Has Leica alienated photographers?

[airfrogusmc]

My 262 was made in Weztlar.

 

[user237428934]

Well, my opinion is that german workers, when specialized, are costly. If you want their level of expertise and care you must take into account this fact.

...

Leica produces in Germany, one of the richer countries in Eu.

German specialist must be paid according to German standards and social customs.

Nowadays the production costs in Germany are not the highest in Europe anymore (currently rank 7 or so). The reason is, that in the last 10-15 years we had a very low income raise while in other European countries they had a larger income raise.

 

[adamjbonn]

I forget exactly what it is (so not very helpful) but....

But something like

"If X% of the manufacturing cost is derrived from one country, then that product can 'rightfully' (sic) claim to be manufactured in that country"

Ergo, Leica's Portugese factory supplies the assemblies for (some of?) the made in Germany cameras

(See also about 80%* of the "Swiss" watch industry, but that's for a different forum)

At the end of the day, quality is about design/implementation/QC and where this is done doesn't have a great deal to do with those important activities.


*that's a blind guess BTW

Things cost what they cost... Not only do things cost what they cost, but also people's appreciation of cost is skewed...

Tell someone you dropped 10k into a camera or a watch and they may be shocked.... Tell them you dropped 10k into a new car or a dream holiday or an engagement ring and they'll probably congratulate you

It's the same 10k... You either have it or you don't and if you do, buy what you want. If you don't either save and wait or pick something different to buy now.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Id rather they make the bodies in China and reduce the cost 50%...

 

[jsrockit]

Id rather they make the bodies in China and reduce the cost 50%...

Haha, yeah...they will just make more profit though because they aren't going to half the price.

 

[mynikonf2]

Alienated, what??

Alienated, what??

I for one have never felt that the camera manufacturing industry conspires to prevent potential customers from buying their products. 😀
The topic of alienation has been discussed here before and IMHO sounds a little like sour grapes with a dash of paranoia. 😱 I know the frustration of wanting a piece of kit and trying to rationalize the purchase of my hearts desire by placing the family on an involuntary diet. This dilemma is not the result of a corporate conspiracy, rather it is simply wanting more than I can afford. :bang:
The reality is that when I was younger I could not afford to purchase certain items. Now that I'm older, I can afford to purchase many of these things. 🙄 But through all of this time I have not felt alienated because of what I could or could not buy. 😀
By the way, the family has lost another ten pounds so I see that 35 lux getting closer everyday. 😉

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi Dave!

When retired, everything is expensive.

In 1969 I bought my first brand new VW bug for $1700 and I thought it was expensive.

It's all relative.

My VW is probably junk.

Leica will last.

Cars not so.

 

[noisycheese]

Id rather they make the bodies in China and reduce the cost 50%...

The Communist regime in China abuses and exploits its own people more than enough already without Leica's help.

Greedy psychopath boards of directors from legions of corporations around the world who make their hundreds of millions from the sweat of China's slaves see to that.

 

[mpaniagua]

The Communist regime in China abuses and exploits its own people more than enough already without Leica's help.

Greedy psychopath boards of directors from legions of corporations around the world who make their hundreds of millions from the sweat of China's slaves see to that.

That may be true, but we all wear,user,consume or eat something made on China, so I guess we all are guilty, not just the corporation. The computer Im using now have a great deal of part (if not all of it) made in China 🙂

 

[ajramirez]

I was thinking today about the prices of Leica bodies and lenses today, and the amount of alternatives available that, when pixel comes to pixel, deliver the image.

In 1969, an M4 with a 35mm and 50mm Summicron set would set you back about $700. In today's dollars, about $4600.

The modern equivalent will cost you just under $12.000 at Adorama.

Your premise is, with all due respect, incorrect. The closest equivalent to an M4 and 50mm Summicron would be an M-A ($4,195 at B&H) and 50mm Summicron ($2,195) for a total of $6,390. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's also a niche (film) product, which may account for the difference in price.

In addition, I do not understand where you get the $12,000 equivalent. An M Typ 240 will run you $6,595.00 at B&H. That, and the 50mm Summicron will run you $8,790.00, not $12,000. Unless, you are thinking of the latest 50mm Summicron APO, but that would not be equivalent, would it?

Comparing a 1969 M4 with the current M Typ 240 is akin to comparing a Nikon F (which in 1959 listed for $359.50 with a 50mm 2.0 Nikkor, today's equivalent $2,967.86) with a Nikon D5, which retails for $6,496.95 without a lens.

So, is Nikon also alienating photographers?

This whole whining about Leica prices has really gotten old. If you do not feel that the equipment represents good value at the asking price, then don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

Regards,


Antonio

 

[Godfrey]

... This whole whining about Leica prices has really gotten old. If you do not feel that the equipment represents good value at the asking price, then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. ...

I could not agree more.

G

 

[Vince Lupo]

Your premise is, with all due respect, incorrect. The closest equivalent to an M4 and 50mm Summicron would be an M-A ($4,195 at B&H) and 50mm Summicron ($2,195) for a total of $6,390. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's also a niche (film) product, which may account for the difference in price.

In addition, I do not understand where you get the $12,000 equivalent. An M Typ 240 will run you $6,595.00 at B&H. That, and the 50mm Summicron will run you $8,790.00, not $12,000. Unless, you are thinking of the latest 50mm Summicron APO, but that would not be equivalent, would it?

You forgot to factor in the 35mm Summicron, which bonatto also mentioned. They run about $3000, so add that to your $8790 and you come to almost $12000.

I don't feel at all alienated by Leica - in fact, they seem to be making some really interesting cameras lately (the SL and the M-D, for example). Yes they are expensive, but as others have pointed out, so are top-drawer Nikons. My D4 was $6000 new, my 24/3.5 PC lens was (I think) $2400. Around $2k seems to be the point of entry for the better Nikon lenses -- buy three of them, plus a D4/D5 and you're over $12k. I don't feel 'alienated' by them at all, but I am of course aware that they offer lower cost options.

I've been using Leicas for over 30 years, and most of the time I want something, I have to save and put money aside for it, and this is beyond all the other expenses that I have (and I'm sure every other small business owner has). This may take several months or even a year. I may have to sell something to help cover the cost. It's just the way it is, and I'm personally fine with it (or maybe they've just brainwashed me into submission 🙂 ). I don't think I'm any different than a lot of other people who like their products.

I will admit, however, that I am looking at it from a working photographer's perspective.

 

[ajramirez]

You forgot to factor in the 35mm Summicron, which bonatto also mentioned. They run about $3000, so add that to your $8790 and you come to almost $12000.

You are correct, of course, and I do apologize for the oversight.

Antonio

 

[Steve M.]

I'm not sure that they have alienated people (all right, when you think of it, I'm sure they have PO'd a lot of folks, sure). It's more a matter of Leica being irrelevant.

Their market is not photographers and hasn't been for a long time. They're a manufacturer of ultra high end luxury items that are all about status. The irony is that the build quality hasn't apparently suffered, but does any photographer NEED a Leica? Hardly, they need to be better photographers using the gear they have. Leica is all about selling the sizzle to people who think that an expensive camera will make them a better photographer. Anyone that thinks that is crazy, and yet, a lot of people are just that.

This is a generalization. but one that I trust is correct. Rich people tend to be highly insecure, which is why they need their egos constantly reinforced w/ expensive objects. The best house in the best neighborhood, the $200 hair cut, all that silliness. Owning a Leica is something that pushes the right buttons for them, and Leica, as all luxury goods makers totally understand, knows how to manipulate their customer's fragile egos. I remember getting an R3 once on eBay that came w/ it's own red velvet display case. What a stupid and distasteful thing that case was. I threw it away, and that's essentially what a Leica represents, and they know it. Something to show off and display to the common people.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm not sure that they have alienated people (all right, when you think of it, I'm sure they have PO'd a lot of folks, sure). It's more a matter of Leica being irrelevant.

Their market is not photographers and hasn't been for a long time. They're a manufacturer of ultra high end luxury items that are all about status. The irony is that the build quality hasn't apparently suffered, but does any photographer NEED a Leica? Hardly, they need to be better photographers using the gear they have. Leica is all about selling the sizzle to people who think that an expensive camera will make them a better photographer. Anyone that thinks that is crazy, and yet, a lot of people are just that.

This is a generalization. but one that I trust is correct. Rich people tend to be highly insecure, which is why they need their egos constantly reinforced w/ expensive objects. The best house in the best neighborhood, the $200 hair cut, all that silliness. Owning a Leica is something that pushes the right buttons for them, and Leica, as all luxury goods makers totally understand, knows how to manipulate their customer's fragile egos. I remember getting an R3 once on eBay that came w/ it's own red velvet display case. What a stupid and distasteful thing that case was. I threw it away, and that's essentially what a Leica represents, and they know it. Something to show off and display to the common people.

Thank you for insulting every Leica photographer in the world today. You do a great service for the RangeFinder Forum speaking like that about the ONLY rangefinder cameras, and their owners, in production today. It's attitudes like yours that make me, a photographer using almost exclusively Leica equipment, so eager to be a part of this forum.

 

[thompsonks]

Assuming Steve is speaking about overall market numbers and revenue, then I suppose he's correct –

"Their market is not [mostly] photographers and hasn't been for a long time. They're a manufacturer [mostly] of ultra high end luxury items that are all about status."

I don't personally take this as an insult, just as a statistically correct generalization. Some photographers and artists still use Leicas. That's your preference and sometimes mine, but I doubt we're close to being a majority. It doesn't hurt me to admit that many or even most Leicas are sold as a kind of jewelry.

Kirk

 

[Doug]

Sorry, Steve, I quite disagree, and suggest you've bought into an online myth created possibly to make some people feel better about their choices. To the best of my knowledge I've never encountered anyone treating/displaying Leica as jewelry or for status (and just who would be impressed?).

Well there are certainly fools and their money, recalling a well-heeled young man back in the 60's who kept trading in his kits of gear hoping or expecting the next set to suddenly make his photography meaningful. I worked in the camera shop then, and recall his trading his complete Nikon F kit for a cased set of Hasselblad gear, and months later changing yet again. As a flamboyant character he did like to boast about everything, but I don't think his camera purchases were determined very much by status seeking.

A poor college student in 1966, I bought a Leica M2 and 35mm Summicron in hopes of emulating the results of the celebrated photographers of the time. Status and jewelry were far from my thoughts... I'm sure I wasn't unusual in that. I did enjoy using it, partly the smooth feel of precision. Then and since it's been all about the user experience.

 

[Lss]

does any photographer NEED a Leica?

You firstly refer to build quality, but I assume there is more to the question.

What is a Leica in this context?

• If it is a camera, then surely most users of digital rangefinder cameras need one. What else is there?
• If it is a company, then this is the company making the cameras for which there is no (current) alternative. The company makes also other high-quality cameras and lenses which are the first thing many would mention. It's also a company that provides great long-term service. It is a company that in addition to bringing out funny special editions actually pushes the envelope in many respects.
• If it is brand as a status symbol (which you mostly discuss), then I can't see how it is needed by most photographers. I'm sure someone can come up with some niche where this matters for convincing some customers, but I will likely not understand their thinking and just need to accept it at face value.
• If it is brand promise beyond the status thing, then it really comes down to the same long-term service aspect discussed above and the overall quality of the product that can be expected. The latter is a "need".

 

[jsrockit]

Well there are certainly fools and their money, recalling a well-heeled young man back in the 60's who kept trading in his kits of gear hoping or expecting the next set to suddenly make his photography meaningful. I worked in the camera shop then, and recall his trading his complete Nikon F kit for a cased set of Hasselblad gear, and months later changing yet again. As a flamboyant character he did like to boast about everything, but I don't think his camera purchases were determined very much by status seeking.

It was probably more to do with boredom and wanting to try different things.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I am a full time pro and am all Leica M and my cameras are tools. Leica costs what it costs and has always been expensive. I have written this so many times and it might even be in this thread maybe earlier on. Sorry if it is. I remember when Leica was over twice as much as the top o the line Nikanons. Hasselblad was about 5 times the price. So now the m is about the same price as the top o the line Nikanons so maybe we should say that as Leica M is now the bargain?

I don't own 10 lenses. I didn't own 10 lenses when I had my Canon gear (DSLR). I had focal lengths that match the way I see and work. The reason I shoot Leica M is it really matches the way I see and work. I am far from rich.

Also most of the people I know personally that own Leica M are other professional photographers. The others are pretty serious photographers for the most part. I do have one friend that was a collector, sold his entire collection in a Hong Kong auction, and put his kid through college with the money he made.

But most of the photographers I know use there gear as I do pretty much everyday. My photography is a priority since it feeds the beast in all ways. I found a very long time ago if you don't buy everything you will find you might just be able to afford the stuff you really want.

As Vince has stated; I save, sell things and wait until it makes the best sense to buy. Leica just happens to be my tool of choice. And I have based that on actual usage and experience.