Frankly, I came here to see what you guys think about the new B&W Leica, because I for one am pretty excited. Even though I'd never buy one. But what a bold move! I can see many folks lusting over it. Leica reserved the entire hall one for Photokina later this year for themselves and an exhibition, I'm definitely going...
I would love to go to Photokina, but I am not sure I will be able to. I am not planning to buy an M9-M, but given an improved budget I would be quite interested.
It's a good thing I cant afford a leica and (don't like) fancy watches so I'm good..
Anyways, could we assume their will be no m-mount mirroless from Leica since the X2 is only a fix lens? My only hope right now is for other makes to splurge the mirrorless FF..or (long) wait for 2nd hand M10
I had a discussion on whether leica is simply price gouging and exploiting a monopoly or it really costs them so much to make those cameras and lenses, so I went and had a look at their financial reports. In summary (hope I havent f** anything up, I did it in a hurry)
Based on this, leica could drop their prices by 0.3% and still break even
So when you go to B&H and ask for a $24 discount on that $8k Leica monochrom, dont let them tell you no!
those greedy bastards
Basically, from that quick look I had it seems to me that this company is making stuff which is incredibly expensive to make, and also they invest an awful lot on R&D (around 7m to 10m euro per year which is huge for their size). If it wasnt for the market response to the M9 and those silly hermes editions I think the company could have easily gone the way of kodak.
But, their pricing policy seems as low as possible, believe it or not...
Some of you really need to watch what you are posting.
I don't have time to read about other branches of technology, when I am curious about what overpriced camera Leica will shortly (?) release.
I admire those who produce great results from M9s and the like and my NEX5N has given me an interest in M lenses, but so far I have restricted myself to buying a couple of Rs and some Contax gear, but good luck to the Leica-mensch out there.
puns intended of course...
PS _ I bought a fake Rolex in Singapore in 1988...but that's a long time ago...
I always wonder why some ppl think its overpriced..
1) its only FF digital rangefinder with BW sensor, similar to M9 being same just in color
2) its manufactured with supertight tolerances and assembled by hand, and each camera is tweaked by hand, so you wont get lemon that easily (like you can get from any other manufacturer, maybe with exception of Zeiss)
3) lens that are not comparable to anything else, cause they are simply worlds best
And you whine its overpriced?
I think that mainstream crap like D800 or Fuji X-Pro is overpriced, cause for that price it could be at least bug free. Which it isnt.
I never thought Leica is overpriced, cause there simply isnt anyone else doing what they do.
I agree with you that Leica products are not over-priced, but not because of the fact that no one else is doing what they do, but simply that the materials and construction are the best there is, and there is so much manual work in it, and from Portugal and Germany. You don't get that from anyone else any more.
I don't agree with your bug free comment though. The Nikon equipment that I have used has been at least as bug free as anything else (although not perfect, it never is; what counts is that they fix it), and the Leica M equipment I have owned had its own fair share of problems, but Leica always stood behind their product and fixed it.
It is simply a fact of life that with products as complicated as modern cameras, it is almost impossible not to have issues.
Mescalamba wrote:
I think that mainstream crap like D800 or Fuji X-Pro is overpriced, cause for that price it could be at least bug free.
how is the x-pro mainstream? An autofocus RF-like camera? Its a niche within a niche, always has been.
Also no I dont think it's overpriced because it shares exactly zero components with any preexisting camera, they had to design everything from scratch and in some cases reinvent the wheel (sensor, OVF). That must've been some R&D bill.
One must not forget that low profit margins are often the result of high inefficiency and poor management. Looking at the numbers above, this is likely where the improvements have come from.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
One must not forget that low profit margins are often the result of high inefficiency and poor management. Looking at the numbers above, this is likely where the improvements have come from.
I suspect that in Leica's case it's inefficiency in production more than anything. But this has its good points, the M-Monochrom would likely not have been a viable product if Leica was not using its inefficient piece-work production model. More efficient production can lead to some rather odd design decisions like the D800E's dual-filter design to eliminate the effects of the AA filter (so chosen because it's physically identical to the D800's filter pack and thus doesn't disrupt the production line), if the D800 was produced as Leica does, the D800E could have had an optimized AA-free filter pack instead and probably a bit more resolution due to that.
"The camera, an exemplar of the pre-production Leica 0-Series, had been expected to go for between 600,000 and 800,000 euros and bidding started at 300,000 euros at the Galerie Westlicht in Vienna.
The hammer fell at 1.8 million euros, and the final price with tax was 2.16 million euros. The buyer chose to remain anonymous."
In other words, even rich collectors have wives
(my apologies in advance to any women reading this who feel that I am stereo-typing, I mean it only as a joke, not a characterization).
Inefficiency in production? Hm, you don't know Germans ... the production is probably as efficient as it can be, but the numbers of sold cameras in the past have been too few to offset relatively huge overhead costs. The reason their result sucked in the past is obvious - they didn't have any digital camera worth buying. The M9 changed that.
However a lot of those costs are related to R&D and without it they wouldn't have been able to introduce the M9, S2 and X1 which I'd guess is the reason for the increase in sales.
If they can keep 16% profit margin and go back to 10% of revenue in R&D I'd say they margins are really good. My conclusion is that they make a lot of money on each sold product with current volumes.
mawz wrote:
I suspect that in Leica's case it's inefficiency in production more than anything. But this has its good points, the M-Monochrom would likely not have been a viable product if Leica was not using its inefficient piece-work production model. More efficient production can lead to some rather odd design decisions like the D800E's dual-filter design to eliminate the effects of the AA filter (so chosen because it's physically identical to the D800's filter pack and thus doesn't disrupt the production line), if the D800 was produced as Leica does, the D800E could have had an optimized AA-free filter pack instead and probably a bit more resolution due to that....Show more →
Wrong analysis. Changing the thickness of the filter assembly on a sensor can give completely terrible results. You can't have one Nikon camera with a different thickness of filter and expect to use the same lenses, especially when said sensor will be the one most pixel-peeped upon.
Leica's a funny one. I can't reconcile my admiration for their quality and innovation, with my distaste for their bourgeois customer base.
And it wasn't always like this. Just a few years ago you could buy a nice Leica M for about a grand and a nice Summicron for another grand. Because the prices were accessible to (Western) photographers who wanted them badly enough, they were used by regular photographers. Every wannabe street photographer had one, middle-aged photo-club guys in cardigans praised the relative shallowness of the non-TTL M6, and lots of jobbing pros had a small M kit. Certainly, it was the dentist's choice, but it was also used by half the National Geographic staff and wedding photographers like Jeff Ascough. Robert Appleby did amazing things with his Elmarit-M 24 mm f/2.8 ASPH. (If you know what became of him, by the way, please drop me a note.)
Although Leicas are still used by some working photographers, the new prices (and rapid obsolescence of the cameras) are prohibitive for most pro photographers and indeed most people who have to earn a living. The new-money crowd in China and elsewhere has reversed the sign of price elasticities, leading to things like this new $7k Summicron (which Peter Karbe looks almost embarrassed about in promotional videos). Poor Americans universally buy crap, and rich Americans for the most part buy the same crap in greater quantity. Except for bankers, Europeans are broke and buy nothing. The Japanese have lost their confidence.
These factors make Leicas both inaccessible and a bit distasteful, and that's a pity. They are really fabulous optical instruments. I regret not buying some Leica lenses when I could afford that kind of quality, because it looks like high-quality consumer goods – not just cameras, but everything, really – will never again be priced at sane levels, with some very few exceptions such as Apple.
Do I sound bitter? I'm not well-served by current market forces. I don't want a $3k Nikon D800 that looks and feels like a $500 product, but that's the only good camera I can afford – and barely. Just ten years ago that would have fetched me two fabulous handmade M6 cameras!
carstenw wrote:
I agree with you that Leica products are not over-priced, but not because of the fact that no one else is doing what they do, but simply that the materials and construction are the best there is
Still disappointing that they can't slap on a decent LCD screen. Maybe it would reduce battery life too much? I can imagine they simply don't have the R&D budget to make their cameras electronically optmized and electrically efficient.
An interesting thread. It's not about photography, but about people's perception of luxury, of economics, of status symbols, of how capitalism works :-)
S Dilworth wrote:
Leica's a funny one. I can't reconcile my admiration for their quality and innovation, with my distaste for their bourgeois customer base.
I cannot agree with this. I do not know about the situation in Paris, but in Berlin, and anywhere else I have been, I have met a very large proportion of very nice Leica owners, often not all that wealthy, but with a certain taste. I have also joined one of the Leica forum meet-ups, and my impression was again confirmed.
The sorts of people who comment in forums are far from a realistic sample of real Leica owners, and often aren't Leica owners at all.
AhamB wrote:
Still disappointing that they can't slap on a decent LCD screen. Maybe it would reduce battery life too much? I can imagine they simply don't have the R&D budget to make their cameras electronically optmized and electrically efficient.
Agreed. I will not buy my next Leica until a high-resolution screen is added, preferably with near-sRGB gamut. Also improved should be the rangefinder adjustment mechanism and stability.
JonasY wrote:
Inefficiency in production? Hm, you don't know Germans ... .
I don't know the efficiency of the Portuguese labor force either (the ones that actually make most of the cameras). ...I also doubt that there is efficiency in having the cameras made in one place and then shipping them to Germany for final assembly and testing. That sort of production would seem to hardly be what one might call efficient. I bet it would be much more efficient to maybe have the entire camera made, assembled and tested in one place, say Portugal, but then I guess Leica would not be able to benefit from the "Made in Germany" stamp (which is all about marketing more so than actual quality).
... the production is probably as efficient as it can be, but the numbers of sold cameras in the past have been too few to offset relatively huge overhead costs. The reason their result sucked in the past is obvious - they didn't have any digital camera worth buying. The M9 changed that.