Old 08-10-2012   #41
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtm6 View Post
Porsche and Mercedes have models that are priced at the "wow that's expensive but not crazy expensive for me if I really want one" range for some people. I feel like Leica digital M models are destined to be like Lamborghinis... just a few very insanely expensive models.
Yeah some of those cars can be quite badass (great looking, high performance, with a high envy factor) for not a crazy expensive price tag. If an M10 comes in at 10k, what do you have?
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #42
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
I predict that the M10 will sell at a price that will cause many flame threads about Leica not serving photographers needs.... Catering to the rich.... Profit taking... Losing the plot in regards to "who" made them what "they" are today...
It's going to be so awful! Maybe I should go get a real problem now to distract me from reading any of those threads later

Joking aside. I hope it's not too much. If it is there will likely be fewer M9's coming on the used market which will stabilize the M9 price ....right out of my affordable range.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #43
Photon42
burn the box
 
Photon42's Avatar
 
Photon42 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Neutral Zone
Posts: 619
About the same as the M9 price, maybe M9P.
__________________
My Gallery
My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #44
denizg7
Dennis Van Patten
 
denizg7 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York , New York
Posts: 721
one things for sure. If the m10 cost $2500 dollars , there would be more leica users , a more dedicated fan base , and they would increase revenue.

I am pretty sure those two top and bottom brass plates alone dont cost 2,000 do they?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #45
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Is an M9 'insanely expensive'? It's certainly a lot more affordable than a Porsche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
In all fairness, Leica also has lower priced cameras.
Neither are affordable for me and expensive can be relative. And I know what you mean jsrockit. My point was there are no lower-priced digital-M entry models into the Leica brand, like Ferrari but unlike Porsche and Mercedes. It was Keith's analogy, not mine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #46
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizg7 View Post
one things for sure. If the m10 cost $2500 dollars , there would be more leica users , a more dedicated fan base , and they would increase revenue.
That is not for sure for several reasons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #47
segedi
RFicianado
 
segedi's Avatar
 
segedi is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,233
I wonder if Leica is looking at all these "estimates" and will come up with their price according to our silly expectations. If so, please price at $7,250. A little more than M9. And chop $1500 off the M9 and M9-P to get rid of the existing stock.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr

Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #48
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Is an M9 'insanely expensive'? It's certainly a lot more affordable than a Porsche.

Cheers,

R.
I didn't know Porsche made cameras. News flash, yea I think it is "insanely expensive" for what it is but then people like myself are not Leica's intended market. I expect a Porsche owner would consider it cheap.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #49
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 50
Posts: 703
If we believe the rumors, it's going to be around 10K. But I have the gut feeling it's not going to be that expensive. Probably around the price of a MM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #50
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
I have a Neurosurgeon friend who drives a Lamborghini, takes exotic trips, stays in five star hotels, etc... A few months ago he received a preordered Nex 7. He is supposedly an accomplished amateur photographer, but I wonder if he knows much about Leica. I think I'll strike up a conversation about the new M10, see what he says.

I wonder if the reaction will be hmmm $10,000? Or $10,000 FOR A CAMERA???
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #51
denizg7
Dennis Van Patten
 
denizg7 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York , New York
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtm6 View Post
That is not for sure for several reasons.
hmm I know plenty of people who would love to own a digital m, but they simply can't afford

even paying $2500 is a lot for a camera , but in leica prices that's affordable for a body alone , and a lot of users will break the bank and turn into leica owners
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #52
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon Bob View Post
I didn't know Porsche made cameras.
Bob
Well, they (or their design consultancy wing) did help Contax with the RTS range, a long time ago . . .
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #53
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizg7 View Post
one things for sure. If the m10 cost $2500 dollars , there would be more leica users , a more dedicated fan base , and they would increase revenue.
Again, not necessarily. Besides, it is about profit not revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by denizg7 View Post
hmm I know plenty of people who would love to own a digital m, but they simply can't afford

even paying $2500 is a lot for a camera , but in leica prices that's affordable for a body alone , and a lot of users will break the bank and turn into leica owners
OK. But what does that have to do with profit? If you made a luxury widget for $10, would you lower the price to $2.50 if someone told you that you would need to make 8 times as many widgets to sell to 16 times as many customers (since you lost 1/2 of your customers since it would no longer be a velbon good) to make the same amount of money?

There is a lot more to that story, but that's the gist of it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #54
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,582
I was looking at the price of a new D4 Nikon the other day and almost choked because it's M9 territory. But that's a lot of camera for the price and although DSLRs are not everone's cup of tea you get what you pay for and more ... the Nikon meets the mark in every area it should without excuses from the manufacturer.

We've been putting up with Leica's low rent ISO performance since the digital M came out not to mention the crappy LCD along with several other compromises. For ten grand an M10 would want to be damned good ... in other words start giving customers what they're paying for aside from the name!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #55
denizg7
Dennis Van Patten
 
denizg7 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York , New York
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtm6 View Post
Again, not necessarily. Besides, it is about profit not revenue.



OK. But what does that have to do with profit? If you made a luxury widget for $10, would you lower the price to $2.50 if someone told you that you would need to make 8 times as many widgets to sell to 16 times as many customers (since you lost 1/2 of your customers since it would no longer be a velbon good) to make the same amount of money?

There is a lot more to that story, but that's the gist of it.
profit is a part of revenue, increased revenue , increased profit.

Do you have any idea how much profit Leica would make if it could steal around 25% of the dslr consumers in the market, because of the $2500 price range? Considering they build a new plant and everything . But anyways some people want leica to stay a niche product , unlike how it was when m3,m2 were introduced. Times change , companies change too I guess.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #56
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizg7 View Post
hmm I know plenty of people who would love to own a digital m, but they simply can't afford

even paying $2500 is a lot for a camera , but in leica prices that's affordable for a body alone , and a lot of users will break the bank and turn into leica owners
I'm sure plenty of RFFers will go for it. And Steve Huff.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #57
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
In all fairness, Leica also has lower priced cameras.
They are called Panasonics.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-10-2012   #58
jtm6
Registered User
 
jtm6 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizg7 View Post
profit is a part of revenue, increased revenue , increased profit.
That is not always true. Lower prices can yield lower profit margins even if costs are lowered. More units need to be made and sold to more customers to generate the same revenue... but with lower profit margins, they make less profit! Therefore, even more revenue needs to be generated by making and selling more units to more customers to yield the same profits as before this mess began. This is often how people and companies go out of business.

Quote:
Do you have any idea how much profit Leica would make if it could steal around 25% of the dslr consumers in the market, because of the $2500 price range? Considering they build a new plant and everything . But anyways some people want leica to stay a niche product , unlike how it was when m3,m2 were introduced. Times change , companies change too I guess.
I doubt it could steal 25% of the DSLR market. It is an already oversaturated market where consumer to professional products compete based on bleeding edge technological qualities instead of having no competitors as the only luxury good of its kind at the current price.
  Reply With Quote

What is with the 10K M10? $$$$$$ MADNESS!
Old 08-12-2012   #59
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
What is with the 10K M10? $$$$$$ MADNESS!

M8, $4,000, M8.2 $5,700, M9 $7,000, M9P $8,000, M10, $10,000, M11 $14,000, M12 $20,000, etc,, you get the drift. This is in the world of the D800 at $3,000. Am I missing something or is something wrong here? It is really too bad that people who own rangefinder lenses of any make have to pay such a steep price for a full frame camera. Not everyone bought M mount lenses, screw mount, etc,, brand new, and many of us are watching our budgets. For me, My M8 purchase in 2007 at $4,700 was my limit, and to be honest, still is my limit. The sad thing is if we want new, at 4K, we are chased out of using rangefinder lenses. I must say, I only need a sensor to mount my lenses on and frankly I would not care if it had some polycarbonate to reduce cost. All I need is image quality. Considering how electronics change so rapidly, one has to ask the question does it make sense to buy a $10,000 digital camera? The point is the M10 or M9 may be to much overbuilt to make sense. If the camera were designed to last 5 years at a much reduced cost, I believe that makes more sense. If Fuji made a full frame version of the X PRO 1 with a better focusing method for M lenses I would consider that over any Leica product. Ricoh may also come out with something soon. Leica really needs competition in full frame cameras. They need a little fear for survival in their blood not only to produce more realistically priced cameras, but to produce better more reliable products. A little free market capitalism never hurts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2012   #60
gilpen123
Gil
 
gilpen123's Avatar
 
gilpen123 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 2,603
I think MP will sell a lot now.
__________________
Gil

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2012   #61
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,365
Leica needs to seriously reconsider their business model. They'll never get enough volume making FF rangefinders to drive costs down substantially.

Why not revive the old R-mount lenses and sell them in Nikon and Canon mounts?
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote

R lenses for Nikon and Canon
Old 08-12-2012   #62
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
R lenses for Nikon and Canon

I think this is a great idea for Leica to make Nikon and Canon mount lenses. This would be a good cash source. They do indeed need a new business model. Heck, look at Zeiss. Funny. Leica needs to be more like Zeiss and Zeiss needs to be more like Leica in that they need a Zeiss digital body for their excellent and much more realistically priced lenses. I have to wonder what Fuji, Ricoh, Zeiss and Voigtlander have up their sleeves for 2012 and beyond? I hope Voigtlander and Zeiss finally admit it is the 21st century and produce a resonably priced rangefinder camera. Heck, if it had the 1.3 crop of the M8 but much better high ISO I would buy that over the M10!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2012   #63
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 36
Posts: 1,327
nowadays Leica sells perception of luxury, not high end cameras. they should be focusing in R&D and optimising production costs so that the new model hits the market with the same price tag as the previous one, as pretty much all other manufacturers do.

the way they're doing business is just not sustainable, and living off heritage and a memory of quality will lead nowhere.
__________________
__________
@marcelography on Instagram
behance.net/marcelography
  Reply With Quote

It is only a matter of time for another full frame M mount camera not made by Leica
Old 08-12-2012   #64
eleskin
Registered User
 
eleskin is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,075
It is only a matter of time for another full frame M mount camera not made by Leica

I look into my crystal ball and see that the days of Leica dominating the full frame digital rangefinder as numbered. Someone will eventually come out with a mirrorless full frame that can mount m lenses. It would be even smarter for that camera to have an adaptor system to become the worlds first full frame universal digital body. When this day comes, there will be some nervous sweat in solms, but that is the free market!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2012   #65
regularchickens
Registered User
 
regularchickens's Avatar
 
regularchickens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by umcelinho View Post
nowadays Leica sells perception of luxury, not high end cameras. they should be focusing in R&D and optimising production costs so that the new model hits the market with the same price tag as the previous one, as pretty much all other manufacturers do.
Aren't these statements contradictory? They sell luxury items, so optimizing costs and keeping price tags consistent are not really necessary for them. Like the old saying goes, if you have to ask about the price, it's too much for you. Leica have priced themselves out of the cost/performance equation, and it's not really important to their business anymore. Besides, with their production model (high labor costs and low rates of production), the only market that suits them is luxury.

Look to Ricoh, Fujifilm, and Sony for what Leica gave you in the past.
__________________
flickr | tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2012   #66
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by RObert Budding View Post
Leica needs to seriously reconsider their business model.
Why? They are doing well enough.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.