Jump to content

Price Increase


Recommended Posts

Yeah, saw this. Made me slap my head. Rather disingenuous raising the price of a three year old camera. Particularly so with a new RX looming. The M10 has risen over 10% since its introduction only a little over a year ago. But the most utterly inane jump of all is the rise in M240 (and MM2) pricing.  Who in their right mind is going to pay $7K for a camera introduced 6 years ago? Perhaps the rise in optic prices is justified, but the increases in pricing related to digital camera bodies seems a move in the wrong direction and frankly makes me concerned for the continued health of the company.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, saw this. Made me slap my head. Rather disingenuous raising the price of a three year old camera. Particularly so with a new RX looming. The M10 has risen over 10% since its introduction only a little over a year ago. But the most utterly inane jump of all is the rise in M240 (and MM2) pricing.  Who in their right mind is going to pay $7K for a camera introduced 6 years ago? Perhaps the rise in optic prices is justified, but the increases in pricing related to digital camera bodies seems a move in the wrong direction and frankly makes me concerned for the continued health of the company.    

I agree that some of these increases make no sense, if the increases are actually going to the company. But there is speculation that it is part of a currency adjustment, as the USD weakens. But, as you say, who would buy a new 240 at an even higher price?

 

Everything I've read suggests that Leica is making terrific profits and is quite healthy economically. Infiniumguy recently posted a link to a terrific interview with Andreas Kaufmann, who seemed quite pleased with the direction and success of his company.

here: https://luminous-landscape.com/the-leica-story-dr-andreas-kaufmann-interview/

 

He also said to look for an announcement on June 14th about the L mount specifically, but he seemed to suggest there may be news on other things as well.

Edited by bags27
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a new Leica Q owner, and yes, the release of new firmware - besides adding functionality and correcting some things - would also speak to the longevity of this model. I was actually thinking about returning my Q and getting an M10 from the store. No longer. With these increases, an M10 and 28mm 1.4 is $13,890, vs $4,495 for the Q.

 

It had been a while since I shot with a Leica (this would be an M6 and film) but I didn't remember the experience being THAT much better than, say my Nikon D5 and 28mm 1.4E (a combined $8,494 -  so I could get the Nikon and the Q for less!!!) Based upon my experience with both (borrowing the Leica and owning the Nikons) the image quality and flexibility with the Nikon is much better. Sorry, but true. Of course there is the Leica mystique, which it seems is what Leica is banking on. They are becoming the designer handbags of the camera world.

 

The Q is really a fine camera and I think most owners feel a bit of bemusement and secret satisfaction with it. A sensible, good performing, auto focus, "reasonably priced" camera from Leica? Take it and run!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if you wanted to swap your Q for the M10 before the end of April, you could "lock in" the current price.  :)

 

In the interview with Kaufmann that I posted above, he talks about the very high price of his cameras. I forgot exactly the measure, but it was something like this: they used to peg the price to 2x the average monthly salary of a German worker, but can't do that anymore. Or something like that....

 

let's face it: Sony, with its advanced and very deep digital research capabilities and now with its Zeiss lenses, is dominating the prosumer camera market, now forcing Nikon and Canon to go mirrorless. I think Canon has deep enough pockets, but there've been rumors (FWIW) about Nikon's financial stress. Leica simply has to create its own luxury niche since it can't possibly compete on price or technology. What it has, besides exclusivity, is its historical ability to reduce photography to its simplest elements--even if digital simple is lightyears more complex than film simple. (Sorry for all the puns.) That's part of the pleasure I derive from my Q compared to previous digital experience: the sense that there was a greater, more thoughtful intelligence about picture taking in creating the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with your comments, but permit me to add my own, if somewhat one-sided, perspective:

 

  • I would never own a Sony camera (well I did buy an RX100 for my wife some time ago, which she has forsaken for the iPhone - tell you something?) The Sony is too much like a computer with a lens in front. Its images support that.
  • I do not enjoy shooting with an EVF or from a rear screen. The Nikon pro cameras viewfinder is my nirvana, followed by the Leica rangefinder. I make an exception for the Q.
  • Simple (or fundamenta) is preferred, but enhancements such as auto ISO are very helpful as long as they stay out of the way.
  • Does anyone really know what is driving the success of mirrorless cameras? Is is weight/size? Is it benefits of EVF? Or is it the fact that Sony has pushed that format for its high end sensors? The Nikon DF is, I believe, the smallest full frame DSLR. Seems to me someone could market a small format DSLR with a full frame sensor, focus peaking, etc on the rear screen, and the ability to use current lenses. The D500 with full frame and some enhancements, for example. My point is that there is room for improvement with DSLR cameras in the size department, if that is a driving issue.
  • Camera manufacturers have to look further ahead. You push the consumer to mirrorless cameras, you are opening the door to smart phones, which are narrowing the gap in performance and features. Nikon and Canon should realize they are not competing with Sony. Sony has passed them by. They are/will be competing with Apple, Samsung, and Huawei. (It is far easier for a phone company to get into cameras than for a camera company to get into phones.) Nikon and Canon should be more like Leica in one way: they should be looking at net profits not gross sales.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the above. I agree. I ALMOST bought the Sony AR7iii with Zeiss Loxia lenses but decided on the Q because I just couldn't see myself enjoying the Sony. And I don't regret my decision for a pico-second.

 

Another advantage with mirrorless (besides weight and the EVF--increasingly important in the world of older eyes, which have the most disposable income) is that they make it far easier to use lenses with other mounts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

These price increases, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin for me upgrading anything Leica. That is fine as happy with my Q, T, and M246 and the older lenses which I prefer. No need to replace. Only system investing in the future is Hasselblad. Their prices went down.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I ALMOST bought the Sony AR7iii with Zeiss Loxia lenses but decided on the Q because I just couldn't see myself enjoying the Sony. And I don't regret my decision for a pico-second.

 

 

Agreed 100%. I considered the same Sony camera and also with Loxia primes and came to exact same conclusion that I could not really see myself enjoying using that camera (regardless of whether the IQ would be amazing it would still similar to DSL for the most part - with just as many, but smaller buttons). To be completely honest, when I was reading the Q reviews, even though most tried to point this out, I was still doubting that it was going to feel that much better than Sony (I figured the Leica cool-aid had to be oversold, at least to some degree). But after I finally had the chance to touch and handle the Q in store I was immediately sold. And by the way, the IQ is at least as good as if not better than that Sony/Zeiss combo (Sony may have a better sensor but I have never seen better 28 prime images than what's coming out of Q which is probably due to that incredible lens).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like preaching to the choir!

 

I will say, however, that the new Nikon 28mm 1.4E on my D5 is no slouch, either. But, in situations where I will be taking both cameras on a shoot, I will leave that Nikon lens at home and add another, probably the 14-24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another thought.

 

It seems to me there is no technical reason why you could not build a viewfinder with the benefits of both DSLR and EVF. By that I mean a DSLR with more info projected in the viewfinder (you could turn it on or off.) thus you could see the actual subject through the lens as well as a histogram, focus peaking, etc. as long as you are doing it, add magnification for those aging eyeballs.

 

Instead of trying to cram a zillion pixels into an EVF, superimpose a few on top of a real live natural image...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Does anyone really know what is driving the success of mirrorless cameras? Is is weight/size? Is it benefits of EVF? Or is it the fact that Sony has pushed that format for its high end sensors? The Nikon DF is, I believe, the smallest full frame DSLR. Seems to me someone could market a small format DSLR with a full frame sensor, focus peaking, etc on the rear screen, and the ability to use current lenses. The D500 with full frame and some enhancements, for example. My point is that there is room for improvement with DSLR cameras in the size department, if that is a driving issue.

 

 

While all that is in play, I'd argue its mainly all about WYSISYG. Pre-shot feedback on the effect on exposure of EV, DoF or M mode adjustments, etc. provides instant gratification and acts as an excellent teaching tool for learning how to manipulate parameters to achieve a particular effect.  I suspect that this capability creates an aha moment in quite a few people resulting in them adopting a deeper interest in photography.  For a generation raised on cell phone photography, viewing a scene via an electronic image is not as alien as it might be for those of us who grew up shooting Tri-X.  What I find more surprising in all of this is just how long its taken Canon and Nikon to respond in a serious way.  The handwriting truly has been on the wall for quite some time now.  Even Hasselblad got the memo. 

 

SLRs largely killed off TLRs and RFs  as a result of the power gained from seeing the scene just as the lens does. Mirrorless takes the notion a step further so that one sees what the 'film' sees. Many will bemoan the loss of OVFs, but in the end, mirrorless will do to the SLR what it did to its predecessors, increasingly moving that market to more and more resemble Leica's, a niche for cranky old farts like me and young hipsters who prefer vinyl.   Electronics eliminate the complex and somewhat delicate mechanisms involved, the cameras can be of higher spec, yet  be more easily and cheaply produced as well as smaller and lighter to boot.  In every quarter of modern manufacturing, there are very strong set of economic incentives for converting mechanical systems to electronic ones, for better or for worse. I can not longer tell what the heck my car thinks its doing, but OTOH, I haven't flushed a public toilet in years. So it goes. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another thought.

 

It seems to me there is no technical reason why you could not build a viewfinder with the benefits of both DSLR and EVF. By that I mean a DSLR with more info projected in the viewfinder (you could turn it on or off.) thus you could see the actual subject through the lens as well as a histogram, focus peaking, etc. as long as you are doing it, add magnification for those aging eyeballs.

 

Instead of trying to cram a zillion pixels into an EVF, superimpose a few on top of a real live natural image...

 

This is more or less what you find in Fuji compacts

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While all that is in play, I'd argue its mainly all about WYSISYG. Pre-shot feedback on the effect on exposure of EV, DoF or M mode adjustments, etc. provides instant gratification and acts as an excellent teaching tool for learning how to manipulate parameters to achieve a particular effect.  I suspect that this capability creates an aha moment in quite a few people resulting in them adopting a deeper interest in photography.  For a generation raised on cell phone photography, viewing a scene via an electronic image is not as alien as it might be for those of us who grew up shooting Tri-X.  What I find more surprising in all of this is just how long its taken Canon and Nikon to respond in a serious way.  The handwriting truly has been on the wall for quite some time now.  Even Hasselblad got the memo. 

 

 

 

Hmm. do you really think that EVFs provide pre-shot feedback? Certainly, if I move the camera to extreme opposites, ie shade and sun, the viewfinder will lighten and dim accordingly. But I have no expectation whatsoever that this is a WYSIWYG image. I may be looking through an EVF, but my brain is processing in analog - and I'll bet your is too...

 

To me, and I have gone on record here about my dislike of EVF, the view through a DSLR is directly linked to the "image" of the scene in my mind. I disregard the rear screen entirely, save for the histogram/blinkies because I know it is based upon a jpeg, and, of course, it is a digital image. When I see the image on my Mac, in Camera Raw, it is, to my mind, one step removed from the real thing. The image I see through an EVF is only a depiction. You think my changes to exposure, etc are then accurately depicted in the EVF? Not my experience, but then again, I am skeptical...

Edited by designdog
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer EVF because it can be bright (helps my aging eyes), and I don't expect/care to assume what the image will look like based on either EVF or OVF anyhow (I thrust the camera meter to do it's job, and since I shoot raw I can make adjustments in postprocessing).

The only things I want to see in either EVF or OVF is image composition, plus exposure info and the confirmation that focus is where I want it (regardless of AF or manual). Because of this I actually wish there was an option to have larger fonts for exposure info (ii.e. I don't care if that means it would cover larger part of the edgo of the image in EVF).

Edited by tgdinamo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really know what is driving the success of mirrorless cameras? Is is weight/size? Is it benefits of EVF? 

 

 

Very simple for me:  with the Q I see the results of exposure compensation and aperture change instantly.

 

I also appreciate the 35mm&50mm frame lines for composing.  People pictures demand 50mm perspective, so choose the frame line and use your feet to compose the portrait.  

Done with care, the 50mm perspective renders about 8 meg which can be printed to 13"x19" on a Canon Pro-100 printer.

 

Give me a Q with the "L" mount rather than the bigger SL -- I would love to have some M glass in addition to the Summilux 28/1.7 in "L" mount. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These price increases, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin for me upgrading anything Leica. That is fine as happy with my Q, T, and M246 and the older lenses which I prefer. No need to replace. Only system investing in the future is Hasselblad. Their prices went down.......

 

I agree on the Hassy front.  The Leica prices are keeping me from embracing a system I have been shooting for decades.  Hasselblad on the other hand seems to have finally gotten over their funkiness and are releasing great gear that trounces value for the buck vs. the red dot.  And don't get me wrong, I am a total Leica addicted nut-job, and will use my stuff until it burns out and dies - then maybe a switch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought my Leica Q on the day of it's release when it was an affordable  :lol: £2899 (or something near that) and I believe it to be the best digital camera Leica have made and I love it. That said it can't of course compete with my SonyA7rIII when it comes to versatility (all my other Leica gear has gone and I am now dedicated to the Sony A7 series system and lenses) and while the EVF on the Q was a lot better than the one on the A7rII the one on the mkIII is a vast improvement and equals if not betters the Sony. If I didn't already own the camera I have to say that the current price is extremely high and increase it further on 3 year old camera is even more painful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that’s pretty much exactly what a mirrorless does now I would have thought?

 

 

 

 

Here is another thought.

 

It seems to me there is no technical reason why you could not build a viewfinder with the benefits of both DSLR and EVF. By that I mean a DSLR with more info projected in the viewfinder (you could turn it on or off.) thus you could see the actual subject through the lens as well as a histogram, focus peaking, etc. as long as you are doing it, add magnification for those aging eyeballs.

 

Instead of trying to cram a zillion pixels into an EVF, superimpose a few on top of a real live natural image...

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...