Sparrow
Veteran
Rodchenko
Olympian
That's funny!
Bill Clark
Veteran
I've been an investor for over 50 years. I look at cameras and think of them as an investment. Especially the lenses. Bodies change but as long as my lenses work with the newest and latest, I can decide to get or pass on whatever is offered. I keep my stuff for a long, long time, including digital.
I have paid some good money for Canon products. Leica lenses are more but over a span of decades, it's a small amount each day of ownership.
When I was full time, making money with photography, my goal was to make sure that when I put my stuff together for a shoot, it has to work, every time.
How much does it cost if you get to a destination, ready, shoot. Crap, the camera doesn't work.
By the way I have a 20D in my 10th year, I bought it in 2004, and it still works just fine. I have it as a backup but it's always worked. And I like using my Leica IIIf cameras.
I have paid some good money for Canon products. Leica lenses are more but over a span of decades, it's a small amount each day of ownership.
When I was full time, making money with photography, my goal was to make sure that when I put my stuff together for a shoot, it has to work, every time.
How much does it cost if you get to a destination, ready, shoot. Crap, the camera doesn't work.
By the way I have a 20D in my 10th year, I bought it in 2004, and it still works just fine. I have it as a backup but it's always worked. And I like using my Leica IIIf cameras.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That is a totally sane comment in a thread that seems to have wandered all round the landscape to end up where it started.
Actually, my two vehicle comparison (above) was meant seriously. The Smart probably cost twice as much as the Unitrac but it's very good at what it does. Someone who appreciates small, nippy and comfortable probably considers it a bargain. Someone shifting piles of hay and dung will be equally happy with the Unitrac.
As someone who has owned and enjoyed several Leicas, I really do see them as conceptually similar to the Smart Car. Serious dSLRs seem to me to be intended to be bashed, battered and to trade prettiness for flexibility.
As I wrote a lot earlier in this thread, I think the largest amount of Leica bashing is in response to those who come across as believing that ownership of Leica equipment raises them onto a different plane of existence from those who do not.
I've sold my Leicas, because I don't do enough film based photography nowadays to justify carrying that weight around; and Leicas are heavy compared to a lot of other cameras. On the other hand, I may buy a M9 in the future, if I feel I'd enjoy it.
Once you look at this whole thing sensibly, what on earth is the argument all about?
Meantime, here's a Leica shot that I think sums up what we might all do to our best advantage: chill out and just enjoy the scenery
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Just having had ANOTHER snowstorm roll through about a half-hour ago with having already a foot or so on the ground and near 0*F temps... This image is a welcome relief. I'd love to be ANYWHERE right now where a t-shirt, shorts, and sandals are the uniform of the day.
Meantime, here's a Leica shot that I think sums up what we might all do to our best advantage: chill out and just enjoy the scenery
sig
Well-known
So if the canikons are for the masses and the pros.... Who are the leicas for? Different market you say. Is it the dentist market
Ferrari is a good comparison. Nobody have ever gotten a ferrari as a status symbol
Platinum RF
Well-known
I think you mixed "I can't afford it." and "I do not want to pay that price for what I get".
Sparrow
Veteran
hepcat
Former PH, USN
So if the canikons are for the masses and the pros.... Who are the leicas for? Different market you say. Is it the dentist market
Ferrari is a good comparison. Nobody have ever gotten a ferrari as a status symbol
I probably should have said market segments. Lots of Canon shooters have a Leica in their arsenal. Lots of Nikon shooters have a Leica in their arsenal, but few of them have invested in Leica as a system because they're invested in their DSLR system. Neither of them really care too much about what Leica is doing. Leica shooters often have something else at their disposal, but few who are heavily invested in a system will seldom dump their entire system to switch.
If a DSLR is your thing, then that's what you're going to stay with. You have choices in that market segment; Leica is not one of them. If your thing is a bright line coupled coincident rangefinder/viewfinder and you want digital, then Leica is the only choice available. They're different market segments altogether.
Unlike the hobbyist with a body and a couple of lenses, pros don't switch lightly or often. It's expensive and there's a learning curve each time. It's sometimes difficult to carve out the time to learn new gear in between scheduled engagements, and you have to know your gear inside and out. Figuring something out on someone else's dime during a shoot isn't what you're getting paid for.
I switched from Leica to Canon in about 1987 after the EOS1 was introduced. I kept my Leicas, but they didn't see much commerical use. I also sold my Mamiya C330 system and changed to Hasselblad in 1990 and stayed with that for ten years until 2000 when I sold all my Canon AND Hassy gear and got out of pro photography for a while. When I came back in '03 or so, I bought Olympus digital and stayed with Olympus until last year when it was clear that the next iteration of pro gear is going to be EVFs. I switched back to Leica since I can have Leica digital now. I have also re-acquired a more recent Hassy 500 system with a specific market in mind to target. I still have the same 1975-vintage corded Norman studio lighting system I bought in 1990. I know it inside and out, and I have no reason to replace it.
I don't care what Canikony comes out with in the way of bodies or sensors; until they have a rangefinder body that takes M lenses, or they make a stand-alone aftermarket digital back for Hassy that's affordable, I'm just not interested. Likewise, most Canikony owners don't particularly care about what Leica does.
Platinum RF
Well-known
Dentists' income is just upper middle class
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or, as I said, "Of course 'can't afford' is flexible. I can't afford a new car -- because I don't want one badly enough to give up my Leicas, good food, travel, etc. Nor do I want to borrow any money, ever again, if I can avoid it."
Show me the difference between what I said and what you said.
Cheers,
R
Sparrow
Veteran
.... harsh
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Platinum RF
Well-known
I can't afford it." - I do not have money to pay it, even I take away my kid's milk money
"I do not want to pay that price for what I get" - I have money to buy whatever i want, do not need to give up good food, travel or leica, but I do not want to pay Leica's digital RF.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not a point I addressed, so not one you need to attempt to counter. I said that "I can't afford it" is a flexible concept -- which is it, ranging from "I am flat stony broke" to "There are other things on which I would rather spend my money".
What you are talking about is "I don't want it badly enough to pay the price." That's fine, assuming it's true rather than an excuse for "I cant afford it".
For that matter, there are lots of things I don't want badly enough to buy at any price, regardless of how trivial that price may be.A can of Dr. Pepper would be a good example. But that doesn't mean that Dr. Pepper is overpriced, merely that I don't want it. The same would be true of an entry-level Canon DSLR. For fun, I'd prefer a Lubitel.
Cheers,
R.
KansanTim
Established
I agree that the price is just the price, with no evidence that it is over- or under-priced. However, I strongly doubt the idea that they would lose customers from lower prices. I've never seen a remotely convincing argument that standard Leicas are Veblen goods, and the fact that Leica even makes the M-E and priced it lower counters the idea rather strongly. I think if Leica lowered prices more than the current ones, they would gain customers, but just not enough customers to justify the lowering of the price. I assume they know their market better than I do and have their reasons, like the increased sales would be insufficient to make up for a lower margin, or perhaps they would have supply issues without major additional investment, and that investment would cost them more than the sales would generate.
That said, I appreciate the people on this thread, like you, who are saying Leicas are just expensive and don't whine about them being overpriced. I, for one, appreciate any wealthy people buying new Leicas, even or perhaps especially the shockingly expensive special editions, because it's a smallish company making a niche product, and I'd like Leica to still be around in the future. That happens by people paying for their products, particularly those with good margins. Maybe someday I'll even be able to afford one myself (probably used, so I don't expect Leica to care so much about me as a customer).
Michael Markey
Veteran
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Quote " if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers... "
I have wondered for a week or two how that applies to the CL when it first appeared and the M2 which was another cheaper one, or the model 1 (or standard) in the 30's.
In each case Leica or Leitz produced a cheaper version and they sold. Gaining more customers and starting them on the path to better or more complicated or dearer models: I'm guessing repeat orders were/are important to them and they were/are after them.
I think 'cheaper' is not the right word to use in this argument as it carries a lot of baggage that we don't need.
Regards, David
Quote " if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers... "
I have wondered for a week or two how that applies to the CL when it first appeared and the M2 which was another cheaper one, or the model 1 (or standard) in the 30's.
In each case Leica or Leitz produced a cheaper version and they sold. Gaining more customers and starting them on the path to better or more complicated or dearer models: I'm guessing repeat orders were/are important to them and they were/are after them.
I think 'cheaper' is not the right word to use in this argument as it carries a lot of baggage that we don't need.
Regards, David
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I think the real problem is that Leica cameras have become fetish objects, which is a pity. They used to be, and probably still are, darn good cameras. During the early to mid 'fifties, they were, in my opinion, the best 35mm reportage cameras available.
Now, however, there are so many really good cameras to choose from, the only way that Leica has found to differentiate its products is to pretend they are something they are not.
Now, however, there are so many really good cameras to choose from, the only way that Leica has found to differentiate its products is to pretend they are something they are not.