back alley
IMAGES
Excellent point, Mr. Alley!🙂
everyone knows my real name...and i'm not pontificating like mr. blow is.
and your posting this in the first place is pretty troll-like...
Excellent point, Mr. Alley!🙂
I'm not a doctor or a lawyer. Nor do I have such an income. I love my cats and all new lenses get their initiation by snapping some nice portraits of them. I find them entertaining, engaging subjects. However, I do try to keep the sharing to a minimum. I own a few film Leicas. If you saw me out and about with one of them, you would not think, "bling" or "jewelry". I don't have the dress and demeanor needed for that, and rarely hang out where the luxury crowd are found. I do shoot a lot of film.
Now, I don't have a digital Leica, and I think this is where the OP has a small, but valid point. Leica continues to shift its market targeting to the luxury crowd. While the M9 is clearly a practical tool for real photography, it is pushed to this market, and the remaining Leica line up are undoubtedly geared toward this market. No need to rehash the discussion we saw after the new "Mini M" was revealed. I'm just not seeing as much serious photography related activity from Leica as in the past.
But, there is no other alternative for the digital camera I have yet to buy -- I want it to have a full frame sensor. RF styled body, and interchangeable lenses (must somehow accept M mount). Only the M9 variants offer this feature set, so I'm stuck saving my hard-earned cash for one. However, I do wonder, could this camera, with this set of features, be offered for less? Are the manufacturing costs really high enough to warrant the price tag on the M9s? I'm just wondering...considering Leica's increased luxury market emphasis. Am I bad? Should I just not question, sell the car, and get that camera?
The most expensive cost would be RnD, and then marketing. Also they are not as mass produced as Japanese dSLRs, where we all know the equation of higher production means lower costs.
Endorsements then also comes in, they have this and that event with celebrities and well known photogs which means it costs money.
Plus, they are opening stores here and there.
All THAT, makes an M camera expensive (plus brand management).
Its all the same with watches, a swiss-eta based watch like Hublot costs much more than an in-house movement Rolex.
Another example, Rolls Royce and a Honda.
Yet another example, Brioni suits, and Zara.
If you count pound for pound in terms of materials ALONE, no, the M cameras would probably cost less than half at what they are selling. If I sell my M240 as scrap, would you reckon I'd get anything more than say compared to 10 grams of gold? Probably not.
Did you see how he misspelt Philippe? I have observed previously how high the standard of written English is here. Really remarkable for an internet forum. Maybe it's the obsessionality. You hardly ever see 'lense' here.
Posted by Joe Blow:
"Let's face it: Leica's have become jewelry for camera fondlers and status seeking gearheads. If you disagree, just take a trip to rangefinderforum.com and partake of the inanity re: Leica. You'll find a dedicated group of lawyers/dentists/corporate hacks who once took an Intro to Photography class in college and have convinced themselves they could be the second coming of HCB if only someone would recognize their genius, which they attempt to document by posting pictures of their cats taken with the most expensive "glass."
Edit: I just thought about what I wrote and how it might be construed to seem I'm putting down less expensive gear. I'm not. I've seen many beautiful images taken with all kinds of gear that's not Leica, and many which are much better than anything I've done. My only point is that sometimes it's more economical to spend a bit more if possible to buy certain things that are in demand and which are increasing in value.