Roger Hicks
Veteran
Is an M9 'insanely expensive'? It's certainly a lot more affordable than a Porsche.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
M10 Price Prediction?
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 13K
Thardy
Veteran
Yeah some of those cars can be quite badass (great looking, high performance, with a high envy factor) for not a crazy expensive price tag. If an M10 comes in at 10k, what do you have?
f16sunshine
Moderator
I predict that the M10 will sell at a price that will cause many flame threads about Leica not serving photographers needs.... Catering to the rich.... Profit taking... Losing the plot in regards to "who" made them what "they" are today...
It's going to be so awful! Maybe I should go get a real problem now to distract me from reading any of those threads later 😀
Joking aside. I hope it's not too much. If it is there will likely be fewer M9's coming on the used market which will stabilize the M9 price ....right out of my affordable range. 😱
It's going to be so awful! Maybe I should go get a real problem now to distract me from reading any of those threads later 😀
Joking aside. I hope it's not too much. If it is there will likely be fewer M9's coming on the used market which will stabilize the M9 price ....right out of my affordable range. 😱
Photon42
burn the box
About the same as the M9 price, maybe M9P.
denizg7
Well-known
one things for sure. If the m10 cost $2500 dollars , there would be more leica users , a more dedicated fan base , and they would increase revenue.
I am pretty sure those two top and bottom brass plates alone dont cost 2,000 do they?
I am pretty sure those two top and bottom brass plates alone dont cost 2,000 do they?
jtm6
Well-known
Neither are affordable for me and expensive can be relative. And I know what you mean jsrockit. My point was there are no lower-priced digital-M entry models into the Leica brand, like Ferrari but unlike Porsche and Mercedes. It was Keith's analogy, not mine. 😉
jtm6
Well-known
That is not for sure for several reasons.
segedi
RFicianado
I wonder if Leica is looking at all these "estimates" and will come up with their price according to our silly expectations. If so, please price at $7,250. A little more than M9. And chop $1500 off the M9 and M9-P to get rid of the existing stock.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I didn't know Porsche made cameras. News flash, yea I think it is "insanely expensive" for what it is but then people like myself are not Leica's intended market. I expect a Porsche owner would consider it cheap.
Bob
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
If we believe the rumors, it's going to be around 10K. But I have the gut feeling it's not going to be that expensive. Probably around the price of a MM.
Thardy
Veteran
I have a Neurosurgeon friend who drives a Lamborghini, takes exotic trips, stays in five star hotels, etc... A few months ago he received a preordered Nex 7. He is supposedly an accomplished amateur photographer, but I wonder if he knows much about Leica. I think I'll strike up a conversation about the new M10, see what he says.
I wonder if the reaction will be hmmm $10,000? Or $10,000 FOR A CAMERA???
I wonder if the reaction will be hmmm $10,000? Or $10,000 FOR A CAMERA???
denizg7
Well-known
hmm I know plenty of people who would love to own a digital m, but they simply can't afford
even paying $2500 is a lot for a camera , but in leica prices that's affordable for a body alone , and a lot of users will break the bank and turn into leica owners
MartinP
Veteran
Well, they (or their design consultancy wing) did help Contax with the RTS range, a long time ago . . .
😉
jtm6
Well-known
Again, not necessarily. Besides, it is about profit not revenue.
OK. But what does that have to do with profit? If you made a luxury widget for $10, would you lower the price to $2.50 if someone told you that you would need to make 8 times as many widgets to sell to 16 times as many customers (since you lost 1/2 of your customers since it would no longer be a velbon good) to make the same amount of money?
There is a lot more to that story, but that's the gist of it.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was looking at the price of a new D4 Nikon the other day and almost choked because it's M9 territory. But that's a lot of camera for the price and although DSLRs are not everone's cup of tea you get what you pay for and more ... the Nikon meets the mark in every area it should without excuses from the manufacturer.
We've been putting up with Leica's low rent ISO performance since the digital M came out not to mention the crappy LCD along with several other compromises. For ten grand an M10 would want to be damned good ... in other words start giving customers what they're paying for aside from the name!
We've been putting up with Leica's low rent ISO performance since the digital M came out not to mention the crappy LCD along with several other compromises. For ten grand an M10 would want to be damned good ... in other words start giving customers what they're paying for aside from the name!
denizg7
Well-known
profit is a part of revenue, increased revenue , increased profit.
Do you have any idea how much profit Leica would make if it could steal around 25% of the dslr consumers in the market, because of the $2500 price range? Considering they build a new plant and everything . But anyways some people want leica to stay a niche product , unlike how it was when m3,m2 were introduced. Times change , companies change too I guess.
Thardy
Veteran
I'm sure plenty of RFFers will go for it. And Steve Huff.
Pablito
coco frío
They are called Panasonics.
jtm6
Well-known
That is not always true. Lower prices can yield lower profit margins even if costs are lowered. More units need to be made and sold to more customers to generate the same revenue... but with lower profit margins, they make less profit! Therefore, even more revenue needs to be generated by making and selling more units to more customers to yield the same profits as before this mess began. This is often how people and companies go out of business.
I doubt it could steal 25% of the DSLR market. It is an already oversaturated market where consumer to professional products compete based on bleeding edge technological qualities instead of having no competitors as the only luxury good of its kind at the current price.
eleskin
Well-known
What is with the 10K M10? $$$$$$ MADNESS!
What is with the 10K M10? $$$$$$ MADNESS!
M8, $4,000, M8.2 $5,700, M9 $7,000, M9P $8,000, M10, $10,000, M11 $14,000, M12 $20,000, etc,, you get the drift. This is in the world of the D800 at $3,000. Am I missing something or is something wrong here? It is really too bad that people who own rangefinder lenses of any make have to pay such a steep price for a full frame camera. Not everyone bought M mount lenses, screw mount, etc,, brand new, and many of us are watching our budgets. For me, My M8 purchase in 2007 at $4,700 was my limit, and to be honest, still is my limit. The sad thing is if we want new, at 4K, we are chased out of using rangefinder lenses. I must say, I only need a sensor to mount my lenses on and frankly I would not care if it had some polycarbonate to reduce cost. All I need is image quality. Considering how electronics change so rapidly, one has to ask the question does it make sense to buy a $10,000 digital camera? The point is the M10 or M9 may be to much overbuilt to make sense. If the camera were designed to last 5 years at a much reduced cost, I believe that makes more sense. If Fuji made a full frame version of the X PRO 1 with a better focusing method for M lenses I would consider that over any Leica product. Ricoh may also come out with something soon. Leica really needs competition in full frame cameras. They need a little fear for survival in their blood not only to produce more realistically priced cameras, but to produce better more reliable products. A little free market capitalism never hurts.
What is with the 10K M10? $$$$$$ MADNESS!
M8, $4,000, M8.2 $5,700, M9 $7,000, M9P $8,000, M10, $10,000, M11 $14,000, M12 $20,000, etc,, you get the drift. This is in the world of the D800 at $3,000. Am I missing something or is something wrong here? It is really too bad that people who own rangefinder lenses of any make have to pay such a steep price for a full frame camera. Not everyone bought M mount lenses, screw mount, etc,, brand new, and many of us are watching our budgets. For me, My M8 purchase in 2007 at $4,700 was my limit, and to be honest, still is my limit. The sad thing is if we want new, at 4K, we are chased out of using rangefinder lenses. I must say, I only need a sensor to mount my lenses on and frankly I would not care if it had some polycarbonate to reduce cost. All I need is image quality. Considering how electronics change so rapidly, one has to ask the question does it make sense to buy a $10,000 digital camera? The point is the M10 or M9 may be to much overbuilt to make sense. If the camera were designed to last 5 years at a much reduced cost, I believe that makes more sense. If Fuji made a full frame version of the X PRO 1 with a better focusing method for M lenses I would consider that over any Leica product. Ricoh may also come out with something soon. Leica really needs competition in full frame cameras. They need a little fear for survival in their blood not only to produce more realistically priced cameras, but to produce better more reliable products. A little free market capitalism never hurts.
Similar threads
