benlees
Well-known
My local camera store: M262 (discounted) is $6195.95CDNLooking up prices in Popular Photography, we find that the difference between Leica and other brands still wasn't that big in the times of the M4-P (1980-1986). In 1982, the price of a Leica M4-P was $699.95 on discount. The regular price was $809.95.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3SagqdaoM0kC&pg=PT54&dq=price+for+new+Leica+M4-p&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjoltbZwZXkAhVJqZ4KHaPMCfwQ6AEwA3oECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=price%20for%20new%20Leica%20M4-p&f=false
At the same time, a Canon New F-1 body with the plain finder was $479.95, and $534.95 with the much more common AE finder.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3...or new Leica M4-p&pg=PT44#v=onepage&q&f=false
Here are the original prices:
Leica M4-P (regular price): $809.95
Leica M4-P (discounted): $699.95
Canon New F-1 w/plain finder: $479.95
Canon New F-1 w/AE finder: $534.95
And here are prices adjusted for inflation:
Leica M4-P (regular price): $2,153.47
Leica M4-P (discounted): $1,861
Canon New F-1 w/plain finder: $1,276.08
Canon New F-1 w/AE finder: $1,422.31
If I was shopping in 1982, the most probable scenario would have been whether to get a $699.95 Leica M4-P or a $534.95 Canon New F-1 w/AE finder, so that's just a $165 difference. In today's dollars, we're talking $1860 vs. $1420 ($440). Leicas were not much more expensive than other brands.
This is a great example of why documents are valuable.
Sony A7R IV is $4495.95
Leica cameras were, and continue to be, (more) expensive. Almost identical ratio.
As a side note the SL is listed at $8095.
aizan
Veteran
Yeah, but you're comparing the discounted budget version of the previous generation Leica that's almost 4 years old with the latest and greatest, 1 month old, extra high-end Sony.
If we were comparing without putting on our Leicaphile glasses, we'd probably be talking about the $7,295 Leica M10 vs. the $1,998 Sony A7 III, which is the true equivalent of the $699.95 ($1,861) Leica M4-P vs. $534.95 ($1,422.31) Canon New F-1 comparison.
If we were comparing without putting on our Leicaphile glasses, we'd probably be talking about the $7,295 Leica M10 vs. the $1,998 Sony A7 III, which is the true equivalent of the $699.95 ($1,861) Leica M4-P vs. $534.95 ($1,422.31) Canon New F-1 comparison.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Must have been a while since you`ve used AF.
The new Sony cams have non of those issues.
AF locks on an sticks like glue .
No need for you to move the focus point .
I wouldn`t get half the shots that I do with manual focus …. I know , I tried for years.
Still use my M`s bit not for anything which moves .
IEDEI
Well-known
Sorry I don’t understand this post at all.
The M market is a very small, niche market.
Low volume + high demand + high labor costs = high prices.
The M market is a very small, niche market.
Low volume + high demand + high labor costs = high prices.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
For me personally, no.
After purchasing M6, 35 f2 'Cron, and 90 f2.8 Thin Tele-Elmarit in the 80's, I've been buying all my Leica equipment used since then - (except for a couple of pair of new Leitz Binos).
After purchasing M6, 35 f2 'Cron, and 90 f2.8 Thin Tele-Elmarit in the 80's, I've been buying all my Leica equipment used since then - (except for a couple of pair of new Leitz Binos).
IEDEI
Well-known
For me personally, no.
After purchasing M6, 35 f2 'Cron, and 90 f2.8 Thin Tele-Elmarit in the 80's, I've been buying all my Leica equipment used since then - (except for a couple of pair of new Leitz Binos).
I’ve never bought any gear ‘new’ but appreciate people who do. After all somebody has to buy it new in order to make it used one day!!
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
That's what I was thinking too. My X-Pro2 and f2 prime lenses are like greased lightning in the auto-focus mode. Point-shoot-nailed! Take it to the bank.
Mike
Ste_S
Well-known
Old timers don't like change. See also the distrust of Film cameras that use 'batteries', in camera metering, auto-focus etc
benlees
Well-known
you're right, but I did that on purpose. You compared a discounted M4P (reintroduced old tech) to a Canon F-1 AE. The spread in price is much higher now, as you mention. One explanation is Leica as a brand is very successful. Being reassuring expensive goes a long way.Yeah, but you're comparing the discounted budget version of the previous generation Leica that's almost 4 years old with the latest and greatest, 1 month old, extra high-end Sony.
If we were comparing without putting on our Leicaphile glasses, we'd probably be talking about the $7,295 Leica M10 vs. the $1,998 Sony A7 III, which is the true equivalent of the $699.95 ($1,861) Leica M4-P vs. $534.95 ($1,422.31) Canon New F-1 comparison.
css9450
Veteran
farlymac
PF McFarland
I'm not afraid of new technology, just the cost of it. But I did finally get a meter for my M4-P.
PF
PF
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I have to agree - like every other product price on the planet, M camera/lens prices are ruled by the laws of economics.
Like the laws of physics, you can ignore the laws of economics, but you cannot ignore the results of ignoring the laws of economics.
Since Leica is still in business and demand for the M cameras and lenses remain high, it appears that Leica is doing several things correctly.
Exploiting their customers does not fit the definition of doing several things correctly.
There is no evidence of that line of thinking in Wetzlar, particularly since the majority of Magnum photographers work with Leica M cameras and lenses. If there is any one group of photographers who cannot be regarded as "suckers/rich hobbyists," it would have to be Magnum's august roster of photographers.
farlymac
PF McFarland
When Leica fist came out with their little marvel of a camera, I'm sure there were plenty of folks who said it would never fly. But they persisted in improving it with each new model, and they eventually built up a following. With the customer service model they instituted, even more die-hard fans of the marque were created.
But things change over time, not to mention management. Perhaps the corporation lost its way for a while when new owners had other ideas about how to run the place, but I don't think they had the gall to actually play the customers for fools (who can forget the M5 fiasco?). They have tried to be innovative, while at the same time keeping traditional values in place. It hasn't always worked. But carry on they do, within funding constraints.
It's like all the special promotional versions they create for the collectors. I can sit here and go "Why?", but ultimately it's to bring in the cash, and keep up interest until the next new model comes out. Anything to help the bottom line, and fund improvements.
Camera manufacturing today is an extremely complicated venture, what with all the competition from the various formats, and phones. Choose the wrong features to put in the next model, and you could doom the company to oblivion. So to play the customer just for their cash, and not their loyalty would be a grave mistake on Leica's part. But at the speed that market forces change these days, they certainly can't afford to price themselves out of it. I think they are riding that line with a fine balance.
PF
santino
FSU gear head
How much does the manufacture of a digital M cost (including know how etc etc)?
The difference between that and the final price could be a hint if Leica does take advantage of their M users.
In the car world its Ferrari that makes the most profit...
The difference between that and the final price could be a hint if Leica does take advantage of their M users.
In the car world its Ferrari that makes the most profit...
farlymac
PF McFarland
If you want an analogy in the car world, look no further than Ford. No more cars, only trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. And way over priced at that.
Of course, I guess you could say that Leica built their new headquarters park from the profits, instead of lowering the price of the cameras and lenses.
PF
icebear
Veteran
In any category of goods you can buy low end and high end and somewhere in the middle. If you intend to use it only once in a while maybe low end is just OK, if it breaks you won't bother with a repair, support commerce, don't care about the environment and just get new one:bang:.
If you want something more reliable but can't afford high end or it's just not that important for you, you go for somewhere in the middle and you'll be ok with stuff doing it's job. If you are passionate about using the tool and doing the task and like to use things for a long time and will have it repaired if needed, then you go for high end.
It's all a matter of priorties. No one is forced to buy high end, but typically if you do, you will enjoy it much more.
I'm talking actual users here not people* who just buy it for the red dot.
[* insert you favorite "suit"]
So to think that Leica is taking advantage of M-users is beside the point. They are not telling you something about the product that once you buy it turns out not to be true. That's my idea of being taken advantage of. If the pictures don't come out great, it's the user who sucks. It's not the camera that takes a picture, it's still the user. Particularly true with an M range body.
If someone is more happy with the results from a cheaper auto everything camera, then he made the wrong choice getting into M or Leica for that matter.
And for good measure I have 2/50 Planar which I think is a great lens at 1/10(?) the price of the 2/50 asph and most likely you have to start splitting hairs on large format prints to decide which was taken with the Zeiss or the Leica lens. I have no intention to get the cutting edge asph 50. I almost exclusively use a 2/75 asph since about 2 years. I bought that lens used shortly after it was released (maybe 10 years ago?) and someone sold it off quickly. I think I paid $2G's. I would make money if I sold it used now.
If you buy anything high end new you loose money the moment you walk out the store, drive off the lot etc. After the intital hit it will retain value much better than somewhere in the middle stuff.
If you want something more reliable but can't afford high end or it's just not that important for you, you go for somewhere in the middle and you'll be ok with stuff doing it's job. If you are passionate about using the tool and doing the task and like to use things for a long time and will have it repaired if needed, then you go for high end.
It's all a matter of priorties. No one is forced to buy high end, but typically if you do, you will enjoy it much more.
I'm talking actual users here not people* who just buy it for the red dot
.[* insert you favorite "suit"]
So to think that Leica is taking advantage of M-users is beside the point. They are not telling you something about the product that once you buy it turns out not to be true. That's my idea of being taken advantage of. If the pictures don't come out great, it's the user who sucks
. It's not the camera that takes a picture, it's still the user. Particularly true with an M range body.If someone is more happy with the results from a cheaper auto everything camera, then he made the wrong choice getting into M or Leica for that matter.
And for good measure I have 2/50 Planar which I think is a great lens at 1/10(?) the price of the 2/50 asph and most likely you have to start splitting hairs on large format prints to decide which was taken with the Zeiss or the Leica lens. I have no intention to get the cutting edge asph 50. I almost exclusively use a 2/75 asph since about 2 years. I bought that lens used shortly after it was released (maybe 10 years ago?) and someone sold it off quickly. I think I paid $2G's. I would make money if I sold it used now.
If you buy anything high end new you loose money the moment you walk out the store, drive off the lot etc. After the intital hit it will retain value much better than somewhere in the middle stuff.
NickTrop
Veteran
The irony (rather extreme, actually) is that these were added to cameras so such things as focusing, advancing the film, and using an external meter and transferring the settings to the camera get out of the way.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Leica M in appeals to a small but passionate number of fans: Gotta pay a premium to make it worthwhile for Leica to continue producing them!
These are strange times in the photo and automotive industries and probably elsewhere as overall demand has simply evaporated yet we don't seem to be in a recession.
These are strange times in the photo and automotive industries and probably elsewhere as overall demand has simply evaporated yet we don't seem to be in a recession.
Huss
Veteran
I'm pretty sure the M series is Leica's best selling line/biggest money maker.
If they didn't make the M, they'd be left with nothing to keep the company alive.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
No one forces people to buy Leica M cameras and lenses - they do it of their own free will.
I have been to camera stores that sell Leica M gear several times. I have never seen a sales person holding a gun to a Leica M buyer's head.