SlowDriver wrote:
Yes and no. Leica has always been expensive but the shift towards a luxury lifestyle brand (with also non-camera products) during the last 5-10 years is pretty undeniable.
Interestingly the price relativities between Leica and the top tier pro systems don't seem to have changed a great deal. I remember back in the mid 1980s when I was buying my first system, an M body was around £1200-£1300 in the UK , and a Nikon F3HP body was about £800 - a multiplier of 1.5 or 1.6ish. Today an M11P costs £8200, and a Nikon top tier Z9 at full MSRP is £5,000 - so x1.65. (At the current discounted price on Nikon UK's website that rises to x1.8.) Maybe some drift, but not a massive divergence over 40 years.
Maybe Leica has got better at positioning and marketing the brand (although the collector-oriented releases in the 1980s and 1990s seemed just as luxury-coded as the equivalents do now) but I'm not sure it's reflected in the relative costs of different systems - camera bodies, at least. Caveat is that I don't have the memory or data to say whether the situation is different with lenses. It's always felt like Leica lenses were a lot more expensive than their counterparts in other systems, but maybe the differential has changed.
SlowDriver wrote:
Yes and no. Leica has always been expensive but the shift towards a luxury lifestyle brand (with also non-camera products) during the last 5-10 years is pretty undeniable.
Maybe but even 40 or 30 years ago, we had gold R4, sales to sign bearer were at least 30%, etc.
"Leica Camera Group has reported revenue of €573 million for the 2025/26 financial year, down 3.8% on the previous year’s all-time high of €596 million. The company points to a familiar set of headwinds behind the fall: geopolitical uncertainty, unfavourable exchange rates and stricter customs regulations across its international markets. Despite the dip, Leica says its Photo division remained the main driver of revenue, with the Mobile division continuing to grow strongly and Sports Optics demand holding steady. Watches and accessories, home cinema projectors and spectacle lenses also moved in the right direction, according to the company."
Matt White wrote:
Interestingly the price relativities between Leica and the top tier pro systems don't seem to have changed a great deal. I remember back in the mid 1980s when I was buying my first system, an M body was around £1200-£1300 in the UK , and a Nikon F3HP body was about £800 - a multiplier of 1.5 or 1.6ish. Today an M11P costs £8200, and a Nikon top tier Z9 at full MSRP is £5,000 - so x1.65. (At the current discounted price on Nikon UK's website that rises to x1.8.) Maybe some drift, but not a massive divergence over 40 years.
Maybe Leica has got better at positioning and marketing the brand (although the collector-oriented releases in the 1980s and 1990s seemed just as luxury-coded as the equivalents do now) but I'm not sure it's reflected in the relative costs of different systems - camera bodies, at least. Caveat is that I don't have the memory or data to say whether the situation is different with lenses. It's always felt like Leica lenses were a lot more expensive than their counterparts in other systems, but maybe the differential has changed. ...Show more →
I was mostly talking about marketing, relative prices indeed probably have changed little, although you could also argue that the feature difference between an eighties M and a Nikon F3HP is probably smaller than the current feature difference between M11P and Z9.
Ripolini wrote:
I wrote a few more words than what you quoted—you were just cherry-picking. The news—if we’re looking for news—is that the Vice President of Global Marketing & Communications at a photography company describes himself as an “Experienced Executive working in the premium and luxury goods industry,” rather than as a manager in the photography industry.
That would also be the experience of many of the recent Leica Store Managers that are being hired. Leica knows it's channels and it target market position well.
"Leica Camera Group has reported revenue of €573 million for the 2025/26 financial year, down 3.8% on the previous year’s all-time high of €596 million. The company points to a familiar set of headwinds behind the fall: geopolitical uncertainty, unfavourable exchange rates and stricter customs regulations across its international markets. Despite the dip, Leica says its Photo division remained the main driver of revenue, with the Mobile division continuing to grow strongly and Sports Optics demand holding steady. Watches and accessories, home cinema projectors and spectacle lenses also moved in the right direction, according to the company."
SlowDriver wrote:
I was mostly talking about marketing, relative prices indeed probably have changed little, although you could also argue that the feature difference between an eighties M and a Nikon F3HP is probably smaller than the current feature difference between M11P and Z9.
Yeah, not sure. Leica has occupied a luxury niche, and been marketed as such, for as long as I can remember, and pretty much since SLRs took over the general professional photographic market in the 1960s. My feeling is that they've just got better at it, in line with the increasing sophistication of product marketing and branding more generally.
In terms of the technological capabilities of the time the F3HP was massively more advanced than the M6, and especially the M4-P - which were really very simple mechanical beasts. Whatever Nikon could pack into the F3 system for working pros, they did. Interchangeable finders and screens, auto-exposure modes, motor drives and winders, and a whole bunch of other gadgets and adaptations. In some ways I think the technological gap is less now than it was then. The main new capability that differentiates the modern Nikon from a Leica M is AF and all the software driven functions that go with it, and that has to an increasing degree been differentiating mainstream pro cameras from the M system since the F4 in 1988 really.
Matt White wrote:
In terms of the technological capabilities of the time the F3HP was massively more advanced than the M6
But Leica had the R4: different philosophy but interesting. Dual metering, A, S and P mode, better ergonomics, 2 different motor drives and great lenses.
However I agree that they started to lag around this time, taking their time to introduce flash TTL, an HP viewfinder, etc.
But they really fell off the bandwagon with autofocus ironically. Then digital.
Nowadays they are not that bad. The digital M are a unique proposition, the Q is overpriced but also something else I could see myself pay for.
Even the SL is not bad but I would rather buy a Sony A7rV (great viewfinder, not so bad ergonomics) instead. In fact I did.
pmeheut wrote:
But Leica had the R4: different philosophy but interesting. Dual metering, A, S and P mode, better ergonomics, 2 different motor drives and great lenses.
However I agree that they started to lag around this time, taking their time to introduce flash TTL, an HP viewfinder, etc.
But they really fell off the bandwagon with autofocus ironically. Then digital.
Nowadays they are not that bad. The digital M are a unique proposition, the Q is overpriced but also something else I could see myself pay for.
Even the SL is not bad but I would rather buy a Sony A7rV (great viewfinder, not so bad ergonomics) instead. In fact I did.
Yes, absolutely. In some ways the R series seems to me like the counterpart of the SL now - a more direct competitor for - and sharing key features with - the high end pro systems from the likes of Nikon. Both lines built in collaboration with major Japanese manufacturers but with distinctive Leica features, and then as now marketed on Leica's reputation for quality, and positioned at the luxury end of the market. My recollection is that the R4 was pretty much the same price as the F3, much as the SLs now are broadly in line with the top mirrorless systems. Neither R or SL systems had much chance of breaking into the pro market already dominated by other much larger manufacturers, but I'm glad they exist! I'm currently thinking very hard about an SL3 as an EVF platform for my M lenses, and with L-mount AF capability I can buy into over time as resources allow.
Matt White wrote:
My recollection is that the R4 was pretty much the same price as the F3, much as the SLs now are broadly in line with the top mirrorless systems.
You are right, the comparison is stunning: same price range for the body, not that far technologically, excellent overpriced lenses...
Matt White wrote:
Neither R or SL systems had much chance of breaking into the pro market already dominated by other much larger manufacturers, but I'm glad they exist!
The R system had more success for a while, it was used in fashion and also by some photo-reporters.
