The Price of Leica Products and Services

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not being a 1%'er- I am entirely with the OP on this one- and I also had to sell off a rare possession to pay for my luxury camera (a set of Paul Strand prints of Mexico). I cannot justify buying a new Leica lens at current prices- even if I could afford it.

 

I personally think that Leica is too close to being a luxury brand like Louis Vuitton: aimed squarely at elites and priced accordingly. There is more intrinsic value in Leica than in LV- but I still think perhaps 30% (or more) of what you pay is paying for the brand name cachet and not for the item itself... I also see Leica going further in that direction in the coming years- and doubt whether I will ever buy another Leica camera new.

 

For me buying an M9 was an irrational and costly decision that I let myself make because I just wanted too... not because it was a sound decision or represented great value. Making the same irrational decision twice would be folly for someone in my economic position.

 

Investing in vintage lenses was actually a very sound move- I will always look to buy another vintage lens- they are good investments.

 

From my perspective Leica needs direct competition- to keep them honest- and/or to give those that cannot afford the brand a chance to use similar equipment.

 

 

Leica products really cannot be cheaper than they are. That is a myth.

[jaques]

and you know this exactly how?

 

I call big fat BS on your claim. Justify it if you can- explode the myth- enlighten the fools ( as long as it doesn't involve posting 50 links to your flicker stream):

Edited March 16, 2012 by jaques

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

In my most humble opinion, if a person cannot afford a Leica, then he should move on to what he can afford and continue to make pictures because almost nobody can tell the difference between a Leica shot and another good setup.

 

You cannot make a bad picture of a good opportunity because the equipment is not Leica - unless it's some kind of stepped-upon plastic lens camera and even then it would not be worse than some of the greatest pictures ever made.

 

Make pictures.

 

A great deal of the Leica myth comes from people in a piddling little niche who think it is expensive, therefore the pictures are so precious. They are not the big spenders of the world - and the big spenders are not worth noting either. In the world of exorbitance, Leicas are well down the ladder.

 

Make pictures and be happy.

.

Edited March 16, 2012 by pico

[Ecaton]

Now there is good news:

Leica's goal is to gain 1% of market share over the next few years from presently 0.15%. To get there, they will have to introduce lower priced product lines, the Porsche Boxster analogy. An this is what they will do.

[jaques]

ah Pico- the old and ever original "Take pictures (and shut up)". Very insightful. Thanks- it doesn't matter how many times and in what context I am given that advice it is always so useful!

 

Luckily for this forum- like others I do take pictures but I won't shut up- and if I want to comment on my perception of Leica pricing, who cares? Sure there are other brands that are more of a rip off- I don't think anyone ever said otherwise?

 

Ecaton: I agree- if Leica wants to expand as it plans they will need to offer some new product tiers and lower priced cameras. I think it will be interesting to see how they differentiate these product lines though... I think we could agree that they couldn't offer a cheaper camera that actually outperforms their premier lines? And considering their new retail strategy I would assume that whilst they want to increase market share by offering cheaper cameras- they are more interested in expanding the luxury brand status and product lines. This calls for a careful balancing act: Luxury brands cannot be seen to offer anything that is too 'cheap'- rich people like to think they are buying exclusivity perhaps as much as quality...

Edited March 16, 2012 by jaques

[pico]

ah Pico- the old and ever original "Take pictures (and shut up)". Very insightful. Thanks- it doesn't matter how many times and in what context I am given that advice it is always so useful!

 

Luckily for this forum- I do take pictures but I won't shut up- and if I want to comment on my perception of Leica pricing, who cares? Sure there are other brands that are more of a rip off- I don't think anyone ever said otherwise?

 

Ego issue, Jaques? I was not addressing your post, but the general spirit of many others. We are okay. I hope.

 

--

Pico - whose real first name is Jac(ques).

[Ecaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ecaton: I agree- if Leica wants to expand as it plans they will need to offer some new product tiers and lower priced cameras. I think it will be interesting to see how they differentiate these product lines though... I think we could agree that they couldn't offer a cheaper camera that actually outperforms their premier lines?

 

Performance in terms of file quality and look will not be at the M line level, but it will have the Leica handwriting all over it. The X1 is an excellent example how they achieved a Leica-look with a sensor from the shelfs. I.e. X100 file's quality is anywhere as good, if not slightly better, than the X1's, yet for some intangible reasonsI prefer the X1 output.

[jaques]

yes I have ego issues, who doesn't? Freud had them too...

 

but really: how useful is the 'take pictures' advice? It is tired I say, exhausted, spent, ruined, hackneyed . It seems to crop up every day as the answer to a thousand queries... but generally answers none:confused:.

 

Jack is my actual name too.

[pico]

Performance in terms of file quality and look will not be at the M line level, but it will have the Leica handwriting all over it. The X1 is an excellent example how they achieved a Leica-look with a sensor from the shelfs. I.e. X100 file's quality is anywhere as good, if not slightly better, than the X1's, yet for some intangible reasonsI prefer the X1 output.

 

I call BS. If it is intangible then it does not exist.

[pico]

Jack is my actual name too.

 

Jac is mine. Jac in the masculine and feminist in French.) I'm too old to care.

.

But Jack is a good name. In America it has a certain crispness, a modesty that is not to be messed with. Good for you.

[zlatkob]

I have owned an M4, M6, M8, M8.2, and now an M9-P. To afford the last two, I have had to make some real sacrifices--painful, but I sold several very valuable photo books, including a copy of the Decisive Moment. It hurt, but after a couple of years toting a Canon 1Ds, seeing firsthand the lower quality of their glass, and wanting something discreet and more portable--I made the decision and got into the digital-M realm. I absolutely don't regret it--but I have had to go to great and somewhat painful lengths to stay in the game.

"... to stay in the game" ... this is what I don't understand. To stay in what game? It seems you are on a never-ending and overly expensive quest for slight improvements in technical quality. The Canon 1Ds and its lenses were not good enough? Yikes, you have a high standard. They were good enough for some of the best photographers in the business.

 

A relevant story: about 9 years ago I went to see a photo exhibit in NYC by a well-regarded photojournalist. I was very impressed with his photos and the quality of his black & white prints. His wife happened to be at the exhibit and I asked if she knew which camera he used for the photos. At the time, digital photography was in its early days and I just assumed that he used a top of the line camera. His wife said that he had used the Canon D60 (the 2002 model that came after the D30 and preceded the 10D).

 

And then there is Salgado, in recent years using Canon for his Genesis project. And then there is Steve McCurry, the recipient of the 2011 Leica Hall of Fame Award. His work is brilliant and seems to exemplify Leica photography (hence the award) and yet he is a Nikon shooter using Nikon lenses. So you can actually stay in the game with any brand.

 

Leica makes great stuff with some unique selling points. But I don't see the need to keep stretching your budget to the point where it is somewhat painful.

[Lord Fluff]

Zlatkob - I think you just said pretty much everything I did, only rather more elegantly and with some great examples

 

I introduced Leica to my professional work a couple of years back, mixing it up with my existing Canon gear. My offering to a client will include shots taken on anything from an old 5D with a non-L prime, to ones from the latest Canon pro gear, to others taken on an M9 with aspherical glass. I've yet to see evidence of clients choosing shots based on the equipment, as opposed to the content.

 

But back to economics - the whole Leica products could / could not be cheaper thing is irrelevant. Assuming they are pricing according to economic sense they COULD NOT BE CHEAPER but also they COULD NOT BE MORE EXPENSIVE without adversely affecting total profits.

 

The fact that Leica are still here and seeming to grow would appear to indicate that they know how to price their products.

[rramesh]

The Leica is simply price-less.

[pgk]

I have a friend who is a lens designer. Several years ago he suggested to me that we were rapidly approaching a point at which the precision and quality control required to produce camera lenses which would be made accurately enough to out-resolve or (even adequately resolve to use with) high MPixel sensors would have a high cost associated with it. I suspect that we are seeing this. Leica lenses are hand-built by highly trained technicians and the cost of doing this has probably increased with the latest lens designs which will have to be assembled meticulously. From my and other experieces detailed here, it is quite obvious that Leica's QC has tightened up, and many older lenses still have had to be readjusted to meet today's sensor needs. So the stuff is inevitably pricy.

 

On the positive side, depreciation is far lower than many other brands and it looks to me as though most Leica lenses have a better resale value today than compared with 2 or less years ago. I use fewer lenses than I did (having upgraded to my current 'system' and actually find that I work harder for my images as a result - and my images are (to me) better for this.

 

There is though, no getting away from the fact that Leica equipment IS expensive.

[Guest Ornello]

and you know this exactly how?

 

I call big fat BS on your claim. Justify it if you can- explode the myth- enlighten the fools ( as long as it doesn't involve posting 50 links to your flicker stream):

 

If you think the pricing is arbitrary and could be 40% less, go to Germany and tell them. Also talk to the production people, designers, labor law compliance people while you're at it.

[Peter H]

If you have access to cash, (which includes credit), and there are no prior or more pressing claims on your cash, in other words you have more than you need, then owning Leica equipment, particularly lenses, is more cost effective than many other purchases.

 

The trouble is, many people do not have more money than they need, so Leica is, to them, prohibitively expensive.

 

But that's life, unfortunately. And as long as supply and demand determines prices, there will always be things we can't afford.

 

Even Roman Abramovich can't afford Lionel Messi. And he'd be "cheap", but he still can't afford him.

[jaques]

I agree about the lenses (especially if you buy astutely)- and even the cameras do not depreciate completely in a few years but hold some value.

 

If you think the pricing is arbitrary and could be 40% less, go to Germany and tell them. Also talk to the production people, designers, labor law compliance people while you're at it.

 

I never said it was arbitrary or could be 40% less... don't put words in my mouth. In your list of expenses you neglected elite retail floorspace (with empty shelves) and free cameras for Seal, a good deal of warranty repair work (?) amongst other sundry possibilities. Leica also turned a 41 million Euro profit last financial year. Which of course is great I don't expect them to do it all as a social service obviously. But to suggest that the lenses and cameras cost what they cost due solely due to the (quality based) reasons you have given is quite wrong. I don't know how Solms calculate the value of the Leica brand name when they decide on pricing and I doubt you do either.

 

Obviously pricing is subjective- some consumers may view Leica cameras as a great bargain: people who spend 5,000 pounds on a pair of shoes or half a million on a car for instance. Others earn less than the cost of an M9 for a lifetime of honest toil.

 

for me the idea of buying a small digital camera with a set of lenses to match the 6 framelines the camera sports- and spending 30 to 50,000 dollars to do so- is a very expensive camera system. Something only for pros who earn at the top of the game (assuming it is actually worth it for them)- or the (very) well off. An elite niche market.

 

Not being such an elite- and liking Leica- I hope they don't go too far in that direction. If they do it is there business but they likely won't get much more of mine (or care either).

 

I guess Leica is at a cross roads of sorts- and I suspect they will choose to try and walk both roads. I think this approach has risks for a luxury brand. Brand dilution has got to be something they are mindful of- but cashing in on a much larger market must also be central to the new retail plans. But I do hope they manage this and offer affordable M camera option. I also hope they make their top end line so amazingly good- that they don't have to cripple their lower tier offerings and can make them first class as well...

Edited March 16, 2012 by jaques

[Guest Ornello]

Leica had been losing money or not doing very well not too long ago. Personally I believe the pricing is cheap. The products are generally without peer.

Edited March 16, 2012 by andybarton
Please use the Reply button, not the Quote button when responding to posts immediately above the one you are making.

[Jeff S]

So for you the value justifies the price. Some agree, some don't. Value is personal; price is set. We're going in circles here.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Ornello]

So for you the value justifies the price. Some agree, some don't. Value is personal; price is set. We're going in circles here.

 

Jeff

 

Pricing? Compared to what? Germany has high labour costs. So does Japan these days. The costs of production are what they are.