Kupo43 Posted June 2, 2016 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Honestly, it caters to everything we love as photographers. I could wax poetics about the aesthetics of the camera but others have already done so and with better words. It could be the perfect stepping stone into Leica digital for most of us without all the bells and whistles of other models. But why, with a camera that lacks a huge technological feature, does it have a more expensive price tag than its more sophisticated brethren?I understand that the quality of any Leica is going to merit a hefty price tag. What I don't understand is how they aren't able to manufacture the M-D at a lower profit margin when its the exact same camera as the 262 minus the LCD screen. In all seriousness, is there something that I'm missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 Hi Kupo43, Take a look here The M-D would be an absolute triumph if it didn't cost so much.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted June 2, 2016 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2016 The marketing team thought otherwise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 2, 2016 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2016 Honestly, it caters to everything we love as photographers. I could wax poetics about the aesthetics of the camera but others have already done so and with better words. It could be the perfect stepping stone into Leica digital for most of us without all the bells and whistles of other models. But why, with a camera that lacks a huge technological feature, does it have a more expensive price tag than its more sophisticated brethren? I understand that the quality of any Leica is going to merit a hefty price tag. What I don't understand is how they aren't able to manufacture the M-D at a lower profit margin when its the exact same camera as the 262 minus the LCD screen. In all seriousness, is there something that I'm missing? Actually, it's not the 262 minus a screen. If it was, there'd be a gaping hole in the camera. Someone had to draw the parts that make up a camera-without-a-screen. Tools have to be made to make a body-without-a-screen. Software has to be written to use the camera-without-the-screen without the screen. And on, and on. These all produce costs that have to be paid for before a single camera is even made. You divide those by the number of cameras you hope you'll be selling, and that number is bound to be kind of smallish. I think it's this that you might be missing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 2, 2016 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2016 Minus screen is minus 20 Euro* per camera. Plus development, new machining, marketing etc. per camera (cost divided by projected sales, well, from 500* to 1500* Euro per camera. Tweak a bit to arrive at an acceptable market price, and there you are... * guesstimates Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBond Posted June 2, 2016 Share #5 Posted June 2, 2016 The M-D has a very simplistic design and a minimal number of parts compared to its "screened' sisters. Its software would also be very simplistic too. It not only has no screen but also no buttons at the side of it, no internal cables connecting each and everyone of those and so on. The process for designing it is not much different (if simpler) than that of the other M series. It is not much different from a M Edition 60. So logically it should cost less. I think the key to its pricing is (as pop mentioned above) the fact that it is expected to sell in less numbers than its sisters. As such it needs to be priced higher so that Leica can make the profit they want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted June 2, 2016 Share #6 Posted June 2, 2016 Its Leica The M240 would be the perfect camera if only it was cheaper........and maybe a little lighter....and thinner Correct me if Im wrong but isn't Leica the most expensive full frame camera in todays market.......by a lot? Once you decide how to acquire one.....and that thats what you want to shoot with...... its has nothing to do with money......choosing Leica MD or M240 or Q etc has nothing to do with being a good value.....or even a fair value It's kind of a choice and the ouch factor....If your not rich...and I'm not ......you simply decide, that its worth it to you. Is a 50mm Summicron really worth $2200? It is to me .....but as 50mm lenses go its a terrible value. Once this brand is your choice it has nothing to do with how much it costs ......if you want it and it's within your reach.....it's choice not value So because it has no screen it should cost less....not this brand! This camera has less feature then every brand....and we're going to pay more for less How much less would make it perfect ?....really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 3, 2016 Share #7 Posted June 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) How much less would make it perfect ?....really? 5,484 less. It would be number one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted June 3, 2016 Share #8 Posted June 3, 2016 with Leica- less is more! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewDD Posted June 3, 2016 Share #9 Posted June 3, 2016 It's a short-run camera for collectors, not a serious photography tool. Leica has a lot of investment to make back from a small number of sales, that's why its expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2016 Share #10 Posted June 3, 2016 Hmmm... I get the impression that most of them are user cameras. Leica has been smart - first the collector's edition to get the most from that market at an inflated price, later the user camera at a balanced price. Let's be honest with ourselves here: TANSTAAFL. If you have to worry about the price of a hobby tool -and that is what this camera is- it is not for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted June 3, 2016 Share #11 Posted June 3, 2016 For me, as is M-D is Big Triumph for Leica and everyone who wanted a M Edition 60 but didn't buy one because cost or scarcity. Even if M-D would cost less, I'm not sure that it would sell more units. If people see the merit of LCDless M, they would be glad and just buy it. Arnaud Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenf Posted June 3, 2016 Share #12 Posted June 3, 2016 It's a short-run camera for collectors, not a serious photography tool. Leica has a lot of investment to make back from a small number of sales, that's why its expensive. No, that was the M 60. This is the version for actual use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 3, 2016 Share #13 Posted June 3, 2016 No, that was the M 60. This is the version for actual use. To be fair, there's at least one regular contributor to this forum (IkarusJohn) who bought an M 60 and uses it regularly and enjoys it for photographic reasons. The M 60 and M-D appeal to some people just like the Monochroms appeal to some and not to others. And not to me. I hope the M-D in no way influences the feature set of the next M, but as long as that is the case, it's a good thing that such a choice exists, and well done Leica for making it available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted June 3, 2016 Share #14 Posted June 3, 2016 The M-D has a very simplistic design and a minimal number of parts compared to its "screened' sisters. Its software would also be very simplistic too. It not only has no screen but also no buttons at the side of it, no internal cables connecting each and everyone of those and so on. The process for designing it is not much different (if simpler) than that of the other M series. It is not much different from a M Edition 60. So logically it should cost less. I think the key to its pricing is (as pop mentioned above) the fact that it is expected to sell in less numbers than its sisters. As such it needs to be priced higher so that Leica can make the profit they want. Pardon me, but weren't you the poster who didn't know an M was a manual camera couple weeks ago and asking for help whether to buy an M or a Q? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted June 3, 2016 Share #15 Posted June 3, 2016 Pardon me, but weren't you the poster who didn't know an M was a manual camera couple weeks ago and asking for help whether to buy an M or a Q? Thank you I was going to ask which camera JBond finally decided to buy?.....We pay attention here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBond Posted June 4, 2016 Share #16 Posted June 4, 2016 Thank you I was going to ask which camera JBond finally decided to buy?.....We pay attention here Attention to what?? I have not expressed an opinion on the merit of the camera but rather on the pricing tactics. Whether i own a Leica or not has no bearing on my reasoning behind pricing tactics? Unless in this forum one is allowed to express an opinion only if they own a Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted June 4, 2016 Share #17 Posted June 4, 2016 Attention to what?? I have not expressed an opinion on the merit of the camera but rather on the pricing tactics. Whether i own a Leica or not has no bearing on my reasoning behind pricing tactics? Unless in this forum one is allowed to express an opinion only if they own a Leica? Your opinion on the MD without knowing anything about the M speaks to your credibility on the matter...even on the matter of pricing But you are correct you are entitled to an opinion. You've got to know, that not knowing anything about the M would color your credibility on this forum? So are you still considering an M? Does a rangefinder without an LCD appeal to you ? Have your thoughts on the matter changed? Ok I guess I'm condescending as well .....but seriously think about it.......I'll wait for your two finger salute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted June 4, 2016 Share #18 Posted June 4, 2016 Your opinion on the MD without knowing anything about the M speaks to your credibility on the matter...even on the matter of pricing But you are correct you are entitled to an opinion. You've got to know, that not knowing anything about the M would color your credibility on this forum? So are you still considering an M? Does a rangefinder without an LCD appeal to you ? Have your thoughts on the matter changed? Ok I guess I'm condescending as well .....but seriously think about it.......I'll wait for your two finger salute Think we got a good laugh at this. People who come on the forum, don't own a single piece of Leica equipment. I don't mind people asking questions who don't have equipment yet. But then to turn around and act like they know what they are talking about.....a good belly laugh. Sorry though he was embarrassed. My fault. I will add though, many people tried to help him understand what these cameras were, then he decided on a Q, then decided the Q was overpriced and refused to accept it was due to exchange issues and not Leica ripping him off, bashing Leica and pricing. I had enough of his questions at that juncture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted June 4, 2016 Share #19 Posted June 4, 2016 jbond, I have deleted your gratuitously rude post directed at one of our female members. Some gestures to male members may be tolerable but IMO extra courtesy is required when directed at ladies. Because the lady concerned was offended, I have taken action. Please think carefully next time before hitting the send button and consider the consequence it can deliver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBond Posted June 4, 2016 Share #20 Posted June 4, 2016 Your opinion on the MD without knowing anything about the M speaks to your credibility on the matter...even on the matter of pricing But you are correct you are entitled to an opinion. You've got to know, that not knowing anything about the M would color your credibility on this forum? So are you still considering an M? Does a rangefinder without an LCD appeal to you ? Have your thoughts on the matter changed? Ok I guess I'm condescending as well .....but seriously think about it.......I'll wait for your two finger salute I am certainly considering an M240. I havent had enough time to go a try an M or a Q so I'm yet to try one. An M with no lcd doesn't appeal to me at all. You speak about "credibility" as if we are in some sort of scientific forum trying to put forward arguments for some sort of research. Lighten up, it's just a hobby. And I have no reason to give you a two finger salute. There's a difference between a discussion like the one we are having and the offensive, condescending answers that billinghambaglady has given on more than one ocassion so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.