Not to start rumors...

[jsrockit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again: a zoom X1, made BY LEICA, would only make sense at a price point of around $4k.

 

Why do you think this? Again, look at the history of the CM and Minilux.

[gar1013]

Why do you think this? Again, look at the history of the CM and Minilux.

 

Because the representative from Leica indicated that they were not interested in making the image quality compromise involved in with fitting a zoom lens to the camera. History is all fine and good (even if one of those wasn't made by Leica), but there's nothing like a direct statement from someone with the company.

[jsrockit]

Because the representative from Leica indicated that they were not interested in making the image quality compromise involved in with fitting a zoom lens to the camera. History is all fine and good (even if one of those wasn't made by Leica), but there's nothing like a direct statement from someone with the company.

 

I didn't ask why you thought they wouldn't make it... that was clear in your other post. I was wondering why you thought it would cost twice as much to add a zoom to the X1.

[gar1013]

I didn't ask why you thought they wouldn't make it... that was clear in your other post. I was wondering why you thought it would cost twice as much to add a zoom to the X1.

 

Oh, it wouldn't cost twice as much at all...for Leica. The key would be in maintaining the proper distance in price points.

 

You'd want to price it significantly enough above the existing VLux amd DLux cameras so that you don't dent their sales -- those cameras being very profitable given that Lecia doesn't really have to do much of anything to produce them (Panasonic handles that).

 

You also wouldn't want to price it at the same price as the existing X1 becuase you would want to be able to recoup the development costs for the new lens and camera without having a net negative economic impact due to lost X1 sales.

 

Finally, the price would need to be high enough to where the M series didn't look like a total rip-off. A zoom camera at $2k with the X1's image quality could do some damage to the profits of the M series. A zoom camera at $4k makes it easier for a potential M customer to make the intellectual jump to spending the additional money... and bascially fits into the slot that the M8 is currently filling in the market.

[JeTexas]

Oh, it wouldn't cost twice as much at all...for Leica. The key would be in maintaining the proper distance in price points.

 

You'd want to price it significantly enough above the existing VLux amd DLux cameras so that you don't dent their sales -- those cameras being very profitable given that Lecia doesn't really have to do much of anything to produce them (Panasonic handles that).

 

You also wouldn't want to price it at the same price as the existing X1 becuase you would want to be able to recoup the development costs for the new lens and camera without having a net negative economic impact due to lost X1 sales.

 

Finally, the price would need to be high enough to where the M series didn't look like a total rip-off. A zoom camera at $2k with the X1's image quality could do some damage to the profits of the M series. A zoom camera at $4k makes it easier for a potential M customer to make the intellectual jump to spending the additional money... and bascially fits into the slot that the M8 is currently filling in the market.

 

I don't think an Autofocus Zoom camera attracts the same market share as an M rangefinder. If it were me, I'd drop the price of the X1 to $1500 and introduce an X1 Zoom at $2000.

[gar1013]

I don't think an Autofocus Zoom camera attracts the same market share as an M rangefinder. If it were me, I'd drop the price of the X1 to $1500 and introduce an X1 Zoom at $2000.

 

In terms of labor costs and opportunity costs, I wonder if they are in a position to drop the price of the X1. The manpower used to assemble the X1 could also be used to assemble the M and S series depending on what inventory levels are like, dropping the X1's price could be leaving money on the table. If it were made by panasonic, then the per unit profitability wouldn't need to be as much of a concern.

 

I think it's questionable if after solving for the desired level of inventories at corporate, at dealers, market size, etc. that dropping the price on the X1 by $500 would be desireable. Sure, it'd grow the market for the camera, but it might not result in the same overall level of profitability if that growth occurs at the expense of production volumes for the other lines and if the unit sales growth doesn't compensate for the lower marginal revenues. The labor market in German is such that you don't really quickly ramp up employment -- it's so hard to downsize (compared to the US for example), that companies are much more deliberate about adding headcount than we we are in the US.

[Clemgill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think an Autofocus Zoom camera attracts the same market share as an M rangefinder. If it were me, I'd drop the price of the X1 to $1500 and introduce an X1 Zoom at $2000.

 

I don't see the interest of a zoom on the X1. IQ is so good that cropping is not an issue.

Zooming is an obstacle to simplicity, intuitiveness and IQ. Against the fundamentals of this wonderfool tool.

Why not carrying another tool in the bag with zoom, video ... (ex: GF1), in case you really need it ?

The price of the X1 is not outreageous for the service it provides. Nothing to compare with the M family. I would even consider that it is better that way, in order to avoid disappointments with a machine that is not straightforward to use. You have to be ready to buy it, do your homework, understanding and and accepting its weaknesses. This is one of the few 2000$ imaging tool that will still alllow you to miss pictures (if you are lazy).....

[h00ligan]

Lazy...or if you need any sort of af speed?

[gar1013]

Lazy...or if you need any sort of af speed?

 

Zone focusing can sometimes help...

[h00ligan]

Definitely in good light, I use it very often..maybe 60%. Not good indoors though.

[jsrockit]

You also wouldn't want to price it at the same price as the existing X1 becuase you would want to be able to recoup the development costs for the new lens and camera without having a net negative economic impact due to lost X1 sales.

 

Leica always introduces the zoom model after the fixed lens model's sales have died down.

 

Finally, the price would need to be high enough to where the M series didn't look like a total rip-off. A zoom camera at $2k with the X1's image quality could do some damage to the profits of the M series.

 

See, I don't think that way at all. People don't buy leica Ms because of the value they offer...they buy them because they love rangefinders (and Leica's the only game in town digitally speaking). A zoom X1 will never ever replace the feel of a rangefinder...and many M owners buy the X1 as well (like myself).

 

I think you are making the mistake of treating Leica like a popular consumer brand. Leica users do not follow general consumer guidelines or consumer wants / demands.

[John Thawley]

People don't buy leica Ms because of the value they offer...they buy them because they love rangefinders (and Leica's the only game in town digitally speaking).

 

Rangefinder shooters are a little bit like medium format shooters, it's an affection for the format.

 

I think you are making the mistake of treating Leica like a popular consumer brand. Leica users do not follow general consumer guidelines or consumer wants / demands.

 

Ta-dah!

[gar1013]

I think you are making the mistake of treating Leica like a popular consumer brand. Leica users do not follow general consumer guidelines or consumer wants / demands.

 

And I think you're making the mistake of forgetting that Leica can churn out as many D-Luxes and V-Luxes as Panasonic can make without having to hire an additional person, or having to divert labor away from the M series. Why would they want to do anything to jeopardize that cash cow?

 

To say that Leica users do not follow general consumer guidelines or wants would be to say that Leica users are some mystical band of Chosen Ones, which is rather silly. You get the same attitude among Porsche owners. The only real difference is a willingness to spend some serious $$$ on a camera, versus something else. For every person that is super particular about image quality, there's also someone who just wants to own something expensive.

[jsrockit]

To say that Leica users do not follow general consumer guidelines or wants would be to say that Leica users are some mystical band of Chosen Ones, which is rather silly.

 

My statement wasn't an elitist one at all. I just meant that Leica users don't expect the same specs / design in a camera that the general consumer public does (i.e. mainstream DSLR / P&S users). I use Leica cameras (not panaleicas) because they are designed with one foot in the past (like cameras of old) and are simple in actual usage... not because of some elitist nonsense. I wish I didn't like Leicas the most, I'd save more cash.

[Guest badbob]

A zoom on the X1, if it didn't increase the size of the camera more than a mm in depth, would have to raise the price a LOT to maintain the same quality. Maybe people here *were* thinking of a fatter camera, which defeats the purpose of the X1.

[jsrockit]

A zoom on the X1, if it didn't increase the size of the camera more than a mm in depth, would have to raise the price a LOT to maintain the same quality. Maybe people here *were* thinking of a fatter camera, which defeats the purpose of the X1.

 

That's a good point... but the CM and Minilux zooms were introduced around the same price as the fixed lens models. That said, they weren't as high quality. Honestly, P&S style zooms are never the best in quality... it's a compromise.