pmu
Well-known
I beg to differ. Well, I don't know what "most" professionals do, but what I know and what I have seen any decent professional do not shoot "everything" - they focus a little bit on something. If you are specialized in sports photography there is no point of getting rf, but otherwise i don't see any reason why would you need DSLR and lenses from superwide to supertele.
Why do you think that for example in the 1990's and early 2000's lot of photojournalists used their Leica's instead of high tech af-slr's? Because THEY COULD. Now they can't if they want to shoot digitally.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I shot professionally for years. I shot Nikon film cameras and then DSLR's. For my work, which was mostly PJ and event stuff, there is no way I would have used rangefinder cameras, especially Leicas (because of the expense of the cameras and lenses).
Not to say that you cannot shoot this way, but in all my years, I can count on one hand actually seeing working pros shooting Leicas or any other rangefinder cameras, for that matter.
I shot rangefinders (including a Leica for a while), for my own personal work, almost never for paying gigs.
Not to say that you cannot shoot this way, but in all my years, I can count on one hand actually seeing working pros shooting Leicas or any other rangefinder cameras, for that matter.
I shot rangefinders (including a Leica for a while), for my own personal work, almost never for paying gigs.
Last edited:
Ray Nalley
Well-known
Well, I'm not sure "a lot" of pros shot Leica RF's in the 1990's and early 2000. Some did, but most shot SLR's, as they have since the 1960's.
Ray Nalley
Well-known
An interesting read on the current luxury market...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/15/lif...mbel.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008082008
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/15/lif...mbel.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008082008
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite honestly, there's not a lot of point in my continuing to post in this thread. No, I don't know that they are still making M8s as fast as they can -- but I do know that they are pretty damn' busy at the factory, on other things, which cuts into M8 assembly time, so maybe 'as fast as they can' isn't as fast as it was.
What I do know is that my views on Leica seem to match better with Dr. Kaufmann's than with those of many RFF members who take an interest in the subject; and as he effectively owns the company, I'm not too unhappy about this.
It comes down to a simple truth. You don't run Leica; I don't run Leica; Dr. Kaufmann does. You may think that some of his decisions are wrong. History may reveal that some of them are/were/will have been wrong (the question of tense here is interesting). But in the meanwhile -- especially a few weeks before photokina -- there's not a vast amount to say. Embargos come off a few days before photokina; we'll all learn more then.
Meanwhile I'll go on buying what I can afford; I'll go on hoping that those who are richer than I will go on buying enough Leicas to keep them in business; and I'll try to correct some of the wilder misconceptions that surface from time to time.
Of course Dr. Kaufmann and others may have told me fairy stories for their own purposes, but I doubt it. Certainly, I'd have more faith in the CEO of a company than in nay-sayers on RFF.
Cheers,
R.
What I do know is that my views on Leica seem to match better with Dr. Kaufmann's than with those of many RFF members who take an interest in the subject; and as he effectively owns the company, I'm not too unhappy about this.
It comes down to a simple truth. You don't run Leica; I don't run Leica; Dr. Kaufmann does. You may think that some of his decisions are wrong. History may reveal that some of them are/were/will have been wrong (the question of tense here is interesting). But in the meanwhile -- especially a few weeks before photokina -- there's not a vast amount to say. Embargos come off a few days before photokina; we'll all learn more then.
Meanwhile I'll go on buying what I can afford; I'll go on hoping that those who are richer than I will go on buying enough Leicas to keep them in business; and I'll try to correct some of the wilder misconceptions that surface from time to time.
Of course Dr. Kaufmann and others may have told me fairy stories for their own purposes, but I doubt it. Certainly, I'd have more faith in the CEO of a company than in nay-sayers on RFF.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Won't happen; they'll go "it's irrational to buy a watch when I can already ask a passerby or read it from my cellphone".
Assuming, of course, the cellphone is not so old as to not have a clock.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Ben Z
Veteran
For the record, I did not claim that prices haven't increased. What I said was that they have not increased anywhere near the same percentage as Leica. From internet auto consumer sites:
US MSRP:
Mercedes E-350
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $50,550
Summer 2008: $50,900
Total price increase $450 (0.8%)
BMW 550i
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $57,800
Summer 2008: $58,500
Total price increase $700 (1.2%)
Porsche Carrera (base model)
Fall 2006 ('07 model year): $72,400
Summer 2008: $73,500
Total price increase $1100 (1.5%)
Leica M8
Fall 2006: $ 4,795
Summer 2008: $ 5,495
Total price increase $700 (14.6%)
Last edited:
pmu
Well-known
Of course the majority prefers AF dslr's over rangefinder cameras. Of course people buy focal lenghts ranging from
super wide to super tele. I did not say they wouldn't. But I know that I do not need superwides nor superteles. And I don't need zooms either.
I did not say anything like that. Stop putting words to my mouth. All I am saying that M8 is ridiculously overpriced for what it offers and if we had that $2000 dslr matching quality rangefinder body I would get it and that's it. And so would thousands of others do the same thing.
For the past three months at work I have shot quite a lot of different things... I have been doing reportage in "ISO3200 lightning" 500 meters under ground, night reportages in city, couple of trips to the sea, dozens of portraits inside and outside, soccer and all kinds of sports... etc etc. If we leave the sports photography aside there is not a single reason that I can think of why I could not have taken all those pictures with a rangefinder body. I tried to think a reason but I couln't figure anything out. On the contrary if I had the digital rangefinder body my back would not hurt because of the weight of the camera bag and I would not have to curse to the camera performance (af-issues). I would just be 100 times more comfortable with the tool I was using because I just happen to prefer rf over slr.
In my opinion Leica can raise their prices as much as they want. I am not going to buy M8 until it costs $1500 or less. If they make M9 which is actually a D700 / D3 level of quality camera then I would be willing to pay a lot more. On lenses my money goes to Zeiss and CV. If that kind of camera existed I would get it and forget the dslr world. Simple, my choice and I would not care what everyone else used. I would just use my digital rf-body camera with a smile in my face...like I do now with my M6.
Have a nice evening, over and out.
Olsen
Well-known
Hear, hear!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Given that it is the only current-production digital rangefinder, I can't quite see how it is overpriced with respect to the (non-existent) competition.
That's what a digital RF costs at the moment. If you dont like it, can't afford it, or are disinclined to spend the money, that's fine. But it's not the same as 'overpriced'.
Cheers,
R.
Olsen
Well-known
You are comparing 'automn 06' with 'summer 08'. By late 2006 much of 'the air had gone out of the balloon' the dollar had done it's hardest dive. In NOK the value of the US dollar has fallen from (2001) NOK 9,98 to NOK 4,98 a few days in July of this year. Now it is back at NOK 5,20 - compared to NOK 5,80 one year ago.
At 73,600 $ the Carrera must be heavily subsidized. No wonder they are now imported from USA to Norway (Russia, etc.etc) instead at official prices from Germany.
pmu
Well-known
But there is competition in m-mount lenses! I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive. I would call it "overpricing". Wasn't it few years ago when noctilux was $2500 or somethng like that... Then Leica decided to raise the prices many times and now $5000 for noctilux is concidered to be a bargain. To me it is "overpriced". To me that kind of price increase is just ridiculous. In fact it makes me a little bit mad. (I don't know the exact actual prices of noctilux now and before).
Now I will go and fondle my black M4 and take few shots with my 35mm Ultron before I sell it. 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/2 Ultron are almost on the way. Thank you CV for making us these nice product in such an affordable price!
tomasis
Well-known
Right! But for whinners, I recommend an used Rd1 then raise value of used Rd1 too
I had backache with D70 and 17-70Dx lens. Now I enjoy Rd1 and a prime and the back feels good! tomasis
Well-known
But there is competition in m-mount lenses! I doubt that there is a lot of differences in terms of performance and build quality when comparing Zeiss and Leica, but not surprizingly that other brand is hugely more expensive. I would call it "overpricing". Wasn't it few years ago when noctilux was $2500 or somethng like that... Then Leica decided to raise the prices many times and now $5000 for noctilux is concidered to be a bargain. To me it is "overpriced". To me that kind of price increase is just ridiculous. In fact it makes me a little bit mad. (I don't know the exact actual prices of noctilux now and before).
Now I will go and fondle my black M4 and take few shots with my 35mm Ultron before I sell it. 35/1.4 Nokton and 28/2 Ultron are almost on the way. Thank you CV for making us these nice product in such an affordable price!
you sound like a healthy winner
Look at Zeiss 15mm and 85mm prices. Noctilux is unique and has rare glass. Hand-made. Short supply increases the price if demand is high.
Maybe you need learn some of economics lessons?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Zeiss 85mm f/2 Sonnar ZM:
$2,912.00
Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron ASPH:
$3,495.00
Cosina Voigtlaender 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar:
$329.95
Difference between Zeiss and Leica 90mm-s: about 16% difference
Difference between Zeiss and CV 90mms: about 780% difference
By your logic, Zeiss is way more overpriced than its next lower-tier competitor than Leica is than its next lower-tier competitor.
You can prove anything you want with a strong bias.
pmu
Well-known
There is no point comparing f3.5 CV lens to those others. Even if those Zeiss and Leica are both expensive I realize that those are special lenses and the price amount of $$$ is high. That is ok.
What about normal lenses like
50/2?
Leica: $1995
Zeiss: $700
35/2
Leica: $2795
Zeiss: $880
28/2.8
Leica: $1795
Zeiss: $880
etc etc...
The price difference is HUGE, but please tell me the is the quality so different that the pricetag is "OK"? I am not comparing those with CV because I think that it is well known that the build quality is not "leica quality" in CV even if they are really well built. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that Zeiss lenses should be top notch in that way also.
EDIT, added this:
I am biased yes... I love to shoot with my Leicas. M2, M6 and recently acquired M4 are absolutely the most fantastic photographic equipments I have EVER used. I love my M6 and I think the 35mm v3 cron was the best lens I ever had. Fantastic in build quality, fantastic IQ. So I am biased towards Leica - I am the first to admit it. ...but with these prices my money goes to CV or Zeiss if I buy new lenses.
I would love to continue this, but I have to do some work now... Be well everyone.
Last edited:
HiredArm
Newbie
I didn't believe that I was implying that a lower end dRF model would be an instant fix for Leica at all but it would certainly help for those who don't want to (or can't) spend $10K+ for a camera system. I only implied that it would be a very good business move to grow the brand, make it recognizable again, offer a product for enthusiasts, photography students, and increase familiarity with RF systems. I don't see how that is a bad thing at all.
Case in point electronics tend to always be depreciable. It's not out of the question to think that a "lower end" product introduced two years after the flagship come close to the performance of a higher end product. Things tend to trickle down that way. Some people believe that the Porsche Cayman S is the best performing vehicle in the lineup (outside the GT3.) It doesn't have the best or highest specs performance wise but it's arguably the "most fun to drive. There are those who buy them because it's what they can afford. There are those who could get a 911 but who choose the Cayman S because it offers what they want or need. Going back to cameras Canon or Nikon would be unwise to only offer a 1DsMkIII and D3 as there only models and expect to be highly successful. Thus they have all the other lines. I believe that there are enough people who could or would support a "prosumer" model (as stated before) that could compete with the 40D, 5D, D300 and D700's of this world. Those camera's are all less expensive than a M8 but they all produce excellent imagery results for a fraction of the cost. Leica should try to eat into that market as it is still on the high end side of things.
As for the price increases, increasing costs amidst declining sales generally doesn't garner more sales in most cases. There's always an exception but I don't think this will be one of those exceptions. You are correct in assuming that I'm not a billionaire that could afford to purchase the company and run it exactly like I would want. That said, I don't believe one has to be a billionaire CEO to be able to make valid suggestions or opinion to one of their hobbies. People could go on all day about what would make a real Leica (Porsche, Rolls Royce, BMW, Rolex, or any of several luxury products) based on cost, location that it's built, etc. If it's designed by the company, built to the companies specifications, and functions as intended then it's the real thing in my opinion. "
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Bold and italics added by me.
Ok.. and I think that's what Roger (and some others) may be saying.
Why would that price increase be "ridiculous" to you?
Why would it make you a "little bit mad"?
I only ask those questions because you have stated those questions because you have clarified that Leica is "overpriced" in your eyes; ergo I'm guessing that you can't afford that sort of glass. If this is the case, then why would the price increases of something that you already can't afford make you "mad"?
Is it that you, ideally, would want to have the Noctilux at CV or Zeiss prices?
If so, that's fine. I mean, hey, I'd want one too.
Do I think that Zeiss or CV (Mr Kobayashi) would make a 50mm f1.0 lens and be able to sell it at the price of only $2500? I don't think so; but then again, that lens, made by Zeiss or CV doesn't exist so it's a moot question.
It may be better if, instead of complaining about pricing, we (or anyone who wants to) put our efforts into either a) saving enough money to one day purchase said Leica lens or b) writing away to Zeiss / CV to create such a lens and sell it at a "reasonable price".
I know that with option a) I would, someday, be able to attain the lens (given enough time and money saved) but with option b) there are no guarantees that the lens would ever be created.
Something to think about. . .
Cheers,
Dave
sol33
Established
Porsche is betting on a strong euro and a weak dollar on the international money markets. The money they are gaining from this is used to subsidize their sales in the US to compensate the weak dollar. Should the dollar rise against the euro they would gain nothing in their bets but would not need to subsidize their sales in the US either. As far as I know all German car producers do this to some extend to minimize the risks from changing exchange rates and to stabilize their prices in the US.
Unfortunately this is probably more difficult for Leica than for the car producers because Leica would need to predict their sales volume in the US beforehand pretty accurately.