Reversing Leica priorities

[palec]

In all comparisons I miss the cost of film and processing. I just made short calculation, that:
one M8 = 60 processed color negative films (Portra 400) a month in pro lab for one year (or 30 slide film a month for one year)
(not counting scanning or printing)

You need computer and software for film and digital these days anyway.

Sure, the M8 will not last forever, but should last for a succesful working professional enough to pay itself. If you have another one as a backup, the initial costs could return in two years. The problem is that it's not full-frame, so you'll probably need additional lenses. And also the competition is more dense with cheaper digitals pulling prices down.

Considering this, the durability over the years is only important for the rest of the crowd (including myself).

 

[kshapero]

Roger,
Thanks for the math. A little reality goes a long way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In all comparisons I miss the cost of film and processing. I just made short calculation, that:
one M8 = 60 processed color negative films (Portra 400) a month in pro lab for one year (or 30 slide film a month for one year)
(not counting scanning or printing)

Very true indeed, and a compelling argument for me. M8 @ GBP 3000 = 300-500 rolls slide film lab processed, 500-600 home processed (I live 40 miles from the nearest lab), and even with the minimum usage I am likely to give it, it pays for itself in well under 5 years. With normal usage, two.

Of course, the same is true of any digi SLR. But with digi SLRs, you get more. More bulk, more needless complexity, more weight, more features you don't want...

Cheers,

R.

 

[john neal]

There are some interesting points put forward here, but maybe one or two have been overlooked?

Any pro photographer that relies on his equipment as "tools of the trade", will be factoring those into his general overheads, along with both service and replacement costs. It would be foolish to do otherwise, and sensible to allow for the unexpected event that requires either unplanned replacement, or addition to the toolbox. This is one reason why a sitting in a studio is so expensive.

A lot of pros use digital because that is what the customer demands - "forget scanning & origination, just send me the jpegs!". Can you imagine today's sport hack without his digital, and the ability to bluetooth the files via his laptop/PDA/Phone direct to the news desk?

Ok - personal views:-

I don't like SLRs, there are few that I can actually see through due to advanced presbyopia, so I prefer a RF. This does sometimes limit what I can shoot, or the results I get. I am learning to live with this. Coincidentally, just about the only SLR I can use is a Leica, due to its excellent screen (I have tried Canon, Nikon and others)

I don't particularly care for digital - I tried it and was not impressed.

My MP is still worth almost what I paid for it 5 or 6 years ago. When i bought it Don McCullin was in the same shop buying three - his take was that the passport scheme meant those cameras would cost him nothing for the first two years. if he dropped one or ran over it with his jeep, Leica would replace it, and after that he could still get them fixed under warranty.

So, where does this leave me on the Leica debate? Well, I have one MP that I bought new, everything else was bought used - 25mm 'cron, 50mm 'lux and a bunch of LTM stuff. I am not in a position where I could go out tomorrow and buy a new M of any type, or a lens for that matter. Well, OK, I could, but I would have severe problems justifying the expense at the moment.

I do worry that Leica are trying to carve a niche that does not exist. Forget the special editions and a la carte, they are only froth. What Leica need is a core product that people actually need (not want). Many pros need digital due to customer pressure - customers here generally meaning newspapers and other publications, plus ad work; they also need quality and reliability, and I'm not sure that the M8 has that reputation, so it is not hard to see why it is not the first choice tool

Amateurs also want quality and reliability, but at a price point. Sadly the M8 does not score there either, so the great unwashed gravitate to the plastic digithings that they can buy on t'interweb for a fraction of the Leica cost (just try selling one in 18 months though, and you will find it is an entirely sunk cost).

I can't justify Leica pricing, although they are one of the most labour intensive products made today, abd I doubt that anyone here could. I think Keith pointed out that Leica cannot survive on 2nd hand sales of their products, and unless they can pursuade enough of us that we need a new one now and again, they will not survive. They have been close to going under a few times in the past, and financial constraints being what they are today, they will probably go very close again this year.

The point is - how badly do you want/need to own a new one?

 

[sanmich]

$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.

OK, That sounds right...

So basically, what you say is that the feeling of a strong raise in prices is mainly due to the dollar weakening?
I admit that I calculate all prices in Dollar value since I buy gear mainly in the US,
How does Europeans feel about Leica pricing?

 

[kevin m]

An interesting argument is that it's not so much Leicas going up, as a lot of other things coming down.

Interesting, but inaccurate. Reverse the phrase and it would me more accurate: ...it's not so much other things going down as Leica going up.

Prices of many consumer goods have gone down in the last decade, and the poor dollar to euro exchange rate is a factor, too. But Leica is pursuing a policy of excellence at all costs, and even its loyal customers are saying "enough."

 

[KoNickon]

Well, this is one of the biggest arguments for digital over film, isn't it -- the money saved from film processing. And it does give me pause to think what my developing costs are. So if one aspires to own a Leica, it's great to know that Leica makes a digital camera. It's really the only Leica camera sold new that isn't in competition with used Leicas. (And how many companies in the world find their main competition is the secondhand market for their own equipment?)

I can certainly understand the arguments that Leica builds the best products and doesn't cut corners, and it's a smaller volume enterprise, so its cameras and lenses are going to be very pricey. You can question just how pricey is too pricey, for sure. But the underlying issue seems to me to be that Leica is "whistling past the graveyard" by assuming there will always be a sustainable market for their products when sold new. While an "irreduceable minimum" of fanatics like us and well-heeled, more casual users may constitute a purchaser base for Leica currently, I question how long that will persist, especially when the cost of a secondhand Leica is going to be more attractive than a new one.

 

[micromontenegro]

The very expensive Leica is relatively new. During the time that Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, their prices were usually below the competition, and within the means of the average person. Someone already pointed out that a Nikon SP was more expensive than a M3. A Contax was more expensive than a IIIf. Etc. Even in the third world countries, reporters could and did afford Leicas- witness Korda.

 

[Svitantti]

With the price margin between a used M and new M8 or M8.2 you can get scanners, exposure meter and quite a lot of film and chemicals to process it.

Nowadays where I live, slide film processing has gone pretty bad only a couple places in Finland left (and some of those cost like 9 euros / roll) but it is easy and cheap to do home too (1-2 euros / roll).

...

Sure a sports pro photographer is going to get a digital SLR, but that is not the only sort of pro photographers in the world. Everyone knows why a D3 is better for a sports shooter than M4/M6 or M8, but for other kinds of photography it might be not so great.

 

[tbarker13]

$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.

I don't think this is quite right. Running through some quick math - an annual inflation rate of 5 percent would be:

$4k in 2000
$5900 in 2008

Even a 10 percent rate of inflation would only get it up to $8575.


I know that everyone's inflation rate varies. But in the US, the inflation rate over that time period was 2.7 percent (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). So the price of that Leica kit increased more than 3 times faster than the rate of inflation here.

 

[tomasis]

How does Europeans feel about Leica pricing?

Very HAPPY, I guess (by judging by posts of RFF members) 😀

I think it didnt changed much in Europe btw, some % inflation and that is all. Maybe it has something to do with mentality like that "happy what you have" "dont cry when you want but dont have"

 

[Roger Hicks]

The very expensive Leica is relatively new. During the time that Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, their prices were usually below the competition, and within the means of the average person. Someone already pointed out that a Nikon SP was more expensive than a M3. A Contax was more expensive than a IIIf. Etc. Even in the third world countries, reporters could and did afford Leicas- witness Korda.

Leica A, on introduction in the UK: GBP 22, or about 6 weeks' wages for a skilled workman. Sounds quite expensive to me.

Contax IIa + f/1.5, USA, 1951, $476, Leica IIIf + f/2, $385, Jaguar XK120 $4039. Priced a sports Jaguar lately?

Cheers,

R.

 

[photogdave]

The very expensive Leica is relatively new. During the time that Leica was busy making a legend out of itself, their prices were usually below the competition, and within the means of the average person. Someone already pointed out that a Nikon SP was more expensive than a M3. A Contax was more expensive than a IIIf. Etc. Even in the third world countries, reporters could and did afford Leicas- witness Korda.

This rings true to me Not too long ago there was a post with a dealer catalog from the 50s that showed Leica and Nikon F pricing to be very similar.
If you could still buy a Canon EOS 1V HS it would set you back about $3900 CDN. A new M7 or MP is about $4700. A new M8 (V.1)is about $1000 more than a new 1D MK III. Apples to oranges I know but we're not totally out of the ballpark.
As far as the OT discussions of film cost vs. buying an M8, it comes down to how much do you actually shoot. I average two rolls a month. That works out to be about $30. My computer and scanner are long paid for. It would take me about 200 months of shooting (almost 17 years) to pay for an M8.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think this is quite right. Running through some quick math - an annual inflation rate of 5 percent would be:

$4k in 2000
$5900 in 2008

Even a 10 percent rate of inflation would only get it up to $8575.


I know that everyone's inflation rate varies. But in the US, the inflation rate over that time period was 2.7 percent (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). So the price of that Leica kit increased more than 3 times faster than the rate of inflation here.

Dear Tim,

EUROS!

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

All this historical analogizing to sports cars and candy bars doesn't obscure the fact that Leica prices have risen sharply in recent years, and it isn't ALL due to exchange rates.

Evidently, we're all somehow mistaken for noticing the obvious, though.

 

[tbarker13]

Dear Tim,

EUROS!

Cheers,

R.

Ahh I see. I was fixating on the dollars. I should read more carefully.🙂
But even in euros, that's basically a 6 percent annual increase each year.
With those kinds of increases, you better be really good at what you do.
I guess that's my biggest concern. The company is great at making lenses and 35mm film cameras. (and can probably justify those 2000-2007 increases)
But Leica has a long way to go before proving itself to be a maker of fine digital cameras. And yet, it applies the same pricing philosophy to its digital gear.

The M8 sold very well after it was introduced.
They raise the price. Sales drop.
Now they introduce a new digital camera with minor improvements, and raise the price even higher.

It just doesn't make sense to me. And with all due respect, let's not throw out the argument about CEOs knowing what's best for their companies. Because the underlying financials, in this instance, don't support that argument.

I hate it that I sound like I'm bashing the company - I have loved Leica since I bought my first one in 1988. I'm just worried about the future.

 

[tomasis]

I'm just worried about the future.

As Roger said before, sir Kaufmann has several hundreds millions Euros. I think he can afford waste little money on his "little" hobby naah, business.

Let us hope he remains in good health. Cheers, Kaufmann.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ahh I see. I was fixating on the dollars. I should read more carefully.🙂
But even in euros, that's basically a 6 percent annual increase each year.
With those kinds of increases, you better be really good at what you do.
I guess that's my biggest concern. The company is great at making lenses and 35mm film cameras. (and can probably justify those 2000-2007 increases)
But Leica has a long way to go before proving itself to be a maker of fine digital cameras. And yet, it applies the same pricing philosophy to its digital gear.

The M8 sold very well after it was introduced.
They raise the price. Sales drop.
Now they introduce a new digital camera with minor improvements, and raise the price even higher.

It just doesn't make sense to me. And with all due respect, let's not throw out the argument about CEOs knowing what's best for their companies. Because the underlying financials, in this instance, don't support that argument.

I hate it that I sound like I'm bashing the company - I have loved Leica since I bought my first one in 1988. I'm just worried about the future.

Dear Tim,

No great arguments -- but if that's what it costs to make & sell an M8, that's what it costs. Otherwise it's the old joke about 'We lose $10 on every unit we sell, but we make it up on volume!'

Cheers,

R.

 

[biggambi]

Given the level of grievance over the M8, as is understandable, and the data now know about the M8.2. I would propose the following as a way to mend much of the consumer-relations damage. That Leica acknowledges the fact that the M8 was not built to the standard to which they are famous. Certainly the M8.2 is a testament to this fact. This acknowledgment is made via a trade in program for a price very close to what they are offering to upgrade the shutter, screen, and viewer. The cost to rebuild versus the cost to build is not so greatly desperate from a manufacturing perspective. But, the cost to their credibility is very expensive.

Also, there is much talk in this thread and others about professional versus amateur. I would like to offer a different perspective. I believe that the amateur market is highly tied to the professional market. I think Leica’s need for the photojournalist cannot be underestimated. There is a level of credibility and desire bestowed upon the M camera because of the images it has captured. These have been images of war, natural disasters, and man’s triumphant moments, to name a few. This is seen in a similar manner among sport cars. Chances are, I am not going to drive a Porsche to the limits that a professional is capable, but I want it because it can go there. I may never photograph a war, but I want and expect that an “M” can go there. I do not pretend to know what an average photojournalist can or cannot afford; but, if Leica has priced them out of the market. Then, Leica has a real problem. From my perspective, my desire to own and use a Leica M, began with the images it captured by others. Just my thoughts…

 

[D.O'K.]

Approximate inflation factors in the UK to date:

from 1950: 21.21;
from 1960: 15.22;
from 1970: 10.65;
from 1980: 3.13;
from 1990: 1.69.

I'm unsure about the cost of Leicas during these decades, but suspect from their current prices that any increase in real terms has probably been fairly modest.

As to Mars bars, local price as at lunchtime today was GBP £0.60 (I didn't buy one!). This equates to 12 shillings or 144 pence in pre-decimal currency. Thus provided the cost hasn't increased beyond average inflation they should have cost about £0/0/2.83d in 1950 or £0/0/3.94d in 1960. So if Roger paid 4d for his, the implication is that he was buying them in about 1961 (the year I was born...).

Regards,
D.