Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/09/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Teds comments
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:48:59 +0100
References: <7446757B-A905-4A2F-B0CD-EFDFCCDF665C@mac.com> <007101cfd624$8b1687b0$a1439710$@ca> <C114914A-177D-406C-9BA5-49A2E3F920E3@icloud.com> <CA+yJO1D+aMV-CUb+ig4Wkico7EBm9_7PA=yta6XBYK+PAJSCTg@mail.gmail.com> <F95573A0-A66A-45C9-810A-19CEC054A3F5@verizon.net> <CAH1UNJ1HAod2gLgE=-4zrV+0fw+-saVaQenyxk8G_Y3+HNw8+Q@mail.gmail.com> <8F55E913-21FB-48E6-9CAE-E63D246A3156@verizon.net> <CAH1UNJ39sh_b0mtUnsFH73gzeSFxadBB_O0Hxwq0oOngp2yg1g@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with George.
Leica kit holds its value well, because it is almost always better 
performing than the other makes, but also sufficiently better made that it 
lasts much much longer, mechanically.
Top Canon and Nikon models are equally pricy and are apparently sold at a 
loss, subsidised by the vast sales of the cheaper models and justified in 
marketing terms by the kudos given to these cheaper models by the existence 
and pro use of these dearer ones.

One thing few of the internet pundits appreciate, or are aware of, is the 
huge influence on costs of production volume. The design costs, which are 
vast, the tooling costs, which may be vast and will be pretty big whatever, 
have to be paid for out of a much smaller volume. Typical mass produced 
consumer products, such as hifi and cars sell for about 10x the BOM + 
assembly cost. So if you buy a car for 30k it has typically cost 3k to make, 
the rest is recovery of design, tooling and marketing costs plus profit.
Leica make such tiny quantities that they, and any supplier they select, 
have to make their costs back on a far smaller volume than this. Add into it 
that Leica parts use premium materials, tolerances and manufacturing and it 
surprises me not one whit that they are so much more expensive than the mass 
produced, almost always inferior, alternatives.

I am much more an amateur camera enthusiast than expert photographer, but my 
Leica is a joy to use, does not need frustrating searches through menus to 
do what I want and produces better results than any other camera I have used.

I assume this goes for most on the group.

Yes Leicas are expensive. Yes they would go bust if they did not make a 
profit. Yes they make very few cameras and lenses. Yes, we, the customers 
have to pay for all this.
Many have gone over to other cameras, and I admit that if I was only allowed 
to have 1 camera it may well not have been a Leica until the new M, but now 
I can put my zoom or long lenses on a M body if I wish. I am a very happy 
bunny.
My M Leica is much better value for money than my Nikon D3x, in terms of 
keepers per month, mainly since I hardly ever use the Nikon any more.

Frank D.


Replies: Reply from george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Teds comments)
In reply to: Message from scottgregory at mac.com (Scott Gregory) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from tmanley at gmail.com (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Teds comments)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Teds comments)