CheshireCat Posted October 14, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 14, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) And.......... $640,780,000.00 Just the .095 Noctilux. Not a bad day's income. This number is based on the assumption that all the allocated serial numbers were actually used in production lenses. But is this actually the case ? After all, we all know that the Noctilux glass can only be produced in very small quantities, melted in platinum-unobtanium crucibles at earth-core temperatures, and slowly cooled down for hundreds of years using unicorns farts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here How many M240's are sold in a given year?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
EricC Posted October 14, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 14, 2015 Where do these numbers come from? What is the basis for believing them to be true? Sorry if I missed it. To quote jdlaing " Top of the page. It's Called Wiki. :-)" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 14, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 14, 2015 To quote jdlaing " Top of the page. It's Called Wiki. :-)" ... and if it is Called Wiki, then it's true, right ? But unfortunately, these numbers are not even in the "Called Wiki". So it is perfectly legitimate to ask where do these numbers come from (i.e. how they have been computed). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 14, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 14, 2015 You can believe what you wish but I had. Very pleasant chat with someone who knows and the numbers I quoted are actually conservative as was mentioned elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 14, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 14, 2015 ... and if it is Called Wiki, then it's true, right ? But unfortunately, these numbers are not even in the "Called Wiki". So it is perfectly legitimate to ask where do these numbers come from (i.e. how they have been computed). It's true that the numbers in the Wiki are not a figure that answers exactly to the question "how many M240 are sold in a year"... but for example the figure of 90.000 around. (89916 + 919) referred to the production in 2013 can be taken as a good indication of the number of items that in 2013 have been delivered to end users... it will be something less... let'say 5 to 10% at dealers' shelves... btw, I noticed that MY number (4.809.312) is quoted in the Wiki as a "2014 number" ... but arrived to dealer December 22 2013... just in time for me (my birthday is 30... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted October 14, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 14, 2015 Never mind wiki from the top of the page we need some Leica Wiki-leaks. Quantities are deduced from number sequence but what if other products like M film and X or T or S series cameras are hidden in those sequences? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 14, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 14, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Never mind wiki from the top of the page we need some Leica Wiki-leaks. Quantities are deduced from number sequence but what if other products like M film and X or T or S series cameras are hidden in those sequences? Uhm... indeed Wiki can pose some issue about... 4719388 4758396 C 112 2013 39,009 4699353 4789268 M240 (black+silver) 2013 89,916 I confess to have been too simplicistic in my previous post... we collectors of old Leica items are too accustomed to the historical factory registers, the mindful analisys of them carried on by well known authors... ... ok, I admit that, apart other more inside sources, the Wiki figures are to be considered not as the bible... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted October 14, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 14, 2015 I thought that it was established that Leica Camera allocated/reserved serial numbers for products in blocks. That is you cannot subtract the lowest known serial number for a camera body (or lens) from the highest and conclude that the difference is the number of items produced.As I recall the production numbers of the M9 over its life were estimated from general statements by senior staff. Something like 30,000+ I think.This guess at M production seems much too large. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordvik Posted October 14, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 14, 2015 I think I read somewhere that Leica reached maximum production with 80 M9 cameras a day near the end of that model. Compare it to the 70's, I think they made more digital M's in a month than the whole 70's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 14, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 14, 2015 I thought that it was established that Leica Camera allocated/reserved serial numbers for products in blocks. That is you cannot subtract the lowest known serial number for a camera body (or lens) from the highest and conclude that the difference is the number of items produced. Me too think it is so... and the above example from Wiki shows also that the assignation of s/n extends also to the Panasonic items.... which come from all another kind of organization, factories etc... surely a bit more complicated than in the years when they had just to accord the numbering of Wetzlar and Ontario factories (but weren't yet times of wordlwide networked ERP systems...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 15, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 15, 2015 are you aure that Canon and Nikon rangefinders were not cheaper than leica? I find that hard to believe. Then there are the fixed lens rangefinders: Canon made over one million of the QL17 model alone. In fact in the history of rangefinder cameras I would happily say without any doubt that is was the cheaper cameras that reigned supreme- and sold in huge numbers- far more than Leica ever produced. I have been dealing in second hand cameras and for every Leica that you see at an estate sale you see at least 250 Canonets. From my experience I would hazard to guess that such rangefinder cameras outweigh Leica camera 1000 to 1 or considerably more. In the modern era Voitlander and Konica produced high quality optical RF cameras- that were a fraction of the cost of their leica counterparts. Voigtlander still does. the argument that the optical RF is increddibly expensive and difficult to make does not really stand up. The commercial failure of the Konica Hexar RF had more to do with the near death of the rangefinder camera and the supremacy of the SLR than any massive expense Konica had producing their optical RF. Finally all of this is not that relevant to the question of a digital RF camera in 2015. Leica has succesfully carved out a niche for itself in this area- and there is consequently growing renewed interst in RF cameras. This trend is mirrored in other areas where many once obsolete technolgies are finding new favour with a new audience. In Australia last year twice the number of vinyl records were sold as in the previous year and that figure is expected to continue to grow rapidly. This growth is driven primarily by young people. As much as the idea of a Leica competitor is poo-pooed here I still think it is a possibility. We have seen Japanese manufacturers do very well recently by replicating the look and feel of vintage camera designs. Some of these new cameras have been conciously 'rangefinder like'. The fuji X cameras in particular. The idea of a cheaper digital rangefinder to compete with the Leica M series has been heavily pushed in this and several other forums since the introduction of the M8 in 2006....That is a decade ago. It seem these forums are not read by other camera manufacturers. Hold on - Zeiss did read it a few years ago. The let it be known that they were not able to undercut Leica's price, so would not enter the market, despite their obvious expertise in RF building and access to Sony technology. Most of the wishful thinking here is caused by the mistaken idea that Leica is profiteering on a monopoly. However, that is not the case. They profits they make are in line with many other manufacturers of low-volume goods. If anybody would want to build a digital rangefinder on the same level as the M it would cost the same, or rather more, as Leica would have a considerable headstart in R&D and patents. Btw, a Canonet is not a Leica competitor. More like aimed at the Agfa Silette and such. You have to look at the LTM models for a comparison. If you really want to go expensive, have a look at the Chinese Red Flag... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 15, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 15, 2015 You can believe what you wish but I had. Very pleasant chat with someone who knows and the numbers I quoted are actually conservative as was mentioned elsewhere. You may have had a pleasant chat with "someone" who knows (I like mysteries !), but more than half a Billion Dollar revenue for a single specialty lens like the Noctilux 0.95 seems quite unlikely to me. According to your Wiki source, Leica "produced" as many Noctilux 50/0.95 lenses in 2013 than Noctilux 50/1 in 33 years. With a little grain of salt, I say that "someone" should know better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 15, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 15, 2015 .... According to your Wiki source, Leica "produced" as many Noctilux 50/0.95 lenses in 2013 than Noctilux 50/1 in 33 years. With a little grain of salt, I say that "someone" should know better. 4078794 4117764- 50mm f/0.95 ASPH Noctilux-M (black) ... my honest Summarit 75 is here in the middle... and I suppose it's not the only "poor guy" in this bunch of "rich guys"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 17, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 17, 2015 You may have had a pleasant chat with "someone" who knows (I like mysteries !), but more than half a Billion Dollar revenue for a single specialty lens like the Noctilux 0.95 seems quite unlikely to me. Especially as the total turnover, including binoculars, scopes and cine lenses etc, was about half the amount... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 17, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 17, 2015 This thread reminds me of Mark Twain, quote: "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share #36 Posted October 17, 2015 I started this thread because I was wondering how big the market was and how often its owners trade up? I expected Leica to be an overall very small niche market and because of the hi price, rangefinder and poor trade in value of all digital cameras, a very few of its users would be "chasing" technology. A much different crowd than Nikon/ Canon folks. Leica seems to spend an enormous amount on money on R&D for a small number of rangefinder users.....FYI I love using this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 17, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 17, 2015 It's true that Leica is a niche in the market, and if you search on the Net with patience, you can find global figures that can give you an idea of this niche... if you find the global 2014 market for FF DSLR and compare it to a figure of 30-40.000 FF Leicas, I'd bet you are in a range of 4 to 6%... another interesting comparision could be Leica M vs. "Digital Cameras over 1K$" which would be a more difficult figure to find... Globally (including Panaleicas and the small niche of S line) seems that their market share is in the range of 2-to 4% .. but don't take my words as the bible... And yes, their spending on R&D is high when compared to numbers... which partially justifies the high enduser price... ... but in digital is mandatory... I bought my M8 in 2007... it still works fine... but how many would they sell should it be NOW in their pricelist ? (apart any consideration about components' availability, maintenance etc...) Other players make bigger numbers, and spend much more on R&D... but some of them, surely, have a net profit proportionally (or even in absolute terms) lower than Leica ... but this is a complex analisys, on another level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.