...and I want it to cost $1000

Technology is not linear as mentioned. So what I can't afford today, and therefore doesn't exist, tomorrow may be possible because someone in another field came up with an idea for that field, that can be used to produce a lower cost camera with desired features today. If we aren't out here today saying what we would like, camera engineers and accountants are going to think it isn't worth pursuing. That is the main reason I can think of for fantasy, besides it is just fun.

Otherwise Mr. Hicks, I would agree it is foolishness. And it would have to really be something outstanding for me to pay even $1000.00. Mostly because I am pretty satisfied with what I have now. Actually, I have too much. Someday I am going to sell some stuff off. Then maybe $1000.00 or even more for something fun won't seem too much. :D
 
Avotius said:
What I mean is that companies are renound for showing off what they could do then not giving it to us. Easiest example would be car companies, concept after concept, but they never actually put it into production because in the end too many people will settle for the beige Toyota Corrola. But there is a real reason for it, there are enough "beige" people that those with extraordinary tastes wont get what they want.

Unfortunatly most of us RFF'ers probably fall into the extraordinary side of the camera market with special tastes and such. Camera companies could pander to our whims and shock and awe us but then they wouldnt make any money, so conservative capitalism.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks. I'm just not sure that there's any other sort of capitalism...

Cheers,

R.
 
You can't really generalize what photo enthusiasts want in their $1000 camera. Sure, there are some unrealistic dreamers out there. But I'm dreaming, too, and many camera makers are coming out with some mighty compelling tools that rest around the $1000 price point, so my dreams have a good chance of coming true.
 
haempe said:
I think, this is some kind of Leica MM -effect.
If I remember correctly, such a (unrealistic) camera had many sympathy before and after the announcement.
It seems the "so much out of the reach for the most" - price make the people be carefull with their wishes. ;)

Or are you bothered by the kind of wishful thinking?
Of the "I wish the price would be lower" instead "I wish I had more money"?
Click to expand...

First para: yes, at Arles I actually had a go at Leica about this. They'd told me point-blank that a monochrome M was not financially feasible -- and then went and made one. The official explanation was that they revised their opinion of how many they could actually sell. I'd passed on the suggestion (from a fellow RFF member) that as few as 50 or maybe 500 should be feasible. They said that no, it had to be a minimum of several thousand (which is what they are now planning on making).

The explanation hiding behind that, I think, was that the M9 has been selling so well that they could afford to take a (modest) risk, which they probably couldn't when we originally discussed the matter.

As for the wishful thinking, yes, I think you're right. People who want the rest of the world to adjust to them, instead of their making any adjustment to the real world, are sometimes visionaries but more often just plain unrealistic.

Certainly, technology advances. But an astonishing number of 'dream cameras' are based on yesterday's technology, when better solutions will arrive tomorrow. This does not preclude better old/new hybrids, like the M9.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...
As for the wishful thinking, yes, I think you're right. People who want the rest of the world to adjust to them, instead of their making any adjustment to the real world, are sometimes visionaries but more often just plain unrealistic.
...
Click to expand...
Well, with "I wish the price would be lower" I'm completly out of responsibility.
With "I wish I had more money" a point of view may be: I'm simply too lazy and do work not hard enough to make it affordable ...
Who would like to think something like this of himself? :)
 
We cannot directly make camera companies lower their prices for exotic camera and lenses, but if people stop buying such equipment, then these companies will either stop making such equipment or they will look for alternative ways to produce something that can be better marketed. It may not be as good as the original product, though.

I do not agree with the thought that prospective buyers must shut up and pay what is being asked from them to pay. CV came out with lenses, and they provided a product that RF users were more able to afford than some crazy $10000 lenses for some chosen individuals.


Leica will die eventuallly if they do not address the wishes of the photographers who still are bothering with RF and Leica equipment. Professionals who get paid to create images and who may get perks, they
may need to buy such costly dreamwork, but the vast majority of people who have some money to burn, but at a limit, they will not play along such a game.


The film cameras from the past still look great to me, and if I find the digital photography not to be satisfying for what I want, then I hope that film will still be around for me to return to.

There should be a limit to the cost, Roger. It should not be an approach that says "pay or back off".
 
What I find funny about this sort of discussion is the kind of laymen's economics that is often at play. Somebody will mention some generic truism about 'supply and demand' or how the company 'priced themselves out of the market'. Personally I have very little knowledge when it comes to economics but I know that all my friends who work in the field would would want to see some numbers first before making any such assessment and even then they would be very careful.

I think Leica's cameras are terribly expensive and I wouldn't dream of spending that kind of money on camera at this point in my life. But I live in a very rich country and I know enough people with a lot more money than I have to know that there is definitely a market for luxury items. There was a time when I thought $800 for a sweater was insane until I met people for whom that was simply what a sweater costs.
 
Jamie,
What you have said is mostly true, but the market of luxury items with rich buyers may not live on very long with cameras. Statistics and business are close to me. I am not shooting in th dark, I think. If I do, then maybe I am wrong here.
 
raid said:
. . . There should be a limit to the cost, Roger. It should not be an approach that says "pay or back off".
Click to expand...

Sure. All I'm complaining about is the people who specify a dream 'concept' camera that couldn't be made even for $2000 in mass production, let alone in the run of a few hundred that would probably sell, and then say it should cost $1000.

On an entirely separate point, why should Leica go bust? Do people want Lobb to make cheap trainers, or Bentley to make small, cheap cars?

Cheers,

R.
 
There's a logic to the folks saying, "It should be thiiiis awesome and cost only a grand": there are plenty of awesome cameras that cost a grand, and that perform "better" in many ways to Leicas that cost several grand. When folks do the "Leica vs Canikon" thing, they will often cite performance characteristics where Canikon outperforms Leica at 1/5th the price, so the not-superficially-unreasonable logic then goes to, "If Canikon can do it at 1/5th the price, surely Leica can do it themselves at 1/5th the price."

There are reasons Leica is more expensive; some percentage of their cost has to do with the brand-name and not manufacturing costs. That percentage won't go away: Leica alienates their current audience and brand by going mass-market. They're a luxury marque, and are quite happy to get by on fewer customers playing higher prices.
 
Good grief...everybody needs to just look back at the LFI magazine issue from last year about the costs associated with Leica lenses alone. That article is a good explanation of why the usual comments about Leica being too expensive is crap....Then, look at the tremendous job and profits being accomplished by Leica, given their real-world constraints. I think they have a better than a meager understanding of what they need to do, and that is NOT to produce inexpensive photographic gear as the "flagship products" of their business.;) No idea about the other camera manufacturers, so I won't comment on them.

I am not a market target because I can't afford a new Leica anything! But, there obviously is a market that Leica has served well and their future plans are not dependent on us hobbyists or poor riff-raff like me.:)

Dreams are great...to a point. Reality is well, reality. Two tears in a bucket if I can only afford an old film camera or a well-used digital camera after going without meals for four months. S**T happens all the time to good people and if I can't afford it now, I will wait until the value drops down the food chain. I do not expect Leica or anyone else to try to produce a quality rangefinder camera for $1000 and thank goodness they can't afford to. But they know their core, the M body.

Like I said, dreams are great but hopefully people understand that life is tough for manufacturers even in the best of times. A $1000 dream camera? Like an M10 or a new mini-M10? I reckon that is why a dream is called a dream rather than a hope or an expectation.:p Better to dream about winning the lottery IMO.
 
hteasley said:
. . . there are plenty of awesome cameras that cost a grand . . .
Click to expand...

Very true, but none that I know of was designed by a fantasist on the internet. That's the point: I have little time for those who say that their dream camera, often of an idiosyncratic, novel and unproven design -- one that has never, in fact, been made --- 'should' cost $1000.

Cheers,

R.
 
raid said:
Jamie,
What you have said is mostly true, but the market of luxury items with rich buyers may not live on very long with cameras. Statistics and business are close to me. I am not shooting in th dark, I think. If I do, then maybe I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right and I should also say that none of the wealthy people I know are particularly interested in cameras or photography so they wouldn't really recognize the M9 as a luxury item. Contrary to popular belief, most wealthy people don't throw their money around. They might buy the most expensive if it is something they really want but they don't buy the best just for the sake of it.
All I'm saying is that, while rich people may only be the 1%, that's still quite a lot. I don't know if Leica's current strategy is any good, all I know is that they seem to be doing better now than they did a few years ago.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Very true, but none that I know of was designed by a fantasist on the internet. That's the point: I have little time for those who say that their dream camera, often of an idiosyncratic, novel and unproven design -- one that has never, in fact, been made --- 'should' cost $1000.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, and one that I totally agree with. But it begs the question... what are you and I both doing reading/writing in this thread? :eek:
 
Roger Hicks said:
Very true, but none that I know of was designed by a fantasist on the internet. That's the point: I have little time for those who say that their dream camera, often of an idiosyncratic, novel and unproven design -- one that has never, in fact, been made --- 'should' cost $1000.
Click to expand...

I only know of one idiosyncratic internet fantasist's camera, this one. So yeah, internet forum fantasy doesn't tend to result in cameras of any sort.
 
The problem with the $1,000 fantasy is the fantasist has failed to account for the devaluation of currencies. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom