why do Leicas cost so much?"
What puzzles me is the people who, having been told why a Leica costs so much (expensive components, labour-intensive assembly in a high-wage area, limited production) then say, "Why not use cheaper components and build it on a production line in a lower-wage country?"
There's a simple answer to that. "Why would you?"
Cosina, in association with Zeiss Ikon is already doing that. If you want that camera, buy a ZI or a Voigtländer. But don't demand that Leica puts their name on it to satisfy your ego ("I've got a LEICA!") or because Leicas cost more than you can afford.
Above all, don't say that because you don't want/can't afford a Leica, no-one should be allowed to have one, and hundreds of people should be thrown out of work -- because that is what people are saying when they say that Leica 'ought to go broke' or 'deserve to go bust' or whatever.
Cheers,
Roger
Rising prices simply because ones costs go up is only working for monopolists or in former Sowietunion type of economies. Unlike many other manufacturers and unfortunately Leica has proven over and over again, that they are not capable to cope with the never disapearing challenge of raising costs. I think most of us, if not all, wished they did better. Rising commodity prices (glass, metal, utilities to manufacture) all has gone up, especially expressed in USD. But it is always the German labour costs which are brought as an excuse for steep price increases, even in Euro. Labour costs go up everywhere and for everybody, percentage wise steepest in booming economies, such as China an India.
"Boss I need a higher salary, since with the present one I can't afford my lifestyle I'm not willing to change at all". This seems to be Leica's attitude to the challenge, regrettfully.
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 02:49
and leica's head in the sand strategy is good for their employees?!
This is the kind of thing I was talking about. Do you REALLY think you could run the company better than Kaufmann? Have you any experience in running companies making luxury products? Are you a camera designer? Have you enough money to buy the company?
Alas, I have to answer 'no' to all of the above -- so I suspect that possibly, any insulting comments I may make about Leica's strategies are of very limited value.
Do you think Leica wants to go bust? If not, consider the possibility that they may be following the strategy they think best - and that this might be at least as good as your own ideas, given how much more information they have about the company, its products and its markets.
Finally, how many Leica employees have you talked to? Have you been to the factory? Again, consider the possibility that if the employees thought Leica was about to go bust, they'd be looking for jobs elsewhere. On a factory visit, you can always get some feeling for how the workforce feels: there's a mood in the air. Leica felt OK to me.
Ray is right, though I'd use the word 'betting' rather than 'banking'. Time will tell.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 02:52
Hmm - lots of extremes being bandied about here.
Considering labor cost: no doubt making cameras and lenses is extremely labor intensive and is a significant fraction of its total price. But I don't think offshoring production is a wise idea. Leica would lose existing skill, suffer re-tooling costs, teething and initial quality-control problems, and their public perception would be damaged. But you can ask "Are those employees at Solms making the best use of their time?"
This then becomes an engineering problem. Maybe some sub-components of a camera can be redesigned to eliminate labor on the line. Maybe some tasks would be better done by machines. Increased platform sharing between different models would reduce the setup and takedown time - when an employee has to change from doing one complex task to another. These are all process engineering improvements, and no doubt Leica is pursuing some of them.
Dear Allen,
Leica's analysis is substantially identical to your own, and their response is identical to your last phrase.
Cheers,
R.
Ray Nalley
08-21-2008, 02:53
Allen, you make a point. But it may also be that it has simply become too expensive to produce a camera like the new Leica M's, without cutting corners and reducing the perceived value of the camera, at a price that enough people will pay. Perhaps Leica's pursuit of perfection and the reality of economies has simply made such a camera too expensive to produce any longer.
allen_a_george
08-21-2008, 02:58
The second thing:
A brand having a range of models at different price levels is a good thing. Leica already does that. The question is, however: in the future how many models will exist in that price range, and which levels.
No one's arguing for Leica to produce a $499 rangefinder, or a $499 high-performance compact. They're not going to, and it's clear they're never going to. But there's considerable wiggle room between $1K and $5K for other models. Perhaps two fixed-lens compacts (with a large sensor) each at $2.5K? Something that speaks to their heritage, and the reason many photographers picked a Leica (robustness, unobtrusiveness, clear and quick access to photographic controls).
On a very separate note, I actually believe the rumor that Leica will produce Canon-mount lenses. This builds on their reputation as a lens designer, and is substantially cheaper than building their own AF DSLR. It seems like a better return on investment.
It will be very interesting to look back on this 5 years from now. Will leica have great new 'user' products funded by the present pricing of prestige items, or will their prices be even higher, with the M9 costing $10k and offering 14mp? Who knows!
I cant help but feel that Leica cannot live on past glories forever and once working photographers stop using them, the shine will wear off even in the collector market. Some people say that pro's don't worry about price, but that of course is BS - they have to live like everyone else. Some say no relevant working photogs use Leica nowadays and I think that is equally untrue (it does not have to be commerical work to be relevant). I personally think - I am no commercial genius I admit - that if Leica continue to price themselves as they do, it will bite them in the ass eventually. The Summarit line was a good start, but IMO it is not nearly enough. The price of film bodies is vastly higher for the same camera as 3-5 years ago and for a digital camera to go up at all, let alone one with some significant issues, is fairly silly. I think Leica need to ground themselves and understand that absolute optical perfection might be admirable, but it not particularly necessary in the real world. There is a lot of claptrap thrown about with respect to lenses and a lot of people that claim X is vastly superior to Y when they have not used either, or used only one...or photographed a test chart.... I think Leica's compromises in the summarit line have been hard to find according to the tests I have read (apart from aperture, but lets remember the 90 Summarit is fater and cheaper than the Elmarit M and still a comparable performer) - even Putz admits this!
FWIW, I DID struggle to afford my Leica kit. I winced for a while, but now own them and am happy I did so, because I could not contemplate the same purchases now. Sometimes a purchase can hurt a little and still be the right thing....esp now they have appreciated substantially ;)
Another factor which people ignore is insurance/loss. Put together your bag of two leica M7/Ps, 28 Cron, 50 Lux, 75/90 Cron and you have $20K in a little Billingham - this is frankly ridiculous. Thats one HELL of a dent when a lad runs off with it in Chinwala. some people perhaps are not prepared to take such a risk and so don't buy the Leica kit on this basis....because they want something they can use and not be perpetually terrified of losing....dropping...scratching.
don't get me wrong, I love Leica kit, but we should perhaps admit that they have been pushed (new kit) well outside of the 'practical, working photography' sphere in the main. I am still hoping to find a 0.58MP on ebay for $500, but assuming I don't (why of course), it might have to be an R4a. In short, I feel Leicas have shifted from being 'performance items' to 'prestige items'.
allen_a_george
08-21-2008, 03:03
Rather than discussing wether someone can/should/wants to afford a new M8 at new list prices, how about looking at it from a different angle.
How many of exisitng M8 users would immediately rebuy a new (!) M8 at the new list price if theirs got lost?
I think this is a really good question. Perhaps we should accept that many of us can't, and like me, will come into Leica gear through the used market. While these are sales that Leica loses, its open to debate whether the R&D and manufacturing costs involved in catering to our price range is worth it to Leica.
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 03:06
Rising prices simply because ones costs go up is only working for monopolists or in former Sowietunion type of economies. .
First, that's flatly and demonstrably untrue, or prices would never rise except when new features are added. In 1971 a Leica M4 was GBP 202. Let's assume that adding a meter and the extra finder frames costs another 50% (which it probably doesn't). By your logic, an MP today should therefore cost GBP 303.
Second, a lot of luxury goods have gone up a lot faster than inflation.
The fact that a Leica is a very good camera does not stop it being a luxury. Lobb shoes are very good shoes, but they are still a luxury. Cask strength Laphroaig is very good whisky, but it's also a luxury.
Too many people conflate 'designer labels' and 'expensive' with 'luxury', when the truth is that often, luxury goods are very expensive simply because they are well made.
Yes, you can make cheap imitations and 'second strings'. But if you can sell the real thing at a price that people are willing to pay, why cut corners?
(Yes, I know there are many people here who are not willing to pay. So?)
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 03:11
The price of film bodies is vastly higher for the same camera as 3-5 years ago . . .
some people perhaps are not prepared to take such a risk and so don't buy the Leica kit on this basis....because they want something they can use and not be perpetually terrified of losing....dropping...scratching.
For the first, no it isn't. It's about similar to inflation (maybe slightly higher) IN EUROS. It's vastly higher IN DOLLARS becuse of the fall of the dollar.
For the second, we're back to 'can you afford it?' If you can't take the risk of using it, you can't afford the camera.
Incidentally, Leicas aren't all that expensive. Priced an Alpa 12 S/WA lately?
Cheers,
R.
Ray Nalley
08-21-2008, 03:16
Speaking of Leica making lenses for Nikon and Canon: I'm not convinced the real world difference to a photojournalist or wedding photographer (Nikon and Canon's primary professional market) between a $400 Canon 50mm 1.4 and a $3,000 Leica 50 1.4 would be sufficient for many to opt for the Leica. But, I could certainly be wrong.
There is so much nonsense being bandied around here. I bought my M8 cameras in 2006 for 4190 Euro each. Now Meister Camera, which is a -if not the- main Leica outlet in Europe is selling them for 3990 Euro. So where are these "dramatic price hikes"?
First, that's flatly and demonstrably untrue, or prices would never rise except when new features are added. In 1971 a Leica M4 was GBP 202. Let's assume that adding a meter and the extra finder frames costs another 50% (which it probably doesn't). By your logic, an MP today should therefore cost GBP 303.
Cheers,
Roger
If the market segment one competes within has to inflation adjust prices, your analogy is certainly spot on. But in the high end digital camera market it was, is and will continue to be different, because of technology advancing. A couple of weeks ago I bought a new 5D +14-105L lens for USD 2600, i.e. about USD 1600 for the body (official US import), maybe an extreme example of price adjustments for maturing products, but not an unusual one. Granted, the M8 is a niche product, but with the ever and fastly growing price differences between FF DSLRs and M8, the former may start to look more compelling and be perceived as "alternatives" by some. Shooting a 5d with a used Leica R prime doesn't really sound like hardship, or does it?
Best
. Shooting a 5d with a used Leica R prime doesn't really sound like hardship, or does it?
Well, you DO lose a number of reasons that make the 5D attractive, like autofocus and open-lens metering...
victoriapio
08-21-2008, 05:38
There is so much nonsense being bandied around here. I bought my M8 cameras in 2006 for 4190 Euro each. Now Meister Camera, which is a -if not the- main Leica outlet in Europe is selling them for 3990 Euro. So where are these "dramatic price hikes"?
And used M8s actuallly continue to drop in price or at least hold steady for now.
O.C.
We are really free to buy what we can (need, want, wish, whatever).
You who dont like prices of leica, I suggest buy super cool advanced cheap Canon 5D, Nikon D700 so it'll be pleasant here without complaints, right? I mean that complaints dont reduce prices or give bonus, only add more irritations.
I think we as consumers can make "silent" protests e.g. not buying from leica. Companies as Leica will take care of volumes of sales itself. They go bust either survive.
I cannot afford a Lamborghini neither newest Leica equipment. I'm happy with 30-50years old junkies with name Leitz. Am I complaining if I cannot afford? No, it is just time waste. I cannot afford M8, I bought Rd1 instead. Digital is not my top priority so I have big luck owning M3, M4. I cannot live with DLSR, only RF. It is my priority also. I love cars much, I wish I would buy anything sweet but my interest for photography is just bigger. Anybody can buy Lamborghini, if he doesn't chose a girlfriend, baby, family, house. Well it is if he is enough crazy motor enthuasist in his heart.
Look, the world is full of possibilities. You have to lose some to have other.
tbarker13
08-21-2008, 06:25
I just wonder if there are any other examples in recent history of an electronic item getting a major price increase nearly two years after its introduction - without a single upgrade. Computers, cell phones, MP3 players and every other camera I can think of all decline rapidly in price, or are replaced by something better at the same price point.
Maybe Kaufmann knows something the leaders of those companies don't know.
And that argument about this being the only digital rangefinder (and being able to set its own price) only goes so far. I mean, certainly we'd all agree the M8 isn't worth $5 million or even $500,000.
Even when you have no competitors, you can only push so far before potential buyers decide you've lost your mind. It just takes some of those buyers longer to figure it out.
And those were ONLY SIX YEARS AGO!
That is a hell of a long time when it comes to the value of the dollar. Back in 2001 the value of the dollar was NOK 9,98 - last month, July 08, it had reached to 4,98 - today it is up at NOK 5,40.
The lack of awareness among Americans of the importance of - and impact of - the dollar value in the international currency market and what it means regarding cost of 'just everything' in their daily life is amazing....
Bewildered you point fingers at 'the leica management'. Direct your anger and 'point your finger' at your own political and economical leaders instead. That's the right adress.
Ray Nalley
08-21-2008, 06:31
Again, it doesn't matter why the prices have gone up. They have gone up. And that effects buyers purchasing decisions.
There is so much nonsense being bandied around here. I bought my M8 cameras in 2006 for 4190 Euro each. Now Meister Camera, which is a -if not the- main Leica outlet in Europe is selling them for 3990 Euro. So where are these "dramatic price hikes"?
In the US :( Although the current $500 rebate leaves it only $200 over the original Oct '06 price. And I don't know but maybe some larger dealers would cut a deal to move their inventory. Smaller dealers in the US rarely stock more than one at a time.
Again, it doesn't matter why the prices have gone up. They have gone up. And that effects buyers purchasing decisions.
Again, the prices haven't gone up, in fact they have gone slightly down. Only the Dollar has gone down faster.Now if the US governement had been buying Leicas instead of ordnance to lug at inhabitants of middle-east countries, the price of the M8 in the USA might look a lot different.....
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 08:40
If the market segment one competes within has to inflation adjust prices, your analogy is certainly spot on. But in the high end digital camera market it was, is and will continue to be different, because of technology advancing.
And the high end coupled rangefinder, interchangeable lens digital camera market was, is, and will continue to be different again.
An M8 has a lot of computer in it -- and a lot of hand-assembled mechanical engineering. Also, it's not a mass-market disposable or semi-disposable item.
Cheers,
R.
Now if the US governement had been buying Leicas instead of ordnance to lug at inhabitants of middle-east countries, the price of the M8 in the USA might look a lot different.....
Jaap, if the Pentagon bought them, Leica would be on easy street. They would pay probably $50,000 apiece...based on the typically inflated prices they pay for everything they buy under government contract. Of course not all if it would filter back to Solms ;)
Jaap, if the Pentagon bought them, Leica would be on easy street. They would pay probably $50,000 apiece...based on the typically inflated prices they pay for everything they buy under government contract. Of course not all if it would filter back to Solms ;)
Ha, ha, ha!
Roger Hicks
08-21-2008, 10:12
Jaap, if the Pentagon bought them, Leica would be on easy street. They would pay probably $50,000 apiece...based on the typically inflated prices they pay for everything they buy under government contract. Of course not all if it would filter back to Solms ;)
Plus $5,000 for the charger, $3,000 each for extra batteries, a minimum of $10,000 per lens, $1,000 each for lens caps, $2,000 for lens hoods...
All right: I AM convinced that Leica should also manufacture in the USA...
Even after Halliburton's cut, they'd be doing well. (Who else remembers the Jefferson Airplane line, 'War's good business so invest your son...'?)
Cheers,
R.
That is a hell of a long time when it comes to the value of the dollar. Back in 2001 the value of the dollar was NOK 9,98 - last month, July 08, it had reached to 4,98 - today it is up at NOK 5,40.
The lack of awareness among Americans of the importance of - and impact of - the dollar value in the international currency market and what it means regarding cost of 'just everything' in their daily life is amazing....
Bewildered you point fingers at 'the leica management'. Direct your anger and 'point your finger' at your own political and economical leaders instead. That's the right adress.
Not again an anti American statement from you. Will you never learn? But Mr Olsen the self appointed economic ORACLE to Norway is entitled to criticise, or should I say offend, everybody and anything. How depicable :mad:
And the high end coupled rangefinder, interchangeable lens digital camera market was, is, and will continue to be different again.
An M8 has a lot of computer in it -- and a lot of hand-assembled mechanical engineering. Also, it's not a mass-market disposable or semi-disposable item.
Cheers,
R.
I agree that it will be different to some extent. But it will be interesting to see how far the tolerance and loyalty of the Leica community can be stretched, if noise free iso 3200 performance and FF become the new high end "standard", priced significantly below the only (?) digital RF . Anyway, I enjoy the discussion and eventually, future will tell.
Best
Gabriel M.A.
08-21-2008, 15:30
Stupid Ferrari. I can't buy one. I hope they go under. My Yugo can do anything a Ferrari can!
Gabriel M.A.
08-21-2008, 15:34
All right: I AM convinced that Leica should also manufacture in the USA...
Even after Halliburton's cut, they'd be doing well. (Who else remembers the Jefferson Airplane line, 'War's good business so invest your son...'?)
You know what that means: they'll undermine the workers' union, move the production to China, and then we'll be mysteriously coming down with heavy-metal toxicity levels which will all be played down by both co-complicit governments.
I agree that it will be different to some extent. But it will be interesting to see how far the tolerance and loyalty of the Leica community can be stretched, if noise free iso 3200 performance and FF become the new high end "standard", priced significantly below the only (?) digital RF . Anyway, I enjoy the discussion and eventually, future will tell.
Best
I'll tell you when I want to take an extreme wideangle photograph of a black cat in a coal cellar ;)
High-Iso noise is rapidly replacing Megapixels as the marketing's touchstone of "quality"
[quote=jaapv;879883]I'll tell you when I want to take an extreme wideangle photograph of a black cat in a coal cellar ;)
Yes, but please watch your steps in the darkness or else you might fall down a cliff as in one of your more recent Africa Safaris :D
jack palmer
08-21-2008, 16:16
That is a hell of a long time when it comes to the value of the dollar. Back in 2001 the value of the dollar was NOK 9,98 - last month, July 08, it had reached to 4,98 - today it is up at NOK 5,40.
The lack of awareness among Americans of the importance of - and impact of - the dollar value in the international currency market and what it means regarding cost of 'just everything' in their daily life is amazing....
Bewildered you point fingers at 'the leica management'. Direct your anger and 'point your finger' at your own political and economical leaders instead. That's the right adress.
Olsen, You're such an obvious bigot when it comes to anything American and never miss an opportunity to express it. Are you aware of how unattractive that is?
its the one on the right .... and I still like it. It is a replica, unlike the one on the left, that goes for $ 500k.
Does anyone have to buy either, would it not be cheaper (and better) to buy a current model GT3 ... more reliable, aircon, abs, airbags? So why do some people persevere - and not collecting, but actually use the classic stuff in competition?
We build replicas for customers, and a good competitive one starts at 200k. It is in the right hands as quick as a modern car, and delivers a more pure experience.
Sadly, quite a few of our customers lock the car away in their collection, never experiencing the thrill of pure driving.
We get a lot of inquiries that don't lead to sales, because of the cost. A few years ago you could build a competitive car for $ 60k.
Are we making millions? Sadly no, we break even (hopefully).
Niche markets ....
Gabriel M.A.
08-21-2008, 18:22
the pathetic rationalizations of an M8 owner? :confused:
Here, have another megapixel.
John Camp
08-21-2008, 19:48
The lack of awareness among Americans of the importance of - and impact of - the dollar value in the international currency market and what it means regarding cost of 'just everything' in their daily life is amazing....
That's because it hasn't meant much to most Americans. Most European imports, denominated in Euros, are luxury items, and many Americans don't buy them because they're too pricy.
Most American food is home-grown, or are even cheaper imports from Mexico. All denominated in dollars.
Most American clothing is imported from China or Vietnam, and until recently those currencies were rigidly linked to the dollar, so those prices didn't rise much either.
The Japanese yen has hovered right around 110 to the dollar for years.
We're only now beginning to see a bit of price inflation -- 5% now, last month over a year ago, but that's mostly oil.
Oil is one place where there's been a big increase, and it's still half the cost of European gas.
So, the fall of the dollar here mostly has meant that we're selling a hell of a lot more exports. A lot of Europeans seem to think that the strong Euro is some kind of victory; in fact, the larger economies in the world seem to desperately struggle to keep their currency down the scale, not up...
I'm thinking about buying a new Mercedes. But it'll be made here in the US, and denominated in dollars. A new "American" Benz can be had for a fairly competitive price. Porsches, made in Germany, are a different case -- I looked at a new Porsche C4s coupe today and they wanted $109,000, but that included a $4,000 aero pack (wing and front faring.) Europe is pricing itself out of business.
JC
Roger Hicks
08-22-2008, 01:00
A lot of Europeans seem to think that the strong Euro is some kind of victory; in fact, the larger economies in the world seem to desperately struggle to keep their currency down the scale, not up...
Dear John,
You are quite right that it is a strange kind of 'victory', where the 'winner' pays. But equally, the relative strength of a nation's currency (or an economic bloc's currency, in the case of the euro) is a pretty good indication of the underlying strength and health of that economy. Were it otherwise, Zimbabwe would be an economic powerhouse.
In other words, a weak currency may bring short-term gains to some manufacturers, but it also has a number of undesirable effects. For example, a country's assets can be bought up by foreigners at bargain-basement prices, thus making the country's economy increasingly vulnerable to manupulation from outside.
As for exports, the USA has less and less to export. I used to buy made-in-USA Levis 501 jeans. Nowadays they are made all over the place: the pair I am wearing as I write this were bought in the USA but made in Colombia. I can't think of much that I have bought in the last few years that is made in America, and exported. Some Kodak products, to be sure -- and even then, I am not sure where the Kodak sensor in my M8 was actually made. But not much else, if anything.
So, overall, a weak currency is as hollow a 'victory' as a strong one.
Cheers,
Roger
To me the general sentiment here in Europe is that sliding dollar is perceived not as European victory but more as U.S. administration failure. And that's what it is. Dollar devaluation is not a sinister plot by European Central Bank, but a side effect of recent American domestic and foreign policy. Europe has nothing to do with it.
Roger Hicks
08-22-2008, 01:48
To me the general sentiment here in Europe is that sliding dollar is perceived not as European victory but more as U.S. administration failure. And that's what it is. Dollar devaluation is not a sinister plot by European Central Bank, but a side effect of recent American domestic and foreign policy. Europe has nothing to do with it.
Dear Eugene,
Interesting point: you can lose, but you can't win. In other words, it's a question of which economy can out-mismanage the other.
There's also the fact that the so-called 'credit crunch' has very interesting effects. Because it's housing-driven (and US-housing-driven, at that), US interest rates are being kept artificially low, which in turn implies a weak dollar.
Without the 'credit crunch' -- a result of housing lenders making what they believed (on the basis of insufficient intelligence) to be one-way bets -- US interest rates could be significantly higher, and the dollar a lot stronger.
The nature of the one-way bet is interesting too. In France, a lender is responsible for making sure that borrowers can repay what they are loaned. If the lender is irresponsible, he has to 'eat' the loan. In the UK, on the other hand, when I was on the point of selling my last house in order to move to France, I was advised to lie by a mortgage company employee in order to remortgage my UK house and buy a French house at the same time.
No wonder the UK is sometimes referred to as the 51st state.
Cheers,
Roger
For the first, no it isn't. It's about similar to inflation (maybe slightly higher) IN EUROS. It's vastly higher IN DOLLARS becuse of the fall of the dollar.
For the second, we're back to 'can you afford it?' If you can't take the risk of using it, you can't afford the camera.
Incidentally, Leicas aren't all that expensive. Priced an Alpa 12 S/WA lately?
Cheers,
R.
I think prices have rises appreciably above inflation, but maybe I am wrong and I realise this has been compounded by the USD's fall.
I don't think affording the item and being able to afford losing it can be considered the same thing. I think one has to be far wealthier to afford losing the kit than one has to be to afford buying it! Also consider that risk is probability x impact. I work in a high risk environment and so using a Leica here is quite different to using one in rural Spain/France/Britain. I sold my Leica 50 Lux asph LHSA partly because on a MP I am carting about about 8k which is silly in such a place. A MP + planar is not nearly so bad!
I have priced alpas and think they are priced well beyond my means as they stand presently. however, I am equally sure that my Mamiya 7II is the better tool for me, regardless of price. As wonderful as the alpas are, if I want slow and deliberate I shoot 5x4/5x7. If I want to hand hold with a big neg, the Mamiya 7 is all I personally need. I can understand the appeal however...
Luxury is not something for one who cannot afford it to sneer at I agree and I do not begrudge those who own lots of Leicas and Alpas, but wonder how much great work will be made using them in the years to come. I find that rather sad. I do not like the thought of something that should be a tool, that should be producing great work, being absent from the hands of those who would use them for what they were created. This is not some form of communist leaning BTW - I realise the practicalities! Its just a desire to see them in more widespread use rather than get the feeling they are increasingly restricted to collectors who play with them outside once in a while. I have had both my MPs here...and all my lenses - this is what they were made for and they do a wonderful job!
To me the general sentiment here in Europe is that sliding dollar is perceived not as European victory but more as U.S. administration failure. And that's what it is. Dollar devaluation is not a sinister plot by European Central Bank, but a side effect of recent American domestic and foreign policy. Europe has nothing to do with it.
You are spot on. As posted here earlier. The Euro is only relatively strong, since currency wise it is the only alternative to the USD. I.e. the present structural problems of the US economy are more severe and of different nature and rootcause than the European Union (not to be confused with Europe) ones.
But don't be mistaken the one long term and unescapable issue European politicians are in denial of but will have to start addressing soon, is colossal. The aging of its population, and the pace thereof, is of a dimension unseen before in mankinds history.
In a very simplified, not trivialised way, the recent "boom" in Europe was built on steeply growing Asian and Russian demand for European technology, know how, services and certain brand products. The former one, caused largeley because of US demand for made in China and others. If the US consumer starts to sneeze, Asia might catch a cold and, with some time lag, Europe the flu.
Roger Hicks
08-22-2008, 02:18
I don't think affording the item and being able to afford losing it can be considered the same thing. I think one has to be far wealthier to afford losing the kit than one has to be to afford buying it! Also consider that risk is probability x impact. I work in a high risk environment and so using a Leica here is quite different to using one in rural Spain/France/Britain.
Surely, if you can't afford the risks of using it, you can't afford the camera. I fully take your point about relative risk, and indeed there are a few places where I'd use my old Konica instead of a Leica, such as the red-light district of Amsterdam. Even then, I suspect I may be unnecessarily cautious. What are you calling a 'high risk environment'? I use my Leicas in London, NYC, Delhi, etc., which are obviously far higher-risk than rural France or Spain (not sure about the UK).
Yes, I've had gear stolen (in Delhi and Moscow) but that's part of the risk of taking pictures.
Incidentally, Alpas are not slow to use.
Cheers,
R.
the pathetic rationalizations of an M8 owner? :confused:
Nope - a comment on marketing manipulation of pliable consumers.
Horses for courses. I have no need for excessively high ISO numbers in my M8. It is not a camera for the type of shooting that would be facilitated by that feature.The M8 is not my sole photographic tool.
Other than Ikea and Italian cheese, I can't think of much I have bought from Europe in the 21st century. And of course nothing from Ikea in the US is from Europe, everything is from China, Canada, or the US. Maybe a couple of Armani suits in the last ten years, some Campagnolo bike parts.
Leica was pretty much the last European product I was interested in. European goods all seem to be from the mid to late 20th century, a lot of old-man style products for the luxury market, like Rolex and Mercedes.
Asian goods designed in the USA have dominated my purchases for years, by choice not price.
Please explain why 80% of the taxis in Europe, which are driven by hard-nosed businessmen, are Mercedes?
What are you calling a 'high risk environment'?I think Turtle is (or was) in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Roger Hicks
08-22-2008, 05:33
I think Turtle is (or was) in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Fair enough! That's why I asked. Some people regard a big city as a risk; others (with considerably more justification) might cite Kabul or Baghdad. My favourite was someone who asked if it was safe to go into English pubs.
In Kabul, I think I'd be a damn' sight more worried about my skin than my camera -- but even then, I can't help feeling that if I were willing to be there at all, I might also be willing to risk my cameras.
Cheers,
r.
It is not a camera for the type of shooting that would be facilitated by that feature.
Are you kidding? You mean if the M8 (or M9) had the same clean high iso files as a Nikon D3 that wouldn't be an advantage to an RF shooter?
Your personal preferences aside, that does sound like rationalizing, I think. Most RF shooters would absolutely jump at a DRF with clean high iso files.
Olsen, You're such an obvious bigot when it comes to anything American and never miss an opportunity to express it. Are you aware of how unattractive that is?
His comments aren't "un-American" in the least, he's simply pointing out what should be obvious: the weak dollar is our fault.
That's because it hasn't meant much to most Americans. Most European imports, denominated in Euros, are luxury items, and many Americans don't buy them because they're too pricy.
Most American food is home-grown, or are even cheaper imports from Mexico. All denominated in dollars.
Most American clothing is imported from China or Vietnam, and until recently those currencies were rigidly linked to the dollar, so those prices didn't rise much either.
The Japanese yen has hovered right around 110 to the dollar for years.
We're only now beginning to see a bit of price inflation -- 5% now, last month over a year ago, but that's mostly oil.
Oil is one place where there's been a big increase, and it's still half the cost of European gas.
So, the fall of the dollar here mostly has meant that we're selling a hell of a lot more exports. A lot of Europeans seem to think that the strong Euro is some kind of victory; in fact, the larger economies in the world seem to desperately struggle to keep their currency down the scale, not up...
I'm thinking about buying a new Mercedes. But it'll be made here in the US, and denominated in dollars. A new "American" Benz can be had for a fairly competitive price. Porsches, made in Germany, are a different case -- I looked at a new Porsche C4s coupe today and they wanted $109,000, but that included a $4,000 aero pack (wing and front faring.) Europe is pricing itself out of business.
JC
I am just back from a short car trip from Oslo to Sweden. There we had to pay with Swedish kroners which is nominated 0,85 to Norwegian Kroner. - And so on. Over here, there is a lot of independent nations with different currencies. As such, the Euro is a 'victory' as a reform of creating a stable and strong currency. For nations like Italy and France this has meant a lot.
At first it just might look like a 'victory' that the US$ is nominated so low compared to European currencies. Now it and economically possible for quite ordinary Europeans to buy flats in NY or condo's in Florida. - If they have a job....
I said earlier here that it now have dawned on the powerful operators in the currency market that they themselves will be in a very difficult spot 'if the dollar crashes'. European national banks, along with those of the Middle East, Russia, China etc. now see that they have to 'do all they can to keep the dollar up'. Right now US multinationals sells dollar and the above mentioned banks that buys them....
European economy is now slowing down. One of the reasons is 'the low dollar to the Euro', but not only. The rising oil cost is another and the US financial crisis is yet another. European banks are deep in 'financial toxic waste' derived from the 'foreclosure crisis' in the US. Surely, in many European countries have - or will have similar local crisis on their hands. Spain and UK have been mentioned. That s't hasn't reached the fan yet.
I have repeatedly said this; 'we are in this together'. A low dollar will hit employment in Europe.
Olsen, You're such an obvious bigot when it comes to anything American and never miss an opportunity to express it. Are you aware of how unattractive that is?
I take this as an insult. I have many relatives in the US. I am proud of that. I have relatives who died for USA, - one is mentioned at the Pearl Harbour War Memorial and another at the Vietnam War memorial. Have you? There were several Olsen's who died at Gettisburg too. You owe me an apology.
I am a Norwegian citizen, however. A country that grants me the freedom of expressing whatever I want. I use that freedom to express my view on other countries policies - as well as that of my own country. You are obliged not to agree with me. That's OK. But that does not oblige you to throw tomatoes.
John Camp
08-22-2008, 08:37
Dear John,
You are quite right that it is a strange kind of 'victory', where the 'winner' pays. But equally, the relative strength of a nation's currency (or an economic bloc's currency, in the case of the euro) is a pretty good indication of the underlying strength and health of that economy. Were it otherwise, Zimbabwe would be an economic powerhouse.
In other words, a weak currency may bring short-term gains to some manufacturers, but it also has a number of undesirable effects. For example, a country's assets can be bought up by foreigners at bargain-basement prices, thus making the country's economy increasingly vulnerable to manupulation from outside.
As for exports, the USA has less and less to export. I used to buy made-in-USA Levis 501 jeans. Nowadays they are made all over the place: the pair I am wearing as I write this were bought in the USA but made in Colombia. I can't think of much that I have bought in the last few years that is made in America, and exported. Some Kodak products, to be sure -- and even then, I am not sure where the Kodak sensor in my M8 was actually made. But not much else, if anything.
So, overall, a weak currency is as hollow a 'victory' as a strong one.
Cheers,
Roger
America doesn't export much in the way of consumer products; most of it is heavy equipment. Think Caterpillar, John Deere, etc. And, of course, computer products. Are you using a European-based operating system on a European computer? (You may be - but most aren't.) Ever seen an iPod on a European street, or an iPhone? As far as 501s go, I think mine were made in Juarez, Mexico.
As to foreigners buying up the country, the U.S. IS a trading country -- outsiders are free to buy what they wish, and they then fall under US government regulation. If they want to move here, they can, and often do, and if they want to become citizens, that's good, too. Ronald Reagan (not my favorite president, I admit) once said something along the lines of, "You can't move to England and become an Englishman, and you can't move to France and become a Frenchman, but you can move to America and become an American"...which is one reason we don't worry much about foreign influence. We *like* hooking up with foreigners. The "manipulation" problem is mostly a myth, except as concerns oil, but that manipulation is right out in the open and I agree causes some great distress.
Also, you shouldn't fall into the trap (as Olsen sometimes does) of making straight-line projections. The pound in my lifetime has been worth as much as $4 and has fallen under $1.50 (IIRC) and lately was back at $2; as Europe continues to age, and as retirement promises kick in, the Euro will fall again. Then, in fifty years or so, it'll be back. Time passes.
What's going on now is not the apocalypse, it's just an economic wrinkle that will seem much less important in fifteen years.
JC
Roger Hicks
08-22-2008, 09:59
Ronald Reagan (not my favorite president, I admit) once said something along the lines of, "You can't move to England and become an Englishman . . .
Also, you shouldn't fall into the trap (as Olsen sometimes does) of making straight-line projections. The pound in my lifetime has been worth as much as $4 and has fallen under $1.50 (IIRC) and lately was back at $2; as Europe continues to age, and as retirement promises kick in, the Euro will fall again. Then, in fifty years or so, it'll be back. Time passes.
Dear John,
We are in substantial agreement, that this is not the apocalypse, and believe me, I am more aware than you of currency fluctuations. In the early 80s, the dollar approached parity with the pound. And I was living in Bermuda (and intermittently working for Uncle Sam) in the late 60s when the pound was revalued from $2.80 to $2.40 and Artful 'Arold gave his famous lying speech that 'the pound in your pocket is not worth a penny less than yesterday'.
My sole point was that a weak currency is no more desirable tham one that is unrealistically overvalued.
As for the point about moving to England, etc., I think Ronnie was doing something he was good at: saying something feel-good, but substantially meaningless. My wife moved to the UK (in the early 80s -- see above); became a British subject; is now more at home in the UK than the USA. What more definition of 'an Englishman' or 'an American' had you (or Ronnie) in mind?
Cheers,
R.
Are you kidding? You mean if the M8 (or M9) had the same clean high iso files as a Nikon D3 that wouldn't be an advantage to an RF shooter?
Your personal preferences aside, that does sound like rationalizing, I think. Most RF shooters would absolutely jump at a DRF with clean high iso files.
Most fine-art printers add noise....A large number of DRF users would prefer an ISO 80 setting.
Peter Pommes
08-24-2008, 07:40
I take this as an insult. I have many relatives in the US. I am proud of that.
Why are You proud of having relatives in another country? I too have relatives in another country and it only makes me sad how long it takes me to visit them.
America doesn't export much in the way of consumer products; most of it is heavy equipment. Think Caterpillar, John Deere, etc. And, of course, computer products. Are you using a European-based operating system on a European computer? (You may be - but most aren't.) Ever seen an iPod on a European street, or an iPhone? As far as 501s go, I think mine were made in Juarez, Mexico.
As to foreigners buying up the country, the U.S. IS a trading country -- outsiders are free to buy what they wish, and they then fall under US government regulation. If they want to move here, they can, and often do, and if they want to become citizens, that's good, too. Ronald Reagan (not my favorite president, I admit) once said something along the lines of, "You can't move to England and become an Englishman, and you can't move to France and become a Frenchman, but you can move to America and become an American"...which is one reason we don't worry much about foreign influence. We *like* hooking up with foreigners. The "manipulation" problem is mostly a myth, except as concerns oil, but that manipulation is right out in the open and I agree causes some great distress.
Also, you shouldn't fall into the trap (as Olsen sometimes does) of making straight-line projections. The pound in my lifetime has been worth as much as $4 and has fallen under $1.50 (IIRC) and lately was back at $2; as Europe continues to age, and as retirement promises kick in, the Euro will fall again. Then, in fifty years or so, it'll be back. Time passes.
What's going on now is not the apocalypse, it's just an economic wrinkle that will seem much less important in fifteen years.
JC
You must show me the 'streight line projections' I am supposed to have made....
Today: The most important export from USA is 'software' - ref. Microsoft etc.
I worked for more than 10 years for Caterpillar, - and knew 'Blackie', the old and legendary CEO, and have met 'Jim' Owens - several times - the Current CEO, when he was stationed in Geneve back in the 70'. He's a little older than me so I really can't fathom that he has the strength to carry such 'heavy' job at his age. Impressive. I wish him luck. The guy I was closest to at Caterpillar was Jim Chesko, who, I believe, is a journalist - or something, at Wall Street today.
Caterpillar is indeed a company that should be doing well with a low dollar. Their US production facilities, like in Peoria, Ill, will be more competetive - and income from their overseas facilities will be more profitable - in dollars. I worked for Caterpillar last time the dollar hit 'bellow NOK 5,00', in the late 70'and early 80'. Then we were doing very well.
Back then USA could carry a low dollar with ease since USA was still a major 'creditor nation'; a lot of countries owed them money. Today it is the other way around. The dollar will come back to new hights, but not without a price. That will be 'higher interest rate' which will be tough to bare for ordinary Americans.
To me the general sentiment here in Europe is that sliding dollar is perceived not as European victory but more as U.S. administration failure. And that's what it is. Dollar devaluation is not a sinister plot by European Central Bank, but a side effect of recent American domestic and foreign policy. Europe has nothing to do with it.
Very well put.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.