rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
S Dilworth wrote:
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....Show more →
I don't think this is unique to Leica. First of all, is the percentage of Leicas used among working photographers vs. those not generating revenue from their work much different from Canon, Nikon, etc? While the majority of working photographers use Canons and Nikons, both brands, along with Sony, are dominant among amateurs.
I suspect the percentages are quite similar. Where there might be a difference is in the 'devotion' to the Leica brand because it's a considerably higher price of entry, which means it requires a much more conscious decision to buy into.
In terms of escalating prices - what I see in the journalism world around me is much the same with Canon and Nikon, where newspapers can no longer justify spending $5000 for a D3/1D style camera when a D7000 is good enough for 1/5 the price. Freelance rates, usage rates, etc. have been stagnant for years, if not in decline, because photography has become increasingly a high volume commodity churned out by the millions on a daily basis. "Professional" photography is becoming an increasingly niche market. Also becoming niche is equipment that offers specialized features, such as manual focus, interchangeable lenses, quality construction and high levels of performance...
Why have all of Canon's latest pro products, such as the new line of super-telephoto lenses and the 1DX camera, arrived at a roughly 50% premium over the previous generation? It's not because the pros who supposedly use these products are making a lot more money than previously. It's because the market demand for such equipment is decreasing. For Canon to continue to offer such products at a lower volume and lower level of demand, the prices must increase considerably to maintain a certain level of profit per unit.
As for buying crap... unfortunately in the current disposable consumer mindset, we like to buy a lot of things and we want them to be cheap. This works against the idea of long-term reliability and high quality construction at a higher initial cost of ownership. Manufacturers could make better products, but because such products wouldn't break as easily, and therefore be replaced as frequently, prices would be much higher. It seems to be a difficult position to adopt because most consumers base value on affordability.
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!...Show more →
I think you can still buy two M6s for the price of a D800. It's the lenses that are much more expensive now, thanks to the forces of supply and demand in light of Leica's M9 renaissance and the many cheap MILCs that can take M lenses. I guess it's like picking stocks - should have bought while the prices were low. I sure wish I had.
|
