Why are "Leica" camera so expensive?

to all the hand made comments

Lecia
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=5mwrlb4_tL0

Canon
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=ovxtgj4SsiI

from what it seems everything is Machine Made and Hand assembled.

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.

Again +1 from another auto tech of 45years ,I will stick with my Canon ,Seiko, Lexus, Minolta, Sanyo, stuff and am happy for the Germans, French, Italians, Swiss,etc to come up with the ideas and the Japanese to build and perfect them at half the price.

Form, fit, function. It's the only full frame, range finder, with interchangeable lenses that i know off. Range finders offer you a different shooting experience and allow the lens designer diierent degrees of freedom since the is no mirror. They are light and fast and before the days of software I thought the overed much lower distortion. Some where on the web there is a great article that compares range finders to SLRs. So based on its design and quality build it probably would command $3000-4000 like a new D800 or 5D3. After that the cost is driven by reputation and it's limited volumes and hand assembly. And people are willing to pay for it for the extremely high quality lenses you can use.

The new Fuji X1pro is ~ $1600 and it's not full frame. That is the closest I've seen to the same concept IMO but the lens offering while good is very limited.

Would all the people on here slating the cost of a new 5DMkIII be happy doling out 3 times the amount for a Leica. A lot probably would, but they've probably been led by the media who have decided that Leica are the best in the world. I personally wouldn't have one if I could afford it, I'd rather have my 5DMkIII that would be a better all rounder than a good 'street camera'.

tannoy wrote in post #14537848
Lowrider, have you shot with a Leica for a period of time?

Best,
Darrin

Nope, but that doesn't mean I can't have an informed opinion. Look at my gear list (and that doesn't include other gear I've used extensively at work, etc)...I have plenty of experience with cameras of all shapes, sizes and intentions...

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.

That's an absolutely ridiculous way to look at it. You can't compare buying new and then selling it used to getting a good deal on a used camera and then selling it for higher. Buy an M9 new and try to sell it, see if you make $500.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #14538285
***EDITED FOR THE SAKE OF NOT HAVING A 2-PAGE POST***

^^^^ I agree with every single point you made!

By the way...to all those who think/say I'm biased or don't get the whole RF/old camera/craftsmanship thing...look at my gear list...I actually loooooove rangefinders and probably have more of them than you do. I just don't (and never have) thought that digital Leicas (not just the M-series, but all of their line-up, from the goofy little point and shoots to the R-series) are way overpriced for what they deliver.

any image comparisons between the leica-r 90mm/2 vs the canon 85/1.8 or the 90 summilux vs the 85L?

Lowrider,

Without using something extensively it is impossible to have an "informed" position. No offense really but I live and breath in both platforms and what you are saying sounds very much "un" informed. While it is true that the photographer is always the most important tool, it is folly to dismiss an item based on perception especially on price. For a pro a $20K Leica rig is paid back quickly if that ends up being the camera of choice. I have more money tied up in my Canon rig than I do invested in Leica and I use each for their advantages.

I can say with out a doubt that while Leica is a pricy way to go, the differential in price to a fully comparable Canon setup is not that great and could easily be earned back on one job. Trying to set up a war between Canon and Nikon or Canon and Leica seriously misses the point. It would be like finding fault with a mechanics choice of tools or a guitarists choice even if they provided a superlative final product. Each person must choose their own way in this profession and or hobby and bashing serves no one. A camera is part of a creative process and only a means to an end.

I can not make a choice between my two setups unless I know what the intended use will be, they are tools and each gets applied differently.

Best,
Darrin

h4ppydaze wrote in post #14536024
I hate to make another car analogy in a thread full of sh!t car analogies, but it really is the Rolls Royce of the camera world. Hand built, no compromises.

And speaking as an ex motor engineer (mainly diesel, but others too) I have to say, while Rolls Royce are undoubtedly one of the best made cars in the world, the technology they use is still basically the same as they used 40 years ago when they were at their best.

I have a 1952 Leica (11f) rangefinder with a 50mm Elmar lens. I bought it used in 1982. I've used it on a regular basis since then. Photos are excellent. Still the best and easiest camera to focus in very low light situations. Quiet....you wouldn't believe how quiet it is.

It's 60 years old and works perfectly. It's never been worked on in my 30 years of ownership.

It's controls are silky smooth and it's built like a tank. Far more ruggedly than any camera back then...or now...except perhaps for another Leica.

BTW, it hasn't lost any value. If sold it's likely I would get every dollar I paid for it when purchasing it 30 years ago.

So..ask the man who owns one.....yes a Leica is worth every penny it costs.

Does that answer your question.

Lesmore wrote in post #14538844
I have a 1952 Leica (11f) rangefinder with a 50mm Elmar lens. I bought it used in 1982. I've used it on a regular basis since then. Photos are excellent. Still the best and easiest camera to focus in very low light situations. Quiet....you wouldn't believe how quiet it is.

It's 60 years old and works perfectly. It's never been worked on in my 30 years of ownership.

It's controls are silky smooth and it's built like a tank. Far more ruggedly than any camera back then...or now...except perhaps for another Leica.

BTW, it hasn't lost any value. If sold it's likely I would get every dollar I paid for it when purchasing it 30 years ago.

So..ask the man who owns one.....yes a Leica is worth every penny it costs.

Does that answer your question.

You do realize most of us are talking about the digital Leicas, right?

It's like saying "the new Chevy Impala is the awesomest, 'cuz my '64 Impala SS is badass"...Leica makes beautifully crafted bodies that worked great in the film era. Now that digital has taken over, they've been left in the dust...though you wouldn't know that by glancing at the price tag.

Lowrider,

I see what your interests are and how you view things. Enjoy!

Best,
Darrin

cloose wrote in post #14538250
Expensive is a relative term describing solely the purchase price (cash outlay) of a purchase compared to alternatives.

I have freed myself from this definition a few years ago. It allowed me to buy and play with about 40 grand worth of gear. It was guilt free and I'd say very close to FREE in terms of money as well.

I think it's one of those topics where everybody's right. (or everybody's wrong) Depends on your value system.

Yes. That's true. It depend individually. How do you define expensive? A value for money good for someone might be too expensive for another person.

"60D is too expensive. Mighe as well get the rebel".

"Rebel is too expensive. A point and shoot camera from Walmart will do"

It one of the key principles of the open capitalist market....prices will rise to meet market expectations. If you are willing to pay a premium price for a Leica, BMW, Mercedes, Rolls Royce, then a dealer would be foolish to not accept your money. We vote with out wallets. If enough vote yes then prices rise until the number of yes votes/purchases drop off to a painful level.

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?"

Actually what I really want is to sell my 10000 widgets for $10000 proift each. Then I could afford all they toys I really want including the 1200L.

Alan