Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello, Greg I concur with most of your post. I worked for a Leica dealer from 1978-82, sales and repair (in-house repair, pro only, inc. Leica, of course). I also worked for same dealer, different location, in late 80s....non-Leica stocking location, but lots of used/repair. I think that the sales/profits were split 50-50 between the pros (journalists and gasp!- "artists") and the "amateurs". It's not, however, MDs buying the bulk of the non-pro Leicas. They are the most visible, CERTAINLY the most vocal, (he-he) and we love to poke at them, but the MD/DDS/MERCEDES crowd-- they are probably a single-digit percentage of new Leica sales. There is a different crowd, that falls into the "serious amateur" category. For years, exotic audio and high-end ham radio folks have identified this crowd. I refer to the middle-aged, upper blue to lower white collar crowd, mostly from modest beginnings. My family/extended family falls right in the middle of this group. These folks struggled from modest beginnings, often drooling over Leica/Mcintosh/Collins radio catalogs as teens. They have found modest comfort in middle age, and are enjoying what they once couldn't. Sort of a "reward" given to self for years of sacrifice, work, long hours and child rearing. It has been my experience that the "wealthy" are EXTREMELY frugal, and will usually spend their money on more visible/recognized status symbols. (house, car, Rolex, country club membership, boat, U-NAME-IT). I believe that Leica themselves have dropped the ball in courting the professional. They appoint small elitist dealers, the reps (remember, these opinions are based on OLD data) gave presentations to the wrong crowds, advertising was sparse and didn't stress the professional applications, yadayadayada....... Had Leitz/now Leica courted the journalism schools, NPPA, ASMP, workshops, etc., things might have been different -- but who knows? The R6-R8, M-6, etc are CHEAPER than either the Nikon F4-F5 or even a decked out EOS1-N (i'm talking street photographer price, not some suburban "SALON" store) Yes, the lenses are expensive, but not as much so compared to the TRUE professional, fixed focal length optics for the others. And the mechanical construction is SO superior, that this price difference will be minimal when amortized over the working life span of the lens. As for your maintenance/replacement references, I absolutely agree. BUT -- for the professional, I would say that Hasselblad repair eats up bunches of money, late Nikons some, and Leicas/older Nikons DAMN little in repair. Don't have much experience with R-stuff, as all the photographers I know (NOT the "jewelry" crowd) who use Leica-M choose Nikon or Canon (UGH) for their SLRs. To put some of the blame close to home, I've worked in higher education for some years now, and many instructors aren't "technical" -- their words! (I concur!) It is possible for a student to spend years in education and never learn that Leica (M) even exists. One of ours asked me if that "old" camera really worked! (M-4 or M4-P) We need to put more emphasis on the tools, at least for more advanced students and majors. As much as I like to stir it up on the groups, blaming Leica's plight on MDs is good clean fun, it just isn't true. It's a shame more lawyers don't use Leica, they're much more fun....... crawling back under my rock, Walt Delesandri On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:45:10 -0300 Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca> wrote: > > > > >>He seemed quite happy to spend copious amounts of time with anyone who > >>appeared to be a doctor or a dentist and had oodles of $ to spend on new > >>Leica goodies (Yes, I know, my prejudices are showing here!),>>>>>>>> > > > >I guess once a salesman always a salesman if you can smell money! Sorry I > >realize that's not much of an answer! > > > > This brings up the question of misguided marketing. > Most working pro's I know spend a lot of money on equipment. They buy MANY > camera, lenses, accessories and pay for repairs. > > While I would love to be proven wrong, I know I spend a lot more > money on camera equipment the my doctor and lawyer friends (yeah! I admit, I > do have some) > > I budget $10,000.00 per year for equipment replacement and repairs > (although, it often comes in less then this. This year it was only > $7000.00). Do amateur photographers (not collectors) regardless of their > net worth, REALLY spend $10,000.00 on cameras? > > regards, > > > Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca> > St. John's, Newfoundland. > <http://www.straylight.ca/locke/> > ---------------------------------- > "I've finally figured out what's wrong with photography. > It's a one-eyed man looking through a little 'ole. > Now, how much reality can there be in that?" -- David Hockney