LEICA: still sought after?

[MattKing]

Just like in the days when film was all we had, the route to profitability for interchangeable lens cameras isn't as much through camera bodies as it is through lens and accessories.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You wrote a lot of stuff that doesn't address that Fuji takes a loss selling digital cameras. While the claim that there aren't enough people 'prepared to pay $10K..' is negated by the fact that Leica has a 6 month waiting list for that very same rig..

Who has the better business model? Someone losing money, or someone making money? Leica has actually been very smart looking forward because the only digital cameras that will survive the dominance of smartphones are the super high end ones. Pro models and/or luxury items. They have had that covered for years now. And, outside the Nikon F6 (a super high end camera) they are the only ones making pro level film cameras. Pretty sweet really. Those who have attempted to make cheap versions - Cosina with the Ikon and Bessa - failed.
The reason Leica survives and turns a profit is because they are expensive, beautiful pieces to use and have cachet.

And of course you don't have to buy new. Lots of Ms can be had for under $1K. I picked up a fantastic Summaron 35 for $300 and it shoots as nicely as my Summicron Asph 35 which cost a whole lot more.

Couldn't agree more Huss.

So, to address the OP question, yeah, they still are sought after, either on the new market or the used market.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[Pioneer]

Couldn't agree more Huss.

So, to address the OP question, yeah, they still are sought after, either on the new market or the used market.


Regards

Marcelo

And most buyers appear to be happy with them if you believe the internet scuttlebutt.

 

[Pioneer]

Now the K1000 was not overpriced when it was sold new. It is overpriced now on the used market and it's not worth the asking money.

You might not be happy with the prices but the product usually sells when the price is right. Since those K1000s are selling then people must be willing to pay for the quality and reputation the camera enjoys. Which, IMHO, is very well deserved from holding up to years and years of student abuse.

Leica enjoys that same reputation, not from years of students but from years of photo journalists.

 

[faberryman]

And most buyers appear to be happy with them if you believe the internet scuttlebutt.

Most people are happy with their Leica cameras but not Leica's US service. The turnaround time for the M9 and MM corroded sensor replacement is currently 24-36 weeks (6-9 months). Nikon is replacing the D750 defective sensors in 2 weeks.

 

[Pioneer]

Most people are happy with the cameras but not Leica's US service. The turnaround time for the M9 and MM corroded sensor repair is 24-36 weeks (6-9 months).

What other digital camera company is offering to replace damaged sensors for nothing over the life of the camera no matter who owns it? I am seriously tempted to buy an MM just for that warranty.

 

[NB23]

Blockend,
It would cool if you would know your stuff a little more before talking.

Fuji always was a big player catering to a specialized market.

The Xpan, for example, is a Fuji product. And the marvelous xpan lenses are all fuji.

The 645 segment is fuji. The 6x9 is well represented by fuji.

The X100 was a Classic Fuji move just as all the above.

Fuji was always about home runs.


Get your stuff right.

 

[NB23]

Now that's smart: buying a shit camera for its good warranty that rakes forever to fix.

I'm not surprised. Kodak bought your loyalship by giving you two free rolls of film.

What other digital camera company is offering to replace damaged sensors for nothing over the life of the camera no matter who owns it? I am seriously tempted to buy an MM just for that warranty.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Blockend,
It would cool if you would know your stuff a little more before talking.

Fuji always was a big player catering to a specialized market.

The Xpan, for example, is a Fuji product. And the marvelous xpan lenses are all fuji.

The 645 segment is fuji. The 6x9 is well represented by fuji.

The X100 was a Classic Fuji move just as all the above.

Fuji was always about home runs.


Get your stuff right.

No one argued that Fuji products where great though .

 

[faberryman]

What other digital camera company is offering to replace damaged sensors for nothing over the life of the camera no matter who owns it? I am seriously tempted to buy an MM just for that warranty.

You better hurry. Leica abruptly changed the terms of the warranty a couple of months ago, and free replacement of the defective M9/MM sensors ends 8/15/2017. After that, it will run ~$1000. A lot of M9/MM owners felt betrayed by Leica as a result of that move.

 

[Pioneer]

You better hurry. Leica abruptly changed the terms of the warranty a couple of months ago, and free replacement of the defective M9/MM sensors ends 8/15/2017. After that, it will run ~$1000. A lot of M9/MM owners felt betrayed by Leica as a result of that move.

I would feel betrayed as well. Obviously nothing is forever in the digital world, not even Leica.

Guess that is why I shoot film.

 

[Pioneer]

Now that's smart: buying a shit camera for its good warranty that rakes forever to fix.

I'm not surprised. Kodak bought your loyalship by giving you two free rolls of film.

Patience my friend, patience. I'm in no hurry. As long as the work is done right. And I have used the M9 Monochrom. Unfortunately it is digital so I decided against buying it, but not for any fault in the prints.

?? Kind of confused about the Kodak loyalship remark or the two free rolls of film though?? I shoot many different brands of film, not just Kodak. Just yesterday afternoon I finished a roll of Kodak Ektar and a roll of Ilford HP5+.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Finding a repairman for a Leica SM or M is easy. For Contax RF, well... With old cameras, it is a point to keep in mind.

I overhauled my '36 Contax II, stripping it to the bare body casting, cleaning everything, removing the Zeiss bumps, and reassembling with modern lubricants and some improved sealing against dust. They're not that hard to work on, once you understand them. My next big project is a Canon IIb, needs an overhaul and new shutter curtains. I have a nice early postwar Summitar to use on it, just to stay on topic.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I grew up in a Zeiss family, I know, the prewar prism rangefinder is amazing in design and craftsmanship, but it's also darker and doesn't have as many "features" as the Leica one

The Contax viewfinder is positively dismal. But the RF is second to none, including the RF on my Linhof ST IV, which was made to focus lenses of much longer focal length than the Contax.

 

[Dali]

I overhauled my '36 Contax II, stripping it to the bare body casting, cleaning everything, removing the Zeiss bumps, and reassembling with modern lubricants and some improved sealing against dust. They're not that hard to work on, once you understand them. My next big project is a Canon IIb, needs an overhaul and new shutter curtains. I have a nice early postwar Summitar to use on it, just to stay on topic.

I don't mean it is impossible, I just want to point out the fact that it is easier to get a Leica fixed than a Contax RF.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I overhauled my '36 Contax II, stripping it to the bare body casting, cleaning everything, removing the Zeiss bumps, and reassembling with modern lubricants and some improved sealing against dust. They're not that hard to work on, once you understand them. My next big project is a Canon IIb, needs an overhaul and new shutter curtains. I have a nice early postwar Summitar to use on it, just to stay on topic.

Like you say, they are easy if you understand them. I'm a software engineer and know nothing about camera repair nor I'm confident on my mechanical skills so I need to relay on person that are competent unless I'm willing to take the risk to screw an expensive camera(been there done that ).

That's when availability of competent repair men are important.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[blockend]

You wrote a lot of stuff that doesn't address that Fuji takes a loss selling digital cameras. While the claim that there aren't enough people 'prepared to pay $10K..' is negated by the fact that Leica has a 6 month waiting list for that very same rig..

Who has the better business model? Someone losing money, or someone making money? Leica has actually been very smart looking forward because the only digital cameras that will survive the dominance of smartphones are the super high end ones. Pro models and/or luxury items. They have had that covered for years now. And, outside the Nikon F6 (a super high end camera) they are the only ones making pro level film cameras. Pretty sweet really. Those who have attempted to make cheap versions - Cosina with the Ikon and Bessa - failed.
The reason Leica survives and turns a profit is because they are expensive, beautiful pieces to use and have cachet.

And of course you don't have to buy new. Lots of Ms can be had for under $1K. I picked up a fantastic Summaron 35 for $300 and it shoots as nicely as my Summicron Asph 35 which cost a whole lot more.

First you have to show some figures that Fuji loses money on every camera sold, second, so what? Car manufacturers have been supported directly or indirectly by the state for years because they supply employment and financial spinoffs. A six month waiting list means nothing, perhaps Leica make 200 cameras a week and Fuji make 2000, no one knows. Morgan cars had a three year waiting list at one point, and you could sell a new one at a 30% mark up. All that tells us is a product is slow to manufacture and people want technically primitive stuff that is hand made.

I'm not sure why you're being so adversarial about a camera brand. I've owned film Leicas and used them for years before I did. They're a camera shooting 35mm film and the company have produced some of the tackiest, chintziest, most exploitative rip offs in photographic history as well as some of the nicest kit. The only transferable asset from film era Leica to digital is a heritage lens mount and focusing system. I have no argument with anyone who uses either, my debate is with people who think their output is objectively better than the competition, or the lenses have magical qualities in the photon department.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

First you have to show some figures that Fuji loses money on every camera sold, second, so what? Car manufacturers have been supported directly or indirectly by the state for years because they supply employment and financial spinoffs. A six month waiting list means nothing, perhaps Leica make 200 cameras a week and Fuji make 2000, no one knows. Morgan cars had a three year waiting list at one point, and you could sell a new one at a 30% mark up. All that tells us is a product is slow to manufacture and people want technically primitive stuff that is hand made.

I'm not sure why you're being so adversarial about a camera brand. I've owned film Leicas and used them for years before I did. They're a camera shooting 35mm film and the company have produced some of the tackiest, chintziest, most exploitative rip offs in photographic history as well as some of the nicest kit. The only transferable asset from film era Leica to digital is a heritage lens mount and focusing system. I have no argument with anyone who uses either, my debate is with people who think their output is objectively better than the competition, or the lenses have magical qualities in the photon department.

So yeah, Leica is still sought after

 

[blockend]

Blockend,
It would cool if you would know your stuff a little more before talking.

Fuji always was a big player catering to a specialized market.

The Xpan, for example, is a Fuji product. And the marvelous xpan lenses are all fuji.

The 645 segment is fuji. The 6x9 is well represented by fuji.

The X100 was a Classic Fuji move just as all the above.

Fuji was always about home runs.


Get your stuff right.

Oh behave. Fuji have been a player in high quality optics for years as I pointed out. In 35mm I know one person who owned a 605 and none who owned the 701 or 901, and as we're talking 35mm cameras the comparisons are obvious. The company's progress in high quality consumer digital cameras has been nothing less than startling. The only similar rise in profile is Panasonic. Sigma made some excellent cameras and gave up on the consumer photographic market, so getting under the public's nose is no easy task.

 

[faberryman]

I'm not sure why you're being so adversarial about a camera brand.

A lot of Leica owners are defensive about their purchases. Go figure.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

David, OP, you are Leica bashist. As typical

Maybe this question is naive or presumptuous (within the confines of analog photography) but I wonder if LEICA products are still economically viable. At USD 5,000 for only the MP body and another USD 2,500 for a normal lens, people who buy these products (especially in the light of the magnificent quality which comes out of Japan) have to be buying something other than a sharp image.

Those who traditionally refute such banter usually counter by speaking of an ethereal quality (or, with similar parlance) to declaim such hesitation on my part and refuse to believe that there is anything which should hinder the sane accumulation of such costly, but 'well worth it' merchandise; thus, their necessity for positing other qualities which serve to justify the, really, unbelievable cost to acquire such a well-made, but decidedly rather mundane and, technically by now, with all the R&D recouped, piece of capture ability. Do I err here? - David Lyga

David, you are Leica bashist.
How many film rangefinder new cameras are still in manufacturing? Zero, David, but where is demand for new Leica film camera and under price you mentioned. Normal, new Leica lens is available slightly above 1K$ USD. But I opted it for mint normal Leitz lens made in eighties for same price.
Leica is not only making new film camera, they service old ones. It means, spare parts for cameras made in fifties are available. How many film camera manufacturers do it now, David. So I could send my 800 USD camera for service and use it for another five years.

Despite all of the fuzz, film market is shrinking, film cameras makers are keep on quit and Leica is the only one who does it.
If you are socialist then, yes, you might have question "if LEICA products are still economically viable?", but for some like me who understand how market works it is not the question at all.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A Leica M10 is £5850. A Fuji X-Pro2 is £1300. The Fuji will sell a box full for every Leica sold.

This is what APUG has become and this is what will dominate on ex-apug soon.

Your Fuji box is not rangefinder and your Fuji box is not 35 mm camera. This is it. If you want rangefinder, not Fuji fake, it is Leica. If you want 35mm it is not Fuji-crop, it is Leica.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I once owned a Leica M1 that I used on a microscope. Ever since, I had suppressed a long-standing irrational desire to own a Leica rangefinder. That desire was irrational because I owned and used Nikon, Fuji, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, and Contax 35mm film cameras that also produced excellent images like the Leica.

I finally succumbed and purchased a Leica M6. I now ask myself if the high cost of the Leica made economic sense. I still do not have a good answer but that has not stopped me from enjoying the Leica.



Leica M6 Rangefinder Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

My respect!

 

[Richard Man]

the argument 'the world's greatest photos were shot with a Leica' is made a lot by Leica fans but they forget that this is only true because they were in the hands of the world's best photographers! It's not the cameras but the 12 inches behind it that count.

Of course, but no offense, my point is that the people who consistently complain about the price of Leica don't have much great photograph to show for either.

 

[faberryman]

Of course, but no offense, my point is that the people who consistently complain about the price of Leica don't have much great photograph to show for either.

Do you have a link for that?