Michael Geschlecht Posted October 22, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Everybody, Traditionally in much of photography: Very often the basic body & basic lens are sold at a price that is pretty close to cost. The real profit is made in additional lenses & accessories, etc. This can be a successful way to run a business because the basic body & basic lens bring you into the proprietary system. Similar to what happens with many brands of cars where the basic car body is sold pretty much at cost, or nearby & the profits are made on financing, accessories, optional equipment, parts & service, etc. Leica might be thought of as a high quality Lens Company that also makes first class Camera Bodies as well as a number of really nice Accessories. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Hi Michael Geschlecht, Take a look here I'm waiting for the new M and I'm worried.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted October 22, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 22, 2015 Not the best first post... How many people stuck waiting for a Q will peel off and buy an SL instead? Not many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 22, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 22, 2015 OP Why worry? Newman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted October 22, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 22, 2015 While a great camera. Compared to the competition (A7) it very much is excessively expense, I'm not sure that it offers enough to convince A7 users to switch to the SL, let alone 5D Mark III and D800 users. Leica has priced themselves out of the market, it should have been less than $5000 USD to be competitive. Leica has made the mirrorless body that everyone was hoping would eventually come from Canon and Nikon in 5 to 10 years. If it was priced at around $3000, it could be a real threat to Canon and Nikon's market share. But not at this price point. To summarise. Leica has the right product strategy, but the wrong price for this market. The concept is sure to take off when Canon/Nikon decide to clone it at half the price. Cameras like the Leica SL is what is going to kill the SLR. With that line of thinking the M 240 is also excessively expensive. The SL is about $1200 more than a new M and packed with a hell of a lot more technology. If the M 240 is excessively expensive than why does it sell? It will take time to see how the sales rack up, but suspect that the marketing department at Leica knows exactly what they are doing far better than us armchair quarterbacks. How about this. If a new M was introduced and it just happened to add all the improvements and new features you wanted in the next M (whatever they may be), would you consider paying $1200 more for that set of improvements? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 22, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 22, 2015 The M(240) is currently listed at B&H for $6,990 and the SL for $7,450 - a $460 price difference on a new release against a three year old camera, not $1,200. The M(240) was also listed at a lower price than the M9 when listed, if I recall correctly. Not much cheaper, but a bit. Core point, though - the M and SL are basically the same price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 22, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 22, 2015 While a great camera. Compared to the competition (A7) it very much is excessively expense, I'm not sure that it offers enough to convince A7 users to switch to the SL, let alone 5D Mark III and D800 users. Leica has priced themselves out of the market, it should have been less than $5000 USD to be competitive. This camera is not meant to compete with the Sony A7xx it is squarely aiming for Canon and Nikon 1Dc and D4s. It is competitively priced to those models. This is a pro camera system in its early evolution that we are witnessing. And, it is way ahead of both of those brands as a cine camera. I think a lot of folks are trying to fit this into the A7xx series paradigm. This is clearly not where Leica is trying to compete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 22, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you look at the lenses, the 24-90mm 2.8/4 SL lens is $5,000. M lenses range from the Noct at $10,000 to the 50/2.5 Summarit, with the WATE being almost $5,000. Why is the new AF lens expensive? Doesn't really look it to me, I'd have to say. If we look across at the S, the 006 is $14,000 and the 007 (on pre-order) is $17,000, and the lenses range from over $10,000 to just over $4,000, with the 30-90 zoom being the most expensive. The 120mm APO TS lens is $6,600. Over on eBay, the Vario-Emarit-R 28-90mm 2.8/4.5 ASPH ranges from $7,500 to $10,500. Note, the SL "kit" zoom has a wider range and is slightly faster at the long end. Did anyone honestly expect this camera to be under $5,000? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted October 22, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 22, 2015 The SL seems eerily reminiscent of Leica's disastrous entry into the SLR marketplace. That's what makes me uncomfortable, but history doesn't necessarily repeat itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 22, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 22, 2015 This camera is not meant to compete with the Sony A7xx it is squarely aiming for Canon and Nikon 1Dc and D4s. It is competitively priced to those models. This is a pro camera system in its early evolution that we are witnessing. And, it is way ahead of both of those brands as a cine camera. I think a lot of folks are trying to fit this into the A7xx series paradigm. This is clearly not where Leica is trying to compete. Highlight mine It does seem that way but without equivalent focus tracking how can it pull market share at this stage? Even Jono says that (while point focusing is blazing fast) it is far cry from phase detect auto focus of DSLRs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 22, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 22, 2015 If you look at the lenses, the 24-90mm 2.8/4 SL lens is $5,000. M lenses range from the Noct at $10,000 to the 50/2.5 Summarit, with the WATE being almost $5,000. Why is the new AF lens expensive? Doesn't really look it to me, I'd have to say. If we look across at the S, the 006 is $14,000 and the 007 (on pre-order) is $17,000, and the lenses range from over $10,000 to just over $4,000, with the 30-90 zoom being the most expensive. The 120mm APO TS lens is $6,600. Over on eBay, the Vario-Emarit-R 28-90mm 2.8/4.5 ASPH ranges from $7,500 to $10,500. Note, the SL "kit" zoom has a wider range and is slightly faster at the long end. Did anyone honestly expect this camera to be under $5,000? Well said. I really don't know what all the whinging is about. I think there was a perhaps a strong expectation from many of a Q-iteration with lens interchangeability. Although such a camera would have complemented the M series better and is something I might have wanted, I'm not that fussed we didn't get such a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dupiastko Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted October 22, 2015 ...squarely aiming for Canon and Nikon 1Dc and D4s. Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 22, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2015 Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure. The guys shooting football could never afford to buy their own gear. They are the most underpaid photographers in the world. But fashion photographers would be very tempted I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 22, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2015 Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure. LOL. You have no idea about presage. Without it, you are doomed to use a PC, Android, and windows forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 22, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 22, 2015 Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure. Seriously? You're new here, so you can be forgiven. Sit on your hands for a while; breathe through your nose; and between expressing silly opinions, you might learn something. In your favour, you seem to understand bluntness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dupiastko Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted October 22, 2015 Seriously? You're new here, so you can be forgiven. Sit on your hands for a while; breathe through your nose; and between expressing silly opinions, you might learn something. In your favour, you seem to understand bluntness. Sure papa, let's watch Bonanza together.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 22, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 22, 2015 Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure. I find it increasingly difficult to tell your posts from trolling. Please have a look at this thread, particularly the section with the heading Criticism is explicitly welcomed, as long as it remains objective and does not become an end in itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 22, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 22, 2015 Core point, though - the M and SL are basically the same price. A point everyone posting such unjustified negativity on this and other threads would do well to remember.... Its smaller than any pro level slr, virtually the same price as an M and will work with any Leica lens. I'm sure there would have been a deluge of positive comments if those were the headline leaks prior to official announcement... If it feels good in the hand, I may buy one too... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 22, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 22, 2015 No, wattsy, no sarcasm intended. Leica stopped producing the M4 in 1975 because of poor sales; and those M4 sales that they DID make were cutting into the already less-than-stellar sales numbers of the 1971-introduced-M5, In 1977, management at Leitz Canada recognized the solution and built a few M4s out of left over parts, and then had to fight with Wetzler to build the M4-2; which, as it turned out, was the camera that saved the company's bacon after they discontinued the M5. The R-series carried the company during the early '70s, but was falling out of favor with the public by the late '70s. Leitz pioneered auto-focus in the '70s, and then Wetzlar came through again and decided there was no market for it and sold it to Minolta who used it first in 1985. Leica almost went under again in the '90s after the advent of digital when they didn't have any digital offerings. I doubt that the "R-series carried the company" very far during the early '70s – the company reputedly lost money on every SLR body they sold (the Wetzlar ones not the later rehashed Minolta bodies). Leica nearly went under in the late 1990s because of the amount of money they sunk into the development of the R8. They essentially bet the farm on the R8 and it failed miserably – not because of digital (which wasn't remotely mainstream then) but because there wasn't a market outside Germany (where it sold ok) for a superb manual focus camera. If it wasn't for Hermès taking a friendly strategic stake (and,a little later, Panasonic lending €25m), the company would have run out of money long ago. I reiterate my earlier comment that the M system is (and will likely remain so) where the money is for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 22, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 22, 2015 With that line of thinking the M 240 is also excessively expensive. The SL is about $1200 more than a new M and packed with a hell of a lot more technology. If the M 240 is excessively expensive than why does it sell? Because it offers technology and a shooting experience no other camera does, at least the M240 has something to offer for it's price point. The SL is not very different to much less expensive competition. The SL could have been a mainstream hit that could have taken major market share from Canon and Nikon at a price point under $5000. As it is, it will be a niche product like the M. This is not the best way for Leica to achieve their goal of 1% market share. I criticise Leica's lack of ambition. IkarusJohn, on 22 Oct 2015 - 14:15, said: If you look at the lenses, the 24-90mm 2.8/4 SL lens is $5,000. M lenses range from the Noct at $10,000 to the 50/2.5 Summarit, with the WATE being almost $5,000. Why is the new AF lens expensive? Doesn't really look it to me, I'd have to say. The lens is a different story. It may well offer relative performance compared to other zoom lenses worthy of $5000... considering how much glass and elements were thrown at the problem that seems quite likely. The designers apparently took the 'more is more' approach, which is atypical for Leica but normal for Canon and Zeiss. piblondin, on 22 Oct 2015 - 14:58, said:The SL seems eerily reminiscent of Leica's disastrous entry into the SLR marketplace. That's what makes me uncomfortable, but history doesn't necessarily repeat itself. As I see it, Leica has missed an opportunity for a major blockbuster hit by pricing themselves out of the market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 22, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 22, 2015 As I see it, Leica has missed an opportunity for a major blockbuster hit by pricing themselves out of the market. Yup. This is also the case with the M and the Q. Leica COULD have a huge market share if they wanted to, cause the users want it. But at the current prices people simply can't afford it, and understandably so. So the products will always remain in the niche market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.