Re: SHOW ME THE MONEY! aka $3,340

[Paul Schliesser <paulsc@eos.net>]

>Worst case, I can not imagine Leica not surviving.

Stephen,

A lot of companies have an "image" product which defines them. Some of 
the auto companies, like Porsche, spend huge ammounts of money fielding 
race cars. They don't make money on them, per se, but it enhances their 
reputation as leaders in the field of high-performance autos.

If Leica is doing well making microscopes and military optics and 
electronics and cement and whatever else, they may be able to affort to 
loose money on cameras, and it may be worthwhile for them to keep the 
division going because of the image and reputation it generates; the 
image of being the hightest quality, most-anal-retentive perfectionist, 
cost-be-dammed optical manufacturer on the planet. They also may get some 
mileage out of the historical importance of the Leica cameras.

I agree that the Leica stuff is way to expensive, as much as I love it. 
However, they may actually want it to be expensive and prestigious for 
these reasons. I don't actually know very much about Leica, the company; 
I'm just suggesting reasons why they may be the way they are.

I think I read someplace that Nikon is actually loosing money on some of 
it's pro equipment, but the reputation they have of being the chosen 
brand for pro photographers is what sells a lot of their less-expensive 
products, as well as stuff outside of their field, like scanners. If you 
look at the big picture, it doesn't matter if they loose money in that 
area because it generates huge profits elsewhere.

However, this doesn't seem to have worked with Leica's P&S cameras.

- - Paul