Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I had meant to say "This is why they continue to not be able to play on the world market with companies like Canon and Nikon." I wrote it quite late just before hitting the hay. Really, the cost of Leica in the past and the present has just been too high for the bulk of customers with the money to spend. So the difference between a $3k lens and a $2k lens is ZERO to a person who wants to get into Leica but doesn't have the funds. R&D and all of that taken into account, Leica still falls short in pricing vs product utility. Most consumers CAN'T buy into this system no matter how much they want to therefore they get a Canon or Nikon which offer products that are just as attractive at a much lower price. Canon and Nikon have customer service which is second to none. It's quick and here in the US. Even here on the LUG we occasionally read about someone who has experienced difficulty with their Leica, sent it to Solms and is still waiting on their camera months later. Most working photographers who are serious enough to own a Leica can't afford that kind of down-time and also can't afford a second body. I saved up for months to buy my first M2 and two used lenses. Most people just don't rationalize that kind of expense on a camera. THAT is why Leica can't compete and remains the imaging tool for the rich connoisseur (as viewed by the non-leica-owning populace.) PhilFo Reality check On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:45 AM, Philip Forrest wrote: > Because there is no logical reason that a manual focus 50mm lens > should > cost $5000. I suspect that if you saw the balance sheets for: amortizing R&D, materials and labor in production, reasonable profit, marketing costs, dealer markups et al - the logical reality would become clear to you. > Most other Leica lenses cost upwards of $3k as well for > modern optics. False: 90 Macro Elmar, 50 Summicron, 24 Elmarit R all $2,000; 28 Elmarit, asph $1,800; Summarit line $1,300 - $1500 > This is why they continue to be able to play on the > world market with companies like Canon and Nikon. So something's working - your point? > Leica's M8 may be > nice but it's only 1/3 the camera that an EOS 5D is, As an owner of both; in my subjective opinion - the M8 "is" 3 times better than the 5D - because it delivers more fine detail, dynamic range and useable shadow detail. > and for the price > of the M8, you can get the EOS with a lens. or 4 Canon Rebels; or 250 Holgas; or a used car; or a fine watch; or a hundred good watches; or a terrific bicycle; or 4 really nice bicycles; or or or > I can go on & on. I love > the film bodies, love the old lenses, will never afford the new ones > and probably have no reason to anyways. Leica, new in sealed box, has always cost the most, because they've always been a small company making terrific, high quality products in small quantities (with some exceptions). Nothing new about that. Why diss them for what they have always been and continue to be? > As long as Leica continues to cater to its core constituency with > making innovations for the next generation, they will always be on the > rocks. On the rocks? This week they seem to be afloat, cruising beautifully around a very large harbor; welcoming stunned guests aboard. Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist