Name reasons Leicas are so expensive

[efreed2754]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With all due respect, believe expense is not the most apt concept to use. As some mentioned "value" and utility are more important.

 

All my old Ms and lenses were sold for more than I paid by a fair percentage. Plus had the pride and joy of using equipment. So what was the cost for getting great images?

 

Yes there is a large initial outlay, but that's cash not cost. For me my Leica's have been the least expensive equipment available.

 

Now today is admittedly somewhat different as digital equipment will not likely appreciate although lenses may. (Digital cameras are less expensive than film given enough shots.) So for me lenses will be a valued purchase and the camera pays for itself by not paying for slides.

 

If just starting out with no film history, value of Leica cameras more dependent on quality of images and hopefully less depreciated cost of Ms compared to other brands.

 

Thoughts?

[Advertisement]

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

[luigi bertolotti]

A simple answer is "because at a lower price the Company that makes it couldn't survive" : and this applies both to "expensive and "cheap" industrial products (any cheap product could, in theory, cost even less).

A complex answer... would be too long and complex to write... ... and would result in an essay on economics of market / manufacturing / organization...

[platypus]

So expensive, are they really? I guess that is a matter of perception.

Well, assuming they are, it's got to be because of their "snob value"......that's priceless.

[pop]

Name reasons Leicas are so expensive... (...) perhaps some that us over-the-Atlantic cannot fathom.

None (that can not be understood or even expected over there).

Economy of scale: very few cameras are produced (something on the order of 15k per year); they buy raw materials and components in smallish lots, have no bargaining power, have no access to the resources of large conglomerates, can not outsource special parts because of small lot sizes and high demands on quality, can not outsource or automate processes; R&D is spread over a very small number of sales; have to rely on costly and inefficient sales channels for lack of volume; have to do their own promotion.

Quality of goods: High level specifications, expensive materials and (arguably) high quality workmanship are well known cost drivers.

Those reasons apply to cameras and lenses.

I think it's clearly visible that there are different reasons which lead to high prices of accessories. I rather believe that the price for a lens hood, for instance, is set to some 4 or 5 per cent of the lens price. Hence, the lens hood for a Noctilux costs more than an entire lens or even an entire camera of another brand. It's possible that this used to make sense in earlier times. It does seem a bit steep nowadays.

[250swb]

It is very simple, Leica are more expensive because it always costs disproportionately more achieve the last small improvement.

 

So for instance, it was possible to reach the edge of space with a rocket in 1945. But it cost a vast amount more to go the extra mile and escape the atmosphere of the Earth. A Timex tells the time, a Patek Philippe tells the time, but the finesse with which it does it costs disproportionately more. A small family hatch easily reaches the speed limit in most countries, to not only reach it but do it in comfort and safety to the finest degree takes a Rolls Royce.

 

The clues to this reality is all around you in all products, just look, and why Leica are so much more expensive will become clear, to anybody, no matter which nationality 'does't get it'.

 

Steve

[LucisPictor]

If we define "expensive" as being sold at higher prices than other comparable cameras, then yes, Leica is expensive. But Leicas are only almost comparable. And that "almost" is the reason for the price.

 

- manufactured quality

- exclusiveness

- name (based on reputation and history)

- a highly loyal community of fans

- ...

[christoph_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gentlemen,

 

Two thoughts on this question, additional to the ones already offered:

 

Firstly: Brand. When you buy any product you also make a statement. That you have the money. That you value perfection. That you are one in the line of great photographers who also used that tool ... By all means Leica is in an enviably good position here.

 

Secondly: Then there is the point of the initial investment versus the cost of an item over its entire lifetime. Certainly with respect to their lenses and the analogue cameras Leica fares extremely well here. If that will also hold for their digital cameras time will tell, but looking at used prices for M8s and M9s, it's not too bad...

 

Wishing you all a good weekend, good light and much enjoyment using your (my) favourite Brand.

 

Christoph

[Peter H]

Name reasons Leicas are so expensive...

 

And I don't want to read a deluge of "because it is better, hand-made, and what the market can tolerate" and so-forth. .......................

 

I think its because they're hand made, better, and its what the market can tolerate.

 

You can take your fingers out of your ears now.

[pico]

A small family hatch easily reaches the speed limit in most countries, to not only reach it but do it in comfort and safety to the finest degree takes a Rolls Royce.

 

I'll bet my 'family hatch' (actually an SUV) would blow the doors off a Rolls, and last longer.

 

I wore a Patek Philippe, but frankly did not experience quality time.

[jaapv]

Well, maybe on your colonial back roads, but it would not do for a spin around Westminster....

[janki]

Well, is not it true that there has always been a high price to be different?

[SJP]

Leica is priced about right, Holga's are expensive.

[250swb]

I'll bet my 'family hatch' (actually an SUV) would blow the doors off a Rolls, and last longer.

 

I wore a Patek Philippe, but frankly did not experience quality time.

 

My reply to you was about why things cost more, not the quantative quality of the end experience . But if you can't take the point of the analogy without being a smart ass, that for instance a steak that tastes just a little bit better costs a disproportionate amount extra to rear as a cow, then you shouldn't go out shopping without proper supervision.

 

Steve

[luigi bertolotti]

Leica is priced about right, Holga's are expensive.

 

... as I said above "any cheap product could be cheaper"...

[Sandokan]

The fact that Leica made losses for many years means that they were under-priced?

 

Even now that they do make a profit, it is only a small percentage of turnover, so does that not mean they are priced right? Ignoring all inefficiencies of course.

[jankap]

Of course the sales department eats money (Leica shops, etc.).

Keeping narrow manufacturing tolerances without compromises is expensive.

 

But we are the ones, who decide, if Leica prices are TOO high! Value for the money.

Jan

[sblitz]

because they can

[jankap]

OK, but why would they be able to keep the prices high?

There must be somewhat more than company image alone. Small camera, good IQ, full frame, good built quality?

Jan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pete hogan]

Cost and price are unrelated. Leica would charge more if they could.

[AlanJW]

Leicas are so expensive because there are enough customers willing to pay the asking price to produce volume that results in a profit. In other words, price is a function of demand as well as cost. You set prices at a point that is as high as they can go without sacrificing sales. That is how you maximize profits. We should not expect Leica to behave any differently. Profit maximization also drives innovation and the introduction of new products. Otherwise when the market is saturated growth stops. It is a business not a charitable organization. We who buy at the prices asked are part of the Leica ecosystem.