Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

So who do you think is going to draw more attention while walking around in public; a guy dangling a Canon 1Ds series with a big white lens, or a guy with a Leica and 35mm lens?

Snob appeal? With Leica, you bet, but also with Nikon's and Canon's high end options, which, by the way, are far more conducive to showing off than a Leica, a brand name that largely only matters to other photographers.

Big honkin' white lens have far more superficial appeal in regards to the general public, and given all of the L deification on this site, let's not get carried away about what is jewelry and what is utilitarian. The number of people who buy DSLRs just to show off is far greater than the number of people who buy Leicas for whatever reason.

I've seen people get endlessly berated on this site for questioning the high cost of L lenses, but when people bring up Zeiss or Leica, it's practically de rigueur on this site to piss on these brands as being just overpriced lavish items.

For all I care, one can get superb shots from an iPhone (not being sarcastic!!!), but for f**k's sake, Leica is the only company right now that produces a full frame digital rangefinder, a professional 35mm camera that cost about the same as Nikon's and Canon's top offerings. If only one company produced a full frame DSLR, how much do you think it would cost?

Gripes about the Leica's sensor, LCD screen, and ISO issues, fine, but taking jabs at a rangefinder for not having autofocus and all the other gunk is pathetically missing the point…outright embarrassing.

Moreover, the M9 is considerably more discreet than are its DSLR's full frame counterparts. And when doing street, it's not just maintaining a low profile (as no camera is invisible) that's important, but the reaction the camera elicits when pointed at someone. I feel a lot more comfortable pointing a smaller camera at someone than I do larger one…aftermath is as much of a consideration as is initial inconspicuousness (unless you are Bruce Gilden).

I use a 60-year-old Leica iiif, and while living in Tokyo, I'd occasionally stop by the local Yodobashi, where I could fondle a 5D; how comically gargantuan it felt. We are discussing two very different types of cameras that both serve their purposes very well for their intended users.

If Leicas seem gratuitously exorbitant, then don't buy one. Very simple. But at least there's another choice, which in the digital world, particularly in terms of full frame sensors, is extremely limited.

gjl711 wrote in post #14533936
Going way back to college economics, there are two methods of selling produce. Sell a ton at low margins and make a ton of money. Sell a couple at high margins and make a ton of money. As one of my profs once said, "would you rather sell a 10,000 widgets at $1 profit apiece of one widget at $10,000 profit?"

Total agree...

umphotography wrote in post #14535724
I think you are hard pressed to find a better camera than the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras. I dont care how good anyone percreives what the glass is, You print it on paper and no one will be able to tell what camera took the shots. The best camera i have ever used is my 1DMKIV. There is nothing i cant do with it and canon makes enough glass to keep me in the poor house for life. Pretty hard to beat an MKIV with a 35L for street work. I would imagine the new updated version 11 glass will rival anything any camera MFG puts out. Im took cheap to pop for the new 24L but on an MKIV it would rock the house for street work.

After working for 30 Yrs in the automotive industry i can tell you with 100% certanity, the most expensive cars on the market are not the best made automobiles. Mercedes, jaguar, rolls, bently, They are all crap when it come to technology and durability when compared to the top lines from Japan. Nothing better on the market. The reason i know this, i worked on all these lovely things. My own personal cars are Toyotas and Hondas and acuras. They dont break and you can get 200k on them before you have to be concerned. Try that with the perceived top of the line luxery cars,,,,not a chance in hell they get to 100K without breaking the bank. Most are a total POS when it comes to technolgy and reliability.

Marketing, its a wonderful thing. Leica knows this well. I will stick with canon.

Mike I've shot with Leica a lot in the past and it far better fits my needs and my shooting style than any DSLR. If Leica would have had a FF digital camera when I went digital I would have gone that route and not Canon. I have had far more trouble with both my Canon 5Ds and my 5DIIs than my buddies that own Leica M 8s and 9s have had. In fact I was shooting a job with one of my bros that has a couple of M9s and a couple M8s for NATO on the 20th and I had a major shutter failure on one of my 5DIIs and don't get me going on CPS right now.

DSLRs and rangefinders are very different tools and for my style and what I shoot Leica M is far more conducive.

I find it refreshing a company so respected their photographers they designed a camera that excepts their 40 year old lenses and to the quality of their glass some of that old glass is sharper than some of Canons L lenses.

JAbberwocky wrote in post #14536129
Have you seen the snazzy card board box that the M9 comes in? Totally puts Canon and Nikon to shame.

Of course, it also has a hand signed note from the engineer that inspected it. Canon's or Nikon's would simply say robot 3488-a47 if they put a note in the box.

It's really an entirely different experience. It's hand made vs machine made. Some will recognize or perceive value with one method and not the other. Myself, I do. But then I come from a family of craftsmen have made a living hand crafting a precision item. You can get one at Walmart for several hundred, or you can buy one from my family for several thousand. They both do mostly the same thing utility wise and some on this forum would be happy with the several hundred dollar version and some with the several thousand dollar version. They are both right - for THEMSELVES.

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

Plus, no shutter lag and no mirror to replace.

When was the last time you've heard of anyone replacing a mirror in a DSLR?

LucasY wrote in post #14533698
Because they're worth it?

Oh yeah. Totally worth it. Let's see...the M9 tops out at a noisy ISO 2500, can shoot at a blazing 2 fps (to a maximum of EIGHT! frames), has a 230k dot LCD, a 1/4000s fastest shutter speed, no autofocus and no selectable metering modes. Yeahhhhh...that is one juicy spec sheet!!!

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14533711
It's marketed as a luxury item. The price is not a reflection of it's ability to take a quality picture unlike say a medium format camera.

Back in the day, the performance was superior and worth the higher price. Today it's just brand name and marketing.

^^^^ This.

URLphotographer wrote in post #14533717
Probably a little of everything...are Leicas technologically advanced? Yes. Are they worth thousands? To some. They are luxury items and marketed as such...just like Rolexes.

See my response above. Far from being "technologically advanced," the M9's spec sheet looks WORSE than the ancient Canon 10D.

Oh boy... I don't understand the point of these arguments.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14537613
Oh yeah. Totally worth it. Let's see...the M9 tops out at a noisy ISO 2500, can shoot at a blazing 2 fps (to a maximum of EIGHT! frames), has a 230k dot LCD, a 1/4000s fastest shutter speed, no autofocus and no selectable metering modes. Yeahhhhh...that is one juicy spec sheet!!!

.

Which of Cartier-Bresson's pictures would have been better with a better spec sheet? Some cameras make it easier to take a well exposed photo under some extreme conditions, unless we regularly use that functionality...

I think anyone that would compare a Leica on the specs of the electronics misses the entire point of the Leica. I don't say that as a jab, I just truly think you don't get it. It's about the lenses, the craftsmanship, the way the camera puts YOU in charge, etc.

ryanshoots wrote in post #14537650
Which of Cartier-Bresson's pictures would have been better with a better spec sheet? Some cameras make it easier to take a well exposed photo under some extreme conditions, unless we regularly use that functionality...

I think anyone that would compare a Leica on the specs of the electronics misses the entire point of the Leica. I don't say that as a jab, I just truly think you don't get it. It's about the lenses, the craftsmanship, the way the camera puts YOU in charge, etc.

Conversely, would Cartier-Bresson have been worse off with a Canon 5D? Could he have not taken the exact same shots?

As for your last point, a latest gen Canon is FAR more complex, has a great deal of craftsmanship to build and puts YOU in charge every bit (if not more) than a Leica.

The more I listen to it, the more I hear art school BS that has nothing to do with the image. (except the Leica lenses, they are excellent)

ryanshoots wrote in post #14537650
Which of Cartier-Bresson's pictures would have been better with a better spec sheet? Some cameras make it easier to take a well exposed photo under some extreme conditions, unless we regularly use that functionality...

I think anyone that would compare a Leica on the specs of the electronics misses the entire point of the Leica. I don't say that as a jab, I just truly think you don't get it. It's about the lenses, the craftsmanship, the way the camera puts YOU in charge, etc.

hahahahahaha please, please, PLEASE tell me you did not just imply that the camera makes the photo. Either you did...and that's ridiculous, or you didn't...in which case your post is completely moot and pointless. You choose.

Sure, a good camera helps, but except for the stealthiness factor, the M9 has absolutely no advantages over a 5D, if we're talking "final image." I've seen plenty of crap come out of Leicas and plenty of amazing stuff come out of other cameras. I'd say there are 2 or 3 people on the entire planet who can TRULY justify owning a Leica. These are the people who make a living selling street photography they may not otherwise be able to capture with a bigger body. For everyone else, a 5D would do a much better job and the Leica is merely a luxury item they have because they WANT it, not because they NEED it or because it's the only tool for the job. Disagree with me all you like (I know many will), but deep down you know it's true.

Well exposed photos under extreme conditions, you say? How's the weather sealing on that M8 or M9? That's what I thought.

And no, I didn't miss the point...Read again, you missed the point...I was simply RESPONDING to people who were applauding Leicas as being "technologically advanced." I was merely pointing out that Leicas are far from technologically advanced.

You don't have to sell me on craftsmanship, cameras that put you in charge, etc...I have dozens of film cameras I still use (including rangefinders like a 1953 Voigtlander Vito B), and on my old 1D3 I disabled all functions except "M" and "Bulb" because I like to be in charge. I think you're missing the point...Leicas have a cult following/incredibly high brand name recognition which leads to prices which in no way reflect the camera's ability to take superior pictures.

Lowrider, have you shot with a Leica for a period of time?

Best,
Darrin

Yes, a Leica M camera is a joy to use and has some stunning lenses available.

On the other side, there are also the "Leica" point and shoots that are simply re-badged Panasonics for 2-3X the price. How about the X1 and X2 for overinflated prices as well for what you get.

I would absolutely love a Leica M and a handful of lenses, but let's not kid ourselves that Leica as a brand is now priced more on the name than the gear.

They're not expensive.

My most expensive camera was the original digital rebel. I bought it for 1150 and sold it for 150.

The leica I bought for 2 grand and sold 500 dollars higher than I bought it for.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14538131
They're not expensive.

My most expensive camera was the original digital rebel. I bought it for 1150 and sold it for 150.

The leica I bought for 2 grand and sold 500 dollars higher than I bought it for.

What you are describing is a financial return on investment based on acquisition and disposal of a fixed asset. Expensive is a relative term describing solely the purchase price (cash outlay) of a purchase compared to alternatives.

My house has appreciated $75K since purchase, however would still be considered expensive regardless of current vs purchased value.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14538131
They're not expensive.

Really?
Leica m9-P Edition Hermes = $54,000

Ok, so it's a limited edition of 300...let's see what a regular M9 goes for....$7,650 body only.

The fact that Leica actually produced something like the Hermes shows it's only about branding, marketing, and luxury goods.

The regular M9 is a joke as well. I could buy two 5D Mark III bodies for that price.

Just for fun, let's look at the technical comparison between a 5D Mark III and a M9
http://snapsort.com …S-5D-Mark-III-vs-Leica_M9

Holy beat down Batman. I don't think I have ever seen such a one sided comparison.


"Let's you be in charge"

Hmm, let's hear what this owner has to say:

Quality you say? Hand built?

Let's hear part 2 of the first owner of a M9 (summarized for easier reading)

source

Back in the day Leica was an amazing camera used by some of the best photographers in the world and took some pictures that are part of history. Today Leica is simply a brand name and milking people for as much as they can based on past history.

I know nothing about Leica.

Question:
Is there a RF digital body (other than Leica) that one can buy and be able to use Leica's legendary glass?