p.4 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
dholl wrote:
Nice soundbite, but Leica and Sony aren't the same animal...
It would need a company not invested in a system to come out the blue and offer a manual-focus full-frame digital rangefinder - maybe Epson finally making an R-D2 and offering it either as fixed prime, or with Canikon mount. It would need to be very good, aggressively-priced, expertly-marketed and fortunately-timed for it to make a meaningful dent in Leica's rather modest sales (modest numbers when compared with what the mainstream brands ship).
Who would take that risk? Maybe Zeiss with an Ikon-Digital? That would be a contender. But otherwise, the manual-focus digital rangefinder market is not active enough for anyone else to bother.
I don't think you understood my point. What Red did wasn't offer up another me-too 1080p cine camera. What they did was say, "We think that's obsolete, here's something better."
That's what I'm talking about happening to Leica. Of course no one is going to release another manual focus digital rangefinder. There's barely a big enough market there to sustain one company, forget about two.
What's going to take Leica M down is not an imitator but an innovation that makes it obsolete. A full frame mirrorless camera with DSLR-caliber build and ergonomics and a flange depth shallow enough to mount M lenses, and also has AF and whatever other bells and whistles the broader market wants so that it can sell in enough volume to be very affordable, makes the M obsolete.
That's not catastrophic news for Leica, by the way. They were always playing "me too" catch-up in digital imaging. It ain't their thing. Let them drop it and focus entirely (well, almost entirely. There will still be a handful buying M7's) on the increased RF lens demand that a widely-sold FF mirrorless from Sony or whoever would create. They'd do fine that way. Maybe better.
p.4 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
See the problem is you're assuming that they're price gouging, and I don't think that's true. Small volume production and labour intensive assembly (skilled labour mind you), leads to high costs. R&D is spread out over fewer sales, as is overhead. Sure they're making profit, but that's what companies do.
You're comparing that to the likes on Nikon and Sony, massive companies that are playing the high volume game. Neither of those companies are doing too well financially these days.
p.4 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Lee Saxon wrote:
I don't think you understood my point. What Red did wasn't offer up another me-too 1080p cine camera. What they did was say, "We think that's obsolete, here's something better."
That's what I'm talking about happening to Leica. Of course no one is going to release another manual focus digital rangefinder. There's barely a big enough market there to sustain one company, forget about two.
What's going to take Leica M down is not an imitator but an innovation that makes it obsolete. A full frame mirrorless camera with DSLR-caliber build and ergonomics and a flange depth shallow enough to mount M lenses, and also has AF and whatever other bells and whistles the broader market wants so that it can sell in enough volume to be very affordable, makes the M obsolete.
That's not catastrophic news for Leica, by the way. They were always playing "me too" catch-up in digital imaging. It ain't their thing. Let them drop it and focus entirely (well, almost entirely. There will still be a handful buying M7's) on the increased RF lens demand that a widely-sold FF mirrorless from Sony or whoever would create. They'd do fine that way. Maybe better....Show more →
Lee,
I think that regardless, there will be a market for Leica RF type cameras both digital and film. It is such a fixture and important company to the industry. I doubt there will ever be another company to make such a range of RF type camera and RF coupled lenses in the format size. All of Leicas competitors in this field have long since dropped out including Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon. There is to the best of my knowledge only one company producing the RF type Medium Format film type cameras that being Mamiya. Many of us that used the Mamiya 7 and 7II cameras begged Mamiya to make a digital body to accept our stellar performing Mamiya 7 lenses. But, they did not think it feasible and it has never come to pass.
p.4 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
ryankarr wrote:
See the problem is you're assuming that they're price gouging, and I don't think that's true. Small volume production and labour intensive assembly (skilled labour mind you), leads to high costs. R&D is spread out over fewer sales, as is overhead. Sure they're making profit, but that's what companies do.
You're comparing that to the likes on Nikon and Sony, massive companies that are playing the high volume game. Neither of those companies are doing too well financially these days.
I know hand made stuff costs money and it's extremely high quality, but do you honestly think it costs Leica something like $3,500 do make one of these bodies? That's the same cost as your standard V6 internal combustion engine. Yes, obviously scale and manufacturing means are very different, but in terms of precision, complexity and R&D, it's no question either.
There's always been an upsell for the Leica name, and you can see it quite plainly. It appears to be about a 2x adder for the name. Take the Panasonic LX7 and the Leica D-Lux 6...which are the EXACT same camera. In this case, the LX7 is half the price, but it doesn't have a red dot.
Same with the viewfinder for the X2...the EVF2 is $449, compared to the Olympus VF-2 at $249, which is the exact SAME viewfinder (you can even use them interchangeably on each others cameras).
I don't necessarily think it's price gouging...that implies that they've got you by the horns and you have no real choice but to pay. that's not the case here...there are tons of alternatives that you have if you want a high quality body at lower cost (and in many cases higher performing). But you HAVE to know you are paying a serious premium for the name. For many people, the quality of the camera is worth paying a little more than it really should, since there isn't an exact replica of the Leica experience, but there's obviously a premium for the name.
p.4 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
It cost a lot to do these. All of them are tested by person. And not by some Chinese guy (or Chinese kid in worst case). So they need to pay ppl who work for them and trust me, these ppl are not underpaid.
Most of their lens are hand painted, glass parts edges blackened by hand too. Not all tho.
They use sensors which are made only for them (you can ask Nikon how "cheap" it is for them to buy Sony sensors, it really isnt and thats Sony making huge batches of sensors).
Leica is milking lower end, compacts and such. I dont see reason why not to. And anyway at least they have different FW and bit of tweaks in that (usually in colors). Tho I regret they didnt continue in 4/3s. Digilux 3 is beautiful camera.
Well and lens, I think they are worth its price. If there will be some M mount camera in next 50 years, your lens will survive to that day and most likely will be usable. They dont have any VR or AF-S or anything electronical to die in them..
No I cant buy good camera from Leica neither their current lens, but if I could, I would without hesitation.
p.4 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
I don't know, you guys are analyzing how much profit margins Leica is taking, and all this strategical talk, to me that's all fine, but I'm a simple man. I love shooting with rangefinders, that's all. I'm no Leica fan, when I shot film, I had 2 Zeiss Ikons (and an M6) and preferred the Zeiss. I have no Leica glass. If there was any other digital RF option on the market, especially if cheaper, or with better performance, I would certainly consider it instead of a Leica. At the moment, I'm happy to pay my money to Leica, because they're the only company that remains true to the reall essence of photography.
p.4 #9 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
naturephoto1 wrote:
Right now and at least for the last several years, yes Leica is making a profit.
Rich
Someone posted Leica financial summary sometime ago. If I recall correctly, they have been loosing money for many years, except that they broke even in 2011 and made a whopping 1.5 million euros profit in 2012.
p.4 #11 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
edwardkaraa wrote:
Someone posted Leica financial summary sometime ago. If I recall correctly, they have been loosing money for many years, except that they broke even in 2011 and made a whopping 1.5 million euros profit in 2012.
OK Edward, I could be mistaken. But, I thought that was what I had heard from some of my inside sources at Leica Camera USA that they were making a profit.
p.4 #12 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Yeah, according to goosemang link, they're making a bit more than that, so my memory failed me again, but still the amount is ridiculously low for such a company
p.4 #13 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
edwardkaraa wrote:
Yeah, according to goosemang link, they're making a bit more than that, so my memory failed me again, but still the amount is ridiculously low for such a company
Well, look at the financial problems at this point for Giants like Sony and Panasonic. This is a world wide economic crunch for many businesses and economies.
p.4 #14 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Jman13 wrote:
I know hand made stuff costs money and it's extremely high quality, but do you honestly think it costs Leica something like $3,500 do make one of these bodies? That's the same cost as your standard V6 internal combustion engine. Yes, obviously scale and manufacturing means are very different, but in terms of precision, complexity and R&D, it's no question either.
I definitely think there's a premium on the Leica name, but I just don't think it's nearly as high as people think.
The "Same priec as a V6 Engine" could be used for Nikon or Canon too, but again it's not a direct comparison due to the sheer volume being built and that engine's R&D being spread out over multiple models and generations of cars.
goosemang wrote:
interesting. here's a link to their 2010/2011 annual report:
Awesome Thanks. In the last year the company was public, they had sales of $248 mm and net profit was $36.3 mm, which is a 15% margin . If you directly apply that margin to their products, a $7000 M costs Leica $6000 to design, build, market and deliver and pay taxes on.
That's over simplified of course, but it's obvious that Leica isn't banking 50% of every dollar of sales.
p.4 #15 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
On another note, I also can't stand listening to people complain about how expensive the new Nikon and Canon lenses are and claiming that they're being gouged. Or how the RX1 is a ripoff.
The effect of Nikon's sales/pricing/rebates/discounts can be seen in their latest financial numbers, and they're stock is down 20% as a result.
No dedicated camera companies or camera divisions are seeing high margins or doing incredibly profitable business right now.
p.4 #16 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
There's a lot more to cost than cost of production. Customer service, for example, doesn't directly affect the cost of producing a widget but has to be paid for somehow.
A couple of months ago I sent my DMR to Leica USA for repair (control wheel popped off); I got a message on my phone asking me to call the service department about my camera. Expecting the worst, that parts are no longer available for a digital camera discontinued several years ago, I returned the call:
(paraphrased)
Leica: Leica Camera, Inc.
Me: I got a phone message asking me to call about my camera...
Leica: Is this Doug?
They didn't ask for the repair ticket number or what camera it was, I didn't have to go through a phone menu tree, I wasn't put on hold, just "Is this Doug?" I'll pay for customer service like this. Is this paying more for the Red Dot? You bet it is, and I'm OK with that.
BTW, the message was that the DMR's repair was free.
p.4 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
telyt wrote:
There's a lot more to cost than cost of production. Customer service, for example, doesn't directly affect the cost of producing a widget but has to be paid for somehow.
A couple of months ago I sent my DMR to Leica USA for repair (control wheel popped off); I got a message on my phone asking me to call the service department about my camera. Expecting the worst, that parts are no longer available for a digital camera discontinued several years ago, I returned the call:
(paraphrased)
Leica: Leica Camera, Inc.
Me: I got a phone message asking me to call about my camera...
Leica: Is this Doug?
They didn't ask for the repair ticket number or what camera it was, I didn't have to go through a phone menu tree, I wasn't put on hold, just "Is this Doug?" I'll pay for customer service like this. Is this paying more for the Red Dot? You bet it is, and I'm OK with that.
BTW, the message was that the DMR's repair was free....Show more →
Usually customer service, repairs, etc for Leica USA have been exemplary for me as well. And I have had some work that was free as well.
p.4 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
ryankarr wrote:
On another note, I also can't stand listening to people complain about how expensive the new Nikon and Canon lenses are and claiming that they're being gouged. Or how the RX1 is a ripoff.
.
the other problem with this is they're comparing new lenses to 25 year old ones. "the new 35 f/2 costs THREE TIMES what the existing one does!" well, yeah....
p.4 #19 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
telyt wrote:
There's a lot more to cost than cost of production. Customer service, for example, doesn't directly affect the cost of producing a widget but has to be paid for somehow.
A couple of months ago I sent my DMR to Leica USA for repair (control wheel popped off); I got a message on my phone asking me to call the service department about my camera. Expecting the worst, that parts are no longer available for a digital camera discontinued several years ago, I returned the call:
(paraphrased)
Leica: Leica Camera, Inc.
Me: I got a phone message asking me to call about my camera...
Leica: Is this Doug?
They didn't ask for the repair ticket number or what camera it was, I didn't have to go through a phone menu tree, I wasn't put on hold, just "Is this Doug?" I'll pay for customer service like this. Is this paying more for the Red Dot? You bet it is, and I'm OK with that.
BTW, the message was that the DMR's repair was free....Show more →
p.4 #20 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Jman13 wrote:
There's always been an upsell for the Leica name, and you can see it quite plainly. It appears to be about a 2x adder for the name. Take the Panasonic LX7 and the Leica D-Lux 6...which are the EXACT same camera. In this case, the LX7 is half the price, but it doesn't have a red dot.
FWIW, it isn't that simple. According to Dan, "The rebadged 'Leicasonic' cameras have final assembly and QC in Germany, come with two years international warranty and include a copy of Lightroom." I'm not saying that it is worth the price difference, but you get a little more than just a red dot. Like Doug mentioned, you also get Leica's great customer service.
