price of the new S2

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Regarding the business plan of Leica, they want to triple their revenue from a very small base.

 

 

In light of the new prices of the Hassy and Mamiya (with Leaf backs,) what do you think the price should be of the S2 with the 70mm lens?

 

From what I can tell by reading the MF section at Luminous Landscape, the gear is getting more competitive in price. And photgraphers are getting more concerned about price. Plus I don't see that much enthusiasm for or anticipation of the S2.

 

In the commercial world, Hasselblad digital gear is pretty entrenched. Keep in mind that this stuff is often rented along with a technician. People use what they know and what is "industry standard." It is the same reason why in the old days of film, the Rollei 6000 system had a hard time making a dent in that market.

 

I get periodic emails from companies such as Data Wrangler:

 

Home

[Advertisement]

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

[marcusperkins]

I think price will be a major issue for any camera system, not so much because of the recession, although that will of course have an impact for some, but because people are simply getting wise to the outrageous prices being charged for some of this equipment.

 

In reality, something like the S2 should be priced around the £6000 mark, which in realty is still a lot of money for a stills camera. Sure it can supply a better quality of photo over say a 1Ds3 per frame, but its internal operation is no quicker or more advanced, so they are even in that area - although the two-year-old Canon will still be processing more data per second if you keep your finger on the button.

 

I don't see how the Leica can be so much better built than say a Canon or Nikon pro camera, these things are tough. If the Leica is better built, what would be the point.

 

So the whole thing boils down to the sensor, and we all know sensor prices are dropping. The New Sony 35mm is a great camera - well built, tough, great lenses, great technology and with glowing reviews. Some of the studio pictures I've seen are as good as is necessary for most forms of commercial output - and it is relatively cheap to buy, similar to what we used to pay for pro 35mm film cameras. So I'm thinking can the sensor alone in the Leica really cost £8000 and the body another £8000 to justify some of the prices floating around?

 

Another issue is the inherent short life cycle of digital cameras. Leica may well offer an upgrade path like the M8, but it's not really much cheaper than selling and buying new.

 

From a business perspective, it may well pay for itself, but a lot of us are now thinking, can we do without spending so much money and still turn a healthy profit. The answer is probably yes.

 

The reality is a lot of guys I know in the business are beginning to think carefully about what they need over what they want. It's not about whether they have enough money, it's about spending that money wisely. For some it will be on the S2.

 

There is a limit to the amount of quality we need, and we're getting near it now. The limiting factor for a lot of systems is the lenses, but Canon and Nikon are finally cottoning on to that, resulting in the reduced need in many cases of going the MF route.

 

The Leica will undoubtedly be very good, but worryingly there appears to be very little, if any, interest in it beyond the Leica faithful. Why would that be? Perceived cost, or past experience of trying to work professionally with Leica equipment? (The glory days of the M3 used for hard press and adventure work are long gone, and will mean nothing to many photographers working today).

 

Leica's lenses are genuinely some of the best in the world, and I hope they succeed for that reason alone, but their cameras, with the exception of the earlier mechanical Ms, have never been particularly successful. If I were to buy into the S2, it would be on the basis that it must be thoroughly proven in the professional world for a couple years first. I've been badly stung by the M8 fiasco - never again.

[jaapv]

. I've been badly stung by the M8 fiasco - never again.

:confused:The most succesful Leica camera since the M6classic? Strange remark.

 

In reality, something like the S2 should be priced around the £6000 mark

.

i think the word "reality" is not quite the right one in this context. The price will be more like 12.000 GBP.....

[AlanG]

From a business perspective, it may well pay for itself, but a lot of us are now thinking, can we do without spending so much money and still turn a healthy profit. The answer is probably yes.

 

I agree with all that you wrote.

 

Some years ago I was shooting my jobs with a lot of gear. I did tough commercial interior assignments on 4x5 with a lot of strobes and hot lights and two assistants. I had three view cameras, as well as 6x6, 6x9 and 35mm. Plus a color darkroom. I was very equipment heavy.

 

A very good friend of mine was earning a lot more than I earned shooting most jobs on 35mm with existing light and no darkroom. He had higher end jobs and was more efficient. It really made me reconsider some of this. And now I work with just one system.

 

I kept trying to make myself go to MF digital and always came up with, "How will doing that make me more money?" I know that whatever my shortcomings are, they are probably not a result of the lack of some kind of camera gear.

[marcusperkins]

A great quote from a poster in a LL thread about the the price of MF equipment...

 

"I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today - if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 50mp back, they would essentially look the same. . Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios.$30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%."

 

Another good read:

 

Cost of medium format in general - Luminous Landscape Forum

[jaapv]

This camera is clearly not targeted at the average pro earning a decent living with a couple of 5D bodies and a lot of talent. It is meant for photographic operations that write off the cost of a complete S2 system in one shoot.

[marcusperkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap, that's exactly my point - if I shoot a job that pays enough to write off the cost of an S2 system, I, and anybody sensible, is going to try and shoot it without having to spend that kind of money, bearing in mind that those of us capable of shooting that kind of assignment will most likely have the necessary equipment, or have a preferred hire arrangement. I think these guys are the least likely to buy into the S2, at least in the beginning. No way will I attempt an expensive assignment like the one you suggested with unproven equipment.

 

Besides, for that kind of assignment, why restrict yourself to 39MP, when 60MP will surely be better. If not, why not just use a Canon 1Ds3.

 

I'm fortunate to have a healthy business, even in this current climate, but the whole photography thing has become a money pit, when in reality it does not have to be.

 

I want Leica to succeed, we all do here, but I think £12,000 will be too much. This system has to appeal primarily to pros, but unfortunately the majority of these people think Leica is a bit of a joke, and as lovely as the white M8 is, that kind of thing does not help Leica with its professional image.

 

Us guys here are a very small minority of photographers who are passionate about Leica, and want them to do well, but will there be enough of us who can justify the cost, and will the client see the difference? It's doubtful.

 

I firmly believe that if Leica can bring the S2 to market at a very competitive price, and it is reliable, the lenses will make them the money, that's what they do best - no joke.

[marcusperkins]

:confused:The most succesful Leica camera since the M6classic? Strange remark.

 

Professionally speaking, it has not been successful, and that's where I'm coming from. Despite what a lot of people say on these forums, privately I suspect a good percentage have been a little disappointed, particularly in relation to the high cost/performance, but just persevere because it's a Leica (yeah, I'm already ducking the arrows), but for some reason they just cannot bring themselves to say it.

 

My proudest boast whenever I take a great picture would be, "yeah, I took it with my Leica", but I don't get to say that much these days, despite the camera travelling to over 50 countries in the last two years.

 

The idea of using it is all rather romantic, the reality is that it just does not cut it for my kind of work, and obviously for many others too - That's why it has been a flop professionally.

 

If the M8, and the S2 are a great success in the hobby market, (and there are many fantastic photographers out there who do not shoot professionally), I will be thrilled for Leica. But professionally they seem to have been getting it wrong for decades now, when in fact their marketing likes to suggest otherwise.

 

If Leica does get the S2 right, it will be because they are finally listening to people who are sick and tired of modern Leica's expensive but unreliable and poorly conceived cameras they're famous for building, along with their poor service.

[like_no_other]

Na, na, I see the S2 adding 20% to the small professional MF market size easily.

[jaapv]

Marcus - I quite agree, the M8 is basically a high-end amateur camera. It is clear that it cannot go where a high-Mp bullet-proof DSLR will go, and that is what some professionals demand. And rightly so. There are simply not enough pros out there that would need it to make the camera viable. The money is in the top end of the amateur market. Gentlemen-photographers, if you like. Not that some wedding photographers and photojournalists are not making good use of it. But on the other hand, I can quite imagine situations where a DSLR-type camera with superb lenses and superior image quality is just the thing for a professional shooter.That is where the S2 comes in. I am convinced Leica is not aiming to sell many thousands S2s. From the beginning it was presented as a technology platform. The payoff will come when -if- they manage to build a "baby-S2" type of R10, and an M9 based on the same technology. Basically for amateurs again...

[AlanG]

Marcus - I quite agree, the M8 is basically a high-end amateur camera. It is clear that it cannot go where a high-Mp bullet-proof DSLR will go, and that is what some professionals demand. And rightly so. There are simply not enough pros out there that would need it to make the camera viable. The money is in the top end of the amateur market. Gentlemen-photographers, if you like. Not that some wedding photographers and photojournalists are not making good use of it. But on the other hand, I can quite imagine situations where a DSLR-type camera with superb lenses and superior image quality is just the thing for a professional shooter.That is where the S2 comes in. I am convinced Leica is not aiming to sell many thousands S2s. From the beginning it was presented as a technology platform. The payoff will come when -if- they manage to build a "baby-S2" type of R10, and an M9 based on the same technology. Basically for amateurs again...

 

I think this is dead on and we'll have to see how it plays out. My apprehension about the S2 strategy is from my view of Hasselblad that is a carry over from when I assisted many years ago. Every photographer I assisted, and just about every photographer that I knew owned Hasselblads. As did I. And this continued for a very long time and I think it is still reflected in the high end MF market. (With Mamiya/Phase One making some inroads.) But people use what they are familiar with and what is kind of an "industry standard" so Leica will have to be very creative and aggressive to penetrate this market as Hasselblad has a lot of momentum and positive name recognition in that field. Joe Ehrenriech's marketing skills might have been the main reason that Nikon became so successful - starting in the U.S. He put Nikons in the hands of photographers at newspapers and magazines all over the country. Leica might need someone like that.

 

I can remember shooting architectural jobs with a high end 4x5 Linhof monorail camera and having ad agency clients ask me why I wasn't using a Hasselblad "which is the best camera in the world." When I switched from Hasselblad to Rollei I had some explaining to do... Nobody ever asked me why I wasn't using a Leica.

[marcusperkins]

Na, na, I see the S2 adding 20% to the small professional MF market size easily.

 

I'd love it if they did, and did it on the back of producing great optics (which they already make), and great cameras, with the kind of reputation the M3 had in Leica's glorious past, which was a world class leading product in every sense.

 

Nobody bought a Leica then because it was quirky, unique, or an expensive toy. They bought it because it was tough, reliable, easy to use, and competitively priced. In short it was the best, with the best lenses, and everybody knew it. But that success went to their head, and they've been surviving on that legacy for decades. However, that has finally become irrelevant, and they've lost a lot of goodwill.

 

Now, they have to produce something that is truly worthy of the Leica name once again, and with great service. If they can do that, and rightfully earn back their lost reputation, I'm sure many pro photographers will be back buying their equipment once again.

[R10dreamer]

I'd love it if they did, and did it on the back of producing great optics (which they already make), and great cameras, with the kind of reputation the M3 had in Leica's glorious past, which was a world class leading product in every sense.

 

Nobody bought a Leica then because it was quirky, unique, or an expensive toy. They bought it because it was tough, reliable, easy to use, and competitively priced. In short it was the best, with the best lenses, and everybody knew it. But that success went to their head, and they've been surviving on that legacy for decades. However, that has finally become irrelevant, and they've lost a lot of goodwill.

 

Now, they have to produce something that is truly worthy of the Leica name once again, and with great service. If they can do that, and rightfully earn back their lost reputation, I'm sure many pro photographers will be back buying their equipment once again.

 

 

I agree with this assessment of Leica and their recent arrogance.

 

http://www.garydwhalen.com

[georg]

The M3 was introduced 18 years after the first 35mm-SLR was made. The M3 was high-end and bloody expensive. I think it was about 1200DM with a standard lens, which is about the same (taking inflation into account) as a MP/M7 with a Summicron costs today.

They developed the incredible Leicaflex, with unique mechanical and optical designs - customers chose cheaper 35mm-cameras or medium format. After that the management failures became evident (the company was sold by the Leitz-family). It took decades for the next big leap: the R8 - the best MF-35mm-SLR ever build, ergonomics, lenses, build-quality, modularity, viewfinder, meter - everything top-notch. Customers didn't understand it, the only new super-fast 35mm or medium-format and defined quality by fps...

Hopefully the S2 works fine AND will be accepted by customers leaving the 35mm-world...

 

Leica was NEVER a mass-market-camera for everyone. Their products fulfill certain tasks unlike any other - just like the M-series today.

[AlanG]

They developed the incredible Leicaflex, with unique mechanical and optical designs - customers chose cheaper 35mm-cameras or medium format. After that the management failures became evident (the company was sold by the Leitz-family). It took decades for the next big leap: the R8 - the best MF-35mm-SLR ever build, ergonomics, lenses, build-quality, modularity, viewfinder, meter - everything top-notch. Customers didn't understand it, the only new super-fast 35mm or medium-format and defined quality by fps...

Hopefully the S2 works fine AND will be accepted by customers leaving the 35mm-world...

 

Leica was NEVER a mass-market-camera for everyone. Their products fulfill certain tasks unlike any other - just like the M-series today.

 

I am taking some issue with this. By the time the Leicaflex was introduced, Nikon was already well entrenched in the professional photography world. (Thanks to the hard work of the U.S. importer E.P.O.I.) The first Leicaflex was a dog - no TTL and you could only focus on the central part of the screen. By the time the SL came out in 1968, Nikon already had a very complete system in use - interchangeable metering prisms and screens, lots of lenses, and a motor drive.

 

By the time the R8 came out, Nikon and Canon totally dominated the market. And the market had turned to AF. Plus by then some of the Leica lenses cost many times what a similar Nikon or Canon lens cost. The quality of the Leica cameras and lenses was kind of irrelevant by then. I was president of the local chapter of ASMP with about 250 professional members. The only DC photographer that I knew who used the R system in the early 90s was Fred Maroon. When he died, I remember one local photographer remarking, "What is Leica going to do now?"

 

Back in the 60s and 70s the only model that carried the Nikon name was the Nikon F and then the F2. The gear was not much less expensive than Leica gear and it was used mostly by pros and serious enthusiasts. The Nikkormat was a lower priced model.

 

But what Nikon subsequently did was introduce less expensive consumer targeted bodies and lenses. This gave them much greater market penetration and name recognition. It also supplied the income needed to keep developing and marketing the system including the higher end cameras and specialty lenses. Modern production techniques followed along with economy of scale. Leica went in the opposite direction, getting more and more exclusive and more expensive. Leica almost abandoned the pro market, and issued all kinds of expensive collectible models. Some of us thought that the main reason Leica gear was so expensive was because Leica knew that Leica collectors and enthusiasts would pay that much. Canon had been around making SLRs since the 50s but never had that much market share with the pros. And they weren't even a big player with enthusiasts. But starting with the F1 and the AE1 they designed and played out a perfect strategy for seizing a big chunk of the market, which in any case was many times greater than it was when Leica played a significant role in it. Canon's key was constant innovation.

 

If Leica had realized back in the 50s and 60s that it needed to compete with Nikon, things might be different today. I also don't think they anticipated the growth potential in the market for cameras. So instead of expanding production they limited it and made the Leica brand more and more exclusive. Fashion design houses learned long ago that people of moderate income might aspire to their expensive offerings. But they needed their pret-a-porte lines to support the haut couture fashion that gets the attention.

 

I worked at my cousin's Washington DC camera store back in the late 60s and 70s. At that time there were many stores in Washington that carried Leica cameras. Not so now.

[marcusperkins]

Just to add a little sidebar of extra detail to the history lesson - it was the Vietnam war that effectively finished off the popularity of Leica in the field of documentary photography on a notable scale.

 

Many photographers started out using Leicas to cover the war, and some iconic images were captured with Leica cameras, but as the conditions inevitably took its toll on equipment, Leicas sent back for repair were 'temporarily' replaced by Nikon F cameras, which proved to be extremely tough, very reliable, and easy to use. The Nikkor lenses also proved to be better in terms of reproduction quality for newspaper and magazine stock, because the Nikkor lenses had a much coarser contrast which reproduced better in print of that time. Most photographers never went back to Leica after that.

 

The great Larry Burrows was one of my favourite all time photographers because of his fantastic pictures, his life story, and his compassion. A lot of his material was shot on M cameras, but it seemed Leica's reputation died with him when he was tragically killed on assignment in 1971. Nikon's reputation was born in Vietnam.

 

Sure, there have been some great photographers who have used the M to great effect since that time, but they are few and far between.

[barjohn]

I have to agree with Marc and Allen. Leica makes great lenses but one has to question the strategy based on the pricing. The question is does the extra degree of quality over a Zeiss or CV or MF branded lens or even a CV justify the stratospheric prices? Is this a viable strategy for long term success? We should soon see the results for the past fiscal year and I suspect they will be much worse than forecast. The market does not seem to be exhibiting a great deal of faith (See this link Leica Camera AG (LCA1) Company Profile - CorporateInformation.com) for information. It seems Leica will try anything but really improving the quality and technical ability of the camera. White, zebra stripped, etc. over a better sensor, etc.

[georg]

"The market does not seem to be exhibiting a great deal of faith (See this link Leica Camera AG (LCA1) Company Profile - CorporateInformation.com) for information. It seems Leica will try anything but really improving the quality and technical ability of the camera. White, zebra stripped, etc. over a better sensor, etc. "

 

Leica Camera is no longer really active on the stock market (>95% are hold by Kaufmann) so this information is irrelevant. He invested about 100mio€ into the S-System, the Leitz-Park - what else do you expect except dreaming of a full-frame-M9 right now, which nobody is capable of (Cosina, Epson)?

 

It's right, they need the professional market again which justifies their ambitions in perfection. The 35mm is really problematic quality-wise, in Germany, Nikon/Canon was cheaper than Leica. The Leica R8 never claimed to be a press-camera, but that was never understood by the 35mm-photographers.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

It's right, they need the professional market again which justifies their ambitions in perfection. The 35mm is really problematic quality-wise, in Germany, Nikon/Canon was cheaper than Leica. The Leica R8 never claimed to be a press-camera, but that was never understood by the 35mm-photographers.

 

I am not sure why you'd think the professional market is in pursuit of "perfection." And I don't see why 35mm is problematic quality-wise. Many professionals seem happy with current 35mm cameras.

 

But perfection is a rather illusive concept. Even if Leica discarded 90% of its lenses and only sold the best 10% (for maybe $40,000 per lens) they would not be achieving perfection.

 

As for the R8 not being understood... you can't expect photographers to rush to a brand that has not done the groundwork to establish itself and be competitive in a market. Regardless of what you think about the quality of the product. I thought the Rollei system was superior to the Hasselblad system, but that didn't make everyone switch to it.

 

Whereas Canon spent more than a decade laying the groundwork for its pro system. So when it leaped ahead of Nikon with the 1Ds and 1DII, the Canon system was so well established and so advanced that many Nikon shooters didn't feel any qualms about switching. To me, the R8 did not look as advanced as a Nikon F5.

 

The introduction of the S2 will simply be the first step in Leica trying to establish itself in the MF market. They will need to have more of a plan than just making good cameras and lenses. (Even if the company feels they are striving for perfection.) This will require patience, commitment, a long term strategy, and some luck.

[adan]

In light of the new prices of the Hassy and Mamiya (with Leaf backs,) what do you think the price should be of the S2 with the 70mm lens?

 

Hassy 37 Mpixel camera + lens: $22,000 today (B&H)

 

Mamiya DL Leaf Aptus 28Mpixel + lens (I guess): $14,999

 

Leica S2 37.5 Mpixels. If Dr. Kaufmann can attain his "hoped for" 15,000 euros for the body + 2000 Euros for the most basic lens (we'll assume it's the 70mm), that works out to around $23,000.

 

I'd call that pretty competitive - head to head.

 

Now factor in a) form factor and shooting speed, for which one has to own a top-end "35mm" DSLR system (say, $15,000 minimum) in addition to the Hassy/Mamiya and whatever "something" Leica lenses may bring to the table that Fujinons and Sekors don't deliver (which I'll leave for others to debate) - and I'd say the S2 will be a bargain at anything under $25,000 for camera + 1 lens.

 

Realistically, I'd guess Leica will charge a "Leica" premium - Euros 18,995.00 for the body and E2,500 for the basic lens - with maybe a small "kit" discount - or around $28,000. Still less than a Hassy of the same pixel count plus a 1Ds (or D3x) body.