Reversing Leica priorities

[shimo-kitasnap]

I'm a student and I don't own an M8. My spotmatic F which I got in an antique store works fine, and takes great images.

Student's are supposed to be wingn' it and not have any income so to speak (in my mind that is)

If I ever saw someone at college who had an M8, I think I'd get the same feeling I get when I see students driving BMWs and Escalades with the windows down playing (c)rap music with the bass turned way up. (makes a bad first impression to me.)

 

[Sparrow]

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.

As I said, one would have to understand the finer points of unit costing in a manufacturing setting and the effect of volume on the profit/loss account. The crucial thing is reaching or exceeding the break-even point, and that is directly linked to sales volume, actual unit cost and unit selling price are less critical.

 

[Svitantti]

If I ever saw someone at college who had an M8, I think I'd get the same feeling I get when I see students driving BMWs and Escalades with the windows down playing (c)rap music with the bass turned way up. (makes a bad first impression to me.)

I agree - even thought I do own a (film-) M. Actually I would get a bad first impression of pretty much any "random" photographer (= hobbyist) using M8.

Maybe I'm an asshole but to me it looks like a toy for rich Leica-people testing their old optics while being too lazy to develop some film or get it developed 😉.

I do like all kinds of music styles though 🙂.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As I said, one would have to understand the finer points of unit costing in a manufacturing setting and the effect of volume on the profit/loss account. The crucial thing is reaching or exceeding the break-even point, and that is directly linked to sales volume, actual unit cost and unit selling price are less critical.

Well, if you think I'm that stupid and ignorant, I can only return the compliment.

Cheers,

R.

 

[SR1]

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...

I have both a Canon SLRs and Leica Ms so can make a direct comparision here.

SLRs can indeed do many things an M cannot (try focussing below 0.7m, using autofocus lenses, zoom lenses, 135mm+ lenses, graduated filters), however that's not the point.

Which do I prefer? The Ms.

They make me feel like I've taken the picture rather than the camera having taken the picture. I also prefer rangefinder focusing as I find it much faster.
I don't use autofocus. Seems like cheating!

I rarely take pictures with people in them, preferring landscape, seascape cityscape (well any kind of scape really) and abstract so the noise of the shutter means nothing to me. Try using a Canon EOS3. I've had quieter alarm clocks!

I've posted several times on my views over Leicas marketing strategy and it is clear to me they have to change their priorities. Making cameras that only appeal to wealthy customers (be they pro or amateur) who understand the mechanics of photography is foolhardy in my opinion. I'm not suggesting cheaper cameras though. Far from it.

I think the introduction of the snapshot mode on the M8.2 is a masterstroke because it will attract those with plenty of money who want the kudos of owning Leica but want something as automatic as possible. These people will pay any price and the more Leica sell, the more chance there is that there will eventually be an M9 and my M8 will continue to be servicable.

I see that "value" is written about quite a lot here. What's value got to do with anything? Value is only relative is you can compare against something else and there are no competitors (for the M8 anyway). I certainly don't think Leica should ever mention the word "value" in the R&D department. That would be a slippery slope.

Make the M8 more usable to non photographers with money to burn. Open a boutigue on Bond Street in London, Paris, New York, Hong Kong or wherever these people go. Even stick diamonds on some of them if it makes them sell, because whilever they are selling it means they can go on building quality cameras that I want to use.

SR

 

[micromontenegro]

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.

That is why all Cuban reporters all carry M8s happily along, as Korda did. They can afford them now as they did then. :bang:

I'll get my coat. No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have both a Canon SLRs and Leica Ms so can make a direct comparision here.

. . .

I think the introduction of the snapshot mode on the M8.2 is a masterstroke because it will attract those with plenty of money who want the kudos of owning Leica but want something as automatic as possible. These people will pay any price and the more Leica sell, the more chance there is that there will eventually be an M9 and my M8 will continue to be servicable.

I see that "value" is written about quite a lot here. What's value got to do with anything? Value is only relative is you can compare against something else and there are no competitors (for the M8 anyway). I certainly don't think Leica should ever mention the word "value" in the R&D department. That would be a slippery slope.

Make the M8 more usable to non photographers with money to burn. Open a boutigue on Bond Street in London, Paris, New York, Hong Kong or wherever these people go. Even stick diamonds on some of them if it makes them sell, because whilever they are selling it means they can go on building quality cameras that I want to use.

SR

Seconded, on both counts (though actually I have Nikons not Canons).

Cheers,

R.

 

[tomasis]

That is why all Cuban reporters all carry M8s happily along, as Korda did. They can afford them now as they did then. :bang:

I'll get my coat. No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.

yeah Rodchenko was able to afford Leica too. He was born in working class famliy and he was a Russian.

 

[kevin m]

Make the M8 more usable to non photographers with money to burn. Open a boutigue on Bond Street in London, Paris, New York, Hong Kong or wherever these people go. Even stick diamonds on some of them if it makes them sell...

Leica has more or less implemented your suggestions and they're losing money doing it. :bang:

All this internet philosophising about "what is value, anyway?" seems pretty silly when it's evident that the Leica M8 is, for the most part, simply not being used as a working tool, rather it's something people own for their "personal" use. This is not a successful long-term strategy, and the numbers just released bear this out.

All these wonderful new lenses are going to be orphans unless Leica addresses it's digital platform problem. Soon.

 

[pachuco]

Ah, to be a student again. I miss being right all the time 🙄

'One' always sounds so formal, but if that makes you happier, sure.

I didn't like the use of you there simply because I wouldn't agree with that statement. I don't think my cameras are cheap , particularly big, heavy or ugly and didn't particularly like you implying they were compared to an M8. If I read too much into it my apologies.

No. I'm a student, quite literally. Good for you - I'm very glad you can make a living with photography. Read what I wrote - if I had an M6 I would fondle it. I don't see why you making a living though photography is relevant to how much value I put in how a camera feels in my hand. I've used one and an M3 - I do think they are lovely. If I had $2000 lying around doing nothing I'd get an M6 and a nice 50 to put on it. I've stated as much repeatedly. As it is I can save that amount fairly quickly but have other priorities above how a camera feels in my hand. As for the anti-M brigade perhaps you are slightly paranoid and you should not be so quick to don the M series defender armor.

Cheers,
-Gautham

 

[Pavel+]

$4K in 2000: 3566 euros

$9K in 2008: 5625 euros

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

Ummm .... are we doing some kind of new math ... or am I worse with remembering college than I suspected?

5% compounded inflation by my numbers is results in that initial $4000 sum coming up to about 4163. Could someone educate me? ???

 

[gnarayan]

Ah, to be a student again. I miss being right all the time 🙄

Oh that is what I'm messing up. You see I thought the idea was to be wrong frequently but seldom in doubt... 😛

Cheers,
-Gautham

 

[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.

Ummm .... are we doing some kind of new math ... or am I worse with remembering college than I suspected?

5% compounded inflation by my numbers is results in that initial $4000 sum coming up to about 4163. Could someone educate me? ???

I think you are using 0.5%
You have to multiply by 1.05 for each year, and to do it on the euro value.
You should end with a value of 5000 euros.

BTW, to get the kind of figures you have there (3500 to 5500 euros) you have to use a close to 7% inflation figure which seems quite high to me for the last 7 years.

 

[tbarker13]

Leica has more or less implemented your suggestions and they're losing money doing it. :bang:

All these wonderful new lenses are going to be orphans unless Leica addresses it's digital platform problem. Soon.

Exactly. In the good old days when film was king, Leica built tools for photographers. Great photographers with great cameras/lenses created the brand. It was a brand that also appealed to luxury buyers, particularly with a wide range of limited collector's runs, etc.

Now digital is king. And Leica seems more worried about appealing to those luxury shoppers than it is about building a great digital camera to go along with its lenses. Look no further than this silly snapshot mode on the M8.2. Every dollar spent on that little gimmick should have gone into the development of a full frame sensor, weatherproofing, better performance at high ISO, etc.

 

[pachuco]

LMAO!! Touché my friend. I think that perhaps students are often not so wrong, it just that us old guys can't remember what is right! Life does that to you.......stupid life. (that last part said like Homer Simpson would say it)😀

Oh that is what I'm messing up. You see I thought the idea was to be wrong frequently but seldom in doubt... 😛

Cheers,
-Gautham

 

[Svitantti]

In the good old days when film was king, Leica built tools for photographers. Great photographers with great cameras/lenses created the brand. It was a brand that also appealed to luxury buyers, particularly with a wide range of limited collector's runs, etc.

...Every dollar spent on that little gimmick should have gone into the development of a full frame sensor, weatherproofing, better performance at high ISO, etc.

I couldnt agree more!

 

[Pavel+]

ahhh ... that pesky decimal point coupled with medication! You are right Sanmich, I did use the wrong numbers.

Funny the absolute value hits you like a brick, but when put in terms of inflation of about 7 percent ... it puts it into a different perspective. The US prices, I guess that is the cost of the buck as it is nowadays.

It seems not to be discussed much but the costs of Canon and Nikon glass has seemed to have been insulated from the dollar/euro disparity in this last year or two. What is happening however is that any NEW product gets nailed with an incredible increase. Witness the old canon 24 1.4 at 1100 dollars jumping to 1600 with the revision. Same with nikon stuff. Jumps in the order of 40% in one year ... and somehow all the users seem to not complain. On the contrary, it seems to me that they think that because it is new and more expensive ... that they are getting a better magic bullet.

Hey, perhaps here in the Leica forum we can adopt the same logic ... and celebrate! 😀

I guess it is what it is. Griping wont change the prices - but my worry is that this griping is damaging the brand. In the end perhaps its just a mind set. I for one think that we should be more positive (even if we have to have a drink first). A turnaround is likely to come eventually. But this negativity spreads. We look at the bad and not the good - and soon there will be nothing to look at.

Ever notice how both Canon and Nikon, and heck .. look at the Mac crowd. They stick to their brand, their addiction, through thick and thin. They don't spread the bad vibes like I see here. It may not be stricktly correct or what they really always feel inside - but it helps the brand survive those inevitable hard times.

Is that not, in the end, what is most important to all of us?

So drink some Koolaid, y'all ... and be glad for what we DO have. 🙂

 

[ferider]

Don't worry, Pavel. Any advertisement is good advertisement. Which is why this thread was started in the first place 🙄

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

$4K in 2000: 3566 euros

$9K in 2008: 5625 euros

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

Ummm .... are we doing some kind of new math ... or am I worse with remembering college than I suspected?

5% compounded inflation by my numbers is results in that initial $4000 sum coming up to about 4163. Could someone educate me? ???

Work in euros. $4K in 2000 = 3566 euros

3556 x 1.05 = 3733 (2001)
3733 x 1.05 = 3920 (2002)
3920 x 1.05 = 4116 (2003)
4115 x 1.05 = 4322 (2004)
4322 x 1.05 = 4538 (2005)
4538 x 1.05 = 4765 (2006)
4765 x 1.05 = 5003 (2007)
5003 x 1.05 = 5253 (2008)

5253 euros in 2008 = $8405

All right, my original calculation was sloppy. But it's still a lot closer than your answer, even in dollars (4.0 - 4.2 - 4.4 etc.) Not so much misremembering as mis-typing, I suspect.

Unless I'm miscalculating. Anyone want to correct me?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pavel+]

Roger, as I've already posted ... my calculations included a slip in the decimal place.
Read my follow up post.
Cold medicine - I plead cold medicine syndrome! 🙂