The Price of Leica Products and Services

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

T

I do think Leica are living on borrowed time. They can't maintain these prices in a changed world economy and expect this to go on forever.

 

Corporate thinking today is not based on a goal to go on forever, it's based on a fiduciary responsibility to make next quarter's report look good so the stock value rises. As long as there are enough nouveau-riche BRIC businessmen who will pay $4000 for the same lens that cost $1500 a few years ago, we Americans/Europeans will either have to keep making sacrifices and coming up with rationalizations that there's some redeeming value in these lenses at their new price point, or else take the blow to our manhood and step away from the table. Leica doesn't, won't, and probably shouldn't care about losing the bird in hand as long as those in the bush aren't going anywhere. And by the time the bubble bursts, Leica's major investors will retire young and rich. Having loyalty to Leica is admirable. Expecting them to sacrifice profits in reciprocation is naive.

Edited March 17, 2012 by bocaburger

[Guest Ornello]

I look at this way - virtually zero% interest rate on money in the bank so it makes sense to invest in Leica LENSES which will always gain in value and outpace any interest that you would get on the same outlay if the money was left in the bank.

 

The great thing is that you get to use and enjoy an appreciating asset and if taking a long term view, you can always sell it for a lot more than it was bought for. Best to buy second hand lenses that are in mint condition and indistinguishable from new and don't baby them but equally don't abuse them.

 

Precisely! Leica lenses are as good as gold!

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Ornello]

That is a fair point, widest aperture doesn't mean best lens. A second hand 21mm Elmarit would to me at least be a better and more usable buy than a new 21mm Summilux. I recently bought a 24mm F3.8 Elmar and that is a a modest aperture lens but with absolutely top performance and less distortion than the 24mm Summilux. I believe that the old 35mm F3.5 and F2.8 Summaron lenses also fall into this category as being superb lenses at a very reasonable price.

 

Look at the difference in price. Both have aspherical surfaces and are state of the art lenses:

 

Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/ 3.4 ASPH Lens 11145 B&H Photo Video

 

Leica 21mm f/1.4 Summilux-M Aspherical Manual Focus 11-647 B&H

 

By the way, cinematographers don't blink at even more extreme lens prices.

 

Leica is entering that market too.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Ornello

[pico]

Corporate thinking today is not based on a goal to go on forever, it's based on a fiduciary responsibility to make next quarter's report look good so the stock value rises. [...]

 

And by the time the bubble bursts, Leica's major investors will retire young and rich. [...]

 

What investors?

 

Blackstone is a miniority investor, Austrian, Andreas Kaufmann, owns the majority of the company and according to his word, it is going to stay that way.

[stunsworth]

Thats because there is no alternative and there is a rarity value

 

But there are lots of cameras that you can use Leica R lenses on from Canon and Nikon. There are lots of alternatives.

 

Also currently there is no alternative to the M system. Sure there are bodies that you can use M lenses on, but they're not ranggefinders, they're mainly EVF cameras.

[stunsworth]

By the way, cinematographers don't blink at even more extreme lens prices.

 

Leica is entering that market too.

 

The Cine lenses have a red dot and are associated with Leica, but they're not made by them.

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What investors?

 

Blackstone is a miniority investor, Austrian, Andreas Kaufmann, owns the majority of the company and according to his word, it is going to stay that way.

 

I said "by the time the bubble bursts". If the share distribution doesn't change, then Kaufmann will be the one most enriched. Either way it doesn't make a difference to my main point, which was that Leica is striking while the iron is hot regardless if it means trading a group of loyal old investors for a group of wealthy new ones.

[Guest Ornello]

The Cine lenses have a red dot and are associated with Leica, but they're not made by them.

 

Oh? Where did you learn that?

[Jeff S]

Oh? Where did you learn that?

 

Explained here.

 

BTW, a set of 8 will run you $178,000. Good value?

 

Jeff

[Guest Ornello]

Explained here.

 

BTW, a set of 8 will run you $178,000. Good value?

 

Jeff

 

 

OK, it's a sort of subsidiary. So?

[Guest Ornello]

But there are lots of cameras that you can use Leica R lenses on from Canon and Nikon. There are lots of alternatives.

 

Also currently there is no alternative to the M system. Sure there are bodies that you can use M lenses on, but they're not ranggefinders, they're mainly EVF cameras.

 

Is the Zeiss Ikon M-mount camera defunct?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-M-Mount-Rangefinder-Camera-Black/dp/B000RKZO3Q

Edited March 17, 2012 by Ornello

[Jeff S]

OK, it's a sort of subsidiary. So?

 

So, I think I should have learned my lesson and not gotten sucked into another discussion with you that goes in circles. The link was merely for your information; nothing more, nothing less. Did you see me offer an interpretation?

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

I find it hard to believe that if you really want to, it is impossible. How much are you spending on coffee, cigarettes, beer? I set aside money to buy my stuff each week, and have bought 5 lenses and a new SL2 body (all used, admittedly) in the last 8 years:

 

560mm Telyt-R ($850)

350mm Telyt-R ($1000)

21mm SA-R ($1000)

180mm Elmarit-R-2 ($700) (sold old model for $225)

250mm Telyt-R ($800)

SL2 Chrome body ($600)

 

Now I know some of the faster Leica lenses are several thousand each, but Summarits are not. You don't really need a 21mm Summilux-M, do you?

 

 

Yet again, you demonstrate a real inability to understand that other people may be quite different from you.

 

I find that attitude, that if someone really wants something they can afford it, quite repulsive. And incorrect.

[IWC Doppel]

Come on guys, we might or might not have a fondness and loyalty to Leia, but they are a business and like it or not they will be looking for profits and success in the short term and hopefully a sensible focus on the longer term.

 

I cannot in any way justify the purchase of a Leica, I am not a pro and make no money from any money spent on my camera or lenses, but if I can afford a new or second hand lens I will if it is value to me. For me personally new are not good enough value, second hand are. If I couldn't afford a second hand Leica I'd look elsewhere and have nearly as much fun, probably.

 

The good news is if change my mind on lenses I am not likely to loose enough money to have a problem or be upset. My once in a lifetime buying a new M car was a very different experience !

[CalArts 99]

By the way, cinematographers don't blink at even more extreme lens prices.

 

No cinematographer or production company actually own their own set of primes. And sorry, but they blink all the time when it comes to the budget.

 

All the studios and production companies are serviced by leasing agencies. e.g., Panavision doesn't sell anything, it's a full service rental company. I worked for them for 5 years in Woodland Hills, CA.

 

The studios realized a long time ago, that owning equipment was nothing but a money drain. Which is why none of the studios have their own camera department anymore. Those studios used to have their own service shop. They had their own cameras, lenses, tripods, even their own lights many decades ago. But they realized long ago that there's no way to justify the cost and maintenance of a camera department. Now all of that is contracted out to numerous companies. There will be several different companies on set all providing the needed services and managing leased equipment. A modern film production consists of a myriad of separate companies.

 

Orson Welles once said that movie making is the only art form where the artist can't afford the material for his art. No working cinematographer in their right mind would ever buy their own set of primes, except for maybe wealthy trust funded hobbyists or those doing exclusively corporate work day in and day out where they can attempt to eventually recoup the expense.

Edited March 17, 2012 by CalArts 99

[stunsworth]

Is the Zeiss Ikon M-mount camera defunct?

 

Amazon.com: Zeiss Ikon M-Mount 35mm Rangefinder Camera Body, Black: Camera & Photo

 

We were talking about digital cameras, Do try to keep up.

 

Zeiss recently discontinued one of the film 'M' cameras.

[Guest Ornello]

We were talking about digital cameras, Do try to keep up.

 

Zeiss recently discontinued one of the film 'M' cameras.

 

No we weren't, and that's incredibly rude.

[Guest Ornello]

No cinematographer or production company actually own their own set of primes. And sorry, but they blink all the time when it comes to the budget.

 

All the studios and production companies are serviced by leasing agencies. e.g., Panavision doesn't sell anything, it's a full service rental company. I worked for them for 5 years in Woodland Hills, CA.

 

The studios realized a long time ago, that owning equipment was nothing but a money drain. Which is why none of the studios have their own camera department anymore. Those studios used to have their own service shop. They had their own cameras, lenses, tripods, even their own lights many decades ago. But they realized long ago that there's no way to justify the cost and maintenance of a camera department. Now all of that is contracted out to numerous companies. There will be several different companies on set all providing the needed services and managing leased equipment. A modern film production consists of a myriad of separate companies.

 

Orson Welles once said that movie making is the only art form where the artist can't afford the material for his art. No working cinematographer in their right mind would ever buy their own set of primes, except for maybe wealthy trust funded hobbyists or those doing exclusively corporate work day in and day out where they can attempt to eventually recoup the expense.

 

You make my point for me.

[stunsworth]

No we weren't, and that's incredibly rude.

 

Michael, Paul had speculated that the M9 - a Leica digital camera - would lose a significant part of its value, I responded by showing how the DMR - a Leica digital product - was still a relatively expensive piece of equipment. It you can't be bothered to read comments in the context in which they are made that's your problem.

 

As for _you_ describing someone else as being rude, that has amused me no end.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Ornello]

Paul had speculated that the M9 - a Leica digital camera - would lose a significant part of its value, I responded by showing how the DMR - a Leica digital product - was still a relatively expensive piece of equipment. It you can't be bothered to read comments in the context in which they are made that's your problem.

 

As for _you_ describing someone else as being rude, that has amused me no end.

 

 

The thread is about the prices of Leica products, not just digital ones.