micromontenegro
Well-known
Very good reasoning, and very true, IMHO. But (there's always a but) when Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, it was far from Rolls category. I was a good, relatively expensive piece of equipement within the relatively effortless means of upper-middle class person, or the small town reporter. It was more like a Honda Accord. Here in the third world, many people in the '40s and '50s had Leicas- and they weren't in the high rollers club- witness Korda. Only close to the Hermes years Leica became Rolls Royce... Was it a change for better, speaking in money? I don't think so.
bmattock
Veteran
Well, part of that move from middle-tier to upper-tier was probably involuntary, as the price of highly-skilled labor went up. And Germany has been saddled with some of the more restrictive labor laws (in favor of the worker) for some decades. If Rolls-Royce is not a good comparison, consider the various Swiss mechanical watch makers, such as Omega, Rolex, Vacheron-Constantin, et al. Some brands found at every price point, but as prices for skilled labor went up, they ALL became upper-tier players in comparison to inexpensive and well-made Japanese Seiko and later, Casio, etc, watches.
Each ended up choosing a price point and a market focus - not unlike Leica, although Lieca (and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Rolleiflex) have not much company in the strata they inhabit. One can choose an Omega Seamaster for a lot of money or a Rolex Oyster Day/Date for a bunch of money. If one really has money to burn, the Blancpain, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC and so on await one's inspection. Consider that they are all relatively high-quality, well-made, mechanical watches, but they strive to find a unique niche that they can call their own (the 'Reverso' would be a case in point) and each tries to appeal to a different type of well-heeled consumer. None of them could truly compete with a $30 Casio in terms of keeping accurate time, but that's hardly the point. They don't want to compete with Casio, and trying to do so would be disastrous for them.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Found this googling around for historical prices of Leicas:
I actually thing the adjusted prices are on the conservative side.
climbing_vine
Well-known
For a very, very rough estimate.... that $195 in 1937, if viewed against the median income of a white male in the US (white only, excluding Hispanic etc), is more or less equal to $6500 today. Now, what you'd really want to compare is as a proportion of median disposable income, not raw income.... but those numbers are a lot less handy.
T
tedwhite
Guest
In 1937 my dad was making something like $35 per week, so clearly that Leica cost more than he made in a month. The actual camera he had at the time was a Kodak box camera that might have cost $5.00, still a significant chunk out of a $35 weekly paycheck.
I see what you folks are saying. Leica serves a rather narrow slice of the consumer pie. Its price point, as they see it, is just right, and I now consider myself rather fortunate to have picked up recently a flawless M6 for $1250.
I see what you folks are saying. Leica serves a rather narrow slice of the consumer pie. Its price point, as they see it, is just right, and I now consider myself rather fortunate to have picked up recently a flawless M6 for $1250.
Fred Burton
Well-known
Of course, that big money in 1937 bought you a state of the art camera on the cutting edge. $1250 for an M6 today bought a relic from the past, an M3 with a meter.
And I'm not putting down the Leica M's - I own Leicas. But the equivalent dollars today for a Leica should buy a state of the art camera.
And I'm not putting down the Leica M's - I own Leicas. But the equivalent dollars today for a Leica should buy a state of the art camera.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Many people seem to think that, like "Art", a "state of the art camera" is in the beholder (forget the eye): it has to play MP3s, shoot video, and cost only $9.99 Because g@wd forbid you have to pay for something that costs money to make.
photogdave
Shops local
Leicas are state-of-the-art...rangefinders.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Leica is a religion...believers don't need reason, just faith. Preachers don't need logic...dogma works.
Converts imagining themselves poets of photography that they are not...fantasy motivates.
Leica is not used by photo journalists...a in-your-face Nikon is more the norm.
No sports photographer can make a living using a Leica...motor drive rules.
Leica M is useless in telephoto lenses...so tout wide-angles.
Leica M is hopeless in close-ups...so promote street photography, whatever that is.
Leica makes collectors' market, which has nothing to do with photography.
Talk is cheap...show me pictures.
Converts imagining themselves poets of photography that they are not...fantasy motivates.
Leica is not used by photo journalists...a in-your-face Nikon is more the norm.
No sports photographer can make a living using a Leica...motor drive rules.
Leica M is useless in telephoto lenses...so tout wide-angles.
Leica M is hopeless in close-ups...so promote street photography, whatever that is.
Leica makes collectors' market, which has nothing to do with photography.
Talk is cheap...show me pictures.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Leicas are state-of-the-art...rangefinders.
Are they though? State of the Art for Rangefinders is a camera design from the 50s? I find that hard to believe. I like my Leica very much, but there are certainly more advanced cameras out there. I mean, the Zeis Ikon is probably more 'state of the art' than an M7.
Are they though? State of the Art for Rangefinders is a camera design from the 50s? I find that hard to believe. I like my Leica very much, but there are certainly more advanced cameras out there. I mean, the Zeis Ikon is probably more 'state of the art' than an M7.
photogdave
Shops local
I think the Ikon is a better deal than the M7 but not necessarily more advanced. I would also say the Konica Hexar is more advanced but one could argue that lack of TTL flash makes it otherwise.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Personally I think there is only so much you can do with an MP or an M7 in terms of tech. They are basically manual cameras for people that want manual cameras.
aizan
Veteran
they could modernize the leica by using the same engineering approach as zeiss.
i'm visualizing an mp with the following changes: swing back film loading, an extra tug on the rewind knob opens the back, mechanical version of the m8 shutter, battery compartment moved to the bottom, centered tripod socket, magnesium body shell, bipack paint from the m8.2, frameline preview lever and lens release button from the m8, and redesigned iso dial so it's just like the flatter classic dial, only with the new lettering.
that makes for a seamless, modern camera that doesn't look like a half-baked attempt to keep up with the times.
i'm visualizing an mp with the following changes: swing back film loading, an extra tug on the rewind knob opens the back, mechanical version of the m8 shutter, battery compartment moved to the bottom, centered tripod socket, magnesium body shell, bipack paint from the m8.2, frameline preview lever and lens release button from the m8, and redesigned iso dial so it's just like the flatter classic dial, only with the new lettering.
that makes for a seamless, modern camera that doesn't look like a half-baked attempt to keep up with the times.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Wow. I didn't know all the photos I've taken with my Leicas have not been taken with my Leicas.
Confucius say talk is expensive...take pictures.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Think about this.
1. Leica do not see themselves as being in competition with any other manufacturer.
2. They have identified a small but available demographic of people who will buy their cameras as a high price point. With the advent of digital most of these are not professionals but well heeled amateurs.
3. If they set about producing more units and selling at a lower price they devalue the product in the eyes of their chosen demographic and would probably not make any more money. They would need to increase manufacturing capacity, which costs, and likely as not the added volume would be marginally profitable at best.
4. What have they got to gain? (And that's not the same as what you might want to have!)
1. Leica do not see themselves as being in competition with any other manufacturer.
2. They have identified a small but available demographic of people who will buy their cameras as a high price point. With the advent of digital most of these are not professionals but well heeled amateurs.
3. If they set about producing more units and selling at a lower price they devalue the product in the eyes of their chosen demographic and would probably not make any more money. They would need to increase manufacturing capacity, which costs, and likely as not the added volume would be marginally profitable at best.
4. What have they got to gain? (And that's not the same as what you might want to have!)
drec
Rangeflounder
There are so many used Ms on Ebay, KEH, craigslist, etc., that I could never see the need to buy new. There is no way that I could ever come close to owning anything Leica new now.
I'm not saying that Leica shouldn't make an affordable M (pardon the double negative), but just that I don't see it as necessary. The rich guys can get their MPs; people in my financial shoes can get a used M6... or in my case, a worn M4-P for $400!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Interesting to reread this discussion in the light of the highly profitable digital turnaround leica has made over the last four years - it seems Leica's management knows more about the market than forum members...
Well a good deal of Leicas are sold to Japan and from what I understand Panasonic is a respected name in Japan. Maybe not such a bad thing really.
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
The rumor is that Leica sold all 500 of their "Titans" within a couple hours. If that is true, Leica will be fine. There is obviously a market for high priced boutique items.
In '07 they were saying Leica prices were astronomical and couldn't go higher...
In '07 they were saying Leica prices were astronomical and couldn't go higher...
