RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
FYI. According to Mr. Gandy, over on CVUG, the prices of all things Leica are going up July1, purportedly, for example, an MP and M7 will go from $2895 to $3295. 
back alley
IMAGES
not a great concern for me as i can't afford either price
joe
joe
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
I had to think about this one before I responded.
I don't own a Leica. I would love one. Just can't afford one... yet. I want a used one. I like character in my toys. A new one would be cool, certainly.
Additional thoughts- jacking prices won't do Leica a bit of good. Lowering them won't do either. That is how their relationship with Panasonic can come into play.
Consider how leica produced the "Vario-Elmar" lens for Panasonic's Lumix FZ20. It is a decent digital camera. Simplistic. Captures good images. Costs less than $550 US.
Panasonic did the ground work and production for the electronics contained in the Leica Digilux 2. Nevermind that leica missed the mark on a true digital rangefinder with that one.
Leica should get focused much in the same way BMW has maintained their niche- create fine products consistently, in the right numbers and with enough of a price spread to entice even those who can't afford the absolute top of the line (the 7 series for example).
Leica misses the point by creating incredibly overpriced point and shoot autofocus models. Why not create perfect little lower end updates of the old III series cameras (f and g)? Leave the point and shoots to Canon (who do these well enough for everyman).
That's my rant and I'm stickin' to it (I have had my merlot for the night)
Bob H
I don't own a Leica. I would love one. Just can't afford one... yet. I want a used one. I like character in my toys. A new one would be cool, certainly.
Additional thoughts- jacking prices won't do Leica a bit of good. Lowering them won't do either. That is how their relationship with Panasonic can come into play.
Consider how leica produced the "Vario-Elmar" lens for Panasonic's Lumix FZ20. It is a decent digital camera. Simplistic. Captures good images. Costs less than $550 US.
Panasonic did the ground work and production for the electronics contained in the Leica Digilux 2. Nevermind that leica missed the mark on a true digital rangefinder with that one.
Leica should get focused much in the same way BMW has maintained their niche- create fine products consistently, in the right numbers and with enough of a price spread to entice even those who can't afford the absolute top of the line (the 7 series for example).
Leica misses the point by creating incredibly overpriced point and shoot autofocus models. Why not create perfect little lower end updates of the old III series cameras (f and g)? Leave the point and shoots to Canon (who do these well enough for everyman).
That's my rant and I'm stickin' to it (I have had my merlot for the night)
Bob H
Last edited:
chug
I wear pants
Yeah, makes no difference to me if the price goes up. I still wouldnt buy one at either price. Even tho I cant afford anything leica atm as it is
Steve Hoffman
Leicanutt
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Leica Ala Carte price is NOT going up...
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
Most likely because it is a niche that does well.Steve Hoffman said:
R
rich815
Guest
This is all of a sudden being discussed here and at PN again as if it's new news. Wasn't this announced previously?
peter_n
Veteran
Yes - earlier this year.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
rich815 said:
Yeah. I noticed this as well. It's starting up on CVUG again too. I haven't been following the whole Leica-thing. Did something definitive happen recently? I only pass it along as a FYI. :angel:
R
RML
Guest
RayPA said:
It's only now again news because Leica can survive another year. Had Leica gone bankrupt news (even old news) of a price hike wouldn't have mattered one bit. Now the price hike is interesting as it will be one of the things that'll decide Leica's further future. Will it generate more income or will it turn off customers...?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A large partv of the problem is the extremely feeble dollar. When W came to power you could buy a euro for 95 cents US or thereabouts. Now it is $1.25 or thereabouts -- a staggering decline in value. In other words, Leicas need to be almost 40 per cent more expensive than they were at the end of the Clinton administration merely to put the same amount of money in Leica's pockets.
This is a major problem for many European manufacturers. The US is traditionally one of the biggest markets for Gandolfi, probably the best wooden cameras in the world -- but right now, the market is sluggish to the point of moribund.
Cheers,
Roger
This is a major problem for many European manufacturers. The US is traditionally one of the biggest markets for Gandolfi, probably the best wooden cameras in the world -- but right now, the market is sluggish to the point of moribund.
Cheers,
Roger
S
Socke
Guest
if you're loosing money on your products you've three possibilities:
a) cut cost producing them, cheaper materials, cheaper build, cheaper labor
b) increase price
c) stop production
a) will will lead to something close to but very different from a leica
b) may lead to a luxury product
and
c) is probably where they are heading with a) from somebody picking up the brand name later
a) cut cost producing them, cheaper materials, cheaper build, cheaper labor
b) increase price
c) stop production
a) will will lead to something close to but very different from a leica
b) may lead to a luxury product
and
c) is probably where they are heading with a) from somebody picking up the brand name later
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And Jaguar,and Rover (RIP), any Swiss watchmaker or Parisian design-house you care to name etc. would not be having the troubles they are having now It really would help the old established European industries if the USA budget were better balanced. On the other hand petrol would be even more extremely expensive (right now it is 1,30 Euro ($ 1.65) a litre), holidays outside the EU are more affordable, American products and exotic fruits are cheap, so we'll have to live with it, I'm afraid.Somewhat of a comedown that Japanese camera-prices are not affected.
Last edited:
Roger, you are correct, the US monetary policy can be greatly and for a number of reasons justly criticized. That doesn't excuse the failings of Leica though. They do not sell a product for which there is a sufficient market. Even with a stronger $ the number of people who buy new Leicas is tiny. All of their technology is fully capitalized, other than the only new technology they have offered in 51 years in the M7. I don't accept anything other than that they have a failing business plan and are too stubborn to survive.
Buy a used Leica, which obviously is what their management wants us to do.
Buy a used Leica, which obviously is what their management wants us to do.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
does anybody have any idea what Leica's margins are on an M7 or an MP?
Or for that matter lenses, scopes, etc.?
Raising prices from 2,800 to 3,300 on a rangefinder camera body doesn't do much for the people who already can't afford them in the first place, but it may well bring in a little more cash from the well-to-do that already buy them consistently.
That is however the way straight into a boutique company, and Leica has mouthed the words that they will not be a boutique...
As has been stated, the best thing they could do under their limited circumstances is cut prices to increase sales, cut costs to allow those margins to remain untouched, etc. Their brand identity is probablly more than strong enough to maintain a cut to $2000 for a body, or even let's say $1750 to compete with the new Zeiss. (I think people would be willing to pay another $250 to buy a Leica rather than a Cosina/Zeiss)
Obviously one of the best things they could do would be to fully modernize their products, and stop relying on the dubious distinction of finely built cameras coupled with excellent optics...they certainly make wonderful optics, but they don't hold any monopoly...there are also well-built cameras from other manufacturers, and most photographers are more interested in photography than collecting.
In this digital age, the only way to really grow their products would be to really focus on making their cameras be able to compete directly with big mofo dSLR's...they have been subtle about it in the last years, but they should not only market reasons why they are better for certain things, but also MAKE themselves better.
Like it or not, adding a little more electronic functions to a cheaper M body might be the way to go....that's what made Canon millions back with the AE, or Nikon with the FG, etc. They were able to cut costs and prices by automating many things that were previously mechanical.
After all, these days if you want the ultimate, and luxurious mechanical camera, go with an Alpa...the Leica should be the ultimate Rangefinder, and affordable models should exist alongside the nice museum-pieces.
Dare I even suggest finally retooling for flip out film loading doors? Just because you can get used to something, and tolerate it, does not make it the best way to go...despite Leica's claim to be the user-friendliest and most intuitive cameras, Leicas are famous these days for being anachronistic, but Leica could do just a few simple things to put their cameras right alongside anything else offered today, especially since there are a lot of people who don't want to let go of film.
Then don't forget all the photo students! Learning photography with digital is like going to cooking school with nothing but a salt shaker and a microwave...
Or for that matter lenses, scopes, etc.?
Raising prices from 2,800 to 3,300 on a rangefinder camera body doesn't do much for the people who already can't afford them in the first place, but it may well bring in a little more cash from the well-to-do that already buy them consistently.
That is however the way straight into a boutique company, and Leica has mouthed the words that they will not be a boutique...
As has been stated, the best thing they could do under their limited circumstances is cut prices to increase sales, cut costs to allow those margins to remain untouched, etc. Their brand identity is probablly more than strong enough to maintain a cut to $2000 for a body, or even let's say $1750 to compete with the new Zeiss. (I think people would be willing to pay another $250 to buy a Leica rather than a Cosina/Zeiss)
Obviously one of the best things they could do would be to fully modernize their products, and stop relying on the dubious distinction of finely built cameras coupled with excellent optics...they certainly make wonderful optics, but they don't hold any monopoly...there are also well-built cameras from other manufacturers, and most photographers are more interested in photography than collecting.
In this digital age, the only way to really grow their products would be to really focus on making their cameras be able to compete directly with big mofo dSLR's...they have been subtle about it in the last years, but they should not only market reasons why they are better for certain things, but also MAKE themselves better.
Like it or not, adding a little more electronic functions to a cheaper M body might be the way to go....that's what made Canon millions back with the AE, or Nikon with the FG, etc. They were able to cut costs and prices by automating many things that were previously mechanical.
After all, these days if you want the ultimate, and luxurious mechanical camera, go with an Alpa...the Leica should be the ultimate Rangefinder, and affordable models should exist alongside the nice museum-pieces.
Dare I even suggest finally retooling for flip out film loading doors? Just because you can get used to something, and tolerate it, does not make it the best way to go...despite Leica's claim to be the user-friendliest and most intuitive cameras, Leicas are famous these days for being anachronistic, but Leica could do just a few simple things to put their cameras right alongside anything else offered today, especially since there are a lot of people who don't want to let go of film.
Then don't forget all the photo students! Learning photography with digital is like going to cooking school with nothing but a salt shaker and a microwave...
S
Socke
Guest
bobofish said:
In their last filing they reported losses on all film based cameras especialy the M and R series.
They had earnings on the digital compacts.
And I don't think Leica could compete with Cosina even if they had the money to set up a new production line in a low wages country to produce a cheap M-Mount camera.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I should also mention something that has been knawing at me for quite a while now...everybody's assertion that Leica SHOULD move its production to China or some other such cheap place.....
Besides the fact that Ford originally started paying his workers more money so that they could buy his cars, and how that plays into world economics of the 20th century, etc.....
German labor costs are both a direct result of extremely high quality and efficiency, but they are also the reason that German labor is of extremely high quality and efficiency....I haven't seen the figures for the last couple of years, but as of 3 years ago, Holland was #1 and Germany #2 in greatest productivity per worker in the world, in large part because the workers get great benefits.
Why in the world would they take that to be a disadvantage? Not to mention the stigma that making a quality product like Leica in a Chinese political prison would bring...
There is a huge movement these days of people who are fed up with the Walmartization of the modern economy, and buy local food BECAUSE it is local, regardless of the price, because it is both local, and of vastly higher quality. Leica should use this "weakness" as a tremendous strength, and simply take the time to retool and retrain, in order to reach the MAXIMUM efficiency of their excellent, well-compensated workers. By ridding themselves of anachronisms and silly waste ($100 shutter dials for example) they could become a much more svelte concern, capable of utilizing their tremendous cache and quality to their advantage.
Film will not go away for a very long time, even though it will soon become to digital what black and white has been to color for 30 years. (Is anybody studying for their SAT's?)
Likewise, for a small company like Leica, a good and well-thought out partnership would be to their great advantage in this day and age (not a merger, but a partnership)...maybe they could parlay their small relationship with Imacon and kodak into a full-fledged partnership with Hassy, or at the least a full fledged, longlasting relationship that will produce the world's foremost products in their niche, rather than products basted on nostalgia?
Enough of the soapbox for now, it's time to go to bed.
Besides the fact that Ford originally started paying his workers more money so that they could buy his cars, and how that plays into world economics of the 20th century, etc.....
German labor costs are both a direct result of extremely high quality and efficiency, but they are also the reason that German labor is of extremely high quality and efficiency....I haven't seen the figures for the last couple of years, but as of 3 years ago, Holland was #1 and Germany #2 in greatest productivity per worker in the world, in large part because the workers get great benefits.
Why in the world would they take that to be a disadvantage? Not to mention the stigma that making a quality product like Leica in a Chinese political prison would bring...
There is a huge movement these days of people who are fed up with the Walmartization of the modern economy, and buy local food BECAUSE it is local, regardless of the price, because it is both local, and of vastly higher quality. Leica should use this "weakness" as a tremendous strength, and simply take the time to retool and retrain, in order to reach the MAXIMUM efficiency of their excellent, well-compensated workers. By ridding themselves of anachronisms and silly waste ($100 shutter dials for example) they could become a much more svelte concern, capable of utilizing their tremendous cache and quality to their advantage.
Film will not go away for a very long time, even though it will soon become to digital what black and white has been to color for 30 years. (Is anybody studying for their SAT's?)
Likewise, for a small company like Leica, a good and well-thought out partnership would be to their great advantage in this day and age (not a merger, but a partnership)...maybe they could parlay their small relationship with Imacon and kodak into a full-fledged partnership with Hassy, or at the least a full fledged, longlasting relationship that will produce the world's foremost products in their niche, rather than products basted on nostalgia?
Enough of the soapbox for now, it's time to go to bed.
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
Socke,
I mean no disrespect, but I was not referring to losses in the general area of cameras, we all know that they've been making a hash of things in recent years.
What I mean is, what is their actual margin on a single M or R camera, lens, etc.?
In other words, how much of the final sale price of an M7 is Leica production cost, how much is marketing, how much is dealer cut, shipping, etc.?
I suspect their margins are fairly high, and their problem could be the same that Porsche had (and really still has) with their 911's, etc.
Porsche was asked by consultants and investors to lower their prices, because their margins were very high...Porsche responded that although they could easily lower prices and continue to have acceptable margins, this would cut into their brand cache as a luxury sportscar (which is already much less expensive than a Ferrari, etc.) and in the end erode their brand name. As a result, Porsche came out with what many people considered to be a travesty (I would still like to be able to own one) to the Porsche Marque, the Boxer....then they came out with the ultimate insult to Porschephiles, the Cayenne......(developed with Volkswagen)
Voila, they are now making piles of money on those cars, and on the streets of Portland, OR 9 out of 10 Porsches you see are Boxers or Cayennes...
(although I live a few blocks from a nationally famous Porsche mechanic shop, where I am priveledged to see the candy of automotive history on a daily basis)
From the figures I've seen, Porsche has been revived, and the marque is still vibrant and alive, as shown by their wonderful GT.
If Leica were to draw similar conclusions (which I'm sure their lower management has done, although their stubborn upper management has certainly poo-pooed), then Leica's "Boxer" could be a new CL, something that takes M lenses, but is not made to the same standard that an M7 or MP is...it would still have to be a very high performance camera, but made on both a much larger scale to bring down costs, and also some cost-cutting (but not outsourcing)....
Leica's Cayenne could be an autofocus SLR using Panasonic's magnificent resources, and would be able to compete with Canon, Nikon, et al in much the same way that the Cayenne competes with the rest of the SUV's here in the States.....it does much the same as a Ford, but the experience is so much more amusing, that the yuppies buy them. Also, it gives the soccer mom's with a little bit of motor oil in their blood access to a car brand that they could not possibly justify with their families.
Dare I even suggest, in my long, rambling, and possibly incoherent rant, that Leica could possilby create some flabbergasting technological advances with Panasonic, like an SLR using Panasonic's new P2 cards, that would be able to not only take very large and beautiful still shots, but full-fledged Hi-def video in one small package....
Or even very simply, using the P2 cards on an autofocus Leica that would be able to sustain bursts of 20 full-res shots per second, for as long as 8 gigs would last? This would obviously appeal to not only the photojournalists and sports photographers, but also to the random putz who wants to have maximum horespower.....
I mean no disrespect, but I was not referring to losses in the general area of cameras, we all know that they've been making a hash of things in recent years.
What I mean is, what is their actual margin on a single M or R camera, lens, etc.?
In other words, how much of the final sale price of an M7 is Leica production cost, how much is marketing, how much is dealer cut, shipping, etc.?
I suspect their margins are fairly high, and their problem could be the same that Porsche had (and really still has) with their 911's, etc.
Porsche was asked by consultants and investors to lower their prices, because their margins were very high...Porsche responded that although they could easily lower prices and continue to have acceptable margins, this would cut into their brand cache as a luxury sportscar (which is already much less expensive than a Ferrari, etc.) and in the end erode their brand name. As a result, Porsche came out with what many people considered to be a travesty (I would still like to be able to own one) to the Porsche Marque, the Boxer....then they came out with the ultimate insult to Porschephiles, the Cayenne......(developed with Volkswagen)
Voila, they are now making piles of money on those cars, and on the streets of Portland, OR 9 out of 10 Porsches you see are Boxers or Cayennes...
(although I live a few blocks from a nationally famous Porsche mechanic shop, where I am priveledged to see the candy of automotive history on a daily basis)
From the figures I've seen, Porsche has been revived, and the marque is still vibrant and alive, as shown by their wonderful GT.
If Leica were to draw similar conclusions (which I'm sure their lower management has done, although their stubborn upper management has certainly poo-pooed), then Leica's "Boxer" could be a new CL, something that takes M lenses, but is not made to the same standard that an M7 or MP is...it would still have to be a very high performance camera, but made on both a much larger scale to bring down costs, and also some cost-cutting (but not outsourcing)....
Leica's Cayenne could be an autofocus SLR using Panasonic's magnificent resources, and would be able to compete with Canon, Nikon, et al in much the same way that the Cayenne competes with the rest of the SUV's here in the States.....it does much the same as a Ford, but the experience is so much more amusing, that the yuppies buy them. Also, it gives the soccer mom's with a little bit of motor oil in their blood access to a car brand that they could not possibly justify with their families.
Dare I even suggest, in my long, rambling, and possibly incoherent rant, that Leica could possilby create some flabbergasting technological advances with Panasonic, like an SLR using Panasonic's new P2 cards, that would be able to not only take very large and beautiful still shots, but full-fledged Hi-def video in one small package....
Or even very simply, using the P2 cards on an autofocus Leica that would be able to sustain bursts of 20 full-res shots per second, for as long as 8 gigs would last? This would obviously appeal to not only the photojournalists and sports photographers, but also to the random putz who wants to have maximum horespower.....
S
Socke
Guest
bobofish, in my understanding the margin is what is over the cost of the product. At the moment this is negative.
Actualy I don't now what a dealer like Leica bei Meister in Hamburg pays for a M, but it is not enough to produce one :-(
My local dealer had a windows full of new Leica M6TTLs and lenses. The bodies were lowered from 3,000 Euro to 2,200. I didn't ask how long he had those items in stock and what that cost him in interest and space.
Porsche is different, they produce a product in high demand and avoid market saturation. And then a Porsche 911 from 2005 is so much different from a 2000 model that it makes sense to buy a new one for those who can aford it
Thinking of Porsches, my fathers 911 Turbo in 1989 had no power steering, no anti skid brakes, no stability controll and it doesn't meet todays environmental specifications.
It would not be street legal, today.
A new Boxter S is nearly as fast and much more safe to drive at roughly the same price
I'd like to know if Leica would have been successfull with a camera like the Contax G2.
IMHO the Contax G2 relates to a M6 like a 2005 Boxter S to a 1990 911 Turbo.
Actualy I don't now what a dealer like Leica bei Meister in Hamburg pays for a M, but it is not enough to produce one :-(
My local dealer had a windows full of new Leica M6TTLs and lenses. The bodies were lowered from 3,000 Euro to 2,200. I didn't ask how long he had those items in stock and what that cost him in interest and space.
Porsche is different, they produce a product in high demand and avoid market saturation. And then a Porsche 911 from 2005 is so much different from a 2000 model that it makes sense to buy a new one for those who can aford it
Thinking of Porsches, my fathers 911 Turbo in 1989 had no power steering, no anti skid brakes, no stability controll and it doesn't meet todays environmental specifications.
It would not be street legal, today.
A new Boxter S is nearly as fast and much more safe to drive at roughly the same price
I'd like to know if Leica would have been successfull with a camera like the Contax G2.
IMHO the Contax G2 relates to a M6 like a 2005 Boxter S to a 1990 911 Turbo.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Leica has been there before; they lost a bundle of money on every Leicaflex SL2 they built, despite that being the best camera that ever has been built. So what did they do? They bought Minolta engineering and made the R3 and later the R4-R7 series, and very succesfully, despite Leicaphiles predicting Doomsday and the beginning of the reign of Satan. So I am quite sure that this solution is well known to the Leica management at all levels. The problem now is that the whole technology of their field is changing drastically and any company that works Leica-style would be hard put to adapt. Calling that mistakes by the management seems a bit unfair.
I think they are more in the position of the Morgan motor company a few years ago. They saw profits out of their anachronistic product dwindling and built the totally outrageous Aero. The interest that thing generated revived the company. I feel Leica are hoping for a similar effect from the Digital Module and later on from the Digital M. Everthing else that is done, including selling rebadged digital compacts is just to keep the company ticking over until this happens.
I think they are more in the position of the Morgan motor company a few years ago. They saw profits out of their anachronistic product dwindling and built the totally outrageous Aero. The interest that thing generated revived the company. I feel Leica are hoping for a similar effect from the Digital Module and later on from the Digital M. Everthing else that is done, including selling rebadged digital compacts is just to keep the company ticking over until this happens.