M8 Price Hike

[pmu]

Most professionals shoot a range of assignments that demand the versatility of a DSLR over an RF. Just a fact of life.

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]

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.

 

[Ray Nalley]

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]

An interesting read on the current luxury market...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/15/lif...mbel.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008082008

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The 'logic' of some RFF people:

I can't afford a Patek Philippe watch.

Therefore Patek Philippe should make cheaper 'entry-level' watches in China.

If they don't, they will go broke.

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]

Why not?

If it takes good pictures, and continues to do so, what's to stop anyone using it in 50 years time -- IF Leica continues to support it?


That's a huge IF in today's world of electronics. Certainly not one I'll be counting on.


But I'll say again. The company has earned all of the second-guessing that's taking place. Until Leica can demonstrate that it does know what it is doing, people are going to cast a very critical eye on any substantial moves.

I'll confess that I don't know enough about Kaufmann. But regardless of his past accomplishments, he has a long way to go before proving he can fix Leica. The stark reality is that history is littered with CEOs and owners who put their companies into the grave because of bad decisions.
I'm not saying that a price increase is going to doom Leica, or anything close to it. But at the same time, these guys at the top don't always know what's best.

 

[Ben Z]

I doubt that what you claim regarding lack of price increases from BMW and Mercedes is correct. I know for sure that Ferrari has increased (from about 200,000 $/€ for a Scuderia in 2001 to 400,000 $ today) their prices in USA with more than just compensation for the dollar fall. So has Porsche.

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%)

 

[pmu]

Maybe because the huge majority of them prefer it? (using dslr's over rf)

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.

So you seriously believe that the *one* thing that stand in their way of liberating their art and profession is a $5000 camera and some lenses?!?

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]

No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.

Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?

Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?

Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.

Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.

Cheers,

R.

Hear, hear!

 

[Roger Hicks]

All I am saying that M8 is ridiculously overpriced for what it offers...

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]

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%)

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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.

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:

You can prove anything you want with a strong bias.

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.

 

[HiredArm]

No, not everyone thinks that way, it's true. But many seem to.

Yes, of course there's a market for a cheaper digital RF. Can Leica build it? Not in Solms. And they are not keen on (further) diluting the Leica brand with an interchangeable-lens M-compatible camera built elsewhere. How (and where) would you go about building a cheaper, second-string M-compatible camera under the Leica brand?

Next: a price increase when you suffer a 38% loss looks to me like an extremely rational business move. What alternatives do you propose? Cut prices and suffer a bigger loss (they're building 'em as fast as they can)? Spend a fortune on increasing production capacity and bringing out new models, involving much greater short term losses? 'Badge engineer' someone else's cameras? Leave the prices where they are?

Imagine you are Dr. Kaufmann. What would be a smart business move in the context? Without wishing to be rude, I assume you are not a man who is so rich that he can afford to run Leica as a paying hobby -- and I think that the key word there is paying. A man who has made a fortune in other businesses may fairly be assumed capable of making rational decisions when it comes to Leica also.

Now, I'll go into the realms of fantasy too. If I could afford to buy Leica, I'd give it to the employees in the form of a trust -- like Zeiss. That way I'd be confident it would grow and prosper. I begin to wonder if the publicly quoted limited liability company may not be an obsolescent business model.

Cheers,

R.

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]

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).

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]

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.

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. 🙁