[Leica] Leica prices

[photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Philip Forrest)]

Very nice. I've never bought any new Leica equipment. With this factory
warrantied pre-owned M8 + two filters, maybe they are losing money, but
I doubt it. The only way I'll be able to own a brand new Leica anything
is if I win the lottery (I don't play so that's out), receive a large
inheritance (nobody in my family has anything to pass down, so scratch
that one), or save up for the better part of a year and purchase
through the student program. At my current rate of income, that's
impossible. Last year I only made $4k more than an M9 body alone, but I
get by.

The cameras and lenses are that expensive because people continue to
pay for them at Leica's prices. This is why I buy everything used and
also off-brand. I love the camera gear I've earned over the last 10 or
so years. It's the best I can afford and I use it all, therefore it's
the best to me.

Leica has priced themselves out of the range of most of the new
generation of photographers with an interest in shooting the best. As
we grow older and Leica loses their adherents due to age, the company
is going to falter because in this day and age most people cannot
rationalize using a $7000 camera with a $3000 lens when the same
results can be had from a used version at half the price or less of the
lens and body. Or even some other alternative which is even cheaper.

They have to innovate and cut prices or they will die with the baby
boomer generation, then I'll be forced to shoot Nikon or Canon SLR's
which I'd rather not do (it's just personal preference). 

I was talking about this last night with my best friend who is a
photographer out in LA and he said "who the hell would buy a $4500
prime lens?!" We both agreed that if we had unlimited funds kicking
around we would, but for the price of a 35mm ASPH 'lux, you could buy a
D700 and two very, very nice Nikkors. That's the kind of kit one builds
a freelance journalist business on. Our question is will there be
enough people in the coming 20 years who will both be financially able
and willing to buy such ridiculously priced goods to keep Leica alive?

With war, health care, war, oil, food, water, energy, soil, housing and
every other service & commodity price going up the world over, the
answer is most likely "No."

But that's just my opinion.
Phil Forrest





On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:35:51 -0500
Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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