Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Not really Jayanand, I was simply replying about "value". What I like best about my M9 is the picture quality, intuitive menus and the size. It also uses the lenses I own and like. It was cheaper than a Nikon D3x too. I am not looking for cachet at all, most people where I live have no idea what a Leica is, so it has no cachet whatsoever. Nor do most people recognise a non-Rolex watch, so my IWC has no cachet either ;-) It is for -my- pleasure and satisfaction only. I will probably buy a D800E once the furore has subsided and the price stabilised. That will be just for my pleasure too. cheers, FD >________________________________ > From: Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> >To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2012, 15:21 >Subject: Re: [Leica] Another MM write-up > >Therefore you are looking for cachet, is it not? Even with the Fuji and >Nikon? Buying for the sake of owning the camera, not for what it does to >help you achieve the final output of self expression, the print? > >We all look for products that we in our mind think defines most accurately >what we think we are. Some see this reflection of one's self in cars or >cameras amongst other things, some, like me, might see it in watches or >pens. There is nothing wrong in it at all, and everyone falls prey to this >somewhere along the line - but it helps if we realize it for what it is. > >Cheers >Jayanand > > >On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Frank Dernie ><Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: > >> If I was looking for value I'd get a much less expensive camera than >> either the D800 or Fuji. They are very nearly as far up the diminishing >> returns curve as the M9. >> FD >> >> On 29 May, 2012, at 10:32, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: >> >> > Frank, >> > Just like you are an engineer and understand production, I have been an >> > investment and finance professional for over 30 years, and so understand >> > companies and their behaviour inside out. I am not questioning their >> costs, >> > I just made a statement on their marketing ploys to get rid of surplus >> > stock. There was no irony involved, it really is brilliant. The fact >> > that >> > you never discount your wares keeps the brand cachet very high - which >> > means you can sell at those high prices to set off your high costs. >> Without >> > the Leica cachet, do you think anyone looking for value today would ever >> > buy an M9 or M9m over a Fuji X-Pro1 or a Nikon D800E? >> > Cheers >> > Jayanand >> > >> > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Frank Dernie >> > <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: >> > >> >> If you had written that 5 years ago (maybe you did), I would agree with >> >> you. I am sure the collectors special editions kept the company afloat >> back >> >> then, or more-or-less afloat, they always lost money and there was much >> >> dickery on the stock market trying to keep Leica going. >> >> Since the arrival of the M9 the company has had a product that enough >> >> people want for them to be profitable, probably for the first time in >> over >> >> a decade. >> >> I am an engineer, and given their tiny production volumes I would -not- >> >> personally jump to the conclusion that they are ripping people off at >> their >> >> prices. They may be, but given the economy of scale, I would not expect >> the >> >> markup over cost to be as much as, say, a Nikon D800, of which they >> >> probably make more in a month than Leica's total M9 production so far. >> >> Typically, in high volume production, the production cost of an item is >> >> about 10% of recommended retail price. This is certainly the case in >> hifi >> >> and cars, the businesses I know. The rest of the 90% you pay is profit, >> >> amortising R&D and production tooling and marketing (probably the >> largest >> >> percentage for big companies) >> >> High end products generally cost quite a lot more to build than mass >> >> produced items, in terms of the component cost. The production tooling >> >> costs are much less, the tooling for production of something like the >> Nikon >> >> D800 will be 10s of millions, whereas the Leica tooling is probably >> fairly >> >> basic, but it makes the manufacturing cost per item very much >> >> different. >> >> Sophisticated die-casting tools cost a fortune, but result in castings >> >> which are inexpensive per part and require very little subsequent >> machining. >> >> It would be entirely possible for the main chassis casting to cost a >> >> couple of dollars if mass produced and a couple of hundred in small >> volume, >> >> for example. >> >> To put this in perspective, I was involved in a small volume sports car >> >> study for a wealthy enthusiast. The cost of just getting an -existing- >> >> engine, with modifications to fit his car, through the European >> emissions >> >> tests was ?15,000 per car. There were lots more things like that >> leading to >> >> an overall production cost of about ?2,500,000 per car for a production >> of >> >> 2000 units. The guy was a massively rich enthusiast from the financial >> >> sector. He thought he would be able to sell them for ?250,000 each! He >> had >> >> no idea. >> >> Anyway, do not assume that the M9 is a rip-off. There is almost >> certainly >> >> far less profit in it than in a Nikon D800. >> >> >> >> I would not be surprised to find that the S2 was a result of the >> >> studies >> >> for the R replacement. When likely sales volumes were taken into >> account, >> >> and the cost of making new AF lenses and so forth was factored in, they >> >> probably projected a break-even retail price of $15,000 or so, meaning >> >> nobody would buy one. They made a huge loss with the R8/9. Doing the >> >> costings again for MF digital and the likely sales volume probably made >> the >> >> S2 worth a punt. I wonder if they are making any money with it... >> >> >> >> The influence of production volume on manufacturing cost is not a >> >> factor >> >> of 2, more like a factor of 10-100. >> >> >> >> FD >> >> >> >> >> >> On 28 May, 2012, at 18:42, Steve Barbour wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> On May 28, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In which case they will put some coloured faux leather on it, call it >> >> some >> >>>> limited edition or the other, triple the price and sell it to Far >> >> Eastern >> >>>> collectors. They know this game inside out, and it keeps the company >> >> alive >> >>>> and in the black! If you ask me it is the best way of selling surplus >> >> stock >> >>>> that I have ever seen. Brilliant, actually. >> >>> >> >>> until it peters out >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> (some people today can't believe that Rome used to be a great empire) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Steve >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Cheers >> >>>> Jayanand >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM, FRANK DERNIE >> >>>> <frank.dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I don't think it will ever be a collectors item. >> >>>>> I think they are putting a toe in the water to see if there is a >> >>>>> real >> >>>>> market for their B&W camera. >> >>>>> Most people want autofocus. >> >>>>> Most people want zoom lenses. >> >>>>> Most people want to see through the lens, one way or another. >> >>>>> The market for M cameras is tiny. The market for a B&W only version >> >> would >> >>>>> be probably less than 5% of that???? >> >>>>> Maybe 1000 is more than they will be able to sell... >> >>>>> FD >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> Leica Users Group. >> >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Leica Users Group. >> >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Leica Users Group. >> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Leica Users Group. >> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >