price of M60 should it be made as a regular production model

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you were a Leica executive, how would you price a regular production model of an M60 camera? In other words, a digital M with no screen, whatever it might be called.

 

1) Price it higher than the M240 because it's a niche item, probably low volume, pay more for less, pay more for the "purest" digital M. The Monochrom's pricing relative to the original M240 (before the M-P) provides evidence for this.

 

2) Same price as M240; different strokes for different folks, some want a screen, some don't; one is not better or worse than the other, they are just different cameras for different people. But both have the same sensor and core design.

 

3) Less expensive than the M240. The M-A provides some evidence for this (it's $250 less than the MP). Take away features, and lower the price (not by a lot, but at least by some). Even Leica can't get away with taking so much away from the 240, in terms of both physical features and the associated user options, and not do so at a lower price. Perhaps it replaces the M-E as the entry-level full-frame digital M.

[Advertisement]

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

[mfunnell]

Option one - pay more for less. People may not love you for it, but you're in it for money not love. (At least if you're like every CEO I've ever met.) While the concept doesn't appeal to me, it seems to appeal to others who have expressed buying intentions. Even if 30% do that, with already-sunk development costs, it looks a financial winner to me.

 

I'm not buying and I'm not sure why so many say they are. But, given the crowd, I believe them (or at least 30% of them) so it smells like profit...

 

...Mike

[TomB_tx]

Probably #1, but hopefully #2. There won't be significant parts cost savings for Leica from the LCD parts not used, and if sales are low the parts cost might be higher due to being lower-volume specials. There are also engineering costs (although the run of specials may have covered that), and overhead costs of extra procedures, documentation, training, etc. for a different model. However, Leica seems set up to do low volume products, so I'd guess their overall cost should be close to the 240.

I suspect they had decided from the beginning to make this a standard model, possibly depending on the reaction to the special 60. Looks like the response justifies a normal production version.

[bocaburger]

Whatever Leica's pricing strategy is, unless that puppy is slimmer and cheaper than an M240 I won't buy one. Thankfully I don't have an uncontrollable compulsion to chimp, so the deletion of the LCD is not a big deal for me.

[JohnJWhite]

$10,000 with strap lugs.

 

$11,000 without strap lugs.

 

$20,000 without strap lugs or viewfinder.

 

$35,000 without strap lugs, viewfinder or battery, but with an internal generator you wind with faux film advance lever. Two strokes to get the generator spinning enough to charge an internal capacitor which powers the sensor for each shot. Accompanied by advert campaign touting Leica's green credentials. No more batteries filling up land-fills.

 

One year later, introduce the single stroke model for $40,000, and offer upgrades for the now obsolete double strokes for only $15,000.

[pieterpronk]

I would say that it would be kinda ridiculous to price such a niche product lower than your main product. I won't sell anywhere near the amount of units as the "normal" version, so it will almost certainly be more expensive to produce than the "normal" version.

 

Then again, Leica prices are kinda ridiculous to begin with, so why not surprise us by actually being cheaper than expected. However if Leica would price it lower than the M240 I would read that as Leica saying the sales of the M240 have slowed more than anticipated. It would basically be the same as lowering the price of the M240 while hoping to increase sales again.

 

Anyway, I see people mentioning that they hope it will be cheaper, but I really doubt that will happen.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M-A is basically an MP without the meter. Any film camera Leica sells is a bonus, using parts and technology it developed 60 years ago. Minimal development cost, and lots of profit for each camera sold.

 

The M(240) is completely different. While the development cost is relatively covered by M(240) sales, the Edition 60 is largely a new camera. Leica will spread those costs over smaller volumes. My guess is it will still be pricey sadly. The cost of the missing bits (LCD, rear buttons and electronic connections for EVF and multi-grip) are not the issue - they will be minimal compared to developing the new case, software, tooling and organising production for what will be a smallish run.

 

The Monochrom is a case in point.

[timde]

How many will buy if it costs the same or more than an M240 ... not many.

 

How many will buy if it costs less, perhaps a 1000 less ... lots more.

 

 

Given that Leica has developed the firmware already (for the M60), and the housing is the same as the 240 with a few less holes punched in it ... I would guess the second option would make Leica more money.

 

 

I could imaging Leica offering the M241 (M-E replacement) and M242 (affordable M60, lower price than M-E even) when they next update the current M. It would give them 3 price points and three distinct feature sets.

[pico]

Given that [...] the housing is the same as the 240 with a few less holes punched in it.

 

Is it?

[pieterpronk]

How many will buy if it costs the same or more than an M240 ... not many.

 

How many will buy if it costs less, perhaps a 1000 less ... lots more.

 

I doubt price will be that much of a factor actually. I don't think many people that don't want to buy the M240 for its current price would buy a M60 because it would be €1000 cheaper.

And you either like the idea of a lcd-less camera or you don't. €1000 won't sway many people either way.

 

I would love to think it would be cheap, but I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking.

Then again who knows, maybe it will indeed be the new M-E when the next M gets released. If you're going to have a cheaper version next to an updated 36mp sensor camera, you might as well make it a cool oddball lcdless one.

[IkarusJohn]

Nothing about this camera strikes me as cheap, or mass appeal. It's development is not driven by maximising available parts and technology (M-A) or running out an existing camera (M-E). The justification is a small group of slightly nerdy Luddites who don't want an LCD. it has more in common with the Monochrom, but in smaller numbers.

[dant]

...$2500 and I would not buy one.

[bocaburger]

Nothing about this camera strikes me as cheap, or mass appeal. It's development is not driven by maximising available parts and technology (M-A) or running out an existing camera (M-E). The justification is a small group of slightly nerdy Luddites who don't want an LCD. it has more in common with the Monochrom, but in smaller numbers.

 

That seems like a valid point to me. If Leica were to make a cheaper camera with the idea of it being an entry-level model to lure new buyers into the system, making it without an LCD doesn't sound like the way to do it, so they might as well make that small group you speak of pay dearly to satisfy their need to be deprived of an LCD in order to not chimp. That said, for someone like me who is fine with turning off autoreview, it comes down to a matter of value sensibility. If I buy a car without A/C or stereo or sunroof I expect to pay less than if it had those options.