[Leica] Leica prices

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Let me say at the outset that if Leica had buyers like me to count on they
> would have gone bankrupt years ago. I've only purchased four new items from
> Leica in 50 years. In 1954 I bought a brand new M3 (first edition) with an
> Elmar 50 mm lens. Because I wasn't sure how the new camera would perform, I
> bought a IIIF with a 50mm Summicron at the same time figuring I would
> dispose of one later. Both cameras were bought at a duty free airport store
> for the princely sum of $154 each. I still have the receipts to prove it.
> And incidentally, I still have both cameras. The M3 held up very nicely,
> thank you.
> 
> In 1973 I bought a CL with its 40 mm Summicron. I believe I paid about $375
> at a large NYC camera store. For years it was my favorite travel camera.
> Finally in 1999 I bought my first really functional digital, a Leica 
> Digilux
> Zoom. It cost a bit more than $400 from B&H and came with a Photoshop disc.
> This 1.3 MB Digilux camera was made by Panasonic and simply rebadged as a
> Leica.
> 
> All my other Leica equipment, and I have a drawer full, was bought used at
> camera stores or pawn shops. Fortunately my university office was in the
> middle of NYCs Gramercy Park photo district, one block from Leica's USA
> headquarters. Cheap Leicas were available as fashion photographers 
> abandoned
> their Leicas to move to Nikon and Canon SLRs and Hassleblads.
> 
> That being said, at one time Leica had very competitive prices. I have in 
> my
> hand a Leica catalog from 1966. That was the year that Leica stood atop the
> heap of quality camera sales. A new M3 SS body, reputedly the best 35mm
> camera ever made, sold for $288. With a 50 mm Summicron, the highest
> resolution normal camera lens that Modern Photography ever tested, the 
> price
> was $438. A Leica M2 body was $249.
> 
> Lenses too were cheap. A rigid 50mm Summicron was $150. If you wanted the
> lens in a a dual range mount with an optical viewing unit, you paid $189. A
> 35mm Summicron f2.0 was $163. The 35mm f1.4 Summilux was $198. Other Leica
> equipment was similarly low priced. The 50mm optical bright line viewfinder
> sold for $19.50 and no other viewfinder cost more than $54. For those of 
> you
> that have agonized over the price of Leica lens caps, be aware that in 
> 1966,
> a chrome cap for a 50mm Summicron cost $1.95.
> 
> But that was in 1966, 44 years ago. How do those prices compare with 
> today's
> prices. The cost of living in the US has increased at an average rate of 
> 4.1
> percent a year since WW2. In the 44 years since 1966, living costs have
> increased 5.86 fold. I bought a Volkswagen in 1966 for about $1200, 
> gasoline
> was $.39 a gallon, and a Sunday issue of the New York Times cost $.50.
> Assuming that Leica prices tracked the cost of living index, a Leica M3 
> with
> Summicron, if available new, should cost about $2600. The body alone should
> cost about $1700. The M2 about $1500. But I assume that by this time all 
> the
> machinery and development costs of the cameras would have been amortized
> many times over and automatic production process employed so the cameras
> should actually cost less to make.
> 
> So why is the M9 and its associate lenses so expensive. Don't give me any
> bullshit about the relative ratio of the Euro to the dollar. Or the 
> increase
> in costs of optical glass. The material costs of a Leica are trivial
> compared to the sales price. Electronics are supplied by various vendors 
> and
> there is a ready sully of silicon foundries. For most technical industries,
> labor costs are 85% of manufacturing costs and labor cost track the 
> consumer
> price index quite well.
> 
> I'm sure that no one on the LUG will claim that the M8 and M9 are superior
> mechanically to the M3, in fact just the opposite. Once a lens design is
> established and the glass grinding techniques worked out, the manufacturing
> process of a modern lens and older Summicrons are nearly identical.
> Aspherics are generally molded, by the way, not ground. I'm sure that not
> even Leica will claim that you get three times the picture quality from a
> $3000 lens compared to a $1000 lens. In fact only marginal improvements, if
> that, have been reliably demonstrated over the picture quality for far less
> expensive Nikon lenses.
> 
> So we must conclude that Leica pricing is market driven and has
> comparatively little to do with actual manufacturing costs. Just as DeBeers
> diamonds would sell for a fraction of their price if the market was
> uncontrolled, Leica prices are inflated because the company has decided to
> market them as luxury goods. The professional market for Leicas, except
> possibly for LUG members, is so small as to be inconsequential. But get
> Leicas into the hands of rich and powerful, or celebrities, and you have a
> viable "must have" ego boosting item.
> 
> Comparative picture quality be damned, "It costs more but I'm worth it."
> 
> 
> Now I feel better. But I won't be buying any new Leicas.
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


I think if you cracked open an M9 it would not look too much like a M3.
It's a computer not a clock.

[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner