rodluvan Posted October 28, 2015 Share #81 Posted October 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Who was it who used to say in here "there's no such thing as expensive, just bad career choices"? I'm at a pretty comfortable salary, maybe in the top 20-30% for my age in sweden (which in itself probably puts me in the top 5% in the world), no kids or dog, yet, that is too rich for my sensitive taste and I consider my world to be normal when in fact, globally speaking, it's anything but. yet, there's apparently another world, where $7.5K is pocket-money easily wasted on a disposable that isn't even impressive at launch and will be cruising for replacement within 2 years he/she who said that 'there's no such thing as expensive, only bad career choices' was living a VERY sheltered life oblivious to the state of the world at large only my taxed $0.02 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Hi rodluvan, 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!
edwardkaraa Posted October 28, 2015 Share #82 Posted October 28, 2015 I'm at a pretty comfortable salary, maybe in the top 20-30% for my age in sweden (which in itself probably puts me in the top 5% in the world), no kids or dog, yet, that is too rich for my sensitive taste and I consider my world to be normal when in fact, globally speaking, it's anything but. yet, there's apparently another world, where $7.5K is pocket-money easily wasted on a disposable that isn't even impressive at launch and will be cruising for replacement within 2 years he/she who said that 'there's no such thing as expensive, only bad career choices' was living a VERY sheltered life oblivious to the state of the world at large only my taxed $0.02 So do you suggest there should be a law that regulates the pricing of digital cameras? Isn't it easier just to vote with your money and not buy an item that you feel is extravagantly priced? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted October 28, 2015 Share #83 Posted October 28, 2015 So do you suggest there should be a law that regulates the pricing of digital cameras? Isn't it easier just to vote with your money and not buy an item that you feel is extravagantly priced? let's not put words in my mouth, I said no such thing. in all honesty, I found it rather rank and showed a palpable detachment from reality saying that it isn't an expensive camera. I probably shouldn't have commented on it, but I'm only human it simply is an expensive camera, especially for what it is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted October 28, 2015 Share #84 Posted October 28, 2015 Every Leica product is targeted at a certain segment of customers: professionals, photojournalists, sports photographers, budding enthusiasts, holiday travellers, family photographers. They demonstrate a heritage of impeccable quality, design and performance. Each is the culmination of R&D, design and engineering execution. While many other camera companies have fallen, Leica has survived making only cameras and related photo gear. Unlike Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Fuji and Olympus which derive revenues and profits from other lines of business. I am quite confident that Leica and their owners, have done their research and have a sound roadmap. This is evident in the recent announcements around the T, Q, S and now the SL. The next M will certainly draw on this to be better than anything we have seen so far. Leica is not for everyone. Some will acquire them new, some will acquire them used, while many will continue to desire them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 28, 2015 Share #85 Posted October 28, 2015 let's not put words in my mouth, I said no such thing. in all honesty, I found it rather rank and showed a palpable detachment from reality saying that it isn't an expensive camera. I probably shouldn't have commented on it, but I'm only human it simply is an expensive camera, especially for what it is The funny thing is that I find it expensive too (for my income), but reasonably priced as a Leica product. I really like it and thus being expensive does not stop me from wanting one, and eventually buying one. I want the S too, but it is way too expensive for me. I don't go around trashing Leica for not pricing the S within my purchasing range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 28, 2015 Share #86 Posted October 28, 2015 (...) I don't go around trashing Leica for not pricing the S within my purchasing range. All's well, then, as others don't do that, either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted October 28, 2015 Share #87 Posted October 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Every Leica product is targeted at a certain segment of customers: professionals, photojournalists, sports photographers, budding enthusiasts, holiday travellers, family photographers. They demonstrate a heritage of impeccable quality, design and performance. ... ladies with Chanel dress Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 28, 2015 Share #88 Posted October 28, 2015 After today's release I'm seriously worried about Leica. What a waste of resources... This clearly is going to flop, is it gonna somehow affect the new M? The release date? Availability? If you think I'm crazy, look at the Q, everyone is waiting for one, but instead they are making this... Don't worry, be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #89 Posted October 28, 2015 As I recall, demand exceeding supply is a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 29, 2015 Share #90 Posted October 29, 2015 Leica are not on the greatest path with their camera pricing. The used market after a year or two reflects what the price should have been in the first place. The M8 was the biggest technical achievement for Leica thus far, and I don't think that the following versions of the digital M should have been priced any higher. I still bought the M9 at the original price, but I am now in the camp that says that Leica will have to choose whether they want to expand or stay an exclusive brand. Personally I am not sure why they decided to enter the full-frame EVF market now and not back when they released the S. Everyone was clamoring for a digital R camera, and they pushed the S system instead. Why didn't they just stick with the S system, produce more, and make it more affordable. Once you get an audience hooked on a system, they will spend more money on lenses. Leica have too much going on if you ask me, and thus too many incomplete systems. Throwing it all out there to see what sticks devalues a brand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 29, 2015 Share #91 Posted October 29, 2015 Leica are not on the greatest path with their camera pricing. Adjusted for the rise in the average income in Germany, an M7 costs the same now as the M3 did back then. A digital M is more expensive, but then of course it has to be. As long as Leica is successful (and apparently they are) their pricing must be right. Which doesn’t mean that everyone can afford to buy each new model after its release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted October 29, 2015 Share #92 Posted October 29, 2015 Adjusted for the rise in the average income in Germany, an M7 costs the same now as the M3 did back then. A digital M is more expensive, but then of course it has to be. As long as Leica is successful (and apparently they are) their pricing must be right. Which doesn’t mean that everyone can afford to buy each new model after its release. Just for fun, the average adjusted income in the US in 1954 was $3155 and a new M3 body was $288; or roughly 9% of the average adjusted income. in 2013, the average adjusted income is $44,888, and the M-A is $4180 or roughly 9% of the average adjusted income. Although $288 in 1954 dollars will only buy $2195 worth of goods in 2015, so the cost in dollars of the body has almost doubled since 1954. But because income has risen at a similar rate, the M-A at $4180 is about as affordable today as the M3 was in 1954. Interesting stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 29, 2015 Share #93 Posted October 29, 2015 I am not comparing to the times of the M3, when Leica made the finest 35mm cameras of the pack. I am talking about the present when competition is stiff. The M8 and the M9 and the resulting M lens sales gave Leica the much needed boost to grow. I am just not sure that the resources are necessarily put in the right places. I don't know exactly sales numbers, but when the 50 Apo was released, I thought Leica were out of their mind asking that much money for a lens. I quickly realized that the price was justified by its size and performance. The combination of these criteria doesn't seem quite as favorable in the case of the SL. I truly hope that the SL becomes a huge success, and I am sure that its best features will be integrated in the M system sooner than later. I just feel that the M and S system offer something more special compared to the competition. Oh and btw., how often did photographers upgrade their M3s back in the day? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 29, 2015 Share #94 Posted October 29, 2015 All's well, then, as others don't do that, either. What does that mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 29, 2015 Share #95 Posted October 29, 2015 I'm at a pretty comfortable salary, maybe in the top 20-30% for my age in sweden (which in itself probably puts me in the top 5% in the world), no kids or dog, yet, that is too rich for my sensitive taste and I consider my world to be normal when in fact, globally speaking, it's anything but. yet, there's apparently another world, where $7.5K is pocket-money easily wasted on a disposable that isn't even impressive at launch and will be cruising for replacement within 2 years he/she who said that 'there's no such thing as expensive, only bad career choices' was living a VERY sheltered life oblivious to the state of the world at large only my taxed $0.02 To answer your question from your previous post, "What world do you people live in?" - Your world... the same one last time I checked. I'm glad you are doing so well and earning 20-30% top income and you believe it is in the top 5% in the world - good for you. But, the fact that you point out that $7.5K for a camera that you regard as "unimpressive at launch" (although you don't own it and haven't shot it yet) is pocket change to some people doesn't have anything to do with anything. So what? Some people may aspire to own something they regard as "impressive" and they may work extremely hard to do so. But, in your "world" everyone would own a Kodak Brownie - but everyone would own one. Let's not bring socialistic thinking into the evaluation of a camera in a simple camera forum - ok? Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 29, 2015 Share #96 Posted October 29, 2015 Just for fun, the average adjusted income in the US in 1954 was $3155 and a new M3 body was $288; or roughly 9% of the average adjusted income. in 2013, the average adjusted income is $44,888, and the M-A is $4180 or roughly 9% of the average adjusted income. Although $288 in 1954 dollars will only buy $2195 worth of goods in 2015, so the cost in dollars of the body has almost doubled since 1954. But because income has risen at a similar rate, the M-A at $4180 is about as affordable today as the M3 was in 1954. Interesting stuff. Only diffence is and was, that in 1954 people would buy a camera which would last " a lifetime". People were not inclined to buy a new camera every few years. Not even the people who used them for a living would buy a new camera every few years. In Germany, there is a shop (http://www.manufactum.de/home.html ) which sells things that last "a little" longer than most things on the consumers market. I really like this way of thinking.( Products also selected from different countries ! ) I would be happy if such way of thinking was also reflected in the way cameras were designed and produced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 29, 2015 Share #97 Posted October 29, 2015 Only diffence is and was, that in 1954 people would buy a camera which would last " a lifetime". People were not inclined to buy a new camera every few years. Not even the people who used them for a living would buy a new camera every few years. In Germany, there is a shop (http://www.manufactum.de/home.html ) which sells things that last "a little" longer than most things on the consumers market. I really like this way of thinking.( Products also selected from different countries ! ) I would be happy if such way of thinking was also reflected in the way cameras were designed and produced. But the fault is with the buyers not manufacturers, who even then released a new model every few years, but they never forced anyone to buy the new model There are many members here who still shoot with the 6 years old M9 and quite happy with it. No one seems to complain that Leica didn't announce an M update this year and frankly I would be happy if they don't do it next year or the year after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted October 29, 2015 Share #98 Posted October 29, 2015 " No one seems to complain that Leica didn't announce an M update this year and frankly I would be happy if they don't do it next year or the year after " --- Wrong, i asked for a M update (the external electronic viewfinder and some other things) as soon as i could try the M240. I ended not buying it thinking Leica could not possibly sell it as it is for a long time, than in six months would appear an improved model. I am still waiting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted October 29, 2015 Share #99 Posted October 29, 2015 To answer your question from your previous post, "What world do you people live in?" - Your world... the same one last time I checked. I'm glad you are doing so well and earning 20-30% top income and you believe it is in the top 5% in the world - good for you. But, the fact that you point out that $7.5K for a camera that you regard as "unimpressive at launch" (although you don't own it and haven't shot it yet) is pocket change to some people doesn't have anything to do with anything. So what? Some people may aspire to own something they regard as "impressive" and they may work extremely hard to do so. But, in your "world" everyone would own a Kodak Brownie - but everyone would own one. Let's not bring socialistic thinking into the evaluation of a camera in a simple camera forum - ok? Rick I'm sorry, Rick, it won't happen again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 29, 2015 Share #100 Posted October 29, 2015 I'm sorry, Rick, it won't happen again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.