Why Is Leica So Expensive?

just a general wondering... what makes their camera bodies 26 thousand dollars and their lenses even more ridiculously expensive

supply and demand

ok but why are they in such high demand...... and why are they in such short supply?

They're marketed as a handmade, luxury product.

Ever see those hyundai commercials aggressively comparing their cars to lexus except they are 20 000 $ cheaper? Lexus still sells, though, they target a luxury market and hyundai caters to a middle-classed market.

Lamborghini still sell, too, despite being hundreds of thousands of dollars and arguably not the fastest or sleekest cars on the road.

Karl Johnston wrote in post #9809668
They're marketed as a handmade, luxury product.

Ever see those hyundai commercials aggressively comparing their cars to lexus except they are 20 000 $ cheaper? Lexus still sells, though, they target a luxury market and hyundai caters to a middle-classed market.

Lamborghini still sell, too, despite being hundreds of thousands of dollars and arguably not the fastest or sleekest cars on the road.

but expensive cars are status symbols...... a normal person sees someone with a Leica and thinks its just another camera

In fact most will probably not even pay attention to an M9 and Leicas M glass spanks almost everything in the Canon and Nikon line up even most Canon Ls. One word quality. Have you seen the used prices on Leica glass and Leica M film cameras? Still very high.

Leica's top of the line 35mm full frame digital camera, the M9, is actually priced competitively with Nikon's and Canon's top of the line offerings. On the other hand, the company's last film rangefinder, the M7, is not competitively priced…not even close.

Anyway, Leica is the only company that produces a full frame digital rangefinder, and Epson, in conjunction with Cosina Bessa, was the only other company to produce a digital rangefinder, a six megapixel variant that has seen only slight updates (not to the sensor) for the Japanese market. Suppose Canon was the only company that made an up-to-date DSLR, full frame or not?

The recently introduced S-system is more in the medium format range (37.5 MP), where prices are typically astronomical, although Pentax's 645D, introduced just this month, could force lower prices.

Aside from the M7 & MP film cameras, the lenses are, as you pointed out, the items that become whacky in costs, but there are a host of new Voigtlander and Zeiss M-mount (M9 compatible) lenses that are often as good if not better than Canon L at the same price or less. Plus, most Leica lenses (M mount and screw mount with adaptor) dating back to the 1930s will work on an M9. Screw mount (LTM, M39) lenses also include some excellent Canon, Zeiss, & Nikon lenses from the 1950s.

I mention this, because several people who bought the M8/M9 could afford to do so only because cheaper but still superb lenses were available---they were not obligated to buy the "ridiculously expensive" Leica lenses. Plus, others already had Leica lenses form previous systems.

Anyway, as folks have noted, it is a niche, luxury product, with much of the assembly done by hand. The lenses are of exceptional quality…if they are ten or more times worth a Cosina Voigtlander counterpart is highly debatable, but, again, as Karl noted, there are enough folks to keep Lamborghini in business. Yes, it is a status symbol for some, but it's a bit of an oddity since most people, even in the upper crusty echelon of high society, wouldn't know what they were holding if they were using one on loan. The average person would be far more prone to gush over a big white L lens at first sight than any Leica rangefinder setup (this hints at the reason why people use rangefinders).

Yet, despite the criticisms of Leica as merely a piece of jewelry, the camera has a remarkable history in the development of photography, particularly street photography and photojournalism (think Che Guevara), and this legacy has, in part, kept many people interested.

Keep this in mind, I would assume that the vast majority of people on this planet think that spending US$600 on one lens, let alone a camera with lens, is excessive, so it gets pretty relative…expensive DSLR's are a niche product as well.

I use a Leica rangefinder that was made in 1954. Should I still be kicking, I hope to still be using it 20 or 30 years from now.

I bought a Leica M4-2 and a couple of lenses in 1979. Still use it. Still works fine. It is worth more than I paid and it was considered expensive then. It is still a camera people desire as a good product.

I was given an Canon A-1 in 1982, free with a lens. It was worth nothing to the owner after a few years use and it is worth about the same today. No one really wants it and if they do it is not worth the shipping costs.

The Leica lenses I bought will work fine on a new digital M9 my old canon lenses cannot work on any current bodies.

Looks like Leica was a better value.

360° wrote in post #9809537
just a general wondering... what makes their camera bodies 26 thousand dollars and their lenses even more ridiculously expensive

Are you talking about their MEDIUM FORMAT digital camera?

That's something way different all together...

I actually got to try it out and it definitely is the best camera out there...

360° wrote in post #9809700
but expensive cars are status symbols...... a normal person sees someone with a Leica and thinks its just another camera

I think a Leica is a status symbol as well. Eric Clapton shoots a Leica.

robscomputer wrote in post #9810447
I think a Leica is a status symbol as well. Eric Clapton shoots a Leica.

You've never shot with a Leica. Its no more a status symbol than Hasselblad or Deardorff. Its just a quality camera.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9810462
You've never shot with a Leica. Its no more a status symbol than Hasselblad or Deardorff. Its just a quality camera.

Depends upon what you consider a status symbol. A camera cheap or expensive both give an image of the user, either positive or negative. Someone shooting with a Leica would give me the impression of someone very brand loyal, loves the Leica rangefinders. While someone shooting a Canon Rebel would be a new DSLR shooter, maybe his/her first entry to the DSLR world.

if the benefits outweigh the costs then you'll buy it, obviously people get a lot of benefit from leica

robscomputer wrote in post #9810447
I think a Leica is a status symbol as well. Eric Clapton shoots a Leica.

Yes, a person can appropriate the Leica as a status symbol (and many have), or for that matter, they can use it as a paperweight; it's not the camera's decision on how people will use it. But assumptions, perhaps not yours, that it is simply a status symbol without any true utilitarian value are misguided. And as for how people perceive the user by camera used, that's a whole separate issue that is out of the control of both the camera and the camera user.

The iPod became a status symbol for many, but it was also an excellent mpeg player in terms of ease of use. And of course, for several folks, it was both an excellent player and a fashion statement; not mutually exclusive objectives.

Again, if I wanted to show off a camera, I would be more apt to sling a huge, bulky DSLR with a look-at-me-white super-telephoto lens around my neck than I would a Leica rangefinder. And of course, any good white super-telephoto lens defender will rejoin that the conspicuous paint scheme has a purpose, to cool things off.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9809816
....and Leicas M glass spanks almost everything in the Canon and Nikon line up even most Canon Ls.

I find that a little hard to believe.
I'm not against Leica, and not "brand fanatic" by any means, but broad brush comments like that are funny sometimes.