johnvanr wrote:
I may be wrong, but I have the feeling Leica M in the film days was just a bit more than a flagship Nikon or Canon, with the prime lenses much more expensive. Then all top cameras shot up with the rise of digital, but Leica now is much more expensive than a flagship Nikon or Canon. At the same time, the Leica M has become a bit more capable while the flagships have become a lot more capable.
Exactly.
My point was that Dr Kaufmann claims that Leica has not raised prices in relation to economic norms. The Japanese lowered the cost of high performance cameras. That same relationship is now happening between Japanese camera companies and Chinese companies. In my observation this is starting with lenses.
So given these new realities Leica is more expensive when compared to its Japanese rivals. For me I recently experienced this first hand. I have a Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH that is priced at $4,899 new. I also have a Thypoch 50mm Simera ASPH which I just bought new for $549.00. I have been testing them extensively side by side, and I definitely like the Simera better than the Summilux, both in features, and in rendering.
I will post one test below. It was designed to show the bokeh balls differences. The Simera has round smooth bokeh balls through its aperture range. The Summilux has polygonal bokeh balls (for me not attractive) even stopped down one stop. Images were shot with the exact same settings, on a tripod so everything is the same. Zoom in to see how extreme the difference gets. The Simera is a super value at it's price.
Dec 22, 2024 at 12:05 PM
Previous versions of 1bwana1's message #16712678 « Why are Leicas so expensive? »
