Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14563409
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.

And a Retina Display LCD on the back PLEEEEEASE

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.

And all the gadgets, bells and whistles are exactly what most Leica users are trying to get away from. What is a camera but a light tight container to hold light sensitive material, a lens to focus that image, a shutter to control the time that light is allowed to expose that light sensitive material and an aperture to control the amount of light allowed to expose that light sensitive material. I like many prefer to have a camera that doesn't have all the auto exposure bells and whistles that most consumers now demand and thank god theres a real quality option for those that don't want or need all the new updated technologies. New doesn't always mean better its just new.

inzite wrote in post #14563511
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.

This is one of the biggest factors explaining the appeal, in my opinion. A small bag with a full frame M9 and three or four lenses is much smaller and more discrete than an SLR package.

As for the future, Leica would alienate a large portion of its purist audience if the M10 had anything other than an optical rangefinder. Leicaphiles were even clamoring for the M9M (and eventually, the M10) to have no LCD. I find the a55 viewfinder cluttered, imprecise and gimmicky, and anything remotely like that from Leica would be a mistake. It would also be very much out of character. Leica didn't introduce an M camera with a light meter until the M5 of 1971.

I think it's time for the Leica naysayers (I may be one too, I haven't decided yet) to admit that:

Leica could NOT demand the price premium that they do had they not possessed a Lens lineup that is second to none (other than super telephoto range that is).
This proves to me that Leica is not "vaporware" or just a "luxury brand" but an actually sustainable business with a deeply (tech spec wise) flawed body.

Having said that, how much would Leica owners be willing to spend for an M10 that has a technical specsheet that is equal to that of a D800 or 5DmkIII?
$15k? $20k?

If not, why not?
Would you not want to use the best body possible in order to make the best use out of those legendary lenses?

PS I actually love the Monochrom, inspired idea.

andrikos wrote in post #14563794
I think it's time for the Leica naysayers (I may be one too, I haven't decided yet) to admit that:

Leica could NOT demand the price premium that they do had they not possessed a Lens lineup that is second to none (other than super telephoto range that is).
This proves to me that Leica is not "vaporware" or just a "luxury brand" but an actually sustainable business with a deeply (tech spec wise) flawed body.

Having said that, how much would Leica owners be willing to spend for an M10 that has a technical specsheet that is equal to that of a D800 or 5DmkIII?
$15k? $20k?

If not, why not?
Would you not want to use the best body possible in order to make the best use out of those legendary lenses?

PS I actually love the Monochrom, inspired idea.

I'd happily pay up to 9K for a M10 if it had the CMOS sensor from the D800 and a Retina Display LCD on the back with Sapphire glass over it.
I will NOT pay 8K (as the regular M9) for it if it comes with a CCD sensor again and same 230k LCD, but with different features like video, live view or hybrid VF though.

I expect an M10 to have still image capabilities similar to a D800 or 5D, and I expect it to cost $7,500 or $8,000 upon release. The M9's performance is in line with halo products from other manufacturers in 2009, it's simply been continuously marketed for longer.

All I want from an M10 is a more rugged body (more like the classic film models than the M9) with an updated sensor. Consider the option of rangefinders with different magnification (.85x would be very welcome). The engineering almost does itself: retrofit a new sensor in an existing body. Leica users are demanding no new features -- if not the actual removal of existing features.

*ed. The LCD should be updated if it is retained. The current one is horrendous.

folville wrote in post #14563939
I expect an M10 to have still image capabilities similar to a D800 or 5D, and I expect it to cost $7,500 or $8,000 upon release. The M9's performance is in line with halo products from other manufacturers in 2009, it's simply been continuously marketed for longer.

All I want from an M10 is a more rugged body (more like the classic film models than the M9) with an updated sensor. Consider the option of rangefinders with different magnification (.85x would be very welcome). The engineering almost does itself: retrofit a new sensor in an existing body. Leica users are demanding no new features -- if not the actual removal of existing features.

*ed. The LCD should be updated if it is retained. The current one is horrendous.

I agree with the LCD but, I definitely would pay for high ISO improvement.

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

Sorry, you missed my point altogether.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14563600
And all the gadgets, bells and whistles are exactly what most Leica users are trying to get away from. What is a camera but a light tight container to hold light sensitive material, a lens to focus that image, a shutter to control the time that light is allowed to expose that light sensitive material and an aperture to control the amount of light allowed to expose that light sensitive material. I like many prefer to have a camera that doesn't have all the auto exposure bells and whistles that most consumers now demand and thank god theres a real quality option for those that don't want or need all the new updated technologies. New doesn't always mean better its just new.

Great. Take all the new technology from a modern camera, install an eight year old sensor in it, stick on a red label on the front, hang on it an $8000 tag, and call it the best camera that money can buy, with all that magic feeling etc. Of course I am exaggerating, but the idea is the same. Craftsmanship - yes, probably the best in the world. The best camera... ?

BTW, I started photography 50 years ago with a completely manual camera, so I know what you are talking about.

Lbsimon wrote in post #14564164
Sorry, you missed my point altogether.

I did. I got tired of reading car/fashion comparisons. Obviously Leica isn't for everyone who won't be able to appreciate it or who can't phathom spending that kind of money on a M system.

Lbsimon wrote in post #14564200
Great. Take all the new technology from a modern camera, install an eight year old sensor in it, stick on a red label on the front, hang on it an $8000 tag, and call it the best camera that money can buy, with all that magic feeling etc. Of course I am exaggerating, but the idea is the same. Craftsmanship - yes, probably the best in the world. The best camera... ?

BTW, I started photography 50 years ago with a completely manual camera, so I know what you are talking about.

If you've been shooting that long there is no sense for the debate,eh?

I will probably get flamed for this, but honestly, I don't find the Leica glass better than L glass, I'm not saying it's worse, just different look. Some might like that look, others don't. Personally, I prefer the Zeiss look.
As for the camera body itself...I don't get why I would pay more for something that gives me less options? I mean, if I'm in the mood for manual everything, I stick the camera on M, and use mf, and be happy, but it's nice to know that I also have metering worth a damn, and af when I need to get the shot now.
I get why it's considered the best street photography camera though, being compact, but a big part of street photography is at night, and I don't really like Leica's high ISO capabilities...unless I make it B&W...and I don't want all my photos to be B&W...
I've shot with an M8 for like a week, couldn't stand it...made my hands hurt...that's a personal thing though...but what I did find is that there's no magic to the photos, no magical, OMG must have this, experience, just different, if a bit worse than with my Canons, but that could be because I haven't gotten used to it, I dunno.

What I don't get is, why would I pay so much more just to get so much less? I could care less for luxury, I buy cameras to take pictures, not as a status symbol. I mean, if I wanted a camera without all the new stuff, and without giving me options for different needs, I could just buy an old film camera :/
I guess I'll never get it

I havnt seen anything from a leica that wows me enough to justify its price tag.

I've seen many full sized shots from m8, m9 and the example B&W sensor with a range of lenses. yes its good but its no better than a canikon with decent primes and you get to see what you are framing properly with those!

RobDickinson wrote in post #14565051
I havnt seen anything from a leica that wows me enough to justify its price tag.

I've seen many full sized shots from m8, m9 and the example B&W sensor with a range of lenses. yes its good but its no better than a canikon with decent primes and you get to see what you are framing properly with those!

different tools for different people with different priorities and value.

Yep I see the appeal of using one, was quite tempted with an m9 myself but the overall cost was too much. I just havnt seen the miraculous better than canon output.