[Leica] Teds comments

[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