Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

leicas are expensive because there aren't any real competitors to what they offer then again, even if there are competitors, leica will always be leica.

at their current price, there are still many buyers because they can get a fullframe sensor in a very small but well built body and then they can put on some of the best lens on it.

For example, I find the 50 summilux asph just simply awesome and on the same league as a 200 f2. I also find generally the images appear to look better than results from my nikon and canon setup (given the same post processing).

I really like the leica system for everything except my wedding work (where high iso and great af gives me more keepers).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/62466709​06/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/62529674​09/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/62630619​36/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/62526273​42/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/62763778​10/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/inzite/56098391​08/

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.

I made my point then. Wealth may or may not matter. One can be in debt but just want exclusive items. My one example just shows that at the very least there are two people in this world that would own one based on exclusivity. The OP asked why Leica is so expensive. IMO, if they were priced the same as Nikon, Canon, etc they would kill their brand and a good percentage of their customers would no longer want it.

So far, I've just heard people describe Leica the same way they do with vinyl and art for that matter.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14561495
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 former. 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.

You mean it's the latter (low volume, high per-item profit), right? And the price has very much to do with the construction, design and craftsmanship. You can see this even across the Leica product map. The "budget" Summarit lenses are lower in quality and cost much less than their faster and better-constructed counterparts.

Leica lenses are built like this. Consumers have confidence in the expensive process that turns out these lenses a few dozen at a time. The new SLR Magic 50mm f0.95 lens has a lot of people excited because it could compete with the 50mm Noctilux at half the price, but it will be (if memory serves) built in Hong Kong, and many are worried about that.

While branding is without doubt an element of the Leica pricing strategy, it can't be denied that the manufacture contributes to price. That's not to mention the lenses are among the best in any camera platform, and highly compact.

---

A large number of people seem convinced that Leica shooters are cynical old men with too much money and too little sense (lawyer types, let's say). This couldn't be further from the truth. Some people actually enjoy rangefinder photography, and it has nothing to do with nostalgia. I assure you that all the young people coming in droves to Leica are far too young to be nostalgic about anything older than, say, Tamagotchi.

As others have said, Leica provides an alternative to the mass-produced, highly sophisticated cameras the vast majority of photographers would be satisfied using. Leica has nothing to offer most people - at any price point. Its products are highly specialized, and the combination of niche positioning, quality manufacture and, yes, branding, contributes to that cost.

Short version of all this: have a great time shooting whatever type of camera works for you.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14562300
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.

People will never understand what Leica is all about until one uses it.

SunTsu wrote in post #14562578
I made my point then. Wealth may or may not matter. One can be in debt but just want exclusive items. My one example just shows that at the very least there are two people in this world that would own one based on exclusivity. The OP asked why Leica is so expensive. IMO, if they were priced the same as Nikon, Canon, etc they would kill their brand and a good percentage of their customers would no longer want it.

So far, I've just heard people describe Leica the same way they do with vinyl and art for that matter.

If your wife wants a FILM leica (the camera she saw), they go for 1000-2000 for the body.

Not a lot of people mentioned this, but the reason I parted with my canon system was because it is HUGE. DSLRs stayed at home all the time... ended up switching to sigmas DP1 and 2 for digital and a fed with voightlander glass for film.

If I took my snapshotting around half seriously, I'd buy the bullet and get a digital leica.

And if I remember correctly, leica is only a few years behind canon in terms of pricing. I think the 1d was about 8k and the sport 1ds around 5 just a few years ago. That's the price point they were leica was trying to compete to.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14562728
If your wife wants a FILM leica (the camera she saw), they go for 1000-2000 for the body.

Not a lot of people mentioned this, but the reason I parted with my canon system was because it is HUGE. DSLRs stayed at home all the time... ended up switching to sigmas DP1 and 2 for digital and a fed with voightlander glass for film.

If I took my snapshotting around half seriously, I'd buy the bullet and get a digital leica.

And if I remember correctly, leica is only a few years behind canon in terms of pricing. I think the 1d was about 8k and the sport 1ds around 5 just a few years ago. That's the price point they were leica was trying to compete to.

I honestly don't think Leica is trying to compete with DSLRs because they are really apples and oranges.

jdizzle wrote in post #14562699
People will never understand what Leica is all about until one uses it.

Absolutely and then if your addicted to the bells and whistles you might not enjoy the experience of Leica M. But its that lake of auto everything which attract most Leica buyers.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14562767
Absolutely and then if your addicted to the bells and whistles you might not enjoy the experience of Leica M. But its that lake of auto everything which attract most Leica buyers.

It's amazing that people are wishing for LV in the M10.

inzite wrote in post #14562493
leicas are expensive because there aren't any real competitors to what they offer

That's the whole point: What is that they offer (beside the great lenses)? A high workmanship camera that is technologically outdated? In my view, it is the name, and only the name. The same as a Versace necktie vs. a Sears one? Would you be able to tell the difference in a low lit concert hall? And I mean both, the look of the photo and of the necktie!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14562753
I honestly don't think Leica is trying to compete with DSLRs because they are really apples and oranges.

You're right. But if you disregard interface, they're both full frame digital.

Leica is expensive because:

1. Niche market
2. Premium brand name
3. Low volume means higher production cost.

jdizzle wrote in post #14563232
It's amazing that people are wishing for LV in the M10.

Well see. I hope Leica understands their market and keeps the camera simple and easy to use and stays away form all the gadgets that separates them from the one size fits all cameras. The M 10 would be perfect if left as is only having really clean FF low noise high ISO.

Lbsimon wrote in post #14563261
That's the whole point: What is that they offer (beside the great lenses)? A high workmanship camera that is technologically outdated? In my view, it is the name, and only the name. The same as a Versace necktie vs. a Sears one? Would you be able to tell the difference in a low lit concert hall? And I mean both, the look of the photo and of the necktie!

Actually in relationship to Canon and Nikon the price of Leica has gone down. When the price of Canons top camera the F-1 and Nikons high end camera F was about $500 the Leica M at the time was $1500. So if the same scale of economics would apply the M9 with the same price relationship would cost $24,000. So I'd say a compared to the 1Ds MkIII in todays market its a bargain.

Lbsimon wrote in post #14563261
That's the whole point: What is that they offer (beside the great lenses)? A high workmanship camera that is technologically outdated? In my view, it is the name, and only the name. The same as a Versace necktie vs. a Sears one? Would you be able to tell the difference in a low lit concert hall? And I mean both, the look of the photo and of the necktie!

Let me know if you can find another company that can stick a FF sensor in a RF body.

jdizzle wrote in post #14563455
If you can find another company that can stick a FF sensor in a RF body, you let me know.

exactly... the whole reason why m9 can be priced so high other than that it has a leica logo is because it is the only rf sized body with a fullframe sensor that also lets you mount M lens with focus coupled using the RF natively. I personally like carrying around an M9 with a lens or two rather than my bulky nikon or canons and the massive lens also. It's not that I don't like them but I find I can do most if not all my travel shooting with the M.