Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My comment was to point out the fallacy of no fact based assumptions. We do not have any data that states Leica uses more expensive glass blanks than does Canon. Yes, we all believe that the volumes required, Canon blanks would be less expensive. Even then, the cost of the glass hardly is $4800 more. Manufacturing efficiencies, QA/QC, labor costs (although Japan is not exactly a low cost manufacturing center,...), cost based accounting, marketing policies, and profiteering are the other part. Banal? A M8 $12 Battery ( retail HK Price) costs $175 at Leica......More likely profiteering at hand here.... Leica does NOT make batteries..... it markets them. It does make you wonder about he other products, that we have no direct cost based comparison..... Frank Filippone red735i at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+red735i=earthlink.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=earthlink.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Frank Dernie Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:21 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Zeiss Normal 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM From an engineering point of view it is easy to see why there is a difference in cost. I own a Canon 24mm f1.4 lens and one would only use it wide open in an emergency, and only then if the subject was central. It is very soft round the edges. I would expect that the Leica lens, which I will be unlikely to ever buy, will have a considerably better performance in the region of f1.4 to f4 based on my other Leica-Canon experience. The Canon does not equal my f2.8 Leica-m 24mm at any aperture incidentally, Canon wides tend to be not that special, unlike their long lenses IME. The production volume of the Canon will probably be hundreds or thousands greater than the Leica. Nothing reduces cost more effectively than production volume in mechanical engineering! My exposure meter cost more than an entry level dSLR which is gazillions of times more complex and sophisticated for the same probable reason. A combination of design and precision (explaining the performance difference) made in the EU (at EU working hours and pay) and production volume are much more likely explanations for the difference in retail price than profiteering. I bet Leica makes less profit on turnover than Canon. The market Leica services is so tiny that their products could never be inexpensive even if banal, their only choice to stay in business is to supply a level of excellence that justifies the price (to some). Frank D. On 8 Oct, 2009, at 14:58, Frank Filippone wrote: > Mark.. why do you assume the glass cost is or could be any different? > Certainly the retail price is different, but beyond that, it is not > possible > to tell WHY the retail prices are significantly different. > > Frank Filippone > red735i at earthlink.net > > > > Thanks Frank yes as I'm realizing Canon actually DOES have a 24mm f/ > 1.4 L > USM EF but its price point is $1,300 not $6,000 so the glasses > they chose > for it are nowhere near what Leica is able to put into a lens > targeted at > that small 6 grand market segment... Plus all the other stuff.... > Made in > small amounts to high tolerances. > I should be preaching to the choir here on the LUG. > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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