Reversing Leica priorities

[biggambi]

I am not a historian. But, I was always under the impression that the Leica M has been marketed towards the photo journalist, and pro that wanted the best from the 35mm format. The image that the lenses and the rangefinder method is able to capture is quite incredible. I view it as a tool. The compactness, the lack of sound, the ability to react to the moment, and the feeling as if it is an extension of ones self. The lenses are what I choose to create with, given my subject and intent. As for the price, it is what it is; and, if I couldn't make the nut, I would simply choose another tool. But, this is what I prefer and what I have aspired to own. It is how I like to interact with my subject. It fits with my needs. I do not see why anyone feels the need to justify the tools with which they create. If you don't like the price, buy something else.

Aside from that, I do not care if they wish to market ltd. editions etc. They simply are not for me. As for being a bigger player in the market share. Maybe they simply do not care. Sometimes, it is more important to produce the best that man, not an assembly line, can make. There is honor and pride in this type of work. Why do we find it so hard to understand when that kind of attention to detail and skill comes at a price?

I too would like to see a different version of the digital M. I have detailed this in a previous post (My Dad’s M8.2). So, I will not do so again. But, what I really have come to except is that it is what we have here and now. I simply will use the tool to the very best of my ability. This does not mean that I will not let Leica know what and why I wish for something else. just my thoughts...

 

[gdi]

In a tough economy leica will not survive!

If your market is well off and price insensitive, it would not be effected as much as a lower end market. An economic downturn will not impact all classes to the equal degrees..

 

[sepiareverb]

Wow. A two-pronged attack this time.

Again with the fighting? 😡 Time to put that ignore list to use again.

Sometimes, it is more important to produce the best that man, not an assembly line, can make. There is honor and pride in this type of work. Why do we find it so hard to understand when that kind of attention to detail and skill comes at a price?

Most of us do understand this I think. It seems though that the loudest (shrillest?) voices are those that don't.

I hear the counter already- "the M8 just isn't the best man can make that's the D40" 😀

 

[gb hill]

If your market is well off and price insensitive, it would not be effected as much as a lower end market. An economic downturn will not impact all classes to the equal degrees..

The biggest problem I see forthcoming is that the class of Leica enthusest is dwindling. Most leica users are buying on the used market. Leica was in near bankruptcy several years ago. If they are going to put their hope in Panasonic they are doomed.

 

[maddoc]

Leica produces the finest 35mm cameras and lenses, that what they have always done and are going to do (the new Summilux lenses). If pro-photographer choose to use the finest cameras as their working tool, they will pay the price (and so will the wealthy amateurs).

I also think cost is a relative term. Considering the longlivety of Leica equipment (and the re-sale prices even for Leicas formerly used by professionals) it still might be cheaper on the long-run to invest once a large amount of money into the Leica system and use it for 20 years or longer (except for the M8 ...) with moderate maintenance cost, IMHO.

 

[sepiareverb]

When my father bought his first M3 back in the 60s he was not a wealthy man, but he saved and bought what he believed to be a very well built mechanical device....

It's the saving part that doesn't seem to fit in todays world too. Why save for something that is going to be outdated long before you can afford it when it can be yours now on credit? That it is outdated long before you pay it off never seems to enter into the equation...

 

[tbarker13]

Of course Leica makes great lenses and film cameras. And they are giving it a go with digital.
But clearly this is a company in distress. What they are doing isn't working - per the company's own financial data.
When the M8 came out, I was elated and in the first group of buyers. I grew hopeful that the company might thrive. But sales have slowed tremendously. I'd like to know how a more expensive M8.2 is going to reverse that.
Most companies look to grow their customer base. Leica seems to be determined to shrink the one it has.

 

[monochromejrnl]

plenty of pros rent what they can't afford/justify owning... of course this requires that the pro live in a large enough city centre to have access to a vendor that offers a good selection of 'pro' or 'specialty' gear... i'm pretty sure that the pro shops in town do not rent out Leica R or M glass... I suppose if the demand for it existed the business case would write itself...

renting in the digital world is more compelling than ever ...

 

[sanmich]

Leica seem to be ignoring their customer core ... from what I perceive the Leica has always been a camera and lens combination that an enthusiast can aspire to and own if they are prepared to make the stretch financially. What has lengthened to me is that stretch.

I think that's the point.
I am no profesional. I tried lots of different gear types and Leica was what suits me more. Back in 2001 I could afford a grey market M6, and new summicrons 35mm 50mm. It was definitely a strech, but I could do it.
Also, that was the only way to buy new and good RF gear. Today, forget it! The camera bodies have doubled and the lens set has climbed from 2k$ to 5k$. And I could buy new excellent ZI glass.
Of course if I made a living of photography, I could buy the gear and not have to baby it. And then buy new one. That would economically make sense.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

\They have a pricing strategy which makes sense to them and it doesn't call for large number of sales (probably because there is no "scale" at which economies may develop), or competing with the large production companies.

No they haven't lost their minds, they just don't really care for your (or my) business..

The flaw in this theory is that the data does not support it. Leica's sales keep going down and they're expecting a loss of 10 million euros for this year. That's not a sign of a successful business model. Obviously their target market segment is just not interested enough. The smart thing to do would be to branch out a little rather than continuing to beat a dead horse. It's not as though there are a shortage of people who would like to own a Leica.

Leica produces the finest 35mm cameras and lenses, that what they have always done and are going to do (the new Summilux lenses). If pro-photographer choose to use the finest cameras as their working tool, they will pay the price (and so will the wealthy amateurs).

Again, the problem with this is that it's not supported by reality. Leica may very well be the best 35mm cameras out there, but 35mm cameras account for a tiny fraction of the market among professionals. The truth, for whatever it's worth, is that the vast majority of professionals are using Nikon and Canon digital SLRs, with the rest served by large and medium format film, Nikon and Canon 35mm SLRs, and somewhere near the bottom of the stack Leica. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of the products, but it says a lot about how well various companies have kept in touch with what their professional customers want.

 

[Svitantti]

It's the saving part that doesn't seem to fit in todays world too. Why save for something that is going to be outdated long before you can afford it when it can be yours now on credit? That it is outdated long before you pay it off never seems to enter into the equation...

On the digital market situation really is this.. But what about film business? I don't think a M4 or M6 is outdated at all.

In my head, M7 and M8 just arent what Leica has been about. Could be it is just me and I haven't tried either, but from the information I find in the internet I just have the feeling, with lots of electronics and automation they can't last 10-20 years in ("real") use.

I'm not saying they aren't fine and nice cameras but would they keep their value like an used M...

What Leica would need to fight with SLR's really would be some cheaper procuts - "entry level" stuff I would say. Something like Epson RD-1 maybe? New prices for M8 and the lenses are really awful for hobbyist unless you really are rich.

By the way, I am a student with a M4, but I have been lucky enough to be able to save money from summertime job and use it to camera-stuff. In Finland studying is relatively cheap though..

 

[Roger Hicks]

An interesting argument is that it's not so much Leicas going up, as a lot of other things coming down. In the world of 50 years ago, a lot of things were proportionately far more expensive than they are today: refrigerators, televisions, cars -- and of course cameras. Leicas were therefore perceived as expensive, but not out of sight.

In real inflation-adjusted terms, a television is now a small fraction of its price in the 1950s, as is the average SLR camera, but a Leica has gone up in line with inflation, or maybe rather more because of its high labour component: skilled labour was proportionately far cheaper in those days, compared with the cost of machine-made stuff, and 'robot' production lines and CNC lathes were unknown.

Now consider the Mars Bar. It is a wonderful unit of currency, as it represents a small ingot of commodities (cocoa and sugar) and has remained roughly constant in size for decades. You can learn an awful lot by pricing goods in Mars Bars: when I was a boy, they were 4d. (call it 1.6 pence) so 1000 Mars Bars = GBP 16. What are they now? I've not bought one in years. Let's say 30-35p, so 1000 Mars Bars = GBP 300-350, or about 20x in 50 years.

Anyone with knowledge of the price of (a) Leicas and (b) Mars Bars care to perform the calculations?

Cheers

R.

 

[Toby]

You don't have to look very far to realise that editorial photographer's incomes have barely increased in the last 15 years these are tough times for many working photographers, so no, they can't just blow five figures on a new camera system. Secondly in the time of film a noctilux + M6 meant you could shoot in light that no one with a SLR could, it was the only game in town. With the 5d II going up to 25,000 iso and Canon making a 50 1.2 who do you think would run out of light first - the M8 user or the canon user (who would also have saved a tidy sum). I'd pay a premium for cameras that gave me a professional advantage, but to be honest I see more value in spending five figures on digital MF than I do in spending the same on the M8 + lenses. The digital back would enable me do do things I can't do now, the M8 would have me spending more money to do the same.

 

[Svitantti]

Have we yet seen test photos of Canon's 25000 ISO? Our darkroom has old Kodak TMZ sheets that say it is usable up to 50 000 ASA speeds 😉.

Canon is also SLR with the mirror moving inside it while M6 is RF. My guess is you could shoot handheld a couple stops lower with a RF. Slide film can also be exposed in quite a low light and of course pushed a couple stops too.

 

[Ronald_H]

Once upon a time, long before I was born, Leica's were the best tools for the job. That alone justified the price.

But let's face it, great niche cameras that they still are, Leicas cannot do what top of the line Canons and Nikons can do. The reverse is true as well, but its not exactly proportional. That's why pros use dSLRs.

Students can get by with a Nikon D40 and a kit lens. Add a 50mm f1.8 and you already can make photographs of a technical quality that is good enough for most forms of publication.

I am not a pro, but good enough as an amateur that some of my work is actually published. I also love my M2, but lots of my 'work' cannot be done with an M. Because I need teles, fast flash sync, low noise/grain at hi ISO, hi fps, fast focus, close up capability. Wonderful mechanical jewel that it is, the M2 can't do that and neither can an M8.

Don't get me wrong, I'm eagerly anticipating looking at my latest M2 negs, but a new Leica M is a sinfully overpriced fetish object. You must be a little bit crazy to buy one. But it's a harmless kinf of insanity, unless you need to take a second mortgage on your house.

But why did I get an M? To understand what all the fuss is about. That's the main reason. And indeed it is a fetish object. What it is designed to do, it does so wonderfully, probably better than anything else. I got back to analogue because it is more difficult and gives more satisfaction. And because digital B/W cannot match Tri-X.

BUT, I cannot see where Leica should go in the future. Someday the market for the M and R lines will be so small, and the prices so high that it will not be viable anymore to make them. Rebranding Panasonics is not the answer. Maybe they'll survive as a lens company, like Zeiss, and make a few film M's every year.

But what do we want? Lower priced M's? Would people buy a digital CL? Would they really? No. I would and a lot of people here too. But enough to make it economically viable? Nah.

And real innovation? The people here don't want real innovation from Leica, like a hybrid micro 4/3rds - M hybrid with an optical finder and prime lenses. What they really want is the world to return to the fifties when Leica and RF's were king... THAT's what they want. And enough money to buy a Noctilux.

 

[rover]

As a consumer, I think the prices are absurd. But I would argue that that simply scopes me out of their target market. To me the value is simply not there, and Leica is not looking for value conscious buyers- so tough luck for me. I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over it.

They have a pricing strategy which makes sense to them and it doesn't call for large number of sales (probably because there is no "scale" at which economies may develop), or competing with the large production companies.

No they haven't lost their minds, they just don't really care for your (or my) business..

I agree with this statement most.

Let me ask a question though. Take away the pros and well heeled. If there was no Bessa or old used less expensive Leicas, would the rest of us care? For many of us the alternative and used markets are entry ways into this world of Leica, to which we are not invited. Do we all need to use the newest and latest "greatest"?. Sure we have a desire to, and when I graduated from college I wanted a Leica, but I bought an EOS. That is just the way things go. I burned just as much film with that polycarbonate body as I would have with the heavy metal. Then years later I started my slide when I was looking to upgrade that well warn EOS and purchases a Bessa R. I could have stopped there and been very happy with my images, but I didn't. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have.

The truth is, they have decided to not rely on us for their success, the truth also is that there are a lot of alternatives and we don't need them either. Now can we get their message and just let them be what they are and not what we want them to be, or not even what we want.

 

[sanmich]

An interesting argument is that it's not so much Leicas going up, as a lot of other things coming down. In the world of 50 years ago, a lot of things were proportionately far more expensive than they are today: refrigerators, televisions, cars -- and of course cameras. Leicas were therefore perceived as expensive, but not out of sight.

In real inflation-adjusted terms, a television is now a small fraction of its price in the 1950s, as is the average SLR camera, but a Leica has gone up in line with inflation, or maybe rather more because of its high labour component: skilled labour was proportionately far cheaper in those days, compared with the cost of machine-made stuff, and 'robot' production lines and CNC lathes were unknown.

Now consider the Mars Bar. It is a wonderful unit of currency, as it represents a small ingot of commodities (cocoa and sugar) and has remained roughly constant in size for decades. You can learn an awful lot by pricing goods in Mars Bars: when I was a boy, they were 4d. (call it 1.6 pence) so 1000 Mars Bars = GBP 16. What are they now? I've not bought one in years. Let's say 30-35p, so 1000 Mars Bars = GBP 300-350, or about 20x in 50 years.

Anyone with knowledge of the price of (a) Leicas and (b) Mars Bars care to perform the calculations?

Cheers

R.

Dear Roger
I guess one could do such maths.
I am presenting another calculation:
year 2000: 1 film camera+ 2 'crons (35+50) was around 4k$
2008: same kit, slightly improved camera, exactly the same lenses: 9k$
IMHO, this cannot be explained by inflation.
I also guess that it is not a jump after a long stagnation that would mean that leicas were underpriced in 2000.
My understanding is that there is, at least partly, an economic model shift from Leica and de facto, this shift leaves me almost out of the game for new gear (I hardly bought a like new MP lately, and I consider this "buying new")
Just my two, (highly insufficient to buy leica) cents🙂

 

[Svitantti]

If Leica can't do what a Canon EOS can... Canon EOS can't do everything a Leica M can either.

Mainstream goes for autofocus-SLR's that is true and I agree - not everyon should have or need M-Leica.

But it is still a great tool for what it is made for, which I think, mostly is photojournalistic and artistic documentary photohraphy.

I also agree - I wouldn't buy a new Leica with these prices. That is why I also wonder where is Leica aiming and what will happen - but could be It is just my perspective that blocks me from seeing the whole picture.

Still there are clear points in buying one when you need a great, quiet and easily portable camera system...
Used M without meter (or maybe M5?) costs about as much as a new Bessa, which I don't think is too much for what it is.

 

[gdi]

The flaw in this theory is that the data does not support it. Leica's sales keep going down and they're expecting a loss of 10 million euros for this year. That's not a sign of a successful business model. Obviously their target market segment is just not interested enough. The smart thing to do would be to branch out a little rather than continuing to beat a dead horse. It's not as though there are a shortage of people who would like to own a Leica.

I didn't say it was a successful strategy. My assertion (as opposed to theory) was that Leica's eyes are wide open and they have chosen not to compete in price sensitive segments against mass production competitors.

Whether this will prove successful only time will tell. I can imagine a scenario where this small niche company could survive indefinitely as a prestige brand, selling high quality, expensive products to a small target market. The question is whether Leica can overcome such current losses (assuming your numbers are correct) to reach a sustainable position ? I doubt anyone knows at this point...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger
I guess one could do such maths.
I am presenting another calculation:
year 2000: 1 film camera+ 2 'crons (35+50) was around 4k$
2008: same kit, slightly improved camera, exactly the same lenses: 9k$
IMHO, this cannot be explained by inflation.
I also guess that it is not a jump after a long stagnation that would mean that leicas were underpriced in 2000.
My understanding is that there is, at least partly, an economic model shift from Leica and de facto, this shift leaves me almost out of the game for new gear (I hardly bought a like new MP lately, and I consider this "buying new")
Just my two, (highly insufficient to buy leica) cents🙂

$4K in 2000: 3566 euros

$9K in 2008: 5625 euros

Equivalent to around 5% annual inflation. Above inflation for most things; below for others.

Cheers,

R.