Sparrow
Veteran
Unit cost varies with volume due to fixed cost dilution, so that joke’s only funny to someone unfamiliar with the P/L account of a manufacture.
Reversing Leica priorities
- Thread starter Roger Hicks
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 15K
Unit cost varies with volume due to fixed cost dilution, so that joke’s only funny to someone unfamiliar with the P/L account of a manufacture.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As I recall, they went up to 5d or 6d around then...
Thanks for the research.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, it's quite funny to anyone with a sense of humour, because if you lose $10 on every unit, after taking into account both fixed and variable costs (probably only someone with no sense of humour would expect this qualification), you lose $10 on every unit...
This is reputedly what happened with the Mini for many years: they were selling huge numbers, but because of lousy cost analysis, they lost money on every one.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
...for less money.
The cost of film processing vs digital as an argument for the M8 is one I find very unconvincing - if I wanted to stick with film, 35mm SLRs are available at a 1/10th of a price of used M6 (even cheaper than a used Bessa R3a), have AE in addition to a built in meter, are smaller, lighter, still manual without and of the needless complexity you do not want and still as reliable. All that buys you a lot more slide film processing, and even more B&W film developed at home.
Alternatively again you can get any digital SLR used - those typically go for a couple of hundred dollars for consumer level models and still run less than a used then still save a small fortune compared to a used M8 (enough indeed for a 35mm Leica M body and plenty of slide film processing ...). If I don't want the needless complexity I turn it off and use it as an all manual camera. If I do on the other hand it is there. As for bulk and weight, several are quite small and many even lighter when used with manual focus primes than a leica M.
Simply SLRs are perfectly good general purpose tools that cost considerably less money and more flexible and that is why I like them. It'd be a different matter if I were used to Leica Ms and had a lot of M lenses like you but the arguments you cite - bulk, weight and complexity - don't really hold up at all, particularly as a justification for the M8 which depends on how much film you shoot to begin with.
As for the complaints about Leica M prices -
I do not feel that Leica needs to change at all but I'm not actually complaining about the prices of new Leica Ms. They can charge what they like because I don't have to buy it. If Leica wants to sell luxury cameras so be it. If I wanted to buy into a piece of photographic history and tradition and wanted an exquiste hand crafted tool with excellent build that could actually be used as a camera well there aren't any alternatives.
Photoarsenal even manages to sell non-functional ones and I do remember seeing an all wooden mockup for sale so clearly for some buyers, the camera element of a Leica is optional. If I wanted a camera that did offer good value for money I'd look elsewhere for film or digital. Those would certainly be a different set of compromises than a rangefinder but frankly, my pictures would not be any different I used a Leica anyway and I've never seen a picture from a Leica M that couldn't have been managed with an SLR but I have seen the opposite.
A lot of people complaining want the convenience of digital (both ease of processing and price), while wanting a "proper" manual mode rather than the compromise of using a dSLR in manual mode (perfectly acceptable to me). All at the same time taking their existing M lenses with no crop factor. I don't see Leica doing this (certainly not affordably), and I don't see incentive for any other company to do this without introducing their own mount, and even then I suspect they'd add those features you deem complexity because the market for them is larger. It seems either one has to pay the M8 premium, learn to shoot with a different set of tools with different compromises, or stick with film and what one has already.
After all a lot of little girls want pink unicorns.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gautham,
Sure: you can buy a big, cheap, heavy, ugly camera you don't enjoy using -- or you can buy an M8.
Cheers,
R.
peter_n
Veteran
Tim maybe a look at the pix in the thread below will make you feel a bit better? Andreas Kaufmann seems to have deep pockets...
Leica's New Home
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
I think you mean 'one' or perhaps 'I', instead of 'you' here Roger.
I quite enjoy using my E510 for instance. It has its quirks (what does not) but I don't particularly think it is very big or ugly or heavy and I don't see why a camera being cheap is a bad thing. Admittedly, it is in my opinion bigger and uglier than M8 but the point is moot since I can afford it whereas I can't afford an M8. Besides I can shoot it with longer lenses and with image stabilization I can handhold it at lower shutter speeds than any rangefinder I've tried. As a tool for me it is better than an M8 because I'm not paying for a camera to fondle. Different compromises.
I also enjoy using my OMs, if anything even more. They are actually physically smaller than Ms, lighter, cheaper and at least in my opinion prettier than anything else. Quieter than my Bessa too. Unfortunately not digital but neither are most Leica Ms and yet cheaper than most. Again different compromises.
They both do let you do different things than an M as well (at least an M without a Viso).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
As a Computer Science student, I don't think buying a Cray supercomputer would have been a wise choice to advance my studies. Unless, of course, I had millions in the bank.
That's why I had a cheap-o eMachines, to get by with my studies at home.
Some would say that an eMachines computer is the best in the whole wide world, and that the Military should have one for all their processing needs. To those people I say, it's a good thing they don't run things 🙂
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Can we please clear something up -- there seems to be this assumption out there that Leicas are used by professional news and sports photographers or photojournalists. Whom are we talking about here? The ones I see are using digital SLRs. Now if you're talking about a Salgado or Magnum type, well, how many of those are out there? Back before SLRs photographers and photojournalists used Leicas, Contaxes, Nikons -- but then they also used TLRs and press cameras.
I think Leicas may be owned by professional photographers, but I doubt seriously that many of them use them to earn their daily bread. I am prepared to be educated, however.
I think Leicas may be owned by professional photographers, but I doubt seriously that many of them use them to earn their daily bread. I am prepared to be educated, however.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, there is a 'reflected glamour' factor; but I suspect it is fairly incidental.
Leica was conceived (and, I suspect, continues to sell) as a highly desirable version of a common product, viz., a camera, i.e. as a luxury good.
There have always been enough people who used these luxury items to create good pictures (because they are also very good cameras) that Leica's reputation has been enhanced thereby. I am not, however, convinced that this is essential for the basic, target Leica market. The core buyers want a camera that is a pleasure to use, and, almost as an afterthought, delivers excellent pictures.
To be sure, encouraging the use of Leicas to make excellent pictures makes marketing sense, and they dio that via Leica prizes and the like; but if the subscribers to RFF were really Leica's core market, I think we'd see a lot more input directly from Solms.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'One' always sounds so formal, but if that makes you happier, sure.
Where did I say that cheap was bad?
Do you earn any significant part of your living with your camera? Because I do. Your comment about 'camera fondling' is a part of the well-worn stock in trade of the anti-M brigade, and not really worthy of response.
The main reason to use a Leica is because you enjoy using it. Just about any camera will give you decent happy-snaps or (if you're any good) publishable pictures. Either way, it makes sense to use the cameras you enjoy most, as long as they give you the results you want/need.
You're happy with Olympuses? Fine. I've never used one of their SLRs that I liked yet, though admittedly I've not tried their digi offerings.
No-one is holding a gun to your head (or one's head, or anyone's head) and saying, "Buy a Leica or I pull the trigger!" If you want image-stabilized lenses on SLRs, go buy them. Personally -- and I know I'm not alone, just as you are not alone -- I prefer an M.
Cheers,
R.
Svitantti
Well-known
Not all photographers shoot for newspapers. Yes most still use SLR's and big percentage digital, but there are many photographers shooting with film cameras. Maybe not stuff that is daily published, but still they can be professionals.
And it is not only Magnum etc. but I'm not saying it is 50% of pro's either.
Svitantti
Well-known
I'm not quite sure I agree. Generally speaking this might be true if you had two cameras on a tripod and the distances were suitable for both or better for SLR, but...
Rangefinders have their advantages and I'm sure there are a lot of photos taken with them that couldn't been taken (at least as well) with SLR's. There are a lot of places where a quiet shutter is a nice thing for example...
kevin m
Veteran
Roger, I hope my ellipses haven't robbed any essential meaning, but can you explain this statement? Are there some company records, or memoirs of key parties that offer support? Because as an outside observer, this is what it looks like:
Leica got its start making high-quality, precision mechanical cameras back in the days before electronics because that was the only option. The care that went into the fit and finish and assembly was there to ensure a degree of functionality and precision not available in lesser cameras. The camera wasn't a "luxury good," it was a precision mechanical device. The level of finish necessary to achieve that degree of function is what we, peering back in time, perceive as "luxury."
Now, in the era of injection molded electronic "imaging devices" that offer far more precision than a mechanical camera ever did, we grow nostalgic for the craftsmanship of old. Now Leica is marketing their camera as a "luxury good," but - absent any evidence to prove the claim - it certainly didn't start out that way.
Last edited:
tomasis
Well-known
I cannot believe my eyes that Kevin M is defending Leica M status?
When Roger said Leica as luxury item, I assume always it is ironic. It is what I want to interpret. It depends on how you want se. If you are one to bash, so you would agree. It was smart drag 🙂 "Conceived" yeah
When Roger said Leica as luxury item, I assume always it is ironic. It is what I want to interpret. It depends on how you want se. If you are one to bash, so you would agree. It was smart drag 🙂 "Conceived" yeah
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, I intended no irony.
Leicas have always been VERY expensive. When the original Leica was introduced in the UK in the mid-1920s it was GBP 22, about 6 weeks wages for a skilled man. A farm labourer earned under 32/- for a 50-hour week, so if he gave up eating, he could buy one in 3 months.
Today, the average annual salary in the UK is around GBP 25,000 (a lot depends on whom you believe) so a Leica MP at GBP 2000 plus a GBP 1000 lens is roughly the same. At a 40-hour week on minimum wage (GBP 5.52 -- GBP 220/week) it would take 3 months to earn the price of an MP + lens.
They were never after a mass market. But, of course, the entire economic model is different. The man who bought a Leica in the 1920s quite probably had at least one servant, a cook/housekeeper. Compared with live-in servants, Leicas are REALLY cheap nowadays.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Except that this isn't what it costs to make and sell an M8. They were making and selling the M8 quite successfully at a lower price at the end of 2006 and first half of 2007.
Sales fell 16 percent after the price of the M8 was increased by 600 euros, according to that WSJ article.
You cannot ignore your market when setting price. And I think that's exactly what the company has done. I think they are relying too much on a belief that well-heeled spenders will snap up anything bearing a red dot, regardless of price.
Mine is simply one opinion here. We all have one. But hey, we'll know who's right after we see six to 12 months of camera sales and their impact on the company's bottom line.
I hope I'm just being overly pessimistic, which I am prone to be.
tomasis
Well-known
Ok that was some history. Do you mean leica are not luxurious nowadays?
Talking about history, it is interesting to see how the community evolved during about a century. It shows that we have better times now, less differences between poor and rich (at least here in Western countries).
I wonder how much did cost first Rolleiflex TLR? I have one Old Standard from year 1932. What I could see, it seems much easier to made than leica I, II. So having a compact camera might be seen as luxurious thing like a thing in woman's bag (?) in that old times?(Gucci?Prada?Channel?) when people are used to see photographers working with large formate camera.
I think the afford ability to films, chemicals, knowledge in the 1920 matters bigger role than purchasing equipment if I let me imagine a bit of that old times. Who would know about photography in 1920? Books might be quite expensive then even pictures in the books? How much did T-ford cost? Maybe people got busy to buy cars, houses, furnitures when a lot new of things appeared in the beginning of the 19 century?
Or manufacturing in the 1920 make all whole that complicated?. They would bring a lot of work tools to get for such detailed things.
Let me say, when I see an expensive camera like Hasselblad H3D, I consider it as photo tool so long the camera doesnt carry diamond and does photographer's needs and brings income. Amateur who is shooting with H3d their children, wife . It can considered as a "luxurious" lifestyle 😀 like a aristocrat was using Leica I with iso 25 film in 1920 ? Or aristocrats already disappeared during France revolution? we can keep telling like that 😉
victoriapio
Well-known
All top quality cameras are expensive and they started that way.
I was a Leica film man, turned to Nikon film man during my career as a pjer because of the outdoor/wildlife jobs I got most. I started with Canon digital and still have some 1DsmkII bodies with every lens from a 14 to a 600 (when the art directors call). I had bascially the same system back in my Nikon film days.
Throughout my career it didn't matter what a lens or new body might cost because IF I needed it I was going to buy it. They were my tools. I always had the widest, closest focusing, longest and fastest lenses made because they were what made my living.
I can afford any camera I want right now and have the M8 with lenses from 21 - 75. My Canon kit is considerably more expensive than the Leica gear. Even though I am no longer a pjer, my Leica equipment is still my preferred tool to create images. I don't care what it costs, if I can't afford it today I can save and afford it later - or as has been my practice lately, buy used Leica gear (other than the "rarely available used " 75mm, my entire Leica kit was purchased used. Interestingly, after a 20 year career of living off my cameras, I am perfectly happy with 21mm Elmarit, the 35mm cron and even the 75mm Summarit because they are certainly "good enough" for me and any art director I have ever known!).
Nonetheless, Leica's M8 is considerably less expensive than the 1dsMk3. In my opinion, that is as it should be. On the other hand, my Canon 600 f4 was more exensive than the old Noct price - but now $4,000 cheaper than the new Noct. Let's see, a specialty super telephoto now costs less than a specialty 50mm LENS !! Hmmmm...
Leica's business model has always been different than Canon or Nikon, or at least it has been since SLRs began outselling rangefinders. Canon outsells Nikon by a great margin and Nikon outsells Leica by a great margin (granted, Leica's market is considerably smaller than the market for the top of the line DSLR bodies.) Canon's full frame camera now has competition from Nikon and it will be interesting to see the pricing structure of the 1dsmk3 a year from now, as there is no doubt that Nikon is stealing some market share from Canon.
Leica, on the other hand, will never have a traditional business model - and the pricing that should accompany it - until a competitor comes forward in quality and price. The Epson rangefinder was a wake up call and Leica responded with a camera that was not ready. Now they have locked them selves into the basic structure of that camera and all its faults (of course it has some great feature too - I love the images it produces. But I can think of five improvements that would make the handling of the M8 far easier!) Upgrades to the M8 is again a different business model that Canon and Nikon have taken when dealing with top of the line digital cameras. And keep in mind the first Canon and Nikon digital SLRs were far from perfect too.
When the Epson was discontinued, Leica seemed to hit the drawing board and all the new lenses, camera upgrades and even new lens lines were the result. Unfortunately all that costs money and the price of all Leica products has increased in the last year far higher (as a % I think) that Canon or Nikon.
So if the WSJ article is correct and Leica is barely in the black, I sense doom with the lastest price increases. Because if a successor to the Epson were introduced at a price point similar to what Nikon's top camera is to Canon's, then Leica may suddenly find itself sliding down the hill to liquidation. Already Zeiss and Voightlander are offering some excellent lenses for a fraction of the Leica glass. If a "well tested, reliable" digital RF was introduced that overcomes the M8's faults, it may be too late for Leica to develop a more standardized business plan.
There are questions marks covering the future of not only digital rangefinders, but film cameras too. But then, perhaps Leica users have never worried too much about traditional business models or anything else for that matter. 😀
I was a Leica film man, turned to Nikon film man during my career as a pjer because of the outdoor/wildlife jobs I got most. I started with Canon digital and still have some 1DsmkII bodies with every lens from a 14 to a 600 (when the art directors call). I had bascially the same system back in my Nikon film days.
Throughout my career it didn't matter what a lens or new body might cost because IF I needed it I was going to buy it. They were my tools. I always had the widest, closest focusing, longest and fastest lenses made because they were what made my living.
I can afford any camera I want right now and have the M8 with lenses from 21 - 75. My Canon kit is considerably more expensive than the Leica gear. Even though I am no longer a pjer, my Leica equipment is still my preferred tool to create images. I don't care what it costs, if I can't afford it today I can save and afford it later - or as has been my practice lately, buy used Leica gear (other than the "rarely available used " 75mm, my entire Leica kit was purchased used. Interestingly, after a 20 year career of living off my cameras, I am perfectly happy with 21mm Elmarit, the 35mm cron and even the 75mm Summarit because they are certainly "good enough" for me and any art director I have ever known!).
Nonetheless, Leica's M8 is considerably less expensive than the 1dsMk3. In my opinion, that is as it should be. On the other hand, my Canon 600 f4 was more exensive than the old Noct price - but now $4,000 cheaper than the new Noct. Let's see, a specialty super telephoto now costs less than a specialty 50mm LENS !! Hmmmm...
Leica's business model has always been different than Canon or Nikon, or at least it has been since SLRs began outselling rangefinders. Canon outsells Nikon by a great margin and Nikon outsells Leica by a great margin (granted, Leica's market is considerably smaller than the market for the top of the line DSLR bodies.) Canon's full frame camera now has competition from Nikon and it will be interesting to see the pricing structure of the 1dsmk3 a year from now, as there is no doubt that Nikon is stealing some market share from Canon.
Leica, on the other hand, will never have a traditional business model - and the pricing that should accompany it - until a competitor comes forward in quality and price. The Epson rangefinder was a wake up call and Leica responded with a camera that was not ready. Now they have locked them selves into the basic structure of that camera and all its faults (of course it has some great feature too - I love the images it produces. But I can think of five improvements that would make the handling of the M8 far easier!) Upgrades to the M8 is again a different business model that Canon and Nikon have taken when dealing with top of the line digital cameras. And keep in mind the first Canon and Nikon digital SLRs were far from perfect too.
When the Epson was discontinued, Leica seemed to hit the drawing board and all the new lenses, camera upgrades and even new lens lines were the result. Unfortunately all that costs money and the price of all Leica products has increased in the last year far higher (as a % I think) that Canon or Nikon.
So if the WSJ article is correct and Leica is barely in the black, I sense doom with the lastest price increases. Because if a successor to the Epson were introduced at a price point similar to what Nikon's top camera is to Canon's, then Leica may suddenly find itself sliding down the hill to liquidation. Already Zeiss and Voightlander are offering some excellent lenses for a fraction of the Leica glass. If a "well tested, reliable" digital RF was introduced that overcomes the M8's faults, it may be too late for Leica to develop a more standardized business plan.
There are questions marks covering the future of not only digital rangefinders, but film cameras too. But then, perhaps Leica users have never worried too much about traditional business models or anything else for that matter. 😀
Last edited:
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
