SL Price Reduction

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This idea that Leica should compensate owners for price reductions is apparently built on the presumption the owner is expecting some sort of value retention, propped up by Leica.

 

I don't think that makes much sense for consumer electronics. You're buying a camera as a tool. It's worth whatever you will pay for it, not a dollar more. On the used market it's again only worth what someone will pay.

 

Leica doesn't owe us anything in terms of maintaining used value over time. This is the Rolex model (raise prices to keep the used value high) and doesn't work for most goods. Buying from a reputable dealer protects you for 7-30 days (maybe more for some).

 

I say kudos to Leica for reducing price over time. It's the biggest problem for the S and SL systems in my opinion.

[Joshua Lowe]

They should do something similar to what Apple does and offer a refund to people who purchased new SLs from authorized retailers within 30 days of the price drop.

 

I would like to know if dealer cost for the SL has also dropped or if it's only MSRP.

[Ozkar]

Leica Australia have just dropped the retail price in Australia by $2300 (AUD).

[almoore]

there is a "value" to camera equipment, and price adjustments by Leica has an unfair impact on that market. 

 

It's a camera, not an investment unit. If Leica is struggling to sell the SL - and I suspect the problem is the insanely oversized lenses - then it makes perfect sense to lower the price. Yes, there's an impact on resale value, but 'fairness' doesn't come in to it.

[ropo54]

It's a camera, not an investment unit. If Leica is struggling to sell the SL - and I suspect the problem is the insanely oversized lenses - then it makes perfect sense to lower the price. Yes, there's an impact on resale value, but 'fairness' doesn't come in to it.

 

 

Leica has a right to do whatever they choose to sell cameras. The issue I raise is because their decision has an impact on resale value whether they should try to redress the fairness aspect.

 

It would seem to me that the SL 601 is an asset which will depreciate significantly over time. For those who make their living from photography it is certainly a tool of necessity with a limited lifespan, and hence market value at a given time may be inconsequential. Nonetheless, when the price drop comes 1.5 years after the product comes on the market it takes on a different effect, as compared to a price drop at the end of its production cycle (3-4 years?).  No different than if Porsche dropped prices by 15% on the launch of a new model 1.5 years later. Consumers of the pricier Porsche model might well be upset, but if they plan to keep the car for 10 years it makes little difference.

 

I am not suggesting either that Leica has an obligation to "prop" up the price for "value retention"; rather, I am suggesting that Leica should not undercut market value without some adjustment for those who had purchased at launch price. 

 

Just my thoughts on this. Others may well feel differently, and I respect that.

[LD_50]

Automakers introduce new models every year. When they do, they lower the cost on the previous models.

 

Leica doesn't introduce a new model every year so it's not a good comparison. Sony is closer to the automaker plan.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the Leica forum might be the only place that people get upset if cameras become more affordable. 

[Jeff S]

At least two reputable US dealers have been selling, for months now, the SL + 24-90 combination for roughly $1500 less than retail. The announced SL discount is not terribly surprising to me.

 

On the other hand, the S007 $2000 price increase was very surprising.

 

Jeff

[steppenw0lf]

Computers go down in price - so what ?     Good for late comers.   (Oh btw. cameras are computers).

But now I REALLY wish to get a nice compact professional robust quiet SL with quick AF. So I want finally the Summicrons  (75, 90, 35) and hope soon for the next few announcements (a more detailed roadmap) - like Summicrons for 28, 24 and 135 mm. And maybe 50/100 (with macro).

With that I had a perfect compact SL with the best possible optics (Otus level with AF) and would not worry about Sony at all.

And I think this camera would be very attractive for many photographers (whatever Sony offers).

With native Leica primes I am simply not interested anymore in adapting lenses or ever switching to another camera.

 

A few more compact primes will make the SL much more flexible (and nicer looking speak attractive) together with the 24-90.

 

 

To avoid misunderstandings - I do not want a new SL (with IBIS or whatever) now. I expect that in 12-18 months earliest (at least 3 years after the first announcement, maybe 3-4). But I want the compact Summicron lenses now, because they will give me a much more flexible SL camera.   (Tracking AF which has been much improved with the latest firmware, optical quality of the finest to be used from wide-open. Much more compact and in certain situations more useful than the excellent zooms.)

Whatever others tell you - remember the SL body is compact and with these new primes it will be a slim small camera combo. For me the perfect size - much better than other brands with bodies so small that it is a nuisance.

 

Have a look at Instagram of Steffen.Skopp (I think a picture was shown last december) to see what a nice combo this will be.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNgkGPhhfkE/

btw the three new Summicrons are identical in size. Maybe also the others (if you look at the icons in the roadmap).

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 

On the other hand, the S007 $2000 price increase was very surprising.

 

Jeff

Just goes to show that the S008 is imminent

 

Neil

[steppenw0lf]

Leica has a right to do whatever they choose to sell cameras. The issue I raise is because their decision has an impact on resale value whether they should try to redress the fairness aspect.

 

It would seem to me that the SL 601 is an asset which will depreciate significantly over time. For those who make their living from photography it is certainly a tool of necessity with a limited lifespan, and hence market value at a given time may be inconsequential. Nonetheless, when the price drop comes 1.5 years after the product comes on the market it takes on a different effect, as compared to a price drop at the end of its production cycle (3-4 years?).  No different than if Porsche dropped prices by 15% on the launch of a new model 1.5 years later. Consumers of the pricier Porsche model might well be upset, but if they plan to keep the car for 10 years it makes little difference.

 

I am not suggesting either that Leica has an obligation to "prop" up the price for "value retention"; rather, I am suggesting that Leica should not undercut market value without some adjustment for those who had purchased at launch price. 

 

Just my thoughts on this. Others may well feel differently, and I respect that.

 

With a car you would loose up to 20% the first day you take it out of the garage (and it gets a bit of dust or rain). (Well actually as soon as you got a legal license for it.) So this price reduction is not comparable at all.

I hope you have learned your lesson and collect from now on different things than electronic cameras (= computers).    

 

Obviously some (many?) here do not need to make a living. Should Leica make their prices according to this ?

A few years ago the Euro lost a lot of value compared to other currencies. I am quite sure that millions of people (maybe you as well) took advantage of that by paying and buying in foreign currencies. This is obviously common practice and probably one of the reasons why currently Germany/Europe is exporting so well.  There are always "distortions" of this type.... the bankers live on that.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

With a car you would loose up to 20% the first day you take it out of the garage (and it gets a bit of dust or rain). (Well actually as soon as you got a legal license for it.) So this price reduction is not comparable at all.

I hope you have learned your lesson and collect from now on different things than electronic cameras (= computers).    

Stephen

I'm with you mate..................every camera I have ever bought has been for fun, not as an investment. Weather it costs $500 bucks or $20,000 bucks, as long as I have had that much fun with it that's all that matters to me. The only real investments I have is my wife :)

 

Neil

[ropo54]

I think the Leica forum might be the only place that people get upset if cameras become more affordable. 

 

 

I suppose the converse then is true as well:  I find it amusing that you would be upset were Leica to offer a small credit to exiting owners of the SL towards the purchase of some of their new SL lenses!  

 

Some good points made by those who have make the comparison to consumer electronics. 

 

In the end, though, the issue for me boils down to when in the product cycle the new price adjustment is made.  Most here agree that recent purchasers are entitled to a price adjustment, notwithstanding Leica's "right" to determine pricing, or the notion of immediate depreciation when one walks off the lot with a new car.  

 

(As for the Euro decline, I really have never understood how pegging the value of one currency to another ever sorts out, but as a U.S. citizen I am certainly going to enjoy the USD's buying power this summer when I travel to Switzerland and Germany.  After all, I have been taking a 'beating' on the currency exchange rates for the last 10 years or so!)

 

So, it seems that the consensus opinion is where does one draw the line on accommodating those who may have purchased at full price. 

[ropo54]

Stephen

I'm with you mate..................every camera I have ever bought has been for fun, not as an investment. Weather it costs $500 bucks or $20,000 bucks, as long as I have had that much fun with it that's all that matters to me. The only real investments I have is my wife :)

 

Neil

 

You are wise to consider your wife an appreciating asset!

[almoore]

I find it amusing that you would be upset were Leica to offer a small credit to exiting owners of the SL towards the purchase of some of their new SL lenses!  

 

I've no idea where you've got that notion from. If Leica gave a credit to very recent buyers it would be a nice gesture. But, ultimately, nobody was forced to buy an SL at the original price. If the price to performance ratio worked for you last month then it should work just as well today. Your camera isn't diminished because somebody else paid a bit less.

 

A reduction in price should be a welcome thing. 

[profus]

The price reduction should by definition be something positive, at least for buyers. But nevertheless, in this situation, I am not happy about it and actually think is a bad move by Leica. 

 

Leica usually doesn't do this. At least here in DK and most of the Europe that wasn't previously the case. What signal do they send by doing it? If they release SL2 tomorrow - would you buy it right away or would you wait a bit, knowing it might be significantly cheaper just a year or so later? Sure some (especially pros) would buy it if they feel they need it, but I am not in such a hurry - I would gladly wait a bit to get it ca.1000€ cheaper. And I feel I am not alone...

It might be just me - but you shouldn't sell a luxury product to a premium price tag and then reduce the price (relatively) shortly after release. You're basically showing no respect for your customers.

Resale value is much lower now, so a number of existing customers might just think twice if they want to upgrade to a new model in the future...

Leica premium prices should not be modified or reduced, that should be (and used to be) a part of a game. 

Remember when they released M240 they literally "invented" M-E and just removed few minor things compared to M9 to be able to lower the price - they didn't want to sell original M9 cheaper out of respect for existing customers...

So I am definitely disappointed

[meerec]

.... has been for fun, not as an investment ... as long as I have had that much fun with it that's all that matters to me. The only real investments I have is my wife :)

 

Neil

Does this imply no fun, Neil?

LOL

[profus]

. If the price to performance ratio worked for you last month then it should work just as well today. Your camera isn't diminished because somebody else paid a bit less.

 

Really? Let's say I found out I preferred M10 anyway and wanted to sell my SL to fund the purchase of it. I wouldn't say I would be in the same situation today like I was yesterday...

 

Keeping my SL for the next 5-10 years - yeah, in that case, it is not big deal...

 

One thing is for sure now. After this, I am not ever going to buy a new Leica camera in the beginning of its lifespan. Would rather wait to see it cheaper after a while. I assume not a behavior Leica really want to see from their customers...

[wattsy]

It might be just me - but you shouldn't sell a luxury product to a premium price tag and then reduce the price (relatively) shortly after release. You're basically showing no respect for your customers.

 

 

If Leica has made a mistake it is in positioning itself as part of the "luxury product" market (and all that goes with that territory) rather than as a manufacturer of high quality photographic equipment. If it was still firmly perceived in the latter way I doubt too many people would be complaining about price reductions.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[almoore]

you shouldn't sell a luxury product to a premium price tag and then reduce the price (relatively) shortly after release. You're basically showing no respect for your customers...

I suspect there's a straightforward divide: those who primarily view Leicas as cameras are pleased to see them come down in price, whereas those who view them as investments/luxury goods are disappointed.