keithlaban.co.uk Posted July 4, 2017 Share #81 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Price reductions a negative? Â Hell, what next, punters hoping for price increases to protect the resale value of their existing investments? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Hi keithlaban.co.uk, Take a look here SL Price Reduction. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted July 4, 2017 Share #82 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Price reductions a negative? Â Hell, what next, punters hoping for price increases to protect the resale value of their existing investments? its not an investment....... it's a camera for gods sake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted July 4, 2017 Share #83 Â Posted July 4, 2017 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. Not true. I view Leica as ( very expensive though!) camera and not an investment. But with this move they hurt me - my very expensive camera is suddenly not so expensive and it would be much more difficult to me to sell it to buy let's say SL2. If they also would lower the price of SL2, then it would be ok... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #84  Posted July 4, 2017 Nobody is disappointed that the SL is less expensive. No one begrudges a new purchaser for now being able to buy the SL for less money.  To keep conflating those 2 ideas is to miss the point of angst for some.  Rather, one who may have purchased at the original price is disappointed that the price adjustment may impact the market value of one's camera should one wish to dispose of it. Not that it is an investment in the sense that a piece of art may be, but rather many of us have "gas" and try one product or another product at a given time.  One reasonably expects one's camera to become obsolete in time and to lose value, but not prematurely due to the manufacturer's marketing strategy/needs.  Consider this: suppose you chose to buy a Noctilux for $11,000, and then - one year later - Leica started flooding the market and selling them for $8000. Some would say the lens is not an investment, it is going to be used for a long time so it will give one pleasure and therefor he/she will not care. I respect that and it is a valid point.  But, others may say, if Leica is going to change its marketing strategy to boost sales, that they should offer their customers some other incentive for having bought in at the original pricing scale.  Both points are valid.  (And I suspect those who have bought some of Leica's special lenses -which have appreciated - are quite contented that when they decide to move on that they are ahead). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 4, 2017 Share #85 Â Posted July 4, 2017 If they also would lower the price of SL2, then it would be ok... I'm sure they will, around eighteen months after introduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #86 Â Posted July 4, 2017 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... Â Well, you would have been screwed with the M10 where they jacked up the price with $400 while they were still fullfilling the pre-orders... Â Similar things happened for the Summilux-TL 35mm and the Summaron 28mm. Â I feel the SL is the exception rather than the rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #87 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure they will, around eighteen months after introduction. Â Â Or, perhaps if everyone here waits and sales really lag the adjustment may come much sooner! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted July 4, 2017 Share #88 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Not true. I view Leica as ( very expensive though!) camera and not an investment. But with this move they hurt me - my very expensive camera is suddenly not so expensive and it would be much more difficult to me to sell it to buy let's say SL2. If they also would lower the price of SL2, then it would be ok... Â I bought one of my SL's (about three months ago) used, for significantly less than the new reduced price. And it was only 9 weeks old at the time. I think even with the new price I'd get close to what i paid for mine if I had one in the same condition I bought mine in. Â Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted July 4, 2017 Share #89 Â Posted July 4, 2017 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... Â The SL is 18 months into it's lifespan. How long do you intend to wait? Â Me. I'll buy it day 1 if I like what it offers and shoot the sh*t out of it while you wait...... Â Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted July 4, 2017 Share #90  Posted July 4, 2017 its not an investment....... it's a camera for gods sake  Which is why I put investment in italics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted July 4, 2017 Share #91 Â Posted July 4, 2017 My preference that when I come to sell it to upgrade to the SL2, that I lose the least money I can. That is all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #92  Posted July 4, 2017 My preference that when I come to sell it to upgrade to the SL2, that I lose the least money I can. That is all  You have distilled the conversation to its essence! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted July 4, 2017 Share #93  Posted July 4, 2017 The SL is 18 months into it's lifespan. How long do you intend to wait?   Gordon  Again - this was not a case either with M9 or M240. The price for either of them wasn't reduced after 18 months. And we all praised Leica for that policy. Just search this forum... And again, "inventing" M-E to be able to sell it cheaper than M9 was a part of that "respect-for-our-customers" policy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #94 Â Posted July 4, 2017 You're not losing any money if you believed the camera was worth what you paid for it originally. If you're using the camera you're getting what you paid for from Leica. Â 18 months into its lifespan the competition has improved and the camera's market value has declined. This is expected. Â Sure, if you're wanting to sell because you switch cameras frequently or to upgrade, you'd be happy if Leica artificially inflated the used values. That doesn't make it sensible. It certainly isn't Leica's responsibility. I could see them as a measure of good will helping those who purchased very recently (say 30 days or less) but I understand if they do not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #95 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Again - this was not a case either with M9 or M240. The price for either of them wasn't reduced after 18 months. And we all praised Leica for that policy. Just search this forum... And again, "inventing" M-E to be able to sell it cheaper than M9 was a part of that "respect-for-our-customers" policy... I certainly have not praised Leica for any of their pricing strategies. The digital M, S, and SL bodies have been overpriced in my opinion. I'd welcome lower prices across the board if they can maintain profitability and a healthy future roadmap. I feel with the S and SL they are priced high enough to actually hurt their potential sales significantly, but only they would know for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted July 4, 2017 Share #96 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Â 18 months into its lifespan the competition has improved and the camera's market value has declined. This is expected. Â Â Â Yet, never happened before... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #97 Â Posted July 4, 2017 Yet, never happened before... I believe the T was priced higher than the TL that was introduced around 2 years later. The T may have dropped in price also before the TL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted July 4, 2017 Share #98 Â Posted July 4, 2017 the T had reduced by around 400-500 [in some regions] before the TL was out if i remember correctly I believe the T was priced higher than the TL that was introduced around 2 years later. The T may have dropped in price also before the TL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted July 4, 2017 Share #99  Posted July 4, 2017 Aren't we just armchair quarterbacks?....its business.For better or worse this is not the Leica of old and the company has to compete. Today's digital Leica like all cameras and computers, do not have the lifespan of the old products.....when technology was slower.One shouldn't collect the SL like luxury goods ......because they are not, their lifespan is too short I'm not sure where the complaint is? As soon as the the second digital camera was introduced we all got used to giant depreciation....Why is this different?  Also isn't Leica more of a lens company?....I'll bet those don't drop in price anytime soon?  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
proenca Posted July 4, 2017 Share #100  Posted July 4, 2017 Interesting views in this thread.  However, the truth I suspect, is simpler : Leica always have decided to stick with high prices.... on lenses. Or analog cameras. Or in digital cameras where they had niche. They could afford to sitck with their high full frame range finder digital camera prices... since they are they only tha makes them  Digital cameras ( mirrorless ) are a new territory for them and they cannot afford to stick with high prices, specially now the A9 is out which has pretty much what the SL has and then some.  Me ? I had a SL , sold it. Great camera, but it doesnt deliver on the AF lenses front. Superb backup body for my M lenses, but its silly to lug around vs a M camera.  They should speed up the release of SL AF lenses - at this moment, 18 months after release, its looking... silly. Yes you can use your M lenses with a glorious EVF but then again... so you can with a M10 and the new EVF...  Sony A9 is serious competition - same price, more features and DOZENS of good AF lenses. I suspect was because of the A9 that they lowered the price.  I think they "slow and steady" Leica way, is not doing them any favours : the SL, needs new lenses fast. Nobody in Nikon or Canon camp is going to drop 6k for a SL with two zooms. Or start buying M lenses. The only format, which has the best lenses - medium format - again, is not doing any favours the Leica slowness - the S line. Every single medium format user that uses Hasselblad and Phase, lust for S lenses and all of them agree that S lenses are far superior - and do not mind the cost. the S007 is not up to the task and S008 is taking ages... and lots of them are switching to Phase one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.