Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, because they go through a much more rigorous quality control process .......... With higher rejection rates, it becomes more expensive per unit, and then a smaller number of units have to generate a certain amount of revenue to keep the company afloat. So they won't cost the same. Eric, this is an erroneous statement..... No they do not cost the same, but not because of MORE rejects, but rather because there are stricter limits on the manufacturing process, causing extra cost for correct molds, tolerances, etc. You never learn how to make the thing correctly. With enough volume, ( Canon Rebel???? ) the cost goes DOWN because you learn how to inherently make the item with tighter tolerances. With Leica's volumes, I doubt that a large factory could ever cope with the miniscule volumes... therefore it is my opinion that Leica should produce all the top notch stuff at home and produce the consumer stuff ( P+S and some lenses, maybe maybe some bodies) somewhere else...... Your comment about dividing the fixed costs by a small number of units is correct.... if you make 1 lens and the R+D costs $4M, then the the cost of that lens is $4M... if you make 4M units the cost drops to $1. Another one of those business corollaries.... make volume and make a fortune ( Atari? Apple, almost?)...... To make the consumer cost lower, you gotta make more units, period. Otherwise it is gonzo time. Competition eats up your profit. Leica exists because of people on this list and others like us... Passion.... and inexplicable dedication.... Otherwise we would all own Rebels and N100 and P+S . The problem is to make a profit and keep the moniker and the customers.... What Nikon lens costs $1700 for a 90 F2? Sure the picture is "better", but so is having the better part of $1300 in your pocket too...... Profits are tough for niche players.... Frank Filippone