Leica: You get what you pay for

[Messsucherkamera]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is an interesting article on Leica vs. Nikon vs. Canon in terms of annual production of cameras and lenses - LEICA Barnack Berek Blog: PRODUCTION NUMBERS OF LEICA CAMERAS AND LENSES VS CANON AND NIKON

 

Many people are outraged by the prices that Leica puts on their cameras and lenses. I must admit that at times, I too have bitched about that issue. This article sheds some light on the reasons behind the prices that Leica asks.

 

There are many reason that Leica's 50mm f/1.4 lens sells for nine times the price of Nikon's 50mm f/1.4 lens. In the end, cameras and lenses are like everything else I this world: You get what you pay for.

 

To draw an analogy that is based on automobiles, trying to compare Nikon and Canon to Leica cameras and lenses is like trying to compare Toyota and Honda to Rolls Royce.

 

No one in their right mind would expect to be able to buy a new Rolls Royce for the price of a new Toyota Camry.

 

You can't compare apples and oranges. Or maybe in this case it's apples and fillet mignon.

 

And for the record, I will try really hard to keep this information in mind and cease a d desist with the moaning about Leica prices.

[pico]

[...]

To draw an analogy that is based on automobiles, trying to compare Nikon and Canon to Leica cameras and lenses is like trying to compare Toyota and Honda to Rolls Royce.

 

That is a very unfortunate analogy.

[Ralf]

That is a very unfortunate analogy.

 

How so?

[NZDavid]

I agree. Reliability (Toyota, though exaggerated) and engineering excellence (Honda) versus Rolls-Royce (absurdly expensive, fusty old image based on past glories, old ones broke down, firm sold to overseas buyers).

[pico]

I agree. Reliability (Toyota, though exaggerated) and engineering excellence (Honda) versus Rolls-Royce (absurdly expensive, fusty old image based on past glories, old ones broke down, firm sold to overseas buyers).

 

I was offered the use of a Rolls-Royce to tour and I just could not bear it. Driving it feels like death. Quiet as a buried coffin. No feeling at all. Although it was free, the feeling of its maintenance expense was like mainlining stupid through a fire hose. The owner has many autos and said that he just never uses the Rolls for the roads he prefers.

 

I admit to an irrational affection for Toyota's 2GR-FSE engine. It is of a beautiful design (but not for the eye). It is tempting to get a Lotus Evora for my second-wind retirement fling. Yes, it is an economy sportie but I love it. (I drove an Elise first with its little engine.) At the moment, for utility and driving in this wretched Winterland I have the 2GR-FSE in a mini-SUV. Unbelievable, perhaps, but the ECU is governed to limit top-end to 131MPH. In an SUV!

 

But back to Leica. I hate the faux pomposity of those who think it is a luxury item, or even the 'right stuff' just because it is expensive and somewhat limited in quantity. Or even hand-made. I don't know many photographers who use Leicas who are also up to the standards which making the camera demands. It is strictly personal, but the look of the ASPH lenses is a horror to me. But you already know I'm quirky from the second paragraph above.

[NZDavid]

The only people driving Roll-Royces in this country are classic car enthusiasts taking part in a rally (preferably with a tow truck handy) and pretentious Auckland impressarios with more money than sense (none in the South Island). Best vehicles for Christchurch must have good suspension for our diabolical quake-damaged roads.

 

I believe the best products are entirely practical and reliable -- they are well engineered -- not mere badge engineering and bling.

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is an interesting article on Leica vs. Nikon vs. Canon in terms of annual production of cameras and lenses - LEICA Barnack Berek Blog: PRODUCTION NUMBERS OF LEICA CAMERAS AND LENSES VS CANON AND NIKON

 

Thanks for the info, interesting read and numbers vs. Canon and Nikon show Leica is a fraction of their size. I've heard it said (in defense of Nikon) that they (Nikon) are a small company and don't have nearly the resources of Canon, so that makes Leica look smaller yet.

 

I feel lucky to have acquired several Leica lenses given their small production, it was a sad day recently when I had to decline the purchase of a new 35mm Summilux FLE. I had only been put on the list 6 weeks earlier, and my expectations were for a long long wait, enough time to save up.

 

Tough crowd when drawing analogies, but I get the gist of what your saying.

[Messsucherkamera]

I agree. Reliability (Toyota, though exaggerated) and engineering excellence (Honda) versus Rolls-Royce (absurdly expensive, fusty old image based on past glories, old ones broke down, firm sold to overseas buyers).

 

When I made my analogy comparing Rolls Royce autos and Leica cameras, I was unaware of all that. I made that analogy based on the reputation (or myth, if you prefer) that was built on the past glory days of R-R.

 

I am much more familiar with Leica cameras and lenses (I carry and use them every day) than I am with Rolls Royce automobiles (I saw one drive past on three occasions in my 55 years).

 

Apparently as a result of my limited knowledge of the real story on Rolls Royce, I have unwittingly dragged the good name of Leica through the mud. That was decidedly not my intent.

 

All things considered, it seems that Leica cameras and lenses have significantly better design, engineering, performance and reliability by several magnitudes than do the current offerings from Rolls Royce - not to mention being more reasonably priced.

 

Apologies go out to the redoubtable ladies and gents in Solms who labor tirelessly in the clean rooms which bear the red dot logo.

[NZDavid]

Now I'm expecting to get shot down by RR fans! To add some more detail: The earliest ones were wonderful aristocratic vehicles; the fifties cars were beautiful classics with superb handmade coachwork and silent engines (I've seen them glide past at a classic car show but didn't hear them); then in the seventies, alas, reliability took a tumble along with other British cars of that era. (IMO the fifties was one of the finest periods for industrial design, producing both fine cars and Leica M!). Now RRs, which are part of BMW (used to be VW but that's Bentley now, I think) are a whole lot more reliable and very extravagant, but do they have the same character? Are they still best of British let alone "the best car in the world"? Hmm. Are they even relevant in today's world?

 

The latest RRs, again IMO, display one of the stupidest uses of technology I have ever heard of: As the wheels rotate, a device ensures the RR badge on the hub cabs don't rotate at the same time so you can always read "RR". It's kind of like fixating on the Leica badge instead of how well the product actually works. To me, that kind of approach to design is absurd.

[earleygallery]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Or maybe in this case it's apples and fillet mignon.

 

Pretentious? Moi?

 

Actually the analogy with Rolls Royce isn't so far off the mark (or marque!). Nobody buys a Rolls Royce because they NEED one. They buy it to make a statement, to show off, as a treat for themselves to say 'they've made it', and some buy simply because they prefer driving them, they like the styling, or out of habit.

 

The Rolls Royce used to be a hand built car from the ground up, often made specifically to a buyers order. They would often be modified, rebuilt or rebodied during their lifespan. The RR of today is made by BMW, using many of their parts. Rather like the guts of a digital Leica's are not made by Leica.

 

Someone who is in the market for a Honda or Toyota shouldn't really be considering a Rolls Royce as an alternative, just as fillet mignon probably isn't the best alternative to apples for making a crumble pudding to serve with custard.

 

Just as the photographer who needs the features offered by the top line DSLR's won't or shouldn't seriously be considering a Leica M as one of their alternatives.

 

So why are Leica expensive? They use high quality materials, there is a lot of hand assembly in the EU, they sell relatively very low numbers, they don't have any economy of scale.

 

For the price of a Rolls Royce you could also buy a HGV Truck cab.

[pedaes]

The latest RRs, again IMO, display one of the stupidest uses of technology I have ever heard of: As the wheels rotate, a device ensures the RR badge on the hub cabs don't rotate at the same time so you can always read "RR". It's kind of like fixating on the Leica badge instead of how well the product actually works. To me, that kind of approach to design is absurd.

 

But the cars are beautifully built and sales are increasing. As a Brit what pleases me is they are in demand which keeps the plant in Chichester employing people and that nearly all production goes to export earning revenue for my country.Plus it is great to know our Chinese friends are giving their Leica"s a comfortable ride around town.

[steveclem]

Chichester? I thought it was Chester....

[earleygallery]

It's the attention to little details like those RR hubcaps that keep their cars special. The reason Toyota don't do the same is to keep costs down.

[bill]

As a matter of interest, when I bought my new (to me) car a couple of months ago the dealer picked me up from the station in an older Silver Shadow. "Yours?" I asked.

"Oh no, stock."

'Is there still a demand?"

"You'd be surprised. I've bought and sold this one five times. Made a profit every time. People buy them then sell after a few months when they realise the running costs and how difficult they are to park in multi-storeys. I keep in touch and buy them back then sell on again." He shrugged. "I have some I have handled more than a dozen times"

I was taken aback. "Why don't you just offer them on a lease or hire basis?"

He smiled. "Because people want to say, "Once, I owned a Rolls Royce"..."

 

Wise man.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[wattsy]

Chichester? I thought it was Chester....

 

No, the old RR motor works (now Bentley owned by VW) is still in Crewe. The current RR cars are made in a purpose built factory near Goodwood/Chichester.

[iedei]

as a petrolhead...I would like to change the analogy to a fair one. for $25k, one can get a Subaru BRZ and for $180k one can get an Audi R8 V10.

 

both cars handle good...the R8 is better built, better designed, and carries a feeling of 'specialness' about it. One could easily have a laugh in either car on a mountain road....but the R8 will feel more special than an average car....whereas in a dollar-per-enjoyment ratio the BRZ may even do better.

 

If Leica were a Rolls Royce I would NOT be using Leicas....lol

[Peter H]

I remember reading a motoring article many years ago, in which a retired RR engineer was asked why they were so awful to drive compared with all other contemporary cars. The reason, he said, was that by the time he was ending his career very little thought or effort was going into refining the driving experience since the company preferred to concentrate on the things that really mattered to their customers, such as the quality of materials and the comfort of the ride in the back seat.

 

By the 1970s RR had become a parody of a car, and that's a tradition many current owners proudly prolong.

[TomB_tx]

When I studied engineering in college in the mid 60s (Michigan Tech - where many of the graduates went to work for General Motors), when the course got to the subject of quality the then-current VW Beetle was held up as the highest quality car you could buy. They stressed that quality was not a matter of features, but of how well each example did what it was designed to do. VW at that time was very meticulous and consistent, and it was unusual to find any "build flaws" when you bought one.

Of course, much of that reputation was a result of the company's campaign to maintain that image. At that time things like crankshaft failure were fairly common, but the dealers were instructed to just change them out (the cars would run in spite of the failure) and return the car claiming it was tuned-up.

[Messsucherkamera]

Now I'm expecting to get shot down by RR fans! To add some more detail: The earliest ones were wonderful aristocratic vehicles; the fifties cars were beautiful classics with superb handmade coachwork and silent engines (I've seen them glide past at a classic car show but didn't hear them); then in the seventies, alas, reliability took a tumble along with other British cars of that era. (IMO the fifties was one of the finest periods for industrial design, producing both fine cars and Leica M!). Now RRs, which are part of BMW (used to be VW but that's Bentley now, I think) are a whole lot more reliable and very extravagant, but do they have the same character? Are they still best of British let alone "the best car in the world"? Hmm. Are they even relevant in today's world?

 

The latest RRs, again IMO, display one of the stupidest uses of technology I have ever heard of: As the wheels rotate, a device ensures the RR badge on the hub cabs don't rotate at the same time so you can always read "RR". It's kind of like fixating on the Leica badge instead of how well the product actually works. To me, that kind of approach to design is absurd.

 

Good information to know. I much prefer classic automobiles to today's offerings anyway. When I commence shopping for my Rolls I will look for one of 1940-1950 era vintage.

 

As soon as my photos start selling for $1 million each, I can begin the hunt for my Rolls. I'm doing my part - it's the damn photo collectors who are not keeping up their end of the deal.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

when the course got to the subject of quality the then-current VW Beetle was held up as the highest quality car you could buy.

 

Of course that was when US autos were going down the tubes in terms of quality in almost every way. Eventually cars improved, but the air-cooled VW never got better. For body styling, I swear there was a special division in Volkswagen dedicated to making it uglier every few years.

 

This being told by myself, and I still have and occasionally drive a pristine 1958 Bug (with a highly modified engine).

 

It used to be the routine where one would take his Bug to a shop and have the engine replaced during lunch hour. (In fact, it took less than twenty minutes.)

 

Good information to know. I much prefer classic automobiles to today's offerings anyway. When I commence shopping for my Rolls I will look for one of 1940-1950 era vintage.

 

IMHO, 1957 was a good year for the Rolls-Royce.