The Price of Leica Products and Services

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

But it's neither 'repulsive' nor 'incorrect'. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

[stunsworth]

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

 

I was responding to a specific post that discussed the possible future loss in value of a Leica M9.

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Peter wasn't talking about whether _you_ were rich or not, or whether _you_ could afford a Summilux of not.

[Guest Ornello]

I was responding to a specific post that discussed the possible future loss in value of a Leica M9.

 

You said:

 

"Also currently there is no alternative to the M system."

 

I was puzzled by that, but it certainly is no call for insult.

[stunsworth]

You said:

 

"Also currently there is no alternative to the M system."

 

Michael, we were talking about digital bodies - hence my comment about Nikon and Canon wrt the DMR. I apologise for not adding the relevant footnote to my comment about M cameras to indicate that I wasn't referring to a film M.

[Guest Ornello]

Peter wasn't talking about whether _you_ were rich or not, or whether _you_ could afford a Summilux of not.

 

Well if I am "far from rich" and I can do it.....almost anyone can.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well if I am "far from rich" and I can do it.....almost anyone can.

 

Michael, Peter was referring to your post asking if people really needed a Summilux, Since I assume from your earlier posts you don't own such a lens I'm struggling to understand your comment.

[Guest Ornello]

Michael, Peter was referring to your post asking if people really needed a Summilux, Since I assume from your earlier posts you don't own such a lens I'm struggling to understand your comment.

 

My point was that just because Leica makes some extreme designs that are rather pricey, that does not mean that all of their products are out of reach. The 21mm Summilux-M is a rather new product; nothing like it has been attempted before (so far as I know).

 

As such, it is hardly the measure of Leica's pricing.

 

People were perfectly content with f/2.8 lenses in the extreme WA category before it appeared, and I don't see why they still could not be so.

 

Just because one finds a 21mm Summilux out of reach that does not mean everything Leica makes out of reach.

 

That was all I was trying to say.

 

I don't own a 280mm APO-Tely-R f/4. To get one I would have to make even more sacrifices and sell off some of my other R lenses. I would rather have the multiple focal lengths (180, 250, 350, 560) than the single APO lens, but I could do it.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ornello

[jaques]

Ornello,

 

Getting all precious about perceived rudeness doesn't suit you-

 

Amongst other things you made many comments about the pricing of used lenses and cameras... I feel fairly certain this thread was originally concerned with the prices of new Leica equipment? And in fact some of the points you made about used equipment suggest that Leica's current new pricing policy is actually making vintage equipment more expensive...

 

In terms of depreciation there is obviously a large difference between a vintage lens and an new M9 body... Time has revealed to us already how long a vintage lens can retain value- but we simply have no data relating to M digital bodies beyond maybe 6 years... and in any case resale value is only a tangential consideration to the main point: the cost of buying new.

 

You believe Leica pricing is 'just right'. The Panglossian view. This is an opinion and not a fact. Obviously there is no perfect price for everyone- it is all subjective. For whatever it is worth I believe it is over-priced (but I still paid the price)- the only way we will ever get a good idea of what the cost should be is if true direct competition enters the market. I actually see that happening this year: the success of the M9 has seen a huge increase in interest in the RF type digital camera and I think the manufacturers have noticed this. The new Fuji is an indication of that if you ask me...

 

It will be interesting to see how Leica decides on pricing if a competitor offers a full frame digital RF camera priced at less than half the cost of the M9 but with the same or improved functionality. It may be that even in such a scenario Leica will be able to rely on it's logo and niche luxury status- and continue to charge whatever it wants- despite the competition, maybe not.

Edited March 18, 2012 by jaques

[Guest Ornello]

Ornello,

 

Getting all precious about perceived rudeness doesn't suit you-

 

Amongst other things you made many comments about the pricing of used lenses and cameras... I feel fairly certain this thread was originally concerned with the prices of new Leica equipment? And in fact some of the points you made about used equipment suggest that Leica's current new pricing policy is actually making vintage equipment more expensive...

 

In terms of depreciation there is obviously a large difference between a vintage lens and an new M9 body... Time has revealed to us already how long a vintage lens can retain value- but we simply have no data relating to M digital bodies beyond maybe 6 years... and in any case resale value is only a tangential consideration to the main point: the cost of buying new.

 

You believe Leica pricing is 'just right'. The Panglossian view. This is an opinion and not a fact. Obviously there is no perfect price for everyone- it is all subjective. For whatever it is worth I believe it is over-priced (but I still paid the price)- the only way we will ever get a good idea of what the cost should be is if true direct competition enters the market. I actually see that happening this year: the success of the M9 has seen a huge increase in interest in the RF type digital camera and I think the manufacturers have noticed this. The new Fuji is an indication of that if you ask me...

 

It will be interesting to see how Leica decides on pricing if a competitor offers a full frame digital RF camera priced at less than half the cost of the M9 but with the same or improved functionality. It may be that even in such a scenario Leica will be able to rely on it's logo and niche luxury status- and continue to charge whatever it wants- despite the competition.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that when you manufacture items that have a very long service life you get one chance to make money from it (not counting service, which is pretty much irrelevant inasmuch as even short-lived products still generate service business). The item can change hands over and over, but the manufacturer earns nothing from that. Unless the manufacturer brings out a new version, his stock is competing with all of those used items out there. Why buy a new 180mm Elmarit-R when there are hundreds of used ones out there? On the other hand, when there is an even better new design available, but few used ones available, there is more incentive to buy new. Leica needs to make good money on the new product because once it is sold it will be out there as a used item competing for sales with new product for a long time.

 

Auto manufacturers don't have this problem to the same extent.

 

I never said Leica pricing was "just right". I said that price is not the whole cost, and that considering retained value it is a bargain.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ornello

[jaques]

but that doesn't quite apply to the M9 where Leica makes money upgrading the camera to an M9-P- doing repairs out of warranty- and selling new lenses and accessories to go with the camera.

 

And in any case that doesn't answer the question as to whether the original price represents 'good value' (or not) to the buyer.

 

Also earlier you argued that as there is nothing to compare the leica to- so how do we estimate it's value? Whilst there is no direct competitor there are competitors at the high end of the photographic market. A few years ago Hasselblad released it's CWD camera- it sold for around 11,000 USD for a 503 CWD body, an 80 Planar T lens and a CWD digital back- all in a limited edition of 500 pieces.... with a special book! It was also made in Europe.

 

At guess if Leica had offered such a limited edition camera package they would have priced it at 35 K... Just look at their Titanium M9 price...

 

Another (indirect) comparison: the new Nikon d800. Sells for less than half the cost of the M9- yet has more than double the pixels, a great host of technological features and weather sealing... Of course I am aware it is not a rangefinder... and I am aware a lot of folks don't want any of the extra tech. A few even don't want better ISO performance for reasons unknowable... But we can still compare the prices...

 

Now lets consider if Fuji was to release a full frame digital RF camera at Phokina this year. 24MP sensor with ISO up to 24000, weather sealed, dual card slots, live-view- and better IQ than the M9... and they sold it for $3800... $4500 with a new M mount Fuji 50 1.4... what then for Leica's current pricing?

[erl]

Ornello, I am not interested in your propensity for splitting hairs and tendency towards pedantry. If other forum members are content to play the game with you that is fine, but please refrain from reporting their posts habitually, thereby causing me to read the surrounding drivel that that does not and need not interest me. I have serious work to fill my time, as do other Mods.

 

I don't intend to elaborate and waste more of my time, but this puts you on general notice, as has already been done by another mod.

[stunsworth]

People were perfectly content with f/2.8 lenses in the extreme WA category before it appeared, and I don't see why they still could not be so

 

People were perfectly content using medium format film before 35mm film appeared. Once something has appeared, provided it shows some benefit, people find a use for it that didn't exist before.

[Lord Fluff]

/ Ornello quotes prior 2000 word post in its entirety /

 

You make my point for me.

 

Fair enough, but could you possibly not quote entire very long posts just to add a one liner? It makes for a lot of scrolling through a thread for little information. Thanks.

[IWC Doppel]

I wonder if the customer base is changing. I have been familiar with Leica since the mid 90's, I know they were very expensive then I still have a catalogue with handwritten prices in a 2001 brochure with 21mm and 24 Elmarit-M's at £1,300 and £1,500 respectively. Add RPI inflation and it would be nearer £2,000 and £2,200 so Leica have put prices up seemingly more than the indices. Shame I could be saving for a Noctilux that I think was £2k+ so might be less than £3.5k today

[Giacomo.B]

I wonder if the customer base is changing. I have been familiar with Leica since the mid 90's, I know they were very expensive then I still have a catalogue with handwritten prices in a 2001 brochure with 21mm and 24 Elmarit-M's at £1,300 and £1,500 respectively. Add RPI inflation and it would be nearer £2,000 and £2,200 so Leica have put prices up seemingly more than the indices. Shame I could be saving for a Noctilux that I think was £2k+ so might be less than £3.5k today

 

In a 2006, six years ago (not Twenty...), the price of a 35mm f1,4 ASPH was 2825,00 Eu and of a Noctilux 3150,00 Eu, now for a 35mm F1,4 we pay 3985,00 Eu and for a Noctilux (which theoretically should cost now max 5000,00 Eu) only 8575,00 Eu.

 

Ciao

 

Giacomo

[Guest Ornello]

but that doesn't quite apply to the M9 where Leica makes money upgrading the camera to an M9-P- doing repairs out of warranty- and selling new lenses and accessories to go with the camera.

 

And in any case that doesn't answer the question as to whether the original price represents 'good value' (or not) to the buyer.

 

Also earlier you argued that as there is nothing to compare the leica to- so how do we estimate it's value? Whilst there is no direct competitor there are competitors at the high end of the photographic market. A few years ago Hasselblad released it's CWD camera- it sold for around 11,000 USD for a 503 CWD body, an 80 Planar T lens and a CWD digital back- all in a limited edition of 500 pieces.... with a special book! It was also made in Europe.

 

At guess if Leica had offered such a limited edition camera package they would have priced it at 35 K... Just look at their Titanium M9 price...

 

Another (indirect) comparison: the new Nikon d800. Sells for less than half the cost of the M9- yet has more than double the pixels, a great host of technological features and weather sealing... Of course I am aware it is not a rangefinder... and I am aware a lot of folks don't want any of the extra tech. A few even don't want better ISO performance for reasons unknowable... But we can still compare the prices...

 

Now lets consider if Fuji was to release a full frame digital RF camera at Phokina this year. 24MP sensor with ISO up to 24000, weather sealed, dual card slots, live-view- and better IQ than the M9... and they sold it for $3800... $4500 with a new M mount Fuji 50 1.4... what then for Leica's current pricing?

 

The Hasselblad is no substitute for Leica. They are quite different in application, and though I admire anyone who would take his Hasselblad on a tour of Sicily, for example, I would find it unworkable, with the shorter rolls and bulk. The equivalent of the 135mm lens for 35mm film is a 250mm, I believe, and thus your kit gets heavy very quickly. Clambering over ruins or strolling down village streets with a couple of bodies, dozens of rolls of film, and weighty Distagons and Sonnars is not my idea of fun. Digital of course relieves the film issue, but not the bulk and weight issue.

 

For light weight the Leica M has even more of an advantage. One could easily carry a couple of M6 bodies and 4 lenses (say 21mm Elmarit for dim cathedral interiors, 35mm Summarit, Summicron, or Summilux for street scenes, a 75mm Summarit, Summicron, or Summilux, or 90mm Elmarit for portraits, and a 135mm Elmar for details).

 

I know some of these are no longer currently in production.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ornello

[Guest Ornello]

People were perfectly content using medium format film before 35mm film appeared. Once something has appeared, provided it shows some benefit, people find a use for it that didn't exist before.

 

I don't deny that, but you miss my point:

 

1) such extreme lenses are naturally going to be very expensive

2) something more modest will cover the vast majority of one's needs

3) they hardly represent the whole line

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ornello

[stunsworth]

I don't deny that, but you miss my point:

 

Your point seems to be that because you have no need for a fast wide lens no one else has either. That's a rather sweeping generalisation and not something I believe myself.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Ornello]

Your point seems to be that because you have no need for a fast wide lens no one else has either. That's a rather sweeping generalisation and not something I believe myself.

 

I didn't say that. I said:

 

1) Such items did not exist before and incur, naturally, unprecedented expense in manufacture

2) The prices reflect a level that has not been necessary hitherto for that very reason

3) No matter how splendid and desirable they are, most people don't need such extraordinarily fast and expensive lenses.

 

Leica, to create these lenses, entered a whole new level of cost in doing so. The Leica brand was just as attractive before these designs came out. They are 'icing on the cake' so to speak.

 

My point is that they are not the measure of price for the entire brand.....and just because a given individual cannot afford both a 21 or 24 Summilux that does not mean that he cannot afford to own Leica.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ornello