sirimiri wrote:
Rattymouse, we can infer from your postings that you dislike Leica.
Without relying on sensationalism, I ask: "What do you like?"
I've got about 1000 posts here, so my track record is pretty clear. I think it can be summed up fairly accurately as "everything else".
I'm primarily a Fujifilm shooter however.
My post above was not some kind of attempt at "brand warfare". I just find a lot of the Leica mystique to be demonstrably false with the resulting pricing hilarious (from an outsiders perspective). Aside from their lenses, I see nothing that comes even close to justifying Leica prices. 230k dot screens? High ISO performance that was state of the art 5-6 years ago? All for nearly 10 grand? Or 2 grand for the X1/2?
rattymouse wrote:
My post above was not some kind of attempt at "brand warfare". I just find a lot of the Leica mystique to be demonstrably false with the resulting pricing hilarious (from an outsiders perspective).
That was my attitude until a few days after the security guard at my tech school loaned his IIIg to me.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Leica is actually under priced. If they were overpriced, supply wouldn't be so tight.
carstenw wrote:
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.
I would love to see an RF micro adjust knob, just like a diopter knob. It would work wonders with live view. One can adjust the focus with a few clicks without having to send the camera away. Something perhaps that we should suggest to Leica?
thrice wrote:
I know! Ridiculous right!? They can't keep up with demand but people whinging about the price online will certainly get them to halve their pricing.
So it would be better if lens prices all doubled and an M9 cost 15,000 dollars?
rscheffler wrote:
If you're implying the M9 is an inferior camera in terms of image quality relative to what's on the market now, other than the D800's double pixel count, it holds its own quite well, considering it's a nearly 3 year old camera. OK, high ISO is not its strength, and despite many disparaging this aspect of its performance, it's still acceptable and usable for many.
I believe the M9 to have more resolution that the Sony A900 and Canon 1Ds3/5D2/3, and about equal or slightly better than the Nikon D3X.
rattymouse wrote:
So it would be better if lens prices all doubled and an M9 cost 15,000 dollars?
It is amazing how much animosity this brand attracts. I think AhamB has shown clearly that Leica makes much lower margins than canikon. In fact 2011 was the only year they made any money for a long while. If anything we have to commend Leica for the dedication to excellence, even if we can't afford all or some of its products. The world would be a sad place if all photography gear was manufactured in the much more profitable canikon style.
It will be better if the M9 is sold at $1000, the waiting list will be 3 years long and people who do get it will sell it on ebay/forum for a sustainable price of $6995, o wait!
And that's why the lens price keep rising, because it's underpriced whenever a price gouger can make a profit. I would rather have Leica pocket the money because they will then make something that no one is making. I can't afford it, sure, but I won't call it 1%/luxury/overpriced just because I can't afford it.
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of these people who are complaining about Leica prices, One Percenters, or capitalism drive Lexus/BMS/Mercedes/(insert car > $30K)?
EltonTeng wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of these people who are complaining about Leica prices, One Percenters, or capitalism drive Lexus/BMS/Mercedes/(insert car > $30K)?
I would say Leica prices in the camera world put it more in line with cars that are much more than just $30K.
Either way, I still don't like how Leica has turned into a luxury item over the years, but I'm not saying the cameras are too expensive. Demand certainly says otherwise, and I may even buy an M10 (or maybe an M9) this fall. If I do buy an M9, though, I certainly won't think I'm buying some kind of ground breaking image quality. I'll be buying one because I simply want to work with a digital rangefinder that still feels somewhat mechanical, and because I like them and want one. That's why I don't see it as much different than buying a Rolex, other than the fact that a Rolex will likely hold it's value better. There are plenty of cheaper options out there that tell time better and have as good or better IQ than Rolex watches and Leica cameras, respectively, but that isn't the point.
edwardkaraa wrote:
It is amazing how much animosity this brand attracts. I think AhamB has shown clearly that Leica makes much lower margins than canikon. In fact 2011 was the only year they made any money for a long while. If anything we have to commend Leica for the dedication to excellence, even if we can't afford all or some of its products. The world would be a sad place if all photography gear was manufactured in the much more profitable canikon style.
How would you feel if Fujifilm charged $8,000 for the X Pro 1 and it had such substandard parts as a 230k LCD screen. Or had a seriously challenged sensor that struggled with ISO1600 or higher?
Would you say that Fujifilm is dedicated to excellence?
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
It's tight because they make so few lenses. Any brand would be tight if they did the same
They don't just choose to make few lenses. Leica uses production methods and materials that no other manufacturers use (unique custom built machines to polish aspherics, glass types exclusively produced for Leica lenses, etc.), not mentioning the problems with aquiring and holding on to skilled staff.
Sure, exclusivity is one factor that is part of Leica's products, but they couldn't easily bump up their production capacity if they wanted to.
AhamB wrote:
They don't just choose to make few lenses. Leica uses production methods and materials that no other manufacturers use (unique custom built machines to polish aspherics, glass types exclusively produced for Leica lenses, etc.), not mentioning the problems with aquiring and holding on to skilled staff.
Sure, exclusivity is one factor that is part of Leica's products, but they couldn't easily bump up their production capacity if they wanted to.
But you could say the same about Canon/Nikon when they make their super-teles. Custom built machines, making artificial fluorite glass, skilled stuff and so on.............
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
But you could say the same about Canon/Nikon when they make their super-teles. Custom built machines, making artificial fluorite glass, skilled stuff and so on.............
