Price increase for Leica USA and M8 Delivery

[NoTx]

Have you checked the noise-at-ISO-1600 thread on the R-D 1 forum? That's a CCD too, and a lot of us find there's not much problem. The dance-concert publicity photos I send to newspapers routinely run at as much as four-column size, and the editors must not have any complaints about the noise, since they keep using 'em...

Well, being newspapers don't need 10 megapixels normally... you can down size and reduce noise (if you need to). However if you are spot on for exposure, even the 3 year old Olympus E-1's small sensor is fine with ISO 1600. Plus, for very little money you can grab Noise Nija or some competitor and all of a sudden... you can go another stop...

 

[greggebhardt]

Yep, it is official. There will be a 4 to 5 % icrease on Leica M lenses and Leica Sport Optics. The M and R cameras along with A La Carte program will not go up until the first of January 2007. :bang:

Also the Leica Digital M is now called the M8 for an unofficial estimate at $4995.00 Black body only at this time. We are told that we will be receiving our first shipment by the second to fourth week in October. If you are interested, we are now taking deposits for our first delivery. At this time there are now 15 firm slots in the Queue.

Have a great Summer!

TR

Hi Tony,

My check for the M8 deposit is heading your way! God's Speed Leica!:angel:

 

[sf]

Price increase. . . not surprising. Leica isn't in the business of gear for the average shooter. What's annoying about this is that we pay $$$$ for a Leica camera because it will last forever and is a mechanically beautiful thing. Pricing the m8 at $5k. . . .it's not going to last a lifetime. It won't even last 10 years - and the technology will become obsolete in even shorter time.

This price is illogical from a consumer POV, but Leica knows their market!

 

[Rich Silfver]

Price increase. . . not surprising. Leica isn't in the business of gear for the average shooter. What's annoying about this is that we pay $$$$ for a Leica camera because it will last forever and is a mechanically beautiful thing. Pricing the m8 at $5k. . . .it's not going to last a lifetime. It won't even last 10 years - and the technology will become obsolete in even shorter time.

This price is illogical from a consumer POV, but Leica knows their market!

Why is the price 'illogical'?

 

[jaapv]

Looking at it from a dollar point of view I can understand the comment, From Euroland it looks not too bad. Maybe we can say that the international moneymarket is illogical from a consumer's point of view.

 

[sf]

Why is the price 'illogical'?

I thought that is what I said.

Illogical because we pay for the longevity and fine quality (one in the same) of the Leica. The nature of digital is not longevity (at least, not in the sense that the technology is stable). You buy a mechanical Leica and it is as good now as it will be in 50 years. It may even be better in 50 years. You buy an M8, and it will be obsolete in 10 years (easily), and obsoletion of technology sometimes creates maintenance problems down the line. You may not find a person who can work on the M8 20 years from now. You will always find mechanics that know mechanical Leicas.

My point is that they are charging alot for the item when it lacks the single most vital and defining Leica characteristic. Sure, you get a good deal of that $$$$ back since you won't be shooting film, but is that really a good reason to charge an arm and a leg for a camera?

I just think they are about $2500 high on the price. Relative to other cameras on the market, it may well be 'worth' $5k, but outside of relativity, I doubt it.

I guess I would see putting $5k into classic M gear as an investment in the future. You buy a good camera once, and it is your camera for the rest of your life if you treat it well. That is not the case with the M8. The technology simply will not remain as it is. 20 years from now, your 10MP images will not compare with those produced via technology not even dreamt of yet.

 

[jaapv]

Body (equivalent to M7) = $3000,--, sensor and electronics = $ 1500,--
profit = $ 500,--
What is illogical with that? It would be rather more illogical to take a 2000 $ loss on each camera sold, would you not agree?

 

[sf]

I get that point. It is more expensive to produce than the classic ms. But from the consumer POV. . . well, I guess maybe the film/processing cost does help knock the camera cost down a bit.

 

[John Camp]

Things are worth what somebody will pay for them. I don't think they'll have a lot of trouble sellling M8s. And a Canon sells for $7,000...

JC

 

[jaapv]

I get that point. It is more expensive to produce than the classic ms. But from the consumer POV. . . well, I guess maybe the film/processing cost does help knock the camera cost down a bit.

I understand your chagrin. I'm not happy at parting with 4000 Euro's either, and my wife even less so😛 , but then, I cannot help myself. GAS and all that kind of thing:bang: :bang: On the other hand, I keep telling myself that it will be the last camera I'll ever buy (hollow laugh-but it helps😀 )

 

[ghost]

at this rate, leica will lose its high resale value as the gap widens between what leica charges for new gear and what people will pay on the second hand market.

 

[jaapv]

That is nothing new. If you buy a mint M6 for 1100 Euro now, that is about
1/3rd of a new MP.

 

[Rich Silfver]

I get that point. It is more expensive to produce than the classic ms. But from the consumer POV. . . well, I guess maybe the film/processing cost does help knock the camera cost down a bit.

Sorry but you're not making a whole lot of sense. What does the consumer's point of view have to do with the pricing being illogical?

There are other cameras out there priced below - and above - the price point that Leica is coming out at. They produce very high quality products for customers that can combine wanting/needing them with the means of acquiring them. Producing a Leica MP/M7 is NOT as cheap as it is to produce a Bessa. Different products have different prices. What is illogical about it?

And 'film/processing cost' does not 'help knock the camera cost down' it reduces the total cost of ownership. The camera still costs the same.

 

[Harry Lime]

I'll wait to buy one used, as long as it's newspaper usable at 1600ASA

...oh, it's a CCD...well that really is too bad... then the noise will be terrible even for newspaper work.

Nikon uses a CCD in a lot of their cameras and they are doing just fine shooting newspaper work.

 

[Harry Lime]

Price increase. . . not surprising. Leica isn't in the business of gear for the average shooter. What's annoying about this is that we pay $$$$ for a Leica camera because it will last forever and is a mechanically beautiful thing. Pricing the m8 at $5k. . . .it's not going to last a lifetime. It won't even last 10 years - and the technology will become obsolete in even shorter time.

This price is illogical from a consumer POV, but Leica knows their market!

Have you taken a look at energy prices and the dollar to euro exchange rate, lately?

 

[sf]

Sorry but you're not making a whole lot of sense. What does the consumer's point of view have to do with the pricing being illogical?

There are other cameras out there priced below - and above - the price point that Leica is coming out at. They produce very high quality products for customers that can combine wanting/needing them with the means of acquiring them. Producing a Leica MP/M7 is NOT as cheap as it is to produce a Bessa. Different products have different prices. What is illogical about it?

And 'film/processing cost' does not 'help knock the camera cost down' it reduces the total cost of ownership. The camera still costs the same.

just forget it, Rich.

 

[Harry Lime]

Can you tell me what do you mean by your statement?

5D+35/f1.4L @ ISO 800 vs. M8+??/f?? @ ISO 200 ?? 😕

I think what he is getting at is that most people shoot a slow zoom on their DSLR and of course there the old shutter/mirror bounce factor, although I must say that the mirror in my 5d and the 1D series is very smooth.

 

[sf]

And 'film/processing cost' does not 'help knock the camera cost down' it reduces the total cost of ownership. The camera still costs the same.

seriously...

The cost of the camera spread over a year's time - you buy a film camera and factor in the costs of using it, it comes out to about the same as the M8 if you shoot alot of film...

for us poor people, such calculations are mainstream.

 

[sf]

Things are worth what somebody will pay for them. I don't think they'll have a lot of trouble sellling M8s. And a Canon sells for $7,000...

JC

yeah, I guess my thing is that these digital cameras are simply ludicrous prices. Perhaps they are priced according to manufacturing cost and what the market will take, but they are still pretty horribly pricey for what you get.

 

[sf]

Am I really an idiot for thinking $5000 is too much for a camera that isn't full frame (so won't be totally ideal for your lens lineup), won't last forever, and won't be easily reparied 20 years from now?

Maybe I am.

Maybe this is why I have yet to really jump into digital after the Nikon experience scared me off.