Re: [Leica] M7 should be CLE

[Marco Grande <hektor73@yahoo.com>]

- ---Mike Johnston <70007.3477@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I'd buy a newly-minted CLE in a microsecond - - provided the QC
problens
> are overcome.<<<
> 
>  George,
>  I'd buy two. The CLE is the camera I really need. It's just that I
simply
> refuse to pay up to $1,000 for a 15-year-old sample. (Leica should
be learning
> a lesson from the ridiculously high used prices of the CLE, however.)
>  They don't even really have to change anything, from my standpoint.
Just
> reissue the darned thing.
>  Also, I agree with whoever said that the CLE is a better camera
than the CL.
> I'd even pay $1,000 for one, as long as it was new and had no QC
problems.
> 
>  As far as Art's critique of my economic arguments, note that I
umbrellaed my
> comments by saying "we don't know." But it certainly is not
impossible that the
> scenario Stephen Gandy and I are positing might be true. I'll
venture the
> following points, again umbrellaed by the fact that neither I nor
anyone else
> knows the real truth:
> 
>  --If the major appeal of the whole product line is the lenses, and
the only
> body the lenses will fit on is the $2,000 M6, then cutomers must buy
the M6 in
> order to use the lenses. This surely "forces" some M6 sales from
people who
> would choose to buy a cheaper body if one were available.
>  --The CL and CLE were being made by Minolta. The M6 was being made
in Wetzlar.
> It doesn't stretch credibility to my mind to imagine a disadvantage
to Wetzlar
> if the CL and CLE were selling well.
>  --The CL and CLE were not made for the whole Leitz lens line. They
had their
> own budget lenses. If the CL/E takes off in popularity, what does
that do to
> sales of the Leitz lenses not intended for it?
>  --Finally, from a pure economic standpoint, generalizations are
shaky and
> suspect. What follows is a hypothetical example. Imagine you've got
a premium
> model that sells for $2,000, and half of that is profit. You've got
a budget
> model that sells for $500, and 1/5th of that, or $100, is profit.
That means
> you've got to sell 10 of the budget models to make the same profit
you make
> when you sell 1 of the premium models. You say you can just "raise
the price of
> the hot-selling item," but that doesn't work either--to make the
same level of
> profit, the budget model would have to sell for $1,400--and it might
not sell
> at all at that price-point. In fact, it might not be a good seller
at _half_
> that. Positing an imaginary price of $500, you might kill sales just
by raising
> the price to $700. What is all the good SLRs all cost $600? It
depends on what
> else is available from other companies that the $500 model is
competing with.
>  Again, we don't know. But saying that a company would never kill a
> good-selling product just doesn't take into account many factors
that may have
> well been true of the CL/E.
> 
>  --Mike
> 
> Again, apologies for the fact that this doesn't have a subject line.
My offline
> reader does not give me an easy way to change the subject line in a
reply.
> 
Then how do you explain the previous "budget" R offerings, R4s, R4sP, RE?
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com