Jonathan I would appreciate your take on
1) how does Leica see itself surviving long term with ever increasing price increases on an already expensive product? Sooner or later, even the reddest red dot Leica fanatic will have enough.
2) why doesn't Leica go into an area they can make good profit and have great sales production? ie Leica R glass in Nikon and Pentax KA mounts (both of which are not patent protected).
Stephen
1) how does Leica see itself surviving long term with ever increasing price increases on an already expensive product? Sooner or later, even the reddest red dot Leica fanatic will have enough.
2) why doesn't Leica go into an area they can make good profit and have great sales production? ie Leica R glass in Nikon and Pentax KA mounts (both of which are not patent protected).
Stephen
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Yes, these are two very good questions.
I purchased some of my gear new (bodies, lenses), but even for a dyed in the wool Leica shooter like myself things are a little out of control.
Leica pricing is reaching the point where the pricetag is exceeding the perceived value of the product to the customers. I really would like an MP3 or the new 50 Lux ASPH, but at the current price levels even a diehard Leica shooter like me is balking.
As far as lenses for Nikon/Canon goes I think it would be a very good idea and could provide another source of income for Leica. There are legions of Canon/Nikon shooters bolting wideangle Zeiss and Leica glass on their DSLR. Heck, even I shot a 5D with my R glass for a few jobs and bought the new Zeiss ZF 1.4/50 Planar for my F3-P.
I always felt it was more an issue of lack of will or vision on the part of the old owners that prevented this from happening. The lack of autofocus should also not be a problem, as the recent success of Zeiss has proven with their ZF line. I very much hope the new management has the vision to do this.
I purchased some of my gear new (bodies, lenses), but even for a dyed in the wool Leica shooter like myself things are a little out of control.
Leica pricing is reaching the point where the pricetag is exceeding the perceived value of the product to the customers. I really would like an MP3 or the new 50 Lux ASPH, but at the current price levels even a diehard Leica shooter like me is balking.
As far as lenses for Nikon/Canon goes I think it would be a very good idea and could provide another source of income for Leica. There are legions of Canon/Nikon shooters bolting wideangle Zeiss and Leica glass on their DSLR. Heck, even I shot a 5D with my R glass for a few jobs and bought the new Zeiss ZF 1.4/50 Planar for my F3-P.
I always felt it was more an issue of lack of will or vision on the part of the old owners that prevented this from happening. The lack of autofocus should also not be a problem, as the recent success of Zeiss has proven with their ZF line. I very much hope the new management has the vision to do this.
Last edited:
Iron Flatline
Guy in a Suit
The Euro has risen over 15% in the last 18 months. No manufacturer can hedge that delta for such a long time, esp. when it seems like the currency will stay that high, and go even higher. In the last nine months the EU has gone from 1.24 to 1.38 - that's a substantial difference. The US is the largest market for Leica, I'll bet you they'd prefer to have the currency go the other way so they could develop their customer-base even further.
retow
Well-known
Iron Flatline said:
The Euro appreciation would explain price increases in USD. Yet, Leica seems to increase even M8 prices in Euroland by about 600 Euro - difficult to blame currency movements for this one.
With the USD weakening on the one hand and the announced Euro price increase on the other hand, the US price for a M8 might soon be north of USD 6000.
And price trends for Leica glass move into the same direction.
Ajax
Jonathan Eastland
2 answers
2 answers
Wish it were that simple.
1. I read recently a comment from the new CEO Mr Lee that went something like 'so long as customers continue to pay the price we ask, we'll continue to make the kit.' or something along those lines.
Leica are not Zeiss. They simply don't have the same facilities or come anywhere close to the same product philosophy, although the recent launch of a gaggle of Summarits may pacify a few and there is probably room for some expansion of that and other lines in a similar vein to what Zeiss are doing with ZF and ZK lenses. In theory, the Panasonic lens facility which Leica set up, could offer other opportunities but my feeling is they will not go there.
2. Survival? Well your guess is as good as mine. But look around at what has happened to other 'luxury' products. Most of the hand made Swiss watch industry got bought by Swatch and those companies thrive because a few customers are willing to pay a very high price for what is perceived by them as product endowed with 'value'.
I think Leica are well aware they have to do more than at present if they are to survive the way we would like, but in the end this will probably only be possible if they can find a way to bring to market excellent but more modestly priced original goods which are not simply badge engineered copies.
I hope to have more on this at the end of September, but for now all I want is for Leica to rip the guts out of a Ricoh GX100 and make me their version with a decent piece of glass in brass and black enamel! Some hope, but I intend asking.
all the best
Jonathan
>www.ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com<
2 answers
Wish it were that simple.
1. I read recently a comment from the new CEO Mr Lee that went something like 'so long as customers continue to pay the price we ask, we'll continue to make the kit.' or something along those lines.
Leica are not Zeiss. They simply don't have the same facilities or come anywhere close to the same product philosophy, although the recent launch of a gaggle of Summarits may pacify a few and there is probably room for some expansion of that and other lines in a similar vein to what Zeiss are doing with ZF and ZK lenses. In theory, the Panasonic lens facility which Leica set up, could offer other opportunities but my feeling is they will not go there.
2. Survival? Well your guess is as good as mine. But look around at what has happened to other 'luxury' products. Most of the hand made Swiss watch industry got bought by Swatch and those companies thrive because a few customers are willing to pay a very high price for what is perceived by them as product endowed with 'value'.
I think Leica are well aware they have to do more than at present if they are to survive the way we would like, but in the end this will probably only be possible if they can find a way to bring to market excellent but more modestly priced original goods which are not simply badge engineered copies.
I hope to have more on this at the end of September, but for now all I want is for Leica to rip the guts out of a Ricoh GX100 and make me their version with a decent piece of glass in brass and black enamel! Some hope, but I intend asking.
all the best
Jonathan
>www.ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com<
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Let's not forget the chromest Contax and Nikon "fanatics" driving the prices up on collectible gear. Will they have enough?CameraQuest said:
I think Leica will see itself surviving just like they have for the past 40 years of impending immediate doom: adapt. But while they do that, educate consumers on the actual cost of humans, which they employ, and train, and pay accordingly for their education and expertise. Machines can only learn so much.
That is an excellent suggestion. If they sold currently-available Leica-R lenses with K or Nikon mounts, that would open up a whole new market. Zeiss did an incredibly smart thing doing so with Nikon mount; there have been many photographers buying Nikon D80/70/50/40 and manual-focus bodies just to get the chance to use the Zeiss optics.CameraQuest said:
Competition is incredibly tight in this arena, but with a Nikon full-frame, and a Nikon-mount Leica lens, already with the Zeiss offerings... ::drool::
You make good points...
You make good points...
Yes, Leica pricing is just getting silly--to the point where owning an M has become another form of executive jewelry.
Not that anybody's asked, but Leica did themselves no favors by associating themselves with the Panasonic and "Lumix" brands. WTF?
Talk about diluting the name and reputation. In marketing parlance, one wouldn not want the "Leica" and "Panasonic" names in the "front-of-mind" for your intended demographic.
To extend on other opinions and editorials on the subject, Leica would do well to introduce a 'bagel' in their product line: Very inexpensive, hardy, and gets the job done. Not feature packed, just well-constructed.
CJ
You make good points...
Yes, Leica pricing is just getting silly--to the point where owning an M has become another form of executive jewelry.
Not that anybody's asked, but Leica did themselves no favors by associating themselves with the Panasonic and "Lumix" brands. WTF?
Talk about diluting the name and reputation. In marketing parlance, one wouldn not want the "Leica" and "Panasonic" names in the "front-of-mind" for your intended demographic.
To extend on other opinions and editorials on the subject, Leica would do well to introduce a 'bagel' in their product line: Very inexpensive, hardy, and gets the job done. Not feature packed, just well-constructed.
CJ
Harry Lime said:
T
tedwhite
Guest
What's the matter with continuing to produce the M6 at a price that most amateurs can actually afford? (to say nothing of pro's who would no doubt buy the camera also).
I know this is an old thread, but I just discovered it (mainly since I bought an M6 a couple of weeks ago - my first).
I know this is an old thread, but I just discovered it (mainly since I bought an M6 a couple of weeks ago - my first).
charjohncarter
Veteran
Yes, I think you said Nikon/Pentax mounts. Canon being a marketing company they probably would not go for it. Harry Lime was mixed up, but an easy mistake (marketing wins). But it is a great idea. They already have the R lenses and changing to a Nikon or a KA Mount would be very easy and no compromise on their excellence.
kshapero
South Florida Man
An interesting concept. I have a Ricoh GX200. With a real sensor the rig would be off the charts.
bmattock
Veteran
1) In the long term, Leica will not survive in its present state. I presume it will be bought at some time for the value associated with its brand name and trademarks.
Towards that, and before Leica drinks the koolaid...
2) Leica is a brand name that is well known and well respected throughout several generations of professional and educated amateur photographers and the industry in general. They also have extensive optical-related businesses, as have many traditional 'camera' companies.
Leitz has problem that is not commonly seen these days. Their name has cachet, and thus, value. Scarcity and rarity help to keep the mystique going. More people have heard of Kodak than Leica, but Kodak is not known for their high-end offerings, so it does not matter if you can buy an alarm clock or a Disney stuffed animal that says 'Kodak' on it.
So that leaves Leica unable to extract as much value from the name as they otherwise might, because they correctly fear two things. One, dilution of the value of the marque, and two, direct comparison with their nearest competitors.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Leica cameras and lenses are actually 'better' than those made by other manufacturers, a common perception amongst the well-heeled camera collectors and professional photographers is that they are. They have built a core of rabid fans and defenders, such that some who read my preceding words will take them as an attack on Leica and leap to their defense.
Leica has managed to chart a rather careful course through this minefield. They have licensed and cross-licensed their name and their products with a variety of carefully-selected companies, such as Minolta and Panasonic, and they have, to the largest extent, managed to add cachet to the products and companies with which it has become associated, without damaging or diluting its own brand name. However, this has not allowed Leitz to expand their brand name recognition to a huge extent.
For example, Panasonic cameras with Leitz lenses are known as "LUMIX" models. Not "Leica-lens" models. This, one must presume, is by the design and intent of Leitz. To be sure, not all LUMIX models have Leica lenses, but many do, and although the name 'Leica' appears on the lens, it is not as widely advertised as it otherwise might be - many consumers are unaware of the fact that their LUMIX camera has a Leica lens on it.
However, this cannot last forever. As a company loses core business, if they have a reputable name, they often choose to trade on that name as they head down the drain. Thus, name-brand dilution becomes a fact of life, and Summicron soda and Noctilux sunglasses could join Leica-nameplated wristwatches and home breadmaking machines. This is why one can still buy the cheapest most crappy 'Bell+Howell" and "Argus" digital cameras imaginable, many years after the name ceased to mean anything to anyone involved in photography in any serious way.
At the same time, Leica's other companies have traded on the famous name in a more useful way. They don't license their name, they license their technology, and their name reinforces the concept among licensees of their technology that their products are superior, such as Leica Microsystems and Leica Geosystems.
I tend to believe that this is why Leica has not trod that path. They don't want to dilute their brand name, and they don't want direct comparisons with their nearest competitors. But after they're sold, then yes, Leica-branded tennis shoes.
Towards that, and before Leica drinks the koolaid...
2) Leica is a brand name that is well known and well respected throughout several generations of professional and educated amateur photographers and the industry in general. They also have extensive optical-related businesses, as have many traditional 'camera' companies.
Leitz has problem that is not commonly seen these days. Their name has cachet, and thus, value. Scarcity and rarity help to keep the mystique going. More people have heard of Kodak than Leica, but Kodak is not known for their high-end offerings, so it does not matter if you can buy an alarm clock or a Disney stuffed animal that says 'Kodak' on it.
So that leaves Leica unable to extract as much value from the name as they otherwise might, because they correctly fear two things. One, dilution of the value of the marque, and two, direct comparison with their nearest competitors.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Leica cameras and lenses are actually 'better' than those made by other manufacturers, a common perception amongst the well-heeled camera collectors and professional photographers is that they are. They have built a core of rabid fans and defenders, such that some who read my preceding words will take them as an attack on Leica and leap to their defense.
Leica has managed to chart a rather careful course through this minefield. They have licensed and cross-licensed their name and their products with a variety of carefully-selected companies, such as Minolta and Panasonic, and they have, to the largest extent, managed to add cachet to the products and companies with which it has become associated, without damaging or diluting its own brand name. However, this has not allowed Leitz to expand their brand name recognition to a huge extent.
For example, Panasonic cameras with Leitz lenses are known as "LUMIX" models. Not "Leica-lens" models. This, one must presume, is by the design and intent of Leitz. To be sure, not all LUMIX models have Leica lenses, but many do, and although the name 'Leica' appears on the lens, it is not as widely advertised as it otherwise might be - many consumers are unaware of the fact that their LUMIX camera has a Leica lens on it.
However, this cannot last forever. As a company loses core business, if they have a reputable name, they often choose to trade on that name as they head down the drain. Thus, name-brand dilution becomes a fact of life, and Summicron soda and Noctilux sunglasses could join Leica-nameplated wristwatches and home breadmaking machines. This is why one can still buy the cheapest most crappy 'Bell+Howell" and "Argus" digital cameras imaginable, many years after the name ceased to mean anything to anyone involved in photography in any serious way.
At the same time, Leica's other companies have traded on the famous name in a more useful way. They don't license their name, they license their technology, and their name reinforces the concept among licensees of their technology that their products are superior, such as Leica Microsystems and Leica Geosystems.
I tend to believe that this is why Leica has not trod that path. They don't want to dilute their brand name, and they don't want direct comparisons with their nearest competitors. But after they're sold, then yes, Leica-branded tennis shoes.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Drop the red dot, substitute a pink dot, introduce a line of "Leica Pink" clothes, cell phones, notebook computers, dolls, and maybe even digital point & shoots, all at a moderately higher price point that the competition to reinforce the idea of perceived value. Move their advertising dollars and Euros to girls fashion magazines and TV shows catering to kids and teenage girls. Create the illusion is that the only way to captivate your dream guy is to "Go Leica Pink!"
Teen girls seem to shoot a lot more photos than the boys. Get them started early thinking of the camera as a fashion accessory and the name Leica as a mark of distinction.
Teen girls seem to shoot a lot more photos than the boys. Get them started early thinking of the camera as a fashion accessory and the name Leica as a mark of distinction.
Last edited:
T
tedwhite
Guest
Regarding my earlier post, I still have no idea why Leica currently produces but one film camera, the MP, that the average camera user can ill afford. You can't sell something if you don't manufacture it. I know I'm way out of my league here in this discussion, but the questions I'm asking are probably what the average guy on the street might also be asking.
bmattock
Veteran
It is a reasonable question; but consider Rolls-Royce and Cadillac. Rolls produces no vehicles the average Joe can afford, nor do they care to. Their business plan is not to sell as many cars as they can to all comers, but to sell as many cars as they can whilst maintaining the concept of Rolls as the ultimate in luxury vehicles. They cannot do this by lowering their prices, which would require building cars to a lower standard.
Cadillac, on the other hand, has experimented with dolling up basic GM-chassis cars with Cadillac nameplates and accoutrement, and they ended up with a laughable monstrosity - neither fish nor fowl, it was not luxurious enough for the average Cadillac buyer nor 'Cadillac' enough for the average GM-body car (Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile) wishing for a tad more luxury. It damaged the brand for some time.
An 'everyman' Leica would likely suffer the same fate. It would have to be built without the legendary Leica build quality to be cheap enough to afford, and it would appeal neither to the traditional lovers of Leica cameras nor to the average Joe, who is happy with a good plastic dSLR or, if they prefer a rangefinder, the excellent Cosina-made Voigtlander offerings.
That's my thought on it, anyway.
funkaoshi
Well-known
tedwhite, what would a 'budget' Leica look like? An MP is a pretty bare bones camera as it is. And I suspect people who want a 'budget' Leica will buy a Bessa. People with lots of money continue to buy Leica's, as do many professionals. Clearly Leica is not trying to go after the hobbyist market. (How many people on this forum have bought new gear, vs. bought used gear? Would that split change if new gear was cheaper? I have my doubts.)
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Well, maybe not a rangefinder, but what about a really good plastic dSLR with Leica on it? No frills, just the basics, with good lenses.
Think Nikon FM-10 and FE-10. Much maligned due to their lower build quality and Cosina origins, they are not bad cameras perse. And I don't think they damaged Nikon's reputation either.
funkaoshi
Well-known
What advantage does Leica get entering a high volume low margin market like the budget dSLR business? It seems pretty clear they aren't as good as Nikon and Canon and building digital cameras. More so, who is going to buy these cameras? Are they the sort of people that will then spend 2-3K on some Leica glass?
Fred Burton
Well-known
I agree. Leica is going to make it or not on the basis of the M8 (or M9 if that ever happens) and very expensive lenses. That's their market.
40oz
...
It costs money to manufacture, doesn't it? If you can only afford to produce 200 examples of lens X, why not just charge what you need to come out ahead? People will complain about the pricing, but until they pony up to provide larger manufacturing facilities, lend money at cheap rates for raw materials and labor costs, those whiners are simply noise. You couldn't address their concerns if you wanted to.
Porsche charges what they do because they can't afford to make any more units. It would be silly to charge less and not be able to meet demand, yet not be making enough money to increase production down the road. Not to mention that if the factory didn't set the price to meet demand, the dealers would.
Leica is not Porsche, but the issue is the same. Just because every Tom Dick and Harry say they'd buy lens X if it was cheaper doesn't change the very real fact that Leica can't afford to increase production.
Porsche charges what they do because they can't afford to make any more units. It would be silly to charge less and not be able to meet demand, yet not be making enough money to increase production down the road. Not to mention that if the factory didn't set the price to meet demand, the dealers would.
Leica is not Porsche, but the issue is the same. Just because every Tom Dick and Harry say they'd buy lens X if it was cheaper doesn't change the very real fact that Leica can't afford to increase production.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh g*wd, that would unleash a new wave of Leica-bashing threads.
I don't understand why people who complain about Leica prices keep complaining about the prices. Aren't there other cameras out there at affordable prices?