Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Frank Filippone wrote: > Nikon et al charge around $200 for a 50F1.4 lens. Leica gets $2000. Why? > Because we, the public, are willing to spend it for Leica optics. Using > that same logic, and a bit of a stretch on the whereabouts of the lens > construction, this new digital camera should sell for $2K. > > It's all about marketing, not facts. I forget the details ... I think it was ADOX and AGFA. When one of them introduced the ASA 25 film to Sweden, the distributor realized it was just about the same film as the other brand. (This was during the 50'ies). So what did he do? He charged twice as much for it. He figured that if it cost twice as much, people would figure that it really was better (I'm pretty sure it was Agfa). It worked like a charm. The more expensive film dominated the market. It's still one of those case examples you can read about in the history of marketing in Sweden. Just as a note ... the difference between the Nikkor and the Summilux here in Sweden is a little less than 5 times as much for the Summilux, not 10 times. (Nikkor AF, I couldn't find the price for an AIS. For the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS the Summilux is only a tad more than twice as expensive ... a bargain!). In Norway the Summilux is about 3-4 times more expensive than the 50/1.4 Nikkor AIS. (new). In Oslo you can still buy a new Nikon F3 or F3 HP. They cost about as much as an F100. Daniel - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html