When will people finally understand that Leica today is, first and foremost, a luxury manufacturer (in contrast to premium manufacturers such as Hasselblad)?
In this realm, price is not measured by the actual features offered, but rather by the brand itself—its glorious past, its exclusivity, the associated lifestyle, and the assurance of standing in close proximity to the true giants of photographic history. And when you consider that the current CEO spent 15 years working at the Swiss luxury watchmaker IWC—most recently as COO—it is patently obvious that there is simply no turning back from this path. Leica was once the "Swiss Army knife" of cameras; today, it is the "Gucci handbag" of cameras. But one must look at it positively. Ultimately, this outcome is definitely preferable to bankruptcy—a fate that was averted precisely because of this strategic shift. Today, Leica is thriving, and even those who use cherished gear from the "good old days" benefit from this success, as it ensures the continued availability of customer service to attend to those in need of professional maintenance or repairs. And as for those who simply don't know what to do with all their money anyway—well, they simply treat themselves to the luxury. So, everyone gets something out of it—even the complete outsider, who can at least be amused by the recurring bugs.
speedgraphic wrote:
I mean it's dangerous to compare prices because these products are wildly different. But if you take the pro camera line up from Canon and Nikon, a Z9 is about $5k and the R1 is $6800.
First let me say, I don't think it's insane to say that for what Leica is doing, being priced at the same as a pro level Canon or Nikon isn't that crazy of a proposition. These cameras are basically prosumer electronics, plus some very nice materials, plus the RF mechanism. We can see what it costs Leica to rip out the RF because they have an EVF model now, and it's just not really that much cheaper. But even with Leica being Leica, if they wanted to be 30% more expensive than the R1, you're still only at $8840.
If we take Leica on 'good faith', and their margins are reasonable for what they're making...I think any decent business person might say that they need to look for ways to make these cameras more cheaply. What is the value proposition of an $11k 135 camera in a logical sense? They're not more reliable than the competition. The camera sensors are basically what Sony will sell you in a modified form. And the firmware is often slightly buggy. I personally do not take them on good faith. I think they know as well as we do that they provide Velben goods and they just feel the need to jack up the price in order to project the idea that they're so exceptional, one must go into debt (they're financing cameras now) to use their offerings.
I just think if Hasselblad is under cutting you on price, you're over your skis. And i'm sitting here at my desk with a chrome M4P and an X2DII sitting on it. Meaning, Signed, me, a person who is willing to spend exorbitantly on cameras. ...Show more →
If Leica had the service turnaround times even remotely close to what pro Ca/Ni/So have, it would make for a stronger argument.
speedgraphic wrote:
I mean it's dangerous to compare prices because these products are wildly different. But if you take the pro camera line up from Canon and Nikon, a Z9 is about $5k and the R1 is $6800.
First let me say, I don't think it's insane to say that for what Leica is doing, being priced at the same as a pro level Canon or Nikon isn't that crazy of a proposition. These cameras are basically prosumer electronics, plus some very nice materials, plus the RF mechanism. We can see what it costs Leica to rip out the RF because they have an EVF model now, and it's just not really that much cheaper. But even with Leica being Leica, if they wanted to be 30% more expensive than the R1, you're still only at $8840.
If we take Leica on 'good faith', and their margins are reasonable for what they're making...I think any decent business person might say that they need to look for ways to make these cameras more cheaply. What is the value proposition of an $11k 135 camera in a logical sense? They're not more reliable than the competition. The camera sensors are basically what Sony will sell you in a modified form. And the firmware is often slightly buggy. I personally do not take them on good faith. I think they know as well as we do that they provide Velben goods and they just feel the need to jack up the price in order to project the idea that they're so exceptional, one must go into debt (they're financing cameras now) to use their offerings.
I just think if Hasselblad is under cutting you on price, you're over your skis. And i'm sitting here at my desk with a chrome M4P and an X2DII sitting on it. Meaning, Signed, me, a person who is willing to spend exorbitantly on cameras. ...Show more →
For sure Leica offers very little value when compared on a feature/performance calculation. Many products are this way.
I do think it absurd to go into debt for any consumer purchase including cars, let alone cameras. I would never do either. Debt should only be used for self debt servicing assets, that offer leverage to increase ROI.
I have no idea what Leica's production margins are, but I assume they are large. In Leica's chosen channel segment marketing often exceeds production costs.
1bwana1 wrote:
So your pricing model is linked heavily to cost of production. Logical for many products. I am not sure how relevant it is in the luxury goods market however. Some of the longest wait time extending even to almost impossible to acquire are completely decoupled from productions costs. Watches being just one example. The same is true of functionality. The cheapest watches tell better time and offer more features than almost any of the expensive ones.
Yes and no. Or, to be more precise, only partially so. That is to say, I would also consider the functionality being offered and the R&D (as well as production) costs — my second paragraph muddled all three. Apologies for not having made that clear. In any event, any vague comparison that considers all three is inevitably going to be highly subjective — but so was your original question (you may find something obscene that I feel is just mildly saucy). But I completely agree, most of this is entirely irrelevant to luxury goods. @speedgraphic is right to mention Veblen.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
When will people finally understand that Leica today is, first and foremost, a luxury manufacturer (in contrast to premium manufacturers such as Hasselblad)?
In this realm, price is not measured by the actual features offered, but rather by the brand itself—its glorious past, its exclusivity, the associated lifestyle, and the assurance of standing in close proximity to the true giants of photographic history. And when you consider that the current CEO spent 15 years working at the Swiss luxury watchmaker IWC—most recently as COO—it is patently obvious that there is simply no turning back from this path. Leica was once the "Swiss Army knife" of cameras; today, it is the "Gucci handbag" of cameras. But one must look at it positively. Ultimately, this outcome is definitely preferable to bankruptcy—a fate that was averted precisely because of this strategic shift. Today, Leica is thriving, and even those who use cherished gear from the "good old days" benefit from this success, as it ensures the continued availability of customer service to attend to those in need of professional maintenance or repairs. And as for those who simply don't know what to do with all their money anyway—well, they simply treat themselves to the luxury. So, everyone gets something out of it—even the complete outsider, who can at least be amused by the recurring bugs....Show more →
You are entirely correct but I would simply question the relative merit of this approach in business. Or I would say if they want to operate like a watch brand, at least make something that high end pros and artists can stomach more easily. I was hoping the EVF model would be that. I guess it's the SL cameras, but the problem with the SLs is that they offer almost nothing over any other presumer mirrorless. Just some fancy materials and a firmware skin on a Panasonic camera.
highdesertmesa wrote:
If Leica had the service turnaround times even remotely close to what pro Ca/Ni/So have, it would make for a stronger argument.
I actually had my first experience with Leica service this past Month. I turned in a lens in Bologna, Italy that was purchased in Los Angeles, Ca USA. This caused a conflict between various internal Leica business units regarding which one would be responsible for bearing the cost of the warranty repair on their books. This disagreement lasted weeks with no work being done on the lens. Once they worked that out the lens was put in the line to be repaired with an estimate 6 weeks turn around time. I had hoped to take the lens with me to London next week for the LSI meeting. I messaged leica about this. To my surprise the repair was made immediately, and fast shipped back to Bologna, and I picked it up yesterday in plenty of time to make the London trip.
Needless to say, I am impressed with, and grateful for, the efforts made on my behalf by the repair team. The lens looks and feels like new. I am very pleased overall.
Leica not only means luxury, it also means 100% made in Europe by skilled labour, to the highest standard. I am glad that there are rich people out there to buy them, and keep Leica alive. But the prices are obscene to me.
1bwana1 wrote:
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
/quote]
Very good question and we all will have a different price point in mind.
Having said that I am coming from X2D2 with 35-100 and 25,38,55 and 90V lenses and the 135/2.8 w.1,7x. This camera gives me a smile every time I use it due to its ease of use, excellent image quality and superb color rendering. OK so that is a very different beast than an M.
Use case is important to me so I have Leica cameras from 1931 to 2025. I have used Fuji XT-5 with their small AF lenses and found the system excellent for street mainly due to its AfFcapabilities combined with its small form factor. The Fuji is not 24x36, but after Topaz gigapixels came out that matters less these days. Plus the Fuji M to XT adapter made my M lenses work just fine.
Now to the M.
Since starting with a digital M9 I have used M's all over the world and enjoyed them. It used to be said get Leica because their lenses are the best. With other manufacturers making superb M lenses today that scenario has changed a bit for me for more than one reason.
Sure price, but more importantly character of lenses which is now my main focus, whereas when the M9 came out it was for precise focus and rendering quality. Now I want less clinical looks and that is also where third parry lenses enter the picture bigger than ever. Sure Leica has some re-suues that also render like some third party lenses-i.e., more character.
So I recently sold nearly new M11P and M11M to an unnamed Leica Store where I purchased them. They paid me $5500 for an $11k priced new camera. Gone is a myth that Leica gear holds its value better than other brands. Nonsense. Maybe for lenses only and that could also be debated. I have dealt with this store for over 12 years.
So are we snobs for buying Leica gear? Do we have so much money that we don't care about the pricing? We are all different, but I can afford an M at $11k, but that is no longer the point for me. Do I feel ripped off versus other fully functioning cameras all of which have IBIS (even the small XT-5). At times yes and I for one have decided no more. I also have some friends who have been so disenchanted with Leica pricing that they have gone to the X2D2 and Nikon for 24x36 shooting while selling all their M cameras and most of their M glass too..
It seems many here will continue buying Leica at inflated prices no natter what. You are the ones keeping Leica selling at higher and higher profit margins. That is fine with me, but I am replying to the question with the above explanation where I am coming from.
The price I would find an M11-P price not obscene is if it is priced less than a Hasselblad X2D2 at $7400 so around $6995.
carstenw wrote:
Leica not only means luxury, it also means 100% made in Europe by skilled labour
Well, let's just say that, as far as cameras are concerned, Leica uses purchased components in bodies manufactured in Germany. I consider it highly unlikely that the internal components are manufactured in the EU. With the Q, lenses aren't even repaired anymore; they're only replaced as complete units. To me, this indicates that the entire optical system is manufactured externally. And with the AF lenses for the SL, it's probably also unrealistic to claim they're 100% made in the EU.
carstenw wrote:
to the highest standard.
What good are high standards if fixing software problems sometimes takes years? And when you read reports from long-time M users who have repeatedly had to return brand-new M lenses because they were defective, you really have to wonder how this can happen with such high standards.
1bwana1 wrote:
I actually had my first experience with Leica service this past Month. I turned in a lens in Bologna, Italy that was purchased in Los Angeles, Ca USA. This caused a conflict between various internal Leica business units regarding which one would be responsible for bearing the cost of the warranty repair on their books. This disagreement lasted weeks with no work being done on the lens. Once they worked that out the lens was put in the line to be repaired with an estimate 6 weeks turn around time. I had hoped to take the lens with me to London next week for the LSI meeting. I messaged leica about this. To my surprise the repair was made immediately, and fast shipped back to Bologna, and I picked it up yesterday in plenty of time to make the London trip.
Needless to say, I am impressed with, and grateful for, the efforts made on my behalf by the repair team. The lens looks and feels like new. I am very pleased overall.
i've had 3 repairs done with Leica (NJ). with the recent one just this year. all of them took months.
1. Replace an M8 corroding sensor. I bought it used, but to their credit they replace the M8 sensor for free ..i didn't have warraty left.
2. Clean the oil in aperture blades of an 35 Summilux ASPH FLE. charged an eye-watering amount (around $600 IIRC)..
3. SL3 replace SD card door that's flimsy under warranty. Still a little janky when it came back. took 3 months.
Mr Daniel was asked if the next M would have in-body stabilisation. He said that IBIS is desirable and would work well with M lenses as we have already seen with the SL2. The problem, however, is that IBIS would make the camera bigger, in particular thicker.
He said that we would be returning to the dimensions of the M9 and that would be a step backwards after all the efforts that had been made to make the M10 thinner. He did say, however, that if it became feasible to introduce IBIS without increasing size it is something that could be done quickly. ...Show more →
this was back in 2020, but now we have an EVF M body.. so maybe an IBIS is not completely off the table.
I was reading this thread and then I remembered I never bought a Leica new and don't plan to either. So, for me a M12, or whatever it's called, would be so far in the future, I don't think it matters right now.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, let's just say that, as far as cameras are concerned, Leica uses purchased components in bodies manufactured in Germany. I consider it highly unlikely that the internal components are manufactured in the EU. With the Q, lenses aren't even repaired anymore; they're only replaced as complete units. To me, this indicates that the entire optical system is manufactured externally. And with the AF lenses for the SL, it's probably also unrealistic to claim they're 100% made in the EU.
What good are high standards if fixing software problems sometimes takes years? And when you read reports from long-time M users who have repeatedly had to return brand-new M lenses because they were defective, you really have to wonder how this can happen with such high standards....Show more →
You are certainly right that mistakes do happen with Leica equipment, both software and hardware. I recall that when I got my brand-new 50mm Summilux-M f/1,4 ASPH., it took Leica three visits back to the factory to fix all the misalignment and issues with it, but then it was one of, if not my very favourite lens of all time. There are certainly valid discussions about what quality means, but I don't think anyone would call Leica products junk. The M line was always the Crown Jewels, and that was really what I was thinking of when I wrote my post, not the various other lines, most of which I have not even seen, except online.
On the other hand, Leica is very serious about doing things right, and if you have the patience, it will eventually happen. I have heard numerous stories about Leica replacing parts for free, after the warranty has run out. They don't hide from what they consider their mistakes. One might disagree about what this includes, but this is clearly a company serious about their customers and reputation.
Overall a mixed bag, but still a top company in the industry. I am always interested in Leica products, although due to the obscene pricing, I rarely buy anything.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, let's just say that, as far as cameras are concerned, Leica uses purchased components in bodies manufactured in Germany. I consider it highly unlikely that the internal components are manufactured in the EU. With the Q, lenses aren't even repaired anymore; they're only replaced as complete units. To me, this indicates that the entire optical system is manufactured externally. And with the AF lenses for the SL, it's probably also unrealistic to claim they're 100% made in the EU.
What good are high standards if fixing software problems sometimes takes years? And when you read reports from long-time M users who have repeatedly had to return brand-new M lenses because they were defective, you really have to wonder how this can happen with such high standards....Show more →
I had a lot more issues with my Canons than I have ever had with my M9Mono M-E , M 262 and M 10s and M 10 Mono and that would include the sensor recall. I had a complete shutter failure when I was working for NATO here in Chicago in 2012. Had a 1Ds MkIII arrive from CPS DOA. Had a mirror fall out on a job on a brand new 5DII and so many other smaller issues. My point is anything mechanical can have an issue. My digital Ms have had a lot less issues than my digital Canons had.
stgrove wrote:
I wonder if the lens to focal plane could a limiting factor for fitting IBIS into an M.
It definitely is. All decent implementations of IBIS that I know of require maybe around 5-8mm of body thickness behind the image plane. If you also want a flippy screen, add another 3-4mm. So you could move the lens mount out from the body to achieve that, but then the rangefinder would become a problem. So best use an EVF.
At that point, why not get an SL, or a mirrorless from another manufacturer, and keep the M as it is?
carstenw wrote:
Leica not only means luxury, it also means 100% made in Europe by skilled labour, to the highest standard. I am glad that there are rich people out there to buy them, and keep Leica alive. But the prices are obscene to me.
I mentioned this before and even I am German - I couldn't care less if Leica cameras and lenses are made by robots like Cosina is doing it in Japan for their CV lenses. To me the end result (and admittedly price) counts, and I don't care if virgin hands assembled the lens or a robot. This saying about skilled labor was certainly true > 30-40 years ago. But times have changed, and the industry is very different how quality was produced in the past.
Where I fully agree is that collectors keep the Leica brand alive - the pushed luxury branding helped here, so from a marketing perspective this was a good move for Leica (less for regular consumers like us).
davidsee wrote:
I WOULD NEVER BUY an sl too heavy have fun everyone I am old
Interesting considering that your a9III body weighs 1.4 pounds and an SL3 body weighs 1.7 pounds. Not a huge difference in reality. They are very different cameras for very different use cases. You are likely using your a9III for action with zooms. In that configuration your kit may actually be heavier and larger than an SL3 with a prime. The use case for the SL3 is super high image quality and resolution. The a9III cannot compete with the Sl3 on image quality any more than the SL3 can compete with the a9III on speed or AF.
So in the end isn't the difference more use case than size and weight?
I keep a Sony A1 and GM zooms for some uses, and an SL3 with primes for others. Still, my M11/Summilux system is my most used. Small light with super high IQ. Just not fast.
1bwana1 wrote:
OK everyone, at what price would you consider a M11-P not obscene?
I am not arguing with you, or trying to justify Leica's channel placement decisions. I sincerely have a hard time arriving at an answer for myself. The problem I have is there is no real equivalent product from another manufacturer that is truly equivalent. It is the only camera of it's type in the market today. To establish equivalency one must not only consider images created, but the entire ecosystem of the camera. I think that is what drives sales of the M system. Then we must consider market acceptance, which in this case is very high judging by Leica's financial results and sales numbers. When I consider it all in context I just can't come up with a number. Can you?
That said, I do find the current prices to be extremely high. But in today's World I feel that way about many, many things......Show more →
There's a very easy number. It is what the X2D costs.
Hasselblad can make a camera with
- a much more expensive sensor
- with a bigger screen (ie more expensive)
- with an EVF (and yes ok that's cheaper than a rangefinder but surely that R&D paid itself 50 years ago and they should be able to do it reasonably cheap)
- with a more firmware to deal with the EVF, AF and all that
- more or less the same ethos and attention to construction and detail and tactile experience as Leica
- has the same (if not more significant) heritage than Leica
They make that camera in Sweden which has similar cost of living as Germany. They sell fewer of those cameras, ie the R&D cost needs to be spread over fewer units (ie higher). That camera costs 20% less than the M11P. Leica is saying that the cost of the rangefinder is the extra cost of all the above PLUS 20%? Or is the extra cost in the QC department?
I guess Leica says that the rangefinder costs £1200 (EV1 vs M11?). I find that hard to believe. Even accounting for that, a "rangefinder X2D" is still cheaper, despite being just as well made and being medium format with AF. The X2D is £400 cheaper than the EV1 today.
Then again, this is like arguing why a Hermes Birkin bag costs what it costs vs the priciest Mulberry or Bottega Veneta bag. It just does. People buy it.
have fun everyone I am old