Does Leica take advantage of their M users?

Indeed, although I appear to have ended up with considerably older Leica dates than me. It's the story of my life.

Given Leica's long track record of not making much money or even losing it, adopting different pricing strategies for different goods that people are prepared to pay seems logical, even consensual to me.
 
Here's a line of thought worth following; many years ago Leica wanted to up date things and got together with Minolta. That joint venture gave us the M5, the CL and a range of SLR's ending with the Minolta body being used by Leica in their R cameras; thinking of the R5's at this point.


But, and here's one of the big "what-ifs" of my thoughts, Minolta went on to make a superb range of AF zoom lenses for their new range of auto everything SLR's like the 7000 range. And then they had problems with the AF design and a law case against them and virtually vanished but lived on with another name up front.


If none of that had happened or ended differently we might just have had an AF Leica prime or zoom lens or two. As it was we didn't but then along came the Panasonic and Leica co-operation and we got a lot of nice, neat digital cameras. I've owned several; once I had (curiosity as usual) both versions of the same camera (and the Leica version cost a lot more).


So I wonder what the future holds; a full frame version of the old Digilux 2 would be nice.


Regards, David
 
airfrogusmc said:
Im SO GLAD Leica M lenses are all manual focus. I don't think that I am alone in this.
Click to expand...

It's also why I realized I prefer zone focus P&S cameras than my AF ones. I set focus, they shoot the moment I push the button. No delay, no accidentally focusing on something else. And if it misses, it's my fault.
They (zone focus and Leica M) make you think, keep you sharp.
 
Nevertheless, I'd consider buying more new Leica products including the M10 or Ultravid binoculars if I thought I'd enjoy using them. With the assumption that even the "German" products are made of materials or sub-assemblies sourced from any number of non-German sources. Or in some cases, produced entirely by contractors. So it's best to do a bit of research before paying a hefty "luxury tax".
 
It's funny, I’ve never bought a Leica because it was German. I bought it because it was a great rangefinder. I have certainly used Canadian Leica lenses on my Leica in the past.

Now I’m starting to see people complain about Fuji moving production from Japan to elsewhere. I just don’t care... as long as the cameras work well and give me what I want.
 
Does Leica take advantage of their M users?


Only if you let them. With the fine offerings from Cosina and others (e.g., Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander), no one really "needs" to drop $8k (US) on a Leica lens. More objectionable 20 years ago when no other M mount lenses from other companies, because then our choice were new or old and what version, but all of them Leica.
 
emraphoto said:
Did i read that correctly? 8,000 dollars?!?!

Absurd
Click to expand...

:p

Yup, that German labor is paid pretty well. I'm not so stupid as to say none of that 8k pays for the word "Leica"; that's branding you know, that thing that defined the 1980s economic landscape and gave us corporate architecture. Your politicians want their cut of Leica's allure, for your benefit of course. There's an airport restaurant in San Jose where a cheeseburger and a soda will cost you twenty bucks. Your new car will lose half its value in five years. No matter what it is.

So buy used, or don't by at all, but if you get out more you'll see how worthless your currency has become, for anything. That's absurd, prophetic too. That lens could serve someone for fifty years and bring them great satisfaction. The hamburger? Not so long.
 
The SL would have been a very elegant camera if it were 25% smaller in size. Its top notch EVF can make you forget about the optical RF. This is all theoretical as I am still with the M8 and M9!
 
raid said:
The SL .. Its top notch EVF can make you forget about the optical RF. ..
Click to expand...

How so? I've used it, and the EVF in my Z7 (which to me seems just as good). The EVFs are excellent for careful, considered focus where you can get it perfect given a little time. The RF in a Leica M allows you to nail focus waaay quicker, and there is no jello effect in lower lighting or potential for headaches (at least for me!)

I much prefer the RF but the EVF is great for knowing exactly what is being framed, and also exposure. Hmmm, they really don't compete against each other!
 
If you own a Leica M camera, you do have choices in other brand lenses, though they are limited. So you're not entirely beholden to Wetzlar when it comes to gear. And for someone like me who no longer does commercial work in photography, it's not a critical point of contention as to what brand lenses I use. Most of them will produce very good to excellent results.

But you don't build something like Wetzlar Park by charging bargain prices for your product.

PF
 
OTOH, building cameras and lenses that last for decades with only a minimal amount of attention etc is not exactly taking advantage of their customers.

I've had my CL for decades and still use it, other cameras (SLR's) have been and gone...

Regards, David
 
I have said this before; Leica Ms have always been expensive. When I bought my Canon F-1s (I still have 3 of them and they still work) IIRC Leica M at the time cost twice as much as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. Leica M is now about the same price, Maybe a little more. So does that make Leica M now a bargain compared to the Nicanons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom