High-end photographic tools vs. Luxury goods

[edftwin]

The survival of Leica heavily depends on the purchases from the rich, whether they are professional or not. They buy Leica because it is branded and well known for superb optical and mechanical quality. Leica man want to stand up and shine in the canon and nikon crowd, they don't want to be normal, they want to be special ! And when they say they use Leica, the first impression from the people is this guy is rich ! This is what Leica man want and also the one of the reasons they choose Leica over other Japanese brands and spend hundred thousands on Leica. It gives them the status !

 

[redisburning]

The survival of Leica heavily depends on the purchases from the rich, whether they are professional or not. They buy Leica because it is branded and well known for superb optical and mechanical quality. Leica man want to stand up and shine in the canon and nikon crowd, they don't want to be normal, they want to be special ! And when they say they use Leica, the first impression from the people is this guy is rich ! This is what Leica man want and also the one of the reasons they choose Leica over other Japanese brands and spend hundred thousands on Leica. It gives them the status !

By your judgment of the situations Leicas are only owned by the nouveau rich as one of their garish displays of new found wealth.

At least as far as I can see, this is not exactly the case. Leicas are still owned by the generationally wealthy and actually as far as luxury products go I suspect amongst lottery winners' camera purchases Leicas make up a significantly smaller portion than Rolexs represent watches or Lamborghinis represent motor vehicles.

The point of a true luxury good is NEVER to show off; it's to give the owner the knowledge that they have the best and that there is no doubt, no question, that it is the best. That's why there is no such thing as a luxury cell phone; because when you're really rich you don't answer your own phone.

This whole conversation is a strangely Western phenomenon; because I think in the West, and especially America, most people desperately want to be rich but because they aren't end up resenting the rich. In my personal opinion, one should not aspire to wealth nor covet those who have it. But, it's a lot easier to have that perspective when you're as lucky as I am in regards to the "who did I get for parents" lottery.

 

[braver]

What has surprised me recently is how many big names, artists like Meyerowitz, run around with an M9 in the video's I run into on blogs. Obviously some of them are wealthy, but it's not like they dress fancily (especially Meyerowitz always looks a bit worn) and drive big cars. You know, it's not just the nouveau rich, some artists are seeing value there too. To put a little bit of anecdotal perspective on the discussion.

 

[gb hill]

Hey! Leica has to charge these outrageous prices to pay for all the champaign & crap at their ritzi event.😉

http://youtu.be/uWrgDzn5WNo

 

[braver]

You must remember that may name pros don't pay for their cameras. Meyerowitz. like Erwitt and ohers rarely pay for their Leicas. It worth it to Leica, like Canon and Nikon to have pros seen with their gear. I recall Bill Allard, a Leica user, saying that he never paid for a camera.

Yes, well you got a point there of course. Still, if they're willing to use it (while in a position to pick any camera they like) there must be a point to the camera besides jewelry.

 

[edftwin]

By your judgment of the situations Leicas are only owned by the nouveau rich as one of their garish displays of new found wealth.

At least as far as I can see, this is not exactly the case. Leicas are still owned by the generationally wealthy and actually as far as luxury products go I suspect amongst lottery winners' camera purchases Leicas make up a significantly smaller portion than Rolexs represent watches or Lamborghinis represent motor vehicles.

The point of a true luxury good is NEVER to show off; it's to give the owner the knowledge that they have the best and that there is no doubt, no question, that it is the best. That's why there is no such thing as a luxury cell phone; because when you're really rich you don't answer your own phone.

This whole conversation is a strangely Western phenomenon; because I think in the West, and especially America, most people desperately want to be rich but because they aren't end up resenting the rich. In my personal opinion, one should not aspire to wealth nor covet those who have it. But, it's a lot easier to have that perspective when you're as lucky as I am in regards to the "who did I get for parents" lottery.

I agree with your points except luxury goods is NEVER to show off. If they were not to show off, they wouldn't spend million bucks on luxury goods, they would have just ended up buying goods that provide similar functionality at much cheaper price, just like handbags, at most times, people pay premium prices for it because it is branded. I'm not saying all the M users but people who pay premium prices on collectible Leicas like Hermes edition, do you really need Hermes edition to take better photographs? Having owned luxury goods gives them the status and aura. Showing off is not a bad thing, people respect you because you can afford such luxury. Showing off doesn't mean that you are arrogant !

If Leica did not make themselves luxury, they wouldn't have survived till now when other camera manufacturers offer better functionality at much cheaper price.

And there are luxury cell phone makers if you look around ! A phone could simply cost up to few hundred thousands !

 

[haempe]

...
If Leica did not make themselves luxury, they wouldn't have survived till now when other camera manufacturers offer better functionality at much cheaper price.
...

This is also mine opinion.
I think Leica feels liberated by the appearing of Voigtländer and Zeiss into the M market. Must now no longer take care about the poor eater and his wish for a new lens or a back-up body for his umpteen year old film camera ...

 

[edftwin]

I doubt many will buy the new cron 50 APO ASPH if Leica priced it at a lower price. Because Leica know that many of not so wealthy M users will just wait for used units that come from the first hand buyers who are rich.

On the other hand, the low price will shun off the rich that is willing to pay because they feel that the low price doesn't match their satisfaction and status, they feel the cheaper price gives lesser quality and they will end up with the lux or noctilux instead, it will definitely hurt the new cron 50 APO ASPH sale.

I think Leica is playing mind game here but that's just my guess.

 

[nemo2]

I doubt the idea aftermarket buyers are not "supporters". They are, as their purchases of used cameras enable their users to upgrade (earlier). For many users of new items the aftermarket price may be a form of discount (only a postponed one).

Leica M8 can be sold for half a price of M9 on auction servers - if there were no aftermarket buyers, the upgrade from M8 to M9 would cost twice as much.

 

[edftwin]

But most of the users who upgraded from M8 to M9 usually bought the M9 first before they sold off their M8. They can actually afford the upgrade to M9 without selling off their M8, but since the M8 is no longer in use, they do not want old gear that they don't use anymore sitting in their dry box which is taking up the space. This is why used M8 is cheap ! As most of the first hand owners don't really care how much their M8 is sold for !

They will upgrade no matter their M8 or old gear is sold or not...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The myth surrounding a luxury brand needs to feed on more than just history. Customers need to be reminded, that the brand is focused in an uncompromising way on delivering the most beautiful, advanced, reliable, durable, innovative, you name it, products.

But Leica's conservative nature with respect to R&D and their release of new products has proven that they aren't necessarily advanced or innovative.
Yes, they have unique designs but their digital design was shoehorned into the package of the M body lineage. Almost exactly the same as the M7 but a few millimeters thicker.
Add to that the fact that they are not reliable nor particularly durable as many M8 and M9 bodies (mine included) have had to go back to a Leica service center for warranty repair of major components. Sensors, cover glass, shutters, main boards, all have been replaced on numerous bodies. My M9 has spent about 20% of the time that I've owned it at Leica for service. My M8 was only slightly more reliable until it had to have an out of warranty repair which was completed but I had to sell the camera just to pay for the repair. I've gone round and round on the durability and reliability of Leica digital bodies so I'll just stop there.
The issue that irks me is that as a daily Leica user since early 2004 I feel like the company has pandered to the profit and not to the craft. Yes, it's a nice tool and it affords certain advantages but their pricing has put them out of reach of most working photographers. Their service has also done so, as replacement of a shutter in an M8 will run half the camera's used market value at this time.
The Leica camera has always been above the rest as a marque of a craftsman, not just a photographer. The simplicity of the cameras and the control they afford in the capturing of an image are what separates them from the rest of the photographic world (especially these days with digital imagery.) The fact that their pricing is so outrageous further alienates them from the craftsman who is not wealthy and as such, limits their ownership and use to only those who have a few spare $10k around to play with.
As a "younger" photojournalist who wants to stay with Leica for a working tool, I'm finding it harder to rationalize because eventually I'm going to have to make a repair and it will cost me more than I can make in a few months.
I love the system. Love the lenses. Dislike the service and the company's recent departure from the craft to cater to the investor.
As a part of the next generation of Leica users, I'm confident I'll get to see the downfall of the company, probably within the next decade or two.

Phil Forrest

 

[DRabbit]

I bought an M8 in 2007. Sold a bunch of Canon gear to afford it. It cost about $5K. Taking inflation into account, by today's standards that's about $5,500.

In 2005 When the Canon 5D was released it cost $3299. The MIII just released costs $3499.

I suspect the M10 to come in around $10K retail when released. If I'm right, we're talking the price of an M-digital will have doubled in 5 years, when the "competition" (used loosely) seems to still be able to produce a full-frame camera and it's upgrades for almost no price increase in a longer time period.

In 1954, the M3 + 50 Summicron cost about $350. Accounting for inflation, the cost today would be $2,935... and that's body and lens.

Even the M7 would only be $3K if released today, adjusted for inflation but at it's same price in 2002. (it was $2390 back then).

So there is just something that feels really out of whack to a lot of people.

 

[sevo]

That's why there is no such thing as a luxury cell phone; because when you're really rich you don't answer your own phone.

As a matter of fact there are quite a few of them around - e.g. Vertu, Goldvish or Mobiado. And telephony will sometimes have aspects of intimacy that you can't hand off to a butler or aide.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

If I were to be sent to a remote location - weeks away from a pro service station, an M9 would be the last camera I would consider taking; even with a couple of back-ups...

Exactly. I took two Leica film bodies and a Nikon D2h to Iraq in 2004 and covered a very nasty urban assault. Never had a problem with the Leicas. The Nikon had its little hiccups but it always worked and I never had a problem with corrupted files, locked cards, card incompatibility, bad battery life, shutter faults, shutter run-on, sensor glass cracking, hot or dead pixels, image banding, sticky/faulty switches, all issues that my digital Leicas have been back to Leica NJ or Solms to fix.

Leicas used to be known as very reliable cameras right out of the box. The film camera you could and still can depend upon no matter where it is you're shooting. If I had to go back to Fallujah with only digital bodies, I'd eschew any Leica choice and instead take 2 pro Nikon bodies and 3 lenses.

Now the company prefers to not send its cameras into combat because the journalists who go there both can't afford them and can't rely on them. The hobbyists might make a nice niche market for Leica but with the rise of mirrorless systems they could have lowered the price and capitalized on the recent popularity of RF and RF like cameras. Maybe even reclaim some territory in photojournalism since an M8 or M9 with a 35mm 'Cron or Summarit isn't much bigger than a Canon G11/G12 which I see being used as a backup in most working news photogs bags out there. Sure, it's a few thousand dollars difference but each of the D3 bodies that the working photographer has hanging off his tired body cost at least as much.

Oh well.

Phil Forrest

 

[redisburning]

As a matter of fact there are quite a few of them around - e.g. Vertu, Goldvish or Mobiado. And telephony will sometimes have aspects of intimacy that you can't hand off to a butler or aide.

all of these phones look like the sort of thing that you would expect to find in the bag of a lottery winner or the man-purse of an UAE oil tycoon.

I won't knock other cultures for their varying appreciations of precious metals / jewelry attached to their devices but I will say I do not think that pulling out such a phone at an American or Western European event says anything other than "I don't belong here".

I'm certain a lot of this depends on perspective; I clearly tend towards the more conservative ideal of luxury and others are into a very loud one. Perhaps I am being unfair.

 

[damien.murphy]

No problem with Leica using different products to distinguish aspects of their markets, ie regular production kit for photographers, and special editions to those they appeal to. At the end of the day, Leica needs to do what it needs to to turn a profit, and remain in business. Also, the new summicron is a show piece, just like other manufacturers produce superfast lenses, in other words to display their pedigree when restraints are removed, in this case cost.

Unfortunately, I cannot afford a current production digital M, as much as I would love one, and imagine a lot of Leica's user base is the same. There is a far cry from being about to shoot with a used film body and non-current production lens, to being able to drop whatever the cost of a new M9 or current production glass is. People may say that all those M users out there using previously loved bodies and lenses may be doing nothing for Leica's bottom line, but the counter point to that is that there is a large base of M users who remain untapped by Leica's offerings.

Maybe Leica can't drop the price of an M9 much lower than it is, but the fact of the matter is a lot of people would buy a digital CL, were it offered to the market, be it by Leica or someone else..

 

[semilog]

Phil's post really says it all. There's "the best" in the sense of, say, Limmer boots, and there's "the best" in the sense of, say, Manolo Blahniks. Leica used to be the former. More and more, they're the latter. Now, you could say that Blahnik is a "better" company because they are immensely more profitable. But there's no question whose shoes I (or my spouse) would prefer to wear.

One set of shoes is made for going out into the world to see things. The other is for going out to be seen.

 

[robert blu]

The survival of Leica heavily depends on the purchases from the rich, whether they are professional or not. They buy Leica because it is branded and well known for superb optical and mechanical quality. Leica man want to stand up and shine in the canon and nikon crowd, they don't want to be normal, they want to be special ! And when they say they use Leica, the first impression from the people is this guy is rich ! This is what Leica man want and also the one of the reasons they choose Leica over other Japanese brands and spend hundred thousands on Leica. It gives them the status !

Times are changing and Leica had to change as well. What edftwin says is the target for the today's Leica 🙁. It's different than a few years ago. It is what many leica lovers do not like. I do not like this way but we have not to forget that a few years ago Leica was really in a difficult financial situation. Business is business and the market is a war place.

 

[steveclem]

, like the Ferraris make possible the production of Fiat 500's... Let's get over it... long live Leica !

Fiat bought Ferrari so actually it's the Fiat 500 that makes Ferrari production possible.

 

[braver]

I don't think you quite understand? It's marketing! You must be young?

Oh I do, and no I'm not. Of course it's marketing but if you couldn't play football on Adidas shoes Messi would take Nike's offer.

My humble point, which you're missing, is that obviously the kit is good enough to do serious work with and not merely jewelry. Part of the current discourse tries to paint Leica in the corner of luxury bags noone would use for serious travel, fancy watches noone uses because they're good at keeping time, gold plated cellphones and other stuff with no practical value over the cheaper offerings. Against the 'real photogs don't use Leica' you can set a bunch of very real photogs that do by their own free will.

Now is it the preferred tool for the desert? I bet it isn't but not all serious photography takes place in war zones you know. And for every anecdote of a camera working fine in the desert (someone used to do war with two small Olympuses IIRC), there is one of that same camera failing just sitting on a desk.