Has Leica created its own gap in the market?

[AndySig]

There seems to be a fair bit of annoyance (to put it mildly) that Leica seems to be positioning itself as a purely luxury brand. I can see why that easily alienates people who take their photography seriously as they are interested in function first and all the hype comes second. Collectors have perhaps had enough of a negative effect, airheads who need to be seen with the "right" labels will be even worse.

The main complaint seems to be that Leica will offer ever less aimed at the "normal" keen photographer and it could be here that they have created their own gap in the market which they could fill and to an even wider audience if the brand becomes seriously widely known like for instance, Porsche.

Could Leica perhaps fill that gap by producing a full frame digital which really is a replacement for the film Ms e.g. something with no rear screen and hardly any electronic controls - the only things I think would be necessary would be M6 style metering and a way of selecting ISO (the traditional dial on the back?). Could the shutter be the traditional mechanical affair? The idea being that you do all the processing in the computer like you do with film in the darkroom.

Would such a camera work out significantly cheaper than the M9? If so, then it would attract the traditional Leica users and the aspirational types who would be desperate to buy into the brand but who could not afford the M9/M9M.

I don't know how plausible the above is as I know very little about the costs of producing digital technology. So what do you all think?

[Steve Bellayr]

I sort of agree when Leica puts out a 50mm Summicron, which should be the lowest priced lens, at $7000 USD. The current Summilux is $4000. I question that decision, too. How difficult would it be to put out an X version with a viewfinder that takes the M mount lenses? Even with a cropped sensor a 35mm Summicron IV is less expensive than the new Summicron.

[boomguy57]

Originally Posted by aperture64

It's always been a luxury brand. Leica cameras have always cost much more than other cameras available at the time. It's only due to the internet and the large quantity of the used market that has put the brand in the hands of people that aren't able to buy new. If it weren't for eBay or this site, people would still have pay more via a dealer or used department.

While expensive, they were also the pinnacle of 35mm photography technology at one point. Now they are a luxury brand, pure and simple, with photography second.

Sure there is room for a "slimmed-down" digital M in the lineup; Leica would be a fool not to release some kind of crop-factor digital M for cheaper. Ultimately, I'd think that Leica wants to get consumers hooked on M glass, and that's a cheaper way to do so. Their partnership with panasonic and making AF lenses could also be used to bring out their own competitor to Sony's NEX range, Fuji X-Pro range, and the m4/3 range. With an APS-C sensor, a small body, and a native M-mount, they would sell like hotcakes and many of these RFFers who have been adapting their M glass would jump on it. It would ultimately serve to increase demand for the Leica lenses, and Leica could still retain their top digital RF as the luxury item.

[lam]

I like this quote so i'll steal it from another thread..

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Lomography is Leica.
Their respective target market will scarf up whatever they put out.

Amazing.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by aperture64

It's always been a luxury brand. Leica cameras have always cost much more than other cameras available at the time. It's only due to the internet and the large quantity of the used market that has put the brand in the hands of people that aren't able to buy new. If it weren't for eBay or this site, people would still have pay more via a dealer or used department.

No, they weren't. They may have been "high end" but not luxury.

I've posted this before, but in 1954, the M3 + 50 Summicron cost about $350. Accounting for inflation, the cost today would be $2,935... and that's body and lens.

Not that far off from the Fuji xPro1 with lens.

[CameraQuest]

Originally Posted by aperture64

It's always been a luxury brand. Leica cameras have always cost much more than other cameras available at the time. It's only due to the internet and the large quantity of the used market that has put the brand in the hands of people that aren't able to buy new. If it weren't for eBay or this site, people would still have pay more via a dealer or used department.

not true.
from the first Leica to the late 1980's
Leica was a high end camera company -
but NOT a luxury brand or product.
now the emphasis is less on photography and more on the bling
of luxury and status symbol.

as odd as that reality is to many people
strangely enough that strategy
it is what has allowed Leica to survive and thrive
for the past 20 years.

Stephen

[Tim Gray]

Originally Posted by AndySig

Would such a camera work out significantly cheaper than the M9?

I don't know about the other questions, but I don't think it would make the camera significantly cheaper. LCD screens are cheap. Much cheaper than new R&D on how to build a camera with many settings that need to be set that can't be set on said screen.

Same is probably true for the shutter; it can't cost more than a couple of hundred dollars, so going to a cheaper unit isn't going to save that much money. Particularly when they don't have to reinvent the wheel and can just use the current unit and most of the design that goes along.

[Araakii]

Found this stat here:

http://www.loti.com/then_now/What_it_cost_in_1954.htm

The price for high end Ford car went up 60 times. So Leica's price appreciation is still reasonable :-)

[Araakii]

A lot of people would rather see Leica cease to exist than rolling out products that they can't afford. The psychology is that, if I can't have it, so can't you.

[Thardy]

I was following along until the next to last paragraph.

Why are we willing to just give up on the usual things found on even the cheapest digital camera in order to have a budget Leica? Reminds me of BMW and Mercedes putting plastic seats in their $50,000 cars.

[tbarker13]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

as odd as that reality is to many people
strangely enough that strategy
it is what has allowed Leica to survive and thrive
for the past 20 years.

It may be more accurate to say they survived (barely) for most of the past 20 years, but just recently started doing a little thriving. It remains to be seen whether this is really new life for the company, or a short-term blip of good fortune.

I'll still be surprised if, at some point, they don't start paying attention to that middle market of photographers willing to pay $2-$3k for a camera. But then, this company has had no shortage of short-sightedness in the past.

(But it's still not going to be a camera without an LCD screen.)

[thegman]

I think Leica's focus on the luxury end of the market, has quite simply allowed them to survive. In these days of commoditization of so many different markets, if you want to survive as a small player, you've got to be different. If you're different, you won't sell much stuff, as most people want what everyone else has. If you don't sell much stuff, that stuff better be expensive and high margin.

If you want a film Leica, they're affordable on the used market, so are lenses. If you want new stuff, or digital, then it's very expensive. So either you need to make more money or be happy with something which does not have a red dot on it.

I think it's indicative of today's culture of entitlement that if we cannot afford something, it's the company's fault for making it too expensive, not ours for not making enough money, or preferring to spend that money on other things.

If Leica made cameras which were (a lot) cheaper, where would the money come from for R&D etc? Personally I think with the M9, MM, X1, MP, and S2, they punch way over their weight. There are only so many people who want a DRF.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by thegman

I think it's indicative of today's culture of entitlement that if we cannot afford something, it's the company's fault for making it too expensive, not ours for not making enough money, or preferring to spend that money on other things.

This is especially prevalent in the West, where people have gone through a surge in wealth and prosperity in the decades after the war and this whole sense of entitlement has been building up since.

Another problem is that people tend to think that life should only get better. So, if they face a sudden drop in their standard of living, they get very enraged.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by Araakii

Found this stat here:

http://www.loti.com/then_now/What_it_cost_in_1954.htm

The price for high end Ford car went up 60 times. So Leica's price appreciation is still reasonable :-)

And the cost of a Canon 5D hasn't gone up at all since release in 2005. MI retailed for $3299 on release. Seven years later, MIII is released at $3499.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by DRabbit

And the cost of a Canon 5D hasn't gone up at all since release in 2005. MI retailed for $3299 on release. Seven years later, MIII is released at $3499.

EXACTLY. That's why "inflation" is only a reference. Each brand/product has its own ups and downs.

[DRabbit]

Originally Posted by Araakii

EXACTLY. That's why "inflation" is only a reference. Each brand/product has its own ups and downs.

Oh, I agree! I just think comparing two camera companies is more like-for-like than comparing to cars

There was an argument about this going on over at DPR too, because apparently Leica is reporting a 15% Profit Margin across the board (much higher than Canon or Nikon report). I don't know if that's fair or not because of the size of Leica vs. Canikon.

But there is a gap in the market where there's no affordable digital rangefinder. Whether it matters or not, who knows. It matters to me. But would it be successful if Leica or another company was able to put out a digital rangefinder at a $3500 price point? Could it be profitable?

[Thardy]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

"Leica should do this...Leica should do that, they should make a camera for the masses."

I don't think that Leica gives a hoot for the masses or the working photographer. They sell all the M9s they can make already. Why would they change?

Here's an example entry from a Leica enthusiasts' blog.

"Hi Stan, I have been reading your blog for some time now and though I have only been taking photos about a year I gave my only camera, a Canon point and shoot to my daughter. Now I'm the proud owner of a spanking new M9 and 50mm Summicron lens! I'll keep tuning in to your blog for instruction and inspiration! Wow Stan, hanging out here has made my wallet really light!"

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

not true.
from the first Leica to the late 1980's
Leica was a high end camera company -
but NOT a luxury brand or product.
now the emphasis is less on photography and more on the bling
of luxury and status symbol.

as odd as that reality is to many people
strangely enough that strategy
it is what has allowed Leica to survive and thrive
for the past 20 years.

Stephen

Everything has started when Leica has discovered in the 80's that a simple imprint on the top cover could bring more than what their engineers were able to accomplish.

Today the average cross section of such forums does not constitute anymore the center of the scope of Leica.. We are like fringe benefit for them.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by GeorgeH

Why are people willing to give up on the usual things found on even the cheapest digital camera in order to have an over-priced digital M? Honestly, it's nothing more than the emperor's new clothes. How could anyone of even modest intelligence overlook the myriad of issues reported in the digital M cameras? Outdated sensors and electronics which have resulted in corrupted and lost data, card compatibility issues, cracked sensor glass, horizontal lines, and a host of other glitches are simply ignored or de-emphasized by aficionados in any discussion related to the M. Likewise, the cameras are rarely ever evaluated in anything other than a vacuum. To do otherwise would illustrate the disparity between the current state of Leica and other manufacturers.

Better, I reckon to just smile politely and say, "I think the emperor's new clothes are fabulous!". Far too many Leica fanboys who seem to have rather fragile egos and (apparently) derive much of their sense of self-worth from their possessions online and ready to pounce to bother with any kind of reasonable discourse.

It's all about weighing the pluses and minuses among yourself. Leica digital Ms have a whole slew of issues but so do other cameras in the market. You just need to do the comparison and figure out what's best for you.

[celluloidprop]

Well, yes, your grandparents looking for a snapshot camera would have considered the M3 a luxury. But an enthusiast would have viewed it as a premium model, something attainable that could be aspired to without necessarily making huge sacrifices. No one is looking at the M9 as a snapshot camera and there are hundreds of models equivalent to that Kodak Brownie in features and price.

If you've got kids and a middle-class income (USD), a M9 is not attainable. Many other makers are producing the equivalent of that premium M3, however.

It's completely normal for photographers to feel betrayed by this - Leica has priced themselves out of the attainable, without breaking new technological ground or even, really, keeping up with everyone else.

[celluloidprop]

The LCD and "electronic controls" are pennies relative to the cost of the sensor w/ microlenses, etc. in producing the M9.
A big chunk of the M9 family cost is the Leica premium, undoubtedly, but we've also not seen a mirrorless full-frame camera from anyone else. That tells me that it's not feasible at a price point that will sway anyone from a FF DSLR - who's going to pay $3500 for a relatively large body and lens with slower AF, the compromises of a EVF, etc.?

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

not true.
from the first Leica to the late 1980's
Leica was a high end camera company -
but NOT a luxury brand or product.
now the emphasis is less on photography and more on the bling
of luxury and status symbol.

as odd as that reality is to many people
strangely enough that strategy
it is what has allowed Leica to survive and thrive
for the past 20 years.

Stephen

Up to a certain point in the last century most 'regular' men had a tailored suits. Now it's a luxury item. I think Leica became a luxury item because it's not possible for them to produce high end products for people on a normal income. Or look at Alpa. Their cameras are basically just finely machined pieces of metal. Not a lot of mechanical sophistication there and I doubt that their R&D efforts are even remotely comparable to Leica's.

I'm no Leica expert but I remember that just a few years ago they were in serious trouble. If they're thriving now it's probably because of their focus on a wealthy target audience.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by DRabbit

And the cost of a Canon 5D hasn't gone up at all since release in 2005. MI retailed for $3299 on release. Seven years later, MIII is released at $3499.

When I remember right 5D II started at 2500 EUR, 5D III starts now at 3300 EUR.

[Paul Luscher]

Well, I've always thought Leica should do something like Nikon: Have its flagship line;i.e., the M9, and then a lower-priced "amateur" line, like Nikon did with cameras such as the FE2, etc.

Be the best of both worlds: Leica could keep on with the "luxury" M-camera line, and broaden its customer base with the lower-priced line...customers who might one day graduate to the mighty M.....

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by aperture64

"status symbol" "luxury" or "high end" are all in the same book.

Well, people in the military could afford a high end Leica back then, but I doubt they'd be able to afford the luxury Leica of today.