raid
Dad Photographer
Does this mean that I have to contact a new CEO?
Sparrow
Veteran
... I'm sorry but yes .... it's looking that way
raid
Dad Photographer
I will eventually become an expert on contacting CEO's.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Kwesi
Well-known
...Ned would NEVER even think for one second to pack any digital M for any kind of trip, nowhere, except for a trip to the toilet and for around the Block with my kids.
Did you actually just equate these two events? Or are you just starved for attention?
Kwesi
Well-known
Victor, I have to admit your numbers are more realistic than mine.
I honestly don't have a problem spending $100/month to own the latest M for the entirety of its 3 year cycle as "latest M". Its simply the cost of ownership.
I know for some its considered as unacceptable depreciation. YMMV
raid
Dad Photographer
I will try to find the email of the new CEO. They shoiuld have it at Leica AG.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
In other words, the 'blads and S2 are medium format pro cameras; therefore no one cares that they are priced in megadollars because no one really wants them - correct?
That still leaves us to think about the M system, particularly the flagship M240 and M-P. The question is: Are they pro cameras or not? If so (or if not) what makes them pro cameras (or what prevents them from being properly regarded as pro cameras)??
Leica apparently regards the M240 and M-P as pro cameras. I would have to say that line of thinking does hold water (to one degree or another, at least). As far as the M lenses, it would be nonsense to say that they are not up to professional capabilities.
To say that the flagship M cameras and lenses are not capable of being used professionally is doubtful IMHO. I can't see the wisdom of
- but that's my viewpoint.
I'm still trying to decipher the animosity towards the Leica M system on the part of some photographers. It still just doesn't add up...
Maybe there should be a "Why I hate Leica, the M system and everyone who uses M cameras" thread to plumb the depths of this mindset.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Trust me, NO camera manufacturer is ever going to survive with customers buying one camera per decade.
Honestly, think about that a second or two. It's self-evident, but also based on my conversations with people running camera stores.
Leica's business model may need tweaking (a lot or a little, that's another debate) but a once a decade camera is just not Planet Earth.
Honestly, think about that a second or two. It's self-evident, but also based on my conversations with people running camera stores.
Leica's business model may need tweaking (a lot or a little, that's another debate) but a once a decade camera is just not Planet Earth.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I had my M2 CLA'd after owning it for 40 years. The CLA cost about $200. So that is, let me see--50 cents a year. That's acceptable. $100 a year? No.
Three year cycle? A Leica? Disposable? No they are supposed to last a lifetime. Like my M2. And my Nikon FE2s.
Pioneer
Veteran
Used to be and no one thought anything of it. Could be again. Just because you and half the world has gotten used to a 1.5 to 3 year obsolescence cycle does not mean it has to be that way. It is a type of inflation and it cannot continue, though people think me a bit daft for saying it. Eventually the whole cycle collapses.
Maybe we are seeing that happening now. Maybe smartphones are not the cause of the recent sales collapse, just the benefactors.
Kwesi
Well-known
Rob,
I don't think you understood me.
my response was to Victors response to my post.
The idea is that you buy a new M for about 7.5k use it for 3 years , sell or trade for 4k towards the next new one. net cost is approx 3600 for the 3 years or 100 a month.
I fully understand that even a 100 month may just be too steep for some.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I can easily spend 100$ a month on film and developing...
I think we are seeing two completely different economics here, with the net cost very similar in the end.
I think we are seeing two completely different economics here, with the net cost very similar in the end.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Errr.. what IS a pro camera? The only definition that makes sense is a camera as used by a pro. i.e. it can range from a cellphone to a digital back or a view camera.
The term is useless to categorize cameras.
The only definition that makes sense is a camera as used by a pro. i.e. it can range from a cellphone to a digital back or a view camera.The term is useless to categorize cameras.
In other words, the 'blads and S2 are medium format pro cameras; therefore no one cares that they are priced in megadollars because no one really wants them - correct?
That still leaves us to think about the M system, particularly the flagship M240 and M-P. The question is: Are they pro cameras or not? If so (or if not) what makes them pro cameras (or what prevents them from being properly regarded as pro cameras)??
Leica apparently regards the M240 and M-P as pro cameras. I would have to say that line of thinking does hold water (to one degree or another, at least). As far as the M lenses, it would be nonsense to say that they are not up to professional capabilities.
To say that the flagship M cameras and lenses are not capable of being used professionally is doubtful IMHO. I can't see the wisdom of - but that's my viewpoint.
I'm still trying to decipher the animosity towards the Leica M system on the part of some photographers. It still just doesn't add up...
Maybe there should be a "Why I hate Leica, the M system and everyone who uses M cameras" thread to plumb the depths of this mindset.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A bit hard, that one. Both Nikon and Leica buy their shutters from Copal/Seiko....
lukitas
second hand noob
Disclaimer : I'm just one more idiot pilot standing on the quay, yelling instructions
I think Leica should have been much more humble when Kaufmann took over.
They were selling a great product, but 30 years out of date. Mechanic shutter, optical rangefinder, so-so light metering.
They should have much better researched what their customer base should be : middle-class, aspiring photographers, from enlightened amateurs to hard-working professionals. The digital Ms should have been bit cheaper than the flagship canikons : less features, so cheaper, but still a decent price. They could have been the mirrorless revolution. Now the people who would buy leicas are buying the fuji X series cameras, panasonics and sonys.
Leica have lost their true customer : the village dentist and the teacher. In the thirties, leica was decidedly a middle-class, amateur phenomenon. Now, it's a millionaires club thing, like having a yacht. Even their µ4/3 and APS-C models are way overpriced. 3600 for a Leica T? Gets you a full frame Canikon and a couple of lenses.
If they had aimed a little lower, while maintaining a first class manufacturing process, they might well be on the way to 10 times growth.
If they maintain, that higher prices are caused by higher labour costs, I would like to see happy workers showing photos of their long vacations in exotic places, taken with the Leica they got from work of course. That might justify me paying more for a camera made in Germany.
In the mean time, Fuji gets my money.
cheers
I think Leica should have been much more humble when Kaufmann took over.
They were selling a great product, but 30 years out of date. Mechanic shutter, optical rangefinder, so-so light metering.
They should have much better researched what their customer base should be : middle-class, aspiring photographers, from enlightened amateurs to hard-working professionals. The digital Ms should have been bit cheaper than the flagship canikons : less features, so cheaper, but still a decent price. They could have been the mirrorless revolution. Now the people who would buy leicas are buying the fuji X series cameras, panasonics and sonys.
Leica have lost their true customer : the village dentist and the teacher. In the thirties, leica was decidedly a middle-class, amateur phenomenon. Now, it's a millionaires club thing, like having a yacht. Even their µ4/3 and APS-C models are way overpriced. 3600 for a Leica T? Gets you a full frame Canikon and a couple of lenses.
If they had aimed a little lower, while maintaining a first class manufacturing process, they might well be on the way to 10 times growth.
If they maintain, that higher prices are caused by higher labour costs, I would like to see happy workers showing photos of their long vacations in exotic places, taken with the Leica they got from work of course. That might justify me paying more for a camera made in Germany.
In the mean time, Fuji gets my money.
cheers
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
In other words, the 'blads and S2 are medium format pro cameras; therefore no one cares that they are priced in megadollars because no one really wants them - correct?
That still leaves us to think about the M system, particularly the flagship M240 and M-P. The question is: Are they pro cameras or not? If so (or if not) what makes them pro cameras (or what prevents them from being properly regarded as pro cameras)??
Leica apparently regards the M240 and M-P as pro cameras. I would have to say that line of thinking does hold water (to one degree or another, at least). As far as the M lenses, it would be nonsense to say that they are not up to professional capabilities.
To say that the flagship M cameras and lenses are not capable of being used professionally is doubtful IMHO. I can't see the wisdom of - but that's my viewpoint.
I'm still trying to decipher the animosity towards the Leica M system on the part of some photographers. It still just doesn't add up...
Maybe there should be a "Why I hate Leica, the M system and everyone who uses M cameras" thread to plumb the depths of this mindset.
Hey, I never said Leica M cameras couldn't be used "professionally" (which really just means a camera is used by a pro and/or for commercial purposes).
What I am saying that you'll often find MF in product photography, landscape, fashion, etc. and for a variety of reasons (high resolution being one of them). People buying into MF also know to expect a camera to cost a lot of money, just as it always has - even with film.
Justifying a crazy expensive 35mm camera, film or digital, is a much harder proposition regardless of use.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
You're making the mistake of equating digital cameras with film cameras.
Digital cameras have to be looked at as half computer and half camera - that's fine and good, but computers are out of date (or more precisely, better ones come along) within 3-5 years.
The only way you're going to change that is if you tell Silicon Valley to stop innovating and doing research more than once a decade.
Again, good luck with that.
lynnb
Veteran
^^this.
Leica could not avoid going digital; but their digital pricing has alienated their customer base, who now buy Fuji (and maybe FF Sony/Zeiss), because of the lens quality and price/performance. It is a great shame.
I think if Leica released a new MM at a much lower price point they might re-invigorate sales. If Fuji or Sony produce a monochrome sensor, Leica's only hope might be to concentrate on manufacturing lenses for other mounts. (Edit: the MM is one of the most significant differentiating points for digital Leicas, in my opinion. It's a statement about photography's roots, and a unique way of seeing).
Currently the MM is selling for USD$7200 at BH. At half that price, they might get the dentists and teachers back.
Just my 2c.
mdg137
Established
Exactly-- I've posted my numbers in another thread somewhere here, but I concluded that the depreciation on a digital M body was actually less than the cost of film and developing.