Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I've used M2-3-4P-6ttl-MP and each has its advantages. To me the M2 is the ultimate purist's Leica and has a wonderfully flare-free, uncluttered viewfinder, but I still prefer the MP with its automatic lens-cap-on reminder (otherwise known as a meter), auto-resetting frame counter and Leicavit base.
The M3 I wouldn't consider again as my standard lens is a 35/1.4; the M4P is okay but has a terribly flary finder and the black chrome finish is unspeakably nasty (again, the black paint MP...); and the M6ttl is great if it (or the M7) are the only Leicas you use, because the shutter speed dial goes in the same direction as the meter arrows, but if you are used to other Leicas, AAARGH.
I've had Canon 7 cameras and many other screw-thread Leica-fit cameras but I recently sold my Bessa-R simply because I'd rather be able to use ALL my lenses on my RF cameras, not just the screw-mount ones, and besides, the R2 is so pretty in olive drab AND it takes the trigger base.
But then, as my father says, one man's fish is another man's poisson.
Cheers,
Roger n(www.rogerandfrances.com)
The M3 I wouldn't consider again as my standard lens is a 35/1.4; the M4P is okay but has a terribly flary finder and the black chrome finish is unspeakably nasty (again, the black paint MP...); and the M6ttl is great if it (or the M7) are the only Leicas you use, because the shutter speed dial goes in the same direction as the meter arrows, but if you are used to other Leicas, AAARGH.
I've had Canon 7 cameras and many other screw-thread Leica-fit cameras but I recently sold my Bessa-R simply because I'd rather be able to use ALL my lenses on my RF cameras, not just the screw-mount ones, and besides, the R2 is so pretty in olive drab AND it takes the trigger base.
But then, as my father says, one man's fish is another man's poisson.
Cheers,
Roger n(www.rogerandfrances.com)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
I especially like the last sentence: Turnover over the first 4 months of 2005 is slightly higher than expected and considerably up over 2004.
That digital back must be selling nicely. Not surprising considering the quality, versatility and at a price that is comparable to the price of professional DSLR's by Canon and Nikon.
DMR $6500,-- + R9 $2750,-- = $9250,-- ( with coupon scheme $8000,--)
Canon 1DsII $8000,-- , but you'd need a 1V at $2000,-- to compare versatility
Nikon 1Dx really "cheap" at $5000,-- + $1750,-- film body.
I guess these prices mean there are still huge writeoffs for R&D to be made by all players; I find them pretty impressive.
Last edited:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Jaapv,
I'm not certain the high prices are entirely R&D related. Some of the medium format backs are being sold at much higher prices. The lowest priced MF back I've seen is about $9000 for a Hasselblad with $18-$20,000 being common. Some of the pricing we are seeing must be due simply to the early and strong demand for digital products. It was my understanding that Leica had enough pre-orders for the DMR to keep the company busy for months.
I'm not certain the high prices are entirely R&D related. Some of the medium format backs are being sold at much higher prices. The lowest priced MF back I've seen is about $9000 for a Hasselblad with $18-$20,000 being common. Some of the pricing we are seeing must be due simply to the early and strong demand for digital products. It was my understanding that Leica had enough pre-orders for the DMR to keep the company busy for months.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
Well, at any rate it seems to be sold for under 4000 Euro in Livigno and Andorra (those are tax-free areas in Europe)
Last edited:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
jaapv said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is being sold for under E4000/$4939 in Livigno and Andorra?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Leica Digital Module
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Jaap,
B&H Photo in New York City is selling the DMR for $4995.00/E4063 which isn't too bad considering the recent price hikes in the United States and import costs. However, they show the DMR "out-of-stock". I wonder if they are having trouble selling them or if they are selling them so fast that they can't keep them on the shelves. I agree that Leica's price for the DMR seems reasonable - at least when compared to the high end cameras from the other manufacturers.
B&H Photo in New York City is selling the DMR for $4995.00/E4063 which isn't too bad considering the recent price hikes in the United States and import costs. However, they show the DMR "out-of-stock". I wonder if they are having trouble selling them or if they are selling them so fast that they can't keep them on the shelves. I agree that Leica's price for the DMR seems reasonable - at least when compared to the high end cameras from the other manufacturers.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, the States is a lot cheaper for new stuff than Europe, but shipping is expensive and of course with taxes about 20 % on the price and shipping.... There is not much of a difference any more. Anyhow, let's hope for a similar or better pricing policy on the future digital M
Last edited:
djon
Well-known
I'm glad they have increased sales but I doubt the court decision is good.
The point seems to be that Hermes and the leasing company, who control the company with 40% of the shares, did NOT want a new stock offering because new investors (eg real institutional investors) would dilute their shares, reducing their control.
The supposed "good" news is that the court has elimated resistance to new share price competition by the 40%... they've specifically allowed Hermes and the equipment leasing company to buy new shares proportionate to their current 40%, continuing to maintain control by the very shareholders who have allowed Leica wallow and decline.
IMO it would have been better for Leica to sell new shares freely on the open market, institutional investors competing with today's 40%... might have driven up share offering price substantially , providing even more capital for Leica.
The last thing Leica needs is continuing control by the people who lease them their machinery or the idiots who make leather bicycles.
The settlement appears simply to be Euro feudal banking.
The point seems to be that Hermes and the leasing company, who control the company with 40% of the shares, did NOT want a new stock offering because new investors (eg real institutional investors) would dilute their shares, reducing their control.
The supposed "good" news is that the court has elimated resistance to new share price competition by the 40%... they've specifically allowed Hermes and the equipment leasing company to buy new shares proportionate to their current 40%, continuing to maintain control by the very shareholders who have allowed Leica wallow and decline.
IMO it would have been better for Leica to sell new shares freely on the open market, institutional investors competing with today's 40%... might have driven up share offering price substantially , providing even more capital for Leica.
The last thing Leica needs is continuing control by the people who lease them their machinery or the idiots who make leather bicycles.
The settlement appears simply to be Euro feudal banking.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
djon,
You're probably right. However, for better or worse, Leica's two major investors (and probably several banks) do control the financial future of the Leica. It appears the only way they will help Leica to live will be with Leica under their control. However, there are TWO major investors and they may agree to disagree.
Earlier this year Hermes suggested that Leica's camera production be moved to the Far East. However, the press release after the May 31st meeting has Spichtig saying that the restructuring measures "would not endanger 'Made in Germany' manufacturing". Hmmmm.....
It would appear that no one is in total control of the situation.
Leica's investors are sitting on a digital money maker and don't want their shares diluted. They probably will not act to disturb the strong relationship between Leica and its customers - who seem attached to Solms and it products.
You're probably right. However, for better or worse, Leica's two major investors (and probably several banks) do control the financial future of the Leica. It appears the only way they will help Leica to live will be with Leica under their control. However, there are TWO major investors and they may agree to disagree.
Earlier this year Hermes suggested that Leica's camera production be moved to the Far East. However, the press release after the May 31st meeting has Spichtig saying that the restructuring measures "would not endanger 'Made in Germany' manufacturing". Hmmmm.....
It would appear that no one is in total control of the situation.
Leica's investors are sitting on a digital money maker and don't want their shares diluted. They probably will not act to disturb the strong relationship between Leica and its customers - who seem attached to Solms and it products.
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
I doubt that the Digital back was a major part of the good financial news that Leica experienced. After all they were only slated to deliver 100 units for the first batch. I do not recall if that was world wide or just here in the states. Personally I think it was their M line and the new 75 Summicron that was released. Those were snapped up just as soon as they hit the streets. Isn't the MP still out selling the M7?
jdos2
Well-known
I believe the Summilux f/1.4 ASPH also continues to "fly off the shelves." I know I helped a couple people on the Leica lists buy 'em, and there was a time it was impossible to find one in the states.
Now if I can just find someone to trade me one for my Noctilux.
Now if I can just find someone to trade me one for my Noctilux.
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
Get rid of the NOCTILUX!!??? You are a man of strong constitution. Mine will be willed to my daughters.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
egpj said:
Leica hasn't published a financial report since it's nine month report for the period from April 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. They seem reluctant to release financial information right now.
It will be interesting to see what portion of their current income is from digital sales. In its nine month report Leica noted a 40.2% increase in sales of their compact cameras which includes the Digilux II. The only other sector of Leica's business that showed a profit was "Spare parts and technical after-sales service". I bet the major portion of Leicas current income is from its "digital solutions".
jdos2
Well-known
egpj said:
Oh, I'd never be rid of it, I'm sure. It is indeed such a wonderful tool.
Sadly, from everything I've read of the ASPH Summilux, it too is an awesome lens. Wish I could have both, but that'll not happen for several years.
dll927
Well-known
About those 15- and 30-year-old Leicas: don't be surprised if, by that time, they cost more than they did new. Yes, I know about inflation, but few things keep their value as well as Leicas do. Have you priced a IIIg lately?? Remember, it's 45 years old at least. What did they sell for in 1960?
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
dll927 said:
That is an excellent point! They definitely have a track record of maintaining their value over the long haul. As matter of fact, with the price increase, I could probably sell off all my M equipment for exactly what I paid for it. If I hold onto it then I dare I say 20 years down the road I couls sell it for a significant profit. OK, maybe a pipe dream but you gotta have dreams.
I think you're right, and it's not such a pipe dream. As the brokerage fine print says, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. But what better indicator is there? In 1967 I bought a brand new 8-element first-type 35mm Summicron (Canada) at a retail dealer for $164.50... What could I sell it for now, with original bubble case and box?egpj said:That is an excellent point! They definitely have a track record of maintaining their value over the long haul. As matter of fact, with the price increase, I could probably sell off all my M equipment for exactly what I paid for it. If I hold onto it then I dare I say 20 years down the road I couls sell it for a significant profit. OK, maybe a pipe dream but you gotta have dreams.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
Nothing new there; in the past Leica moved production to Canada, Portugal because of costs. A considerable part of the production now, like the Digilux2 comes from Japan, with parts sources all over South Eastern Asia.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
jaapv said:
Jaap,
You're right, there is "nothing new there". That's why I think this situation is about "appearance" for the sake of marketing (and perhaps national pride) not about the "reality" of manufacturing costs. Even today you find people asking whether Leitz lenses made in Canada are as good as those that were made in Germany (Of course they are and I believe the Noctilux is still made in Canada). It's all about appearance.
As I mentioned earlier, I think those responsible for Leica's restructuring are trying to avoid anything that would shake consumer confidence in Leica - like moving manufacturing to the Far East even though it might be done in the future.
I do find it odd that a company like Hermes, which makes enormous amounts of money selling "appearance", would be the one suggesting a "reality" of manufacturing costs solution for Leica. I would have expected that suggestion to come from the bankers.