M8 vs DMR pricing

[leicapages]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that the M8 is out and will be offered at around 4200 euro, this begs the question what will happen to the DMR. The DMR, only a back, not a new camera, is offered at around 4800 euro, clearly overpriced compared to the new camera body that the M8 is. Anyone knows what the deal is here? For that money, the DMR should have been a newly designed body, or am I missing something? Can one expect that prices for the DMR will come down to a more realistic price point?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Hope not , I'm selling one:D :D

[ho_co]

I doubt the DMR will be reduced in price.

 

The DMR was a brand new product; Leica has to recoup its entire cost of development in its sales. The M8 is a greatly reworked design, but its costs of development are partially in the previous M bodies and partially in the DMR.

 

Not everyone who is/was shooting R bought a DMR, so the unit doesn't have a particularly large market; my guess is the market for M8 is larger than that for DMR.

 

If sales of DMR dry up, Leica won't produce more, and the used market will keep the price high.

 

My take, just a guess.

 

--HC

[cpclee]

At least here in the US there has been a $1000 rebate on the DMR for some time.

 

(Technically speaking it's not a rebate because you're required to trade in an SLR system. But of course your can buy a random/cheap SLR at $30 and trade that in.)

[rob_x2004]

Is that a thousand on the DMR or a thousand on the DMR/R9 combo? What does it make the DMR?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It's on the combo only

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The DMR was a brand new product; Leica has to recoup its entire cost of development in its sales. The M8 is a greatly reworked design, but its costs of development are partially in the previous M bodies and partially in the DMR.

 

We'll never know of course but I expect they have invested far more in the M8 than they were able to in the DMR. That investment in the design, production engineering and facilities allows the M8 to be less expensive compared to the DMR which, if I recall, is actually made by Imacon with some Leica final assembly/QA involvement.

 

I also expect that a larger proportion of the DMR cost goes in IP licencing compared to the M8. The problems of getting the 1.3 firmware out do not suggest a company in complete control of the IP it needs to support and maintain a product, especially now the relationship with Imacon has soured and Hasselblad/Imacon have their own very different agenda.

 

I'd be surprised if there was much carry-over from with the M7 or the DMR into the M8. Seems to me it's a new camera from the ground up with just a few familiar elements like the M rangefinder to move the process along.

 

It's interesting too that the Kodak sensor with the offset micro-lenses appears to be generally available to anyone who wants it. Canon obtain market advantage by making their own sensors and not selling them as Sony do; Leica may well have had the choice of paying more for the sensor to keep it proprietary or less and allowing it to be made generally available.

 

If I was Zeiss, or CV or Epson, I'd be taking note that the sensor - freely available from Kodak - seems to mostly solve the vignetting problem without the need for the added lens coding with all its complexity and potential patent issues.

[ho_co]

Good insight, Mark!

 

--HC

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I agree and is the main reason the DMR and the M8 are good. These are MF sensors in a smaller form

[ho_co]

These are MF sensors in a smaller form

Guy, that's the perfect description!

 

Just as Leica was able to shrink MF into a small size with Barnack's camera, they've done it again with M8 and DMR.

 

--HC