Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As usual, the problem is production volume. Maybe if Leica had Canon's production volume and retooled to use plastic where economic they could make their lenses profitably at a cheaper price. It is not that Leica are profiteering which makes their products expensive but the minute quantities over which the overhead and tooling has to be amortised. Typically, in the industries I have worked in, the bill of materials of a very high mass production consumer product (this is the hifi and car industries) was about 10% of retail price, the remainder being overhead, R&D cost, design cost, tooling cost and margins for the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. I am now in the motor racing business. In approximate terms a Formula 1 car (that is World Championship racing) has a BOM of about $2,000,000 but, if the whole production had to be sold to cover overhead, R&D cost, design cost and tooling cost they would have to sell at around $25,000,000 each without engine to break even. A Champ car has a BOM of around $200,000 and nowadays, because of design freezes going back years they sell for around $300,000 to $400,000 which gives Lola enough margin to have support engineers at tracks and pay overhead at the factory making spares. A premium car has a BOM of around $5000, the retail of around $50,000 pays overhead, R&D cost, design cost, tooling cost and margins for the manufacturer and retailer but mainly marketing :-) Incidentally the Canon 50mm f1 lens was, whilst it was for sale in the UK, a fair bit more expensive here than a Noctilux. I wonder how the worldwide sales volumes of each compare? The difference in price of lenses, where equivalents exist, is well under 2:1. I bet Canon makes a MUCH bigger percentage margin on its L lenses than Leica on theirs. Frank On 22 Jan, 2005, at 01:37, Frank Filippone wrote: > It is not a German location problem..... Leica charges 10 times ( or > close > enough) because WE WILL PAY IT! It is not an issiue of labor rates or > the > amount of QA in the product. > > Heartily disagree... I feel that if Leica triues to initiate a new > mount for > the Digi-M, it bye-bye. There are thousands of lenses out there. > They can > all be used. Asking us to spend yet another 10 times the competitive > cost > for a lens is absurd. This is not Canon or Nikon in all their glory.. > it is > little old Leica. > > Agree 100% with the license the SLR ( or M!) digital body approach. > > Ahem.. Hasselblad is out of the film business... I think you had best > revisit that thought...... You want NO Leica? ( they are doing that > themselves...) > > Frank Filippone > red735i@earthlink.net > > The other problem i see is that Leica gear is simply too expensive. I > have friends who > were interested in buying an M, but when they saw the price tag they > dropped the idea. > But I am not sure how to solve that. Move production out of Germany? > > > I don't care of it doesn't use all, or none of > the current lenses. Canon screwed everyone when they changed mounts and > after the riots died down everything was ok. > > I also think they should team up with someone and license the guts of a > good 8MP > SLR and produce it with an R-mount. Make two models, one for $1500 and > a sturdier one for more. > > I think Hasselblad is being a lot smarter about the future than Leica > and if they don't do something soon they are going to be finished. But > I would also bet that at that point ,they get bought by a big Japanese > firm... > > > feli > > > > > On Jan 21, 2005, at 9:59 AM, B. D. Colen wrote: > >> Ah, but wouldn't Leica be ahead of the game working out a deal with >> Canon, where by Canon would get some sort of licensing fee for each >> lens >> sold in a working Canon mount? >> >> The point is that Leica needs to do SOMETHING if it's going to >> survive. >> Producing an extremely expensive digital backs for an R line that is >> already losing money - as wonderful as the cameras may be - isn't >> going >> to be the thing that saves Leica. And, as Frank pointed out, Leica's >> reputation lays with it's glass. There has to be a way for them to >> capitalize on that. >> >> Why don't they start advertising the glass for use with adapters on >> Canon EOS bodies? Use photos and endorsements from life-long Leica >> shooters... > > > > _______________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 > www.elanphotos.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >