Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14560751
Studio shooters spend thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars for "subtle" differences in light quality.

I feel clients can't be brought into a leica conversation without mentioning the target audience. Are we running a McDonalds or world class gourmet kitchen? Subtle differences don't matter in one, but not the other.

Leicas are not really studio cameras. Hasselblad and large format would be more suitable for that proper tool and all though a more candid advertising type situation and an M9 would totally rock. And believe me the clients that matter do notice a difference in Hasselblad medium format and DSLR 135 format.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #14559258
Talking about the Leica Look, I think this photo illustrates it:

http://www.flickr.com …356980248/in/po​ol-leicam9

I am sure this can be replicated with a 5D3 and 50L, but we would have lots of color fringing and a lot less micro contrast IMHO.
What do you guys think?

I agree a D800 or a 5D2 or 3 could have pulled that off. Hell, a crop with a good portrait lens could have as well.

I don't agree that a 50L on a good body would have more color fringing (or CA). I shoot 95% portraits and could easily simulate that shot down to the shallow depth of field with a 5D3 and a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.2. (I could probably get really close with the cheap f/1.8)

For people that bemoan about the Leica color, that shot looks horrible IMHO.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #14560434
Still, they sell more than they can produce. You can't find some lenses anywhere and some places harge you extra if they have it.
I remember reading Leica sells 45 M9's a day worldwide. That's auite a bit if you consider the size of their factory in Solms and how many people work there.

Leica is rare to see in USA and a little less rare on Europe, but if you go to Asia, you see their community is not that small.

Stop the hate both ways, it is pointless and thank God for both camps!

Numbers above be true; that's a lovely little niche business and bravo to Leica for carving it out. The fact this debate rages makes Leica relevant. Hey if I made twice my income, I would get one....would be so enjoyable to use.

The Leica is for old school purists and enthusiasts with money or dreamers who had to have it. They have no chance to beat Canon etc out in terms of technology -moving so fast, so they must do what they can do well and do it better than anyone, starting with craftsman ship and quality.

It tells a unique story, and in some part probably tells you something about the photographer.

Lets get this in perspective though, if Alex_Venom is correct on the 45 M'9 sales number, and we factor in another 1/3rd in sales of the lenses and other camera's we are looking at a $160m USD business, if you think this estimate is to low round it up to $200m. Nice, but no where near the $3.3 billion of Canon's projected gross sales in 2012.

Leica is a niche and good for the photographers. We need options, not monopolies.

So yeah, they cost more... can a photog of equal skill use both very well?...yep. I think the thing that the Leica gets is that it forces you to learn and work for the image, for example; like learning to Focus manually and understanding the physics and mechanics of photography, at least on a basic level. Therefore, a newbie is not likely to walk around with it for long, even a rich one, they will get tired of poorly focused images!

We all know all to well what our preceios Canon's get us. I love mine, but would also dig getting to use a Leica from time to time as well.

Don't you guys have an old film camera around to keep you honest (and because it is fun and slows you down)? I goof with new processing technology as much as anyone, but I also really, really appreciate a nice quality film image. And if it is on a Leica, well heck that is pretty cool.

efoo wrote in post #14560671
Just because it has its own forum does not mean the Leica community is huge. Even among the photographer community, the Leica owners are small in proportion. Hence the reference to a niche market.

The original topic is Why are "Leica" camera so expensive? My understanding is its long established name in photography, high quality made equipment and its unique photo quality, but to me personally, even if I'm a billionaire I would not pay their exorbitant asking price, it's just not to my taste and my camera use. Just like I won't pay $100,000+ for a high quality brand-name Switch watch even if I have loads of money.

I'm only pointing out one source. I have friends that only like RF cameras but, hate DSLRs. You've made your point. Don't buy it! Other people ( with $$$$$$$) will certainly appreciate the high quality standard of Leica.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14560685
Thats why I said in a couple of earlier posts that most that are here on a Canon forum have no idea why someone would pick Leica and the reason is Leica cameras are not cameras for the auto everything one size fits all mentality. Its nice to have choices and my next camera will an M Leica becauseI am not happy with the direction the big two are going in.

Allen, see if you can find this Canon 50 0.95 M mount for your M9.

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/doo3/2773515095​/

The cost of Leica digital cameras is reasonable. (ed.: And when I say reasonable, I mean to imply it makes sense in the Leica universe, not necessarily in relation to other gear.) To wit:

Over time the cost of shooting an M9 will be less than the cost of shooting, say, an M7 or MP (given the processing, scanning, storage, etc. of film). The MP is a $5,000 film camera. The $2,000 premium for the M9 (msrp $7,000), essentially a digital version of the MP is not very steep, considering the base price of a new Leica body of any kind. The question asked in this thread (admittedly, I've not read the whole thing) is either easily answered or the wrong one: all Leica cameras are expensive, the digital models only slightly more so than the film models.

The matchless construction, quality materials, hand manufacture in Germany and Veblen quality all explain the price of Leica products generally.

If I could expand from personal experience, the M9 is a terrible camera. The low light performance is mediocre (but not unusable as is often said). It is slow. It is finicky (see: SD card fiasco). It is not built as well as previous Leica cameras. But it is demure and understated, quiet, elegant and small. The wide angle lens offerings are unmatched. Legacy lenses from the early Leica Standard days of the 1930s work flawlessly with simple adapters.

But most importantly from a consumer standpoint, it's the only option available. No other manufacturer has a full frame rangefinder in the M mount. (The Epson R-D1was a worthy challenger, but it had a crop sensor.) Zeiss and Sony could produce a cheaper alternative based on the Sony sensor and the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder, but the production of such a camera would surprise me. Even in the presence of a competing rangefinder, the digital Leica would still cost $7,000 or $8,000.

Leica pricing clearly isn't related very closely to the competition's offerings and market value, but rather to the value Leica itself assigns its products. Clearly a dedicated (and, for the most part, well-heeled) clientele has demonstrated that it will repeatedly pay Leica's asking price.

jdizzle wrote in post #14560966
Allen, see if you can find this Canon 50 0.95 M mount for your M9.

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/doo3/2773515095​/

He doesnt have one... its his friends lol.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #14560991
He doesnt have one... its his friends lol.

I know that.

folville wrote in post #14560986
The cost of Leica digital cameras is reasonable. (ed.: And when I say reasonable, I mean to imply it makes sense in the Leica universe, not necessarily in relation to other gear.) To wit:

Over time the cost of shooting an M9 will be less than the cost of shooting, say, an M7 or MP (given the processing, scanning, storage, etc. of film). The MP is a $5,000 film camera. The $2,000 premium for the M9 (msrp $7,000), essentially a digital version of the MP is not very steep, considering the base price of a new Leica body of any kind. The question asked in this thread (admittedly, I've not read the whole thing) is either easily answered or the wrong one: all Leica cameras are expensive, the digital models only slightly more so than the film models.

The matchless construction, quality materials, hand manufacture in Germany and Veblen quality all explain the price of Leica products generally.

If I could expand from personal experience, the M9 is a terrible camera. The low light performance is mediocre (but not unusable as is often said). It is slow. It is finicky (see: SD card fiasco). It is not built as well as previous Leica cameras. But it is demure and understated, quiet, elegant and small. The wide angle lens offerings are unmatched. Legacy lenses from the early Leica Standard days of the 1930s work flawlessly with simple adapters.

But most importantly from a consumer standpoint, it's the only option available. No other manufacturer has a full frame rangefinder in the M mount. (The Epson R-D1was a worthy challenger, but it had a crop sensor.) Zeiss and Sony could produce a cheaper alternative based on the Sony sensor and the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder, but the production of such a camera would surprise me. Even in the presence of a competing rangefinder, the digital Leica would still cost $7,000 or $8,000.

Leica pricing clearly isn't related very closely to the competition's offerings and market value, but rather to the value Leica itself assigns its products. Clearly a dedicated (and, for the most part, well-heeled) clientele has demonstrated that it will repeatedly pay Leica's asking price.

it sounds like my Yamaha boom box from a few decades ago. Extremely well built boom box and craftsmanship, but really, who's going to use that old machine? It's only good for nostalgic factor.

The matchless construction, quality materials, hand manufacture in Germany and Veblen quality all explain the price of Leica products generally.

Let's be realistic. You can go 2 ways;
1. sell 10,000 widgets and get $1 profit each
2. sell 1 widget and get $10,000 profit

Leica is the latter. The quality of the Leica build doesn't justify anything. A Canon 5D series is far more complex of a camera and took much more research and design capitol to build it.

Leica is purely going for as much as they can get per unit and doing that by making it a luxury item, branding, and living off its old name. It has zero to do with build or the quality of the images. end of story.

My wife and I were at a french chocolate restaurant last night and some fellow walked in with an M7 around his body. My wife hates my Canon gear because it's too big and heavy. She asked me what the Leica was and I replied it was a $7000 camera (I guessed), that it was German and "nichey." On those points alone, she said she wanted one. Hence, my research led me to this thread.

We were in Capri a few weeks ago and came across a clothing brand called Harmont & Blaine. My wife spent over 400 Euros on two pieces of clothing for my 1 year old daughter and 3 year old son. When we realized the brand is not broadly distributed outside of Italy, we had our driver take us to the larger store in Sorrento and dropped a ton more cash.

There has to be a ton of Leica owners that just buy it because it's exclusive. Take a look at their titanium cameras and you'll see a camera that talks even more to exclusivity. If my wife wants a Leica, I'm pretty sure we'll get her one, but I'm going to try talk her out of it because I'm not personally, sold on technology that's sold as fashion and described in subjective terms like "It's a different experience", "magical", etc.

SunTsu, your post sounds like you are flaunting your wealth :P

Anyway get your wife to check out other compact cameras i.e. Olympus OM-D and PEN series, Fuji X100 and X-Pro, Sony NEX 5 and 7, Panasonic mirrorless range. They are probably more versatile and useful for her than a Leica. Unless of course all she cares for is the brand name because it costs $7000.

DL.Photography wrote in post #14533684
Smaller & lighter for sure!

Plus, no shutter lag and no mirror to replace.

Have to ask. You have shutter lag problems with your DSLR? And you replace a lot of mirrors?

alphamalex wrote in post #14545408
All this is very educational, but in the end, its all about the image that's produced by a camera, right? So would someone please post (or point to) an unaltered pic that exemplifies this fabled 'Leica Look'? .. something I couldn't possibly do with my Canons?

it's not really Leica look, but I'm always impressed by the results I get with my M6 + CV 40mm 1.4, even at 1.4
for me, it's the overall experience of shooting film/RF that makes it worth it compared to my DSLR and the anticipation of developing the films to see the results

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/69848145​74/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/69848026​34/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

efoo wrote in post #14561685
SunTsu, your post sounds like you are flaunting your wealth :P

Anyway get your wife to check out other compact cameras i.e. Olympus OM-D and PEN series, Fuji X100 and X-Pro, Sony NEX 5 and 7, Panasonic mirrorless range. They are probably more versatile and useful for her than a Leica. Unless of course all she cares for is the brand name because it costs $7000.

Again ya just don't get it and never will and thats OK but its not a snob thing for many no more than a Hasselbled or a 1DsMkIII is a snob thing for many maybe some but not all and not the majority. I will buy it because it doesn't have FPS and doesn't have all the stuff but instead is not mass produced. Something to be said for all of that and I'm not the only one. In fact I'm really thinking about the monochrome M9....

Nice to have choices besides the one size fits all.