[Leica] Teds comments

[george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser)]

Yup.
Simple reality.
Each camera is what it is and costs what it costs for very good reasons.

Alpa has always been the prime example of these basic economics.
Why would a simple metal plate with a few holes cost $700?
Because its hand milled and finished to precise tolerances.
One at a time.
A few hundred a year.
And works precisely within a hand made system.

a note off the iPad, George

On Sep 23, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> 
wrote:

> I agree with George.
> Leica kit holds its value well, because it is almost always better 
> performing than the other makes, but also sufficiently better made that it 
> lasts much much longer, mechanically.
> Top Canon and Nikon models are equally pricy and are apparently sold at a 
> loss, subsidised by the vast sales of the cheaper models and justified in 
> marketing terms by the kudos given to these cheaper models by the 
> existence and pro use of these dearer ones.
> 
> One thing few of the internet pundits appreciate, or are aware of, is the 
> huge influence on costs of production volume. The design costs, which are 
> vast, the tooling costs, which may be vast and will be pretty big 
> whatever, have to be paid for out of a much smaller volume. Typical mass 
> produced consumer products, such as hifi and cars sell for about 10x the 
> BOM + assembly cost. So if you buy a car for 30k it has typically cost 3k 
> to make, the rest is recovery of design, tooling and marketing costs plus 
> profit.
> Leica make such tiny quantities that they, and any supplier they select, 
> have to make their costs back on a far smaller volume than this. Add into 
> it that Leica parts use premium materials, tolerances and manufacturing 
> and it surprises me not one whit that they are so much more expensive than 
> the mass produced, almost always inferior, alternatives.
> 
> I am much more an amateur camera enthusiast than expert photographer, but 
> my Leica is a joy to use, does not need frustrating searches through menus 
> to do what I want and produces better results than any other camera I have 
> used.
> 
> I assume this goes for most on the group.
> 
> Yes Leicas are expensive. Yes they would go bust if they did not make a 
> profit. Yes they make very few cameras and lenses. Yes, we, the customers 
> have to pay for all this.
> Many have gone over to other cameras, and I admit that if I was only 
> allowed to have 1 camera it may well not have been a Leica until the new 
> M, but now I can put my zoom or long lenses on a M body if I wish. I am a 
> very happy bunny.
> My M Leica is much better value for money than my Nikon D3x, in terms of 
> keepers per month, mainly since I hardly ever use the Nikon any more.
> 
> Frank D.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information