gwelland Posted January 4, 2009 Share #61 Posted January 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's not true, Mark. In US and Canada, sales taxes are automatically added to billing by online retailers ... tax rates vary from one state/province to another. All other stuff such as iTunes downloads are taxed with no exceptions. That's not true in the US unless the dealer/company has a presence in the state that the goods are being distributed to. For example, I live in Washington state and if I buy from B&H or any other NY based retailer I DO NOT get charged sales taxes. If I purchase goods or services from a company like Amazon (headquarters in Seattle) or Adobe (San Jose but with offices in WA) or Apple (Cupertino but physical stores countrywide) or other companies that do have presence in WA then I DO get charged sales tax for the goods. Canada may be different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Hi gwelland, Take a look here Leica fire sales coming?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted January 4, 2009 Share #62 Posted January 4, 2009 That's not true in the US unless the dealer/company has a presence in the state that the goods are being distributed to. For example, I live in Washington state and if I buy from B&H or any other NY based retailer I DO NOT get charged sales taxes. If I purchase goods or services from a company like Amazon (headquarters in Seattle) or Adobe (San Jose but with offices in WA) or other companies that do have presence in WA then I DO get charged sales tax for the goods. Canada may be different. You could be right, Graham. I mostly stays in Canada so when I shop across the border, CCRA always add federal/provincial taxes to the bill and I pay state tax when using my address in NYC. When shopping across provinces in Canada, they probably won't add provincial taxes for out-of-province addresses but federal taxes always apply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 4, 2009 Share #63 Posted January 4, 2009 I would like to make a few points. First, the world of digital is a word of fast obsolescence. Working for the Navy I see it constantly. The problem is that parts manufacturers obsolete their inventory in about 6 months. In two years you are lucky if you can find a replacement part. We often have to pay vendors a premium to stock parts inventory based on our projected life cycle so that we can do repairs in the future. For consumer goods this is a more expensive proposition than just replacing an item with the newer item. When a company stocks inventory that is rapidly becoming obsolete it must rapidly depreciate the asset or it has an inflated value asset on its books that it will later dispose of at a loss. The idea of an upgradeable cameras sounds good but unless it was designed from the outset as a modular unit with quick and easy upgrades it is too expensive and not worth doing. I thought I read somewhere that Mr. K had a net worth of over $117M, assuming all of it was liquid I don't think that is enough to keep Leica afloat without a product that will sell in sufficient volume to make a reasonable profit. I see the S2 as an ego move not a sound business strategy. There are plenty of companies already building $20K+ systems and it isn't a large enough market to sustain a company like Leica. As my wife, a fourth grade teacher is likely to say to her students; "you need to change your thinking." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 4, 2009 Share #64 Posted January 4, 2009 Working for the Navy I see it constantly. The problem is that parts manufacturers obsolete their inventory in about 6 months. In two years you are lucky if you can find a replacement part. We often have to pay vendors a premium to stock parts inventory based on our projected life cycle so that we can do repairs in the future. Reminding me of the report that US forces had to buy parts from Chinese junk yard filled with dumps of obsolete electronics from the US, some even said the B2 went down in Guam because of that ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 4, 2009 Share #65 Posted January 4, 2009 We have a whole organization dedicated to locating and stocking obsolete technology. It is called GIDEP. See there web site at GIDEP (Government-Industry Data Exchange Program) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_goode Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share #66 Posted January 4, 2009 I thought I read somewhere that Mr. K had a net worth of over $117M, assuming all of it was liquid I don't think that is enough to keep Leica afloat without a product that will sell in sufficient volume to make a reasonable profit. I see the S2 as an ego move not a sound business strategy. There are plenty of companies already building $20K+ systems and it isn't a large enough market to sustain a company like Leica. As my wife, a fourth grade teacher is likely to say to her students; "you need to change your thinking." John - Leica's corporate performance since Mr. Kaufmann took the reins has been disappointing. Here is the report card: "The annual revenue for its last fiscal year was 150 million euros, or $213 million dollars. Sales for its first fiscal quarter, ended June 30, were 26.999 million euros, less than half of the previous year's first quarter. The company had a loss of 3.85 million euros for FY 2008, ended March 2008. It anticipates a loss approaching 10 million euros for the fiscal year ending March 2009. Mr. Kaufman estimates that sales have to grow by about 66 percent to 250 million euros to finance the R&D spending Leica needs to stay competitive in digital markets." This is excerpted from this blog site (THENUMBERSGURU.COM: Leica Camera - Sales and Profit Fiscal Year 2008) Assuming the Mr. Kaufman's financial assessment is correct, the question is: can Leica generate a 66% increase in sales in FY 2009? I think not. The problem with the M8 is telling. While an earlier poster pointed out that he can rationalize the purchase of his M8 at $4K+ based on saving in film development, the problem Leica faces is the USED M8 market --- if you can purchase a used M8 in excellent condition for $2500, why spend more on a new M8 or M8.2? This becomes a problem for the stocking Leica dealer with an inventory of new M8s and M8.2s, both of which have a cost basis higher than the used price of an excellent quality used M8. I don't know whether the push to develop the S2 was based on ego but I agree that the market is very small and given the current economy, it will be a tough sale. Re those who have asked for hard evidence of downward price pressure in the retail channels, look no further than the recently revised pricing of two of the new lenses announced at Photokina: the 21 and 24mm, f1.4 models. Both were announced in September at prices of $7995. Now, before they even ship, their price has been chopped $2,000. The only reason I can image that Leica has cut the price of the product 25% before shipping is because they don't have sufficient orders from the distribution channels. Can Mr. K continue to finance this strategy? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, I'm looking for some cut rate pricing on Leica products. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 4, 2009 Share #67 Posted January 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Anyone that has ever been involved in a turn-around (and I have) knows that a 66% increase in sales is completely unrealistic for a running company. Take a company with only the S2 and a few new lenses, neither of which are ready to be sold and it truly becomes a mountain. Had they spent the money they spent on the S2 on a true next generation M8 they might have had a better chance; however they have to get their production costs down so they can offer a competitive product. The market seems to be saying that a high end product can initially be priced at around $3K dropping to around $2K toward the time that a replacement should be ready (about 2 years). Look at the D700, Sony A900, 5DMKII, etc. This is the volume price point in the high end market. Sure, if you are Canon or Nikon you can sell some in the $5K to $8K region but there is a lot of resistance as Nikon is seeing with the D3x. They can afford to have lower volume sales in the super high end because they have both the middle and the bottom covered with high volume products. Leica doesn't have that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 4, 2009 Share #68 Posted January 4, 2009 "if you can purchase a used M8 in excellent condition for $2500, why spend more on a new M8 or M8.2?" Warranty? How cheap is the used M8 if you hear: "Sorry, sir. Those green blobs mean a sensor failure. $1500, please for replacement" "Shutter fault message on the screen, sir? That'll be $1,100 for replacement." "Rangefinder back-focusing? $350 for adjustment - sign here". ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Both were announced in September at prices of $7995" - Uh, what? U.S. price for the 21/24 'luxes has never been higher than $6,295 (reduced to $5,995) The number of "facts" stated so far in this thread that are just - FALSE - is setting a new indoor world record. It's hard to surpass "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction"/"We'll be greeted with open arms"/"Misson Accomplished"/"You're doing a heck of job, Brownie"/ for statements bearing no relationship to reality - but the way this thread is going the LUF may just get there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted January 4, 2009 Share #69 Posted January 4, 2009 Leica has no need to bother with 4/3 or micro 4/3 at all ... all they'll need is live view coupled with a high resolution back LCD such as the one on a A900, precise contrast detect focusing with focus confirmation can match if not totally beat an accurate rangefinder mechanism's performance. MFT's 2x cropping factor is a huge waste of Leica optics and should never be considered as an alternative. That'd be great, if they'd do it. But Leica is trapped between traditionalists, who are insisting on a traditional style camera, and modern technology, which is pointing at something radically different than a mechanical rangefinder. Leica is simply afraid to throw the traditionalists overboard, but my feeling is that they could make a very rangefinder-like camera with live-view both in the EVF and on the rear LCD, use M glass with focus confirm, and have a great camera. But Leica, I think, is scared to death of another M5-like experience. New tech might mean survival, but also, it could bring sudden-death, if all the traditionalists refuse to buy. *Not* going with new tech, IMO, means that the death will be slower, but inevitable. If I were Leica, I'd take the chance on survival. OR: The other possibility is to bring out a non-M non-R camera (the B for Barnack?) that uses M lenses and simply call it something else -- in other words, it'd be a modern M in everything but name. That trick might save an M lens system... Back when I purchased my Leica CL from Cal's Camera in Newport Beach, CA they were a huge Leica dealer with a large inventory of both new and used Leicas and lenses. Today, you would be lucky to find a DLUX 4 on the shelf. A year ago Samys in Santa Anna, CA had one whole counter devoted to Leica and a section of shelf, now the Leica counter is virtually gone and only a few Leica film cameras are on the shelf. These are the two big dealers in Southern CA. Newport Beach is a market of well-to-do consumers. If they can't sell there they have a problem. I was in Samys Pasadena this morning, buying a printer; I believe they had two Leicas on a shelf behind the counter, an R and an M, but no other Leica gear. I didn't look closer, because I was on a different mission, but it sure doesn't look like they're pushing Leicas... JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 4, 2009 Share #70 Posted January 4, 2009 "if you can purchase a used M8 in excellent condition for $2500, why spend more on a new M8 or M8.2?" Warranty? How cheap is the used M8 if you hear: "Sorry, sir. Those green blobs mean a sensor failure. $1500, please for replacement" "Shutter fault message on the screen, sir? That'll be $1,100 for replacement." "Rangefinder back-focusing? $350 for adjustment - sign here". ---------------------------------------------------------------- By that reasoning I really do need to sell my M8s and lenses now for as much as I can get for them. I have other digital cameras which are now out of warranty. I dont worry about them because they a) are reliable did not cost so much c) cost of repairs will be much lower than Leica prices. For the price of the M8 and its reliability record they should all come with a longer warranty as standard. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted January 4, 2009 Share #71 Posted January 4, 2009 "if you can purchase a used M8 in excellent condition for $2500, why spend more on a new M8 or M8.2?" Warranty? How cheap is the used M8 if you hear: "Sorry, sir. Those green blobs mean a sensor failure. $1500, please for replacement" "Shutter fault message on the screen, sir? That'll be $1,100 for replacement." "Rangefinder back-focusing? $350 for adjustment - sign here". ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yikes, based on this math folks should be PAYING others to take the M8 off their hands once the warranty is finished. So much for continuing value and life long use bla bla bla. Once again I'll say they need to sell a Digital M camera for $2000 and lenses that people actually want for prices they can actually pay. Otherwise they are toast. One of the interesting things about consumer economics is that this very conversation will drive the price of used Leica's down. The market for these cameras is small enough to be affected dramatically by the actions of small groups. For that matter, what has kept the values of used M8's inflated has been the constant fear of price increases on new products. (Announcing an M9 with better specs would and WILL send the prices of M8's into the tank.) The past three years have been a scheme of sorts that created value in used products by tremendously over valuing new ones. The Noctilux is the best example I can think of. Just jacking up the price on new ones made those selling for under $2k 4 years ago worth 2.5 times that value overnight. The announced price on the new one continues the tradition! Digital cameras aren't lenses however, and unless they are the latest/greatest they are worth little to their audience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 4, 2009 Share #72 Posted January 4, 2009 ...I didn't look closer, because I was on a different mission, but it sure doesn't look like they're pushing Leicas... I think few salesman would try to sell an M8 to a customer unless the customer came in specifically asking to see it. When I was young I sold cameras in my cousin's camera store. We generally didn't push any brands unless a customer had no preference. It was considered a basic sales principle to show the brand or model of a camera that the customer asks about. Perhaps they have a friend who likes that model, or they are responding to ads they have seen. You run the risk of losing the sale if you try to switch brands on them, unless you can present a really good reason. It just gives them something else to think about and a reason to delay their purchase. Plus they can become suspicious that you have ulterior motives. This is one reason why camera stores stock so many different brands. There are exceptions. Sometimes I could identify when a customer was really interested in photography and could explain to them why they would benefit from buying a really top of the line camera. But if someone comes in asking about a Canon 5DII, or a Nikon D700, I don't think many salespeople would want to confuse the issue by trying to sell them on something else. Especially up-sell them to something as expensive as an M8 and lenses. And if they came in looking for a D3X or a 1DsIII they probably know exactly why they want it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 5, 2009 Share #73 Posted January 5, 2009 I listed warranty as a reason to pay more for a new camera - of any brand - over used. Especially when they are digital/electronic as opposed to clockwork. How MUCH more is open to debate, naturally. Rangefinder cameras will always cost somewhat more than SLRs with equivalent "specs" - Always. They will always have a small piece of the market and have higher unit overhead costs, and they will always require more labor to adjust the RF and the lens cams. Doesn't matter if they are made by Canon, Nikon, Epson, Sony or Leica. The M8 was reasonable - for its specs - 2 years ago @ $4,795. Today it is reasonable @ $2,999. The M8.2 would be reasonable at the original M8 price (Just as a Canon 5D Mkii would be reasonable at the original 5D price). A 24x36 M9 would probably be reasonable at the current M8.2 (reduced) price. Having tried the Sony A900, I would caution people against wishing too hard for more pixels - or using them as an argument in establishing value. It is at least a stop noisier than the M8 (!) ISO to ISO in RAW. I'll take 10 Mpixels of pretty damn good over 24 Mpixels of cr*p, regardless of price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted January 5, 2009 Share #74 Posted January 5, 2009 Before I bought my M8 (Febuary 2007) I was shooting 36-exp slide films what cost $10 included development. Since my M8 I have put 13,900 approximate shots, that makes to 386 films of 36-exp I did not buy and develop, for a saving of $3860. Minus from $4900 what I paid for my M8, leaves $1040. So if today I sold my M8 for $2000 I would still be ahead of $960. Even when my M8 will be worth nothing to sell, for as long as it can operate I will continue to save $10 for every 36 shots I am doing. So I do not see what is such the tragedy of the M8 depreciation. Maybe if I kept it mostly on the shelf, then I would also despair. (PS I forgot to add the cost of 4x2GB SD cards and one more battery. Sorry, another $250. Big deal. And I had already a PC and Elements so was no more expense to turn digital.) If I wanted to save money, I would use my wife's Nikon SQ rather than a $5K handicapped M8 that needed filters for every lens i have. I use K64 and there is no way an M8 can approach the quality. The S2 may in fact actually save Leica because a Professional can afford to amortize his equipment and spend big $$'s if the image he is obtaining is truly better than what is available elsewhere. The future for Pro's is in the MX format and certainly not DX or FX except for new/sports. Amateurs simply can't/won't pay these prices for equipment. -Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenf Posted January 5, 2009 Share #75 Posted January 5, 2009 Yeah, companies that are not serious about being a company. So they die, they asked for it. Assuming you're being sarcastic... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 5, 2009 Share #76 Posted January 5, 2009 ...The M8.2 would be reasonable at the original M8 price (Just as a Canon 5D Mkii would be reasonable at the original 5D price). A 24x36 M9 would probably be reasonable at the current M8.2 (reduced) price. So the 5DII is more than reasonable. The 5D had a list price of $3299 three years ago. The 5DII has a list of $2699. Considering that it is 21 vs. 12 MP, has added weather sealing, live view, dust shaker, HD movie mode and some other "improvements," that is pretty good progress. This is typical of the world of electronics. As for extended warranties, I don't generally believe in them. I find I have enough stuff and am better off saving the added cost and paying for the occasional repair. I've had very few things need repair. If a camera is expected to need expensive repairs so often that an extended warranty is important, then there is something wrong. I once bought a flatbed scanner for $19.95 at BestBuy. They tried to sell me an $8.00 warranty on it! That was about 7 years ago and the scanner is still going strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 5, 2009 Share #77 Posted January 5, 2009 As for extended warranties, I don't generally believe in them. I agree with you on that Sometimes the warranty companies go out of business. My friend bought a truck and an extended warranty from a dealership....Several years later, he took the truck in for service that should have been covered by warranty and found out that it was no longer honored because the original company had gone out of business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 5, 2009 Share #78 Posted January 5, 2009 As written in the New Yorker, September, 2007: "To unrepentant aesthetes, on the other hand, there is something demeaning in the idea of Leica. Talent will out, they say, whatever the tools that lie to hand, and in a sense they are right: Woods would destroy us with a single rusty five-iron found at the back of a garage, and Cartier-Bresson could have picked up a Box Brownie and done more with a roll of film—summoning his usual miracles of poise and surprise—than the rest of us would manage with a lifetime of Leicas. Yet the man himself was quite clear on the matter: I have never abandoned the Leica, anything different that I have tried has always brought me back to it. I am not saying this is the case for others. But as far as I am concerned it is the camera. It literally constitutes the optical extension of my eye." To a degree, the internet and digital age is killing this pure mechanical need in Leica. Aside from the optics, this Mechanical Perfection ( MP ) is what Leica is about. As others have mentioned, the cycle of digital can not ever enjoy this kind of lifetime use..not even the M8. In this age, millions of otherwise technically inept image makers have achieved "Look at that bokeh", "What ISO performance!", "Nice Capture" and "Megapixel Nirvana".... All while never coming even remotely close to the purity of true brilliance like Ernst Haas, "Toro, Pamplona, Spain, 1956". What does this all mean? Easy, Leica has been and still is at a distinct disadvantage in the nauseous digital race. Top that off with simply off the charts price increases on their product line and one of the worst luxury goods markets in modern history and you have a bleak proposition, dealer rumors be damned. I bought my M8 for $4,800, sold it late last year for $3,000. The main reason I sold it was the use of IR filters, the other reason was pro support that was seriously lacking for the M8. I was frankly afraid of what it might cost to get it repaired once the warranty was up. So I bailed, bought a second M3, my 4th M body, had it totally buffed out and made smooth as silk for just $125, even got it back in a week. This is a downer thread, but there is so much truth in it....that is why it is troubling. As a professional photographer who has not only used digital for over 14 years, but was involved with some of the R/D use back in the mid 90's, I actually despise what it has done to this craft, especially the perception of what makes a good photograph, but I still use it. Add a gnarly economy to the mix, and things look, well....not so good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 5, 2009 Share #79 Posted January 5, 2009 Like many LUF members I truly appreciate a finely crafted piece of mechanics. That is why I own Swiss mechanical watches even though they will never be as accurate as an electronic one. They represent the fine art of the hand craftsman willing to master his trade. Sadly, mechanical cameras are not likely to enjoy the renaissance that the Swiss watch industry managed after nearing death. If someone could build a high quality precision mechanical camera that used a film like canister that contained all of the electronics and sensors, could be changed as new technologies evolved without changing the mechanical masterpiece we might see such a resurgence. However, it is not likely to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 5, 2009 Share #80 Posted January 5, 2009 Having tried the Sony A900, I would caution people against wishing too hard for more pixels - or using them as an argument in establishing value. It is at least a stop noisier than the M8 (!) ISO to ISO in RAW. I'll take 10 Mpixels of pretty damn good over 24 Mpixels of cr*p, regardless of price. The voice of reason - as usual. I've spent the weekend getting to grips with a Nikon D3x and I'm a bit underwhelmed, actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.