EXPANDING THE LEICA MARKET: Leica Pricing, Markets Addressed, Economics of New & Used

[Gibbo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have we trashed this thread yet by the way??? 😂😜

[250swb]

48 minutes ago, Gibbo said:

It leaves sticky deposits on things if you leave it on too long. 

Sticky deposits are, ......well they are.

[Ouroboros]

On 10/2/2020 at 4:08 PM, jaapv said:

Useless I agree 🙄.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/102495-masai-mara/?tab=comments#comment-1101929

 

Not totally useless.

It did get 1 'like'. 

[masjah]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

What's wrong with gaffer tape?

Utterly impractical if (like myself) you sometimes want to use R lenses with the EVF and sometimes not. In this case functionality follows the least naff option.

 

[earleygallery]

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is. Is it just a demand for lower prices? If so you should write directly to Leica, but my guess is that they are happy to charge what they charge for their products. Maybe they're scratching their heads wondering how to sell more cameras and your letter will be a massive help to them, you can email them you don't have to post it.

When they do bring cheaper products to market, i.e. the Summarit lenses, they get seen as being inferior and don't actually sell that well compared to the 'real' Leica gear. I remember reading claims that they were plastic lenses from some people!

I'm a Leica fan but I use film Leica's. I can't afford a new digital M or new M lenses and am happy to use other brands for digital work. I can still use my Leica R lenses on a digital Canon body.

If Leica don't make stuff that appeals to you, or make stuff that you like but you can't afford, just choose something else.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by earleygallery

[masjah]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is. Is it just a demand for lower prices? If so you should write directly to Leica, but my guess is that they are happy to charge what they charge for their products. Maybe they're scratching their heads wondering how to sell more cameras and your letter will be a massive help to them, you can email them you don't have to post it.

When they do bring cheaper products to market, i.e. the Summarit lenses, they get seen as being inferior and don't actually sell that well compared to the 'real' Leica gear. I remember reading claims that they were plastic lenses from some people!

I'm a Leica fan but I use film Leica's. I can't afford a new digital M or new M lenses and am happy to use other brands for digital work. I can still use my Leica R lenses on a digital Canon body.

If Leica don't make stuff that appeals to you, or make stuff that you like but you can't afford, just choose something else.

 

And funnily enough, the Summarit lenses are made every bit as well as their more expensive counterparts. I've got a Summarit M 35/2.4 and it's  a lovely, beautifully constructed lens. The economies come from more streamlined production methods, and the design savings arising from a slightly more modest maximum aperture. If people want to be snotty about them, and claim that they are not "real" Leica lenses, well, that's their loss.

PS: If I wished, I could well have afforded the odd few hundred extra quid and got a 35/2 instead - it's simply a question of what met my needs.

Edited October 5, 2020 by masjah

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, masjah said:

Utterly impractical if (like myself) you sometimes want to use R lenses with the EVF and sometimes not. In this case functionality follows the least naff option.

Somewhere I have a roll of 'non-residue' black tape designed to be used where needed but to remove without any problems. At times its quite handy. That said I don't see the M type camera as a platform for non-M lenses personally so its not a bother to me at all.

Used digital M prices can be quite low if you are prepared to wait and buy cameras which are not pristine. I've been offered working and quite clean M9s for as low as £950 which is as affordable as many cameras are today.

[masjah]

58 minutes ago, pgk said:

Somewhere I have a roll of 'non-residue' black tape designed to be used where needed but to remove without any problems. At times its quite handy. That said I don't see the M type camera as a platform for non-M lenses personally so its not a bother to me at all.

Used digital M prices can be quite low if you are prepared to wait and buy cameras which are not pristine. I've been offered working and quite clean M9s for as low as £950 which is as affordable as many cameras are today.

Point taken, but at the time my M240 was my only digital R lens solution, so I did actually need the proper Leica cover. Since then, I've got an SL2, so my M240 is now used with my 35/2 Summarit M purely as an M camera. Touch wood, forewarned is forearmed and I haven't lost the cover again! I'll keep the R-M adapter plus EVF2 as a back-up in case my SL2 should ever cast a shoe.

I agree entirely about digital M camera prices, and to me they represent a very cost effective introduction to digital M photography. Of course, the cost of s/h M lenses is significant, but they retain their value very well. Even my R lenses are worth significantly more than I paid for them, so it's not the end of the world if someone needs to dig into their piggy-bank to acquire them.

 

[carbon_dragon]

I think the OP was contending that Leica prices are high enough to make them a sort of niche market for a dedicated following, a market that doesn't exist on the local level mostly due to price and the viability of a local store to sell a product with so few sales (even if they are for a lot of money). Of course camera stores are almost non-existing now anyway.  And that if the price was lower, then the used prices would be lower too and they would compete favorably against some asian competitors.

I was contending that given the phase change we had been slowly going through (internal components with a more limited life span than in previous generations of Leica) that the whole economic theory of buying a Leica based on longer term use was not really viable anymore. You could still buy them, but because they can't be "counted on" to last longer than 10 years, fewer potential buyers will be able to justify the rising prices financially. That isn't the same thing exactly that the OP was contending. 

One poster compared the idea of buying a Leica to buying a business jet on the theory presumably that a Leica is as great a luxury product as a business jet would be and just as exclusive. That seems a better comparison to Rolex than Leica. I don't think Leica is quite there yet and I hope they don't get there.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, carbon_dragon said:

..... they can't be "counted on" to last longer than 10 years, fewer potential buyers will be able to justify the rising prices financially.

Interesting. When I buy equipment I tend to see it as a 10 year investment (although I prefer it to last much longer). If it is still going strong and worth money after 10 years then I'm more than happy. So far my Leicas have more than filled my requirements of them as they have lasted a long time and are still worth considerably more than other contemporary, equivalently priced cameras. Competing is about far more than matching specification.

[carbon_dragon]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

Interesting. When I buy equipment I tend to see it as a 10 year investment (although I prefer it to last much longer). If it is still going strong and worth money after 10 years then I'm more than happy. So far my Leicas have more than filled my requirements of them as they have lasted a long time and are still worth considerably more than other contemporary, equivalently priced cameras. Competing is about far more than matching specification.

That is perfectly reasonable in the modern world of photography. The question is whether it makes sense for Leica cameras for enough buyers. Plus no-one has suggested that Leicas don't do a great job of photography (when not on a performance/cost basis). And how long your (and my) M8 and M9 have lasted isn't really the issue since that is down to MTBF of various electronic parts. And the reason it even occurred to a lot of Leica buyers was the M9 debacle. When I had to pay another $1000 (and felt lucky to do so given the situation now), we were all reminded of what we should have always known -- Leicas aren't forever. The film Leicas almost WERE forever (though the M5/M6/M7s still had meters which had potential to break). But is there a M1-4 that can't still be fixed? Is there a Leica III that can't? 

Certainly if you have a Canon 7, Canon doesn't guarantee anything as far as repairs or parts. But only now are some cameras with first generation electronics and early digitals having repair issues. And most old digitals are irrelevant anyway. Is there any point in repairing my old Konica Minolta 5D digital camera? NO. There is only a marginal reason to try to repair my Canon 5D (if it needed it). But leica M digitals -- assuming they're still working, the M8 still takes pretty good pictures and it's my digital IR camera even today.

If there are still people who are willing to pay $20,000 ($10000 over list price) for a 2020 Rolex Submariner dive watch, the Leica M10 seems like a bargain. Economics vary wildly between different people, and a company's business model also varies wildly. The Rolex steel sports watches depend on a small but dedicated market of repeat buyers who are extremely wealthy. It might work for them but I'm not eager for this to be said about Leica (hopefully this won't happen).

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

The film Leicas almost WERE forever (though the M5/M6/M7s still had meters which had potential to break). But is there a M1-4 that can't still be fixed? Is there a Leica III that can't? 

There are two reasons for repairing a camera. Firstly, because you want to get a camera working again and will pay to have a specific camera repaired regardless of cost. Secondly, because it is economically viable to do so. Leica film cameras can be expensive to repair. Some people consider a full service and/or costly repair worthwhile because a particular camera is of value to them. But there was a time not all that long ago when I talked to a dealer who would not take in earlier M film cameras because their value was insufficient to make servicing or significant repair viable. They have since increased in value so are probably profitable enough to factor in repairs again.

[earleygallery]

22 hours ago, masjah said:

And funnily enough, the Summarit lenses are made every bit as well as their more expensive counterparts.

Indeed and that was what I was getting at, but some 'see' them as inferior because they cost less.

I wonder. Leica do seem to have moved more 'upmarket' as a luxury brand in recent years (the forays into high end watches being another indicator of this) and - for some - buying a Leica would seem to be something to brag about, flash about, the well heeled hipster sorts. Why would anyone buy the 'cheap' model in the range if that's what they want a Leica for?!

I'm not sure there's many of us that really want less expensive Leica's!

[Jeff S]

Leica probably would have doubled Summarit M lens sales if they had doubled the price, packaged and marketed accordingly. The 35 Summarits flare less than the 35 Summicron ASPH (that I own) and exhibit less focus shift, with superb IQ. Instead Leica discontinued the whole line.  Shame. My guess is that the Summarits will be highly sought after in the used market down the line, and prices finally will double. 
 

Jeff

Edited October 6, 2020 by Jeff S

[Tom1234]

On 10/5/2020 at 6:45 PM, masjah said:

…Summarit lenses are made every bit as well as their more expensive counterparts. I've got a Summarit M 35/2.4 and it's a lovely, beautifully constructed lens. The economies come from more streamlined production methods, and the design savings arising from a slightly more modest maximum aperture. If people want to be snotty about them, and claim that they are not "real" Leica lenses, well, that's their loss.

CARRYING WEIGHT:

Lower price, does NOT mean lower quality, especially for Leica Summarit.

There is good reason for that F2.4 (which slightly beats F2.8), the reason is the lighter weight, and technical reports show the Summarit to be of highest quality (see Summarit brochure & MTF chart attached below) and sources outside Leica say the same.  

Within the professional Cinema industry loosing some of the maximum f-stop is considered an intelligent tradeoff to get lighter weight - it is NOT done to cheapen the quality of the lens.  Leica's attitude is no doubt the same.  With the modern high light sensitivity sensors giving 6,400 ISO & better, the Summarits might make a comeback, if marketed correctly.  

I have the 75mm F1.4 Summilux pre-asp (Second Version 600 gram, 1.3 lb) a heavy lens with smooth-sharpness rendition that is hard to use without a monopod.  The 75mm F2.4 Summarit is much lighter (325 gram, .71 lb) which is two thirds of a pound (.6 lb, 9.6oz, 272g) weight savings for the Summarit, so I almost bought the Summarit for its weight savings.  For comparison: the Leica Cinema lens 75mm F2.0 Summicron weights 2.7 lbs (heavy in still camera terms but not in Cinema camera terms) and is thus meant for tripod use.  Many Cinema lenses weigh over 4 lbs such as zooms.

QUALITY DESIGNATION & MATERIALS: 

Leica M still camera lenses could be termed LIGHT INDUSTRIAL quality which is ABOVE the present day ProSumer quality of most Asian lenses.  "Light" Industrial is NOT an insult, instead it means that the product is made to last (industrial), yet the weight is manageable (light).  The best Asian lenses would also be fairly termed LIGHT INDUSTRIAL such as those made in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's which used metal as produced by Nikon and Tokina (ex-Nikon engineers). It is to the Asian's credit that they can make a ProSumer lens that will last a long time despite the use of plastics. 

I don't know if the Summarit is all metal.  The Leica lens brochure below does not tell us - I searched on "plastic" and got no finds.  Some plastics are called industrial plastics and are very hard and durable so just saying "plastic" is not damning but it is a specification to ALWAYS investigate.  If you decide to produce something in plastic, when you call a plastic sub-contractor or materials provider, they are in part selling their customization abilities - their special mix and forging/casting or machining of the plastic.  For this reason OEM manufacturers using plastics want to hide the identification of their special mix & production method - it is custom and so special they say and thier secret.  But I think manufactures should admit to using not plastics, but "industrial plastics", and let the longevity and durability speak for themselves, while telling the type of plastic to prove its strength to the buyer, yet withhold the final material mix as an industrial secret. 

Cinema lenses such as the Leica and Cooke, might be termed MEDIUM DUTY INDUSTRIAL quality, and they are heavy.  See the prices in light gray below the lens - they are generally about three times the cost of Leica still lenses and two or three times as heavy.  

https://leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-cine-lenses

AS AN ASIDE: If there was such a thing as a lens called HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL quality, it would be very very heavy, only produced for some specific use like military or movie making, and need not a tripod but instead a Cinema dolly to hold and move it (see cinema dolly picture below) - those best cinema dollies weigh over 300 lbs themselves, they call it "carrying weight": http://www.jlfisher.com/dollies/model_11_dolly/index.asp  With a true heavy weight cinema dolly you do not have to worry about the tail (the camera and lens) wagging the dog (the dolly).  With a tripod the camera might overpower the tripod's weight holding ability, but with a heavy dolly, that seldom happens. 

Good day!

FYI : 

Leica data downloads:

https://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=93719&subcategory=&type=&language=all

Angenieux Cinema: https://www.angenieux.com/collections/

And Cooke Cinema lens:  https://www.cookeoptics.com/l/products.html

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Datenblatt_Summarit-M 2.4_75mm_e.pdf Summilux-M 75 mm Technical Data_en.pdf cinema lens Summicron-C 75mm T2.0 - PL Mount.pdf

[Tom1234]

On 10/2/2020 at 2:09 AM, Tom1234 said:

...If they had sold the new M10's around $4,500, about $2,000 above the $2,500 that the Asian cameras sell for, then used the Leica would sell for $2,000 to $3,000 where many could afford them.

Thus a used Leica's price would compete with new Asian camera prices.  This would give Leica a double market to sell to, both new and used, and greater market penetration (more sales), and a reason to expand their repair department which is greatly needed.

ECONOMIC SYSTEM PRICE POINT AND SIZE OF THE MARKET

If you can sell the trade-in camera, then it is normally easier to sell a new camera, is it not?   By hurting the trade-in used market with high priced used cameras, it must be harder to sell new $7,000 cameras. 

Yet another thought on this pricing paradigm… maybe Leica needs to wait until they have a camera with features that compete well verses the Asian offerings.

Eventually this will happen from a feature standpoint, as the sensor's mature and all companies figure out how to produce each feature affordably and dependably, this would be the time to drop price a bit and more directly compete.  

Presently Leica sells off Image Quality, a special subset of features, a historical brand name, and historical lens compatibility. It is hard to believe that any good design department would not want to try one full featured camera, the SL is such an example, yet at a more competitive price.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Tom1234
add another idea

[andybarton]

There's a dead horse on the line...

[jdlaing]

There are no Asian competitors for an M camera. 

[Tom1234]

51 minutes ago, andybarton said:

There's a dead horse on the line...

Ok, I'll bury him.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Archiver]

On 10/2/2020 at 7:18 PM, jaapv said:

Last time I looked a Nikon D6 cost 7200 Euro...

In Australia as of December 2020:

Leica M10-R - $13,480

Leica SL2 - $9800

Leica SL2-S - $7500

Canon 1Dx Mark III - $11,000

Nikon D6 - $9900

Sony A9 II - $6499

Panasonic S1R - $4800

Canon R5 - $6800

Nikon Z7 II - $5400

Let's look at the models, features and relative value. The 1DX III and D6 are high end workhorse professional cameras that are tuned for sports and super long duty cycles, and cost at the top end of their niche. The Sony A9 II is intended to compete with the Canon and Nikon for pro sports and costs $3000-5000 less. The Leica SL2 is positioned at the top of its line, but is around the same price as a Nikon D6 and just over a thousand less than the Canon (not counting lenses, this is important later).

The M10-R costs almost $2500 more than the flagship Canon DSLR, $7000 more than the equivalent Canon mirrorless, and $8000 more than the flagship Nikon mirrorless.

In fact, the flagship Panasonic represents the best value for money if you're not shooting sports. I can pick up a like-new S1R in Australia for $3000. On a scale of value, that's a no-brainer. If covid hadn't hit the business like a freight train ploughing through a kindergarten, I'd be buying a Panasonic S1 or S1R right now.

Resale value and lens costs are another matter. The Leica bodies will hold value better than any of the others, especially the Nikon and Panasonic models, from what I've seen secondhand. Lenses for Canon pro bodies are a fair sight less expensive than their Leica counterparts, if even such counterparts exist. In Australia, the APO Summicron SL lenses cost about $6800 each, whereas the Canon 35mm f1.4 II L costs $3000, and the 50mm f1.2 R costs about $3100. So even if you get a less expensive SL2-S, you're still paying a lot more for equivalent Leica lenses. Heck, the f1.8 S primes from Nikon are wonderful performers and cost half the price of a Canon 35L!

From a purely financial standpoint, it makes better sense to buy Canon, Nikon or even Panasonic. Don't get me wrong, I adore my M9 and M7, but the M9 was AUD $9300 in 2010. I'm not about to shell out $13.5k to upgrade.