$230 IS cheaper than a second body, true. But would you spend $600 on the eyepiece; it's still cheaper than a second body.

Chris was just trying to justify Leica pricing policy. If we refuse to pay Leica (OK, the retailer) inflated prices for equipment, they'll have to wise up and charge fair prices - no more than $50 for the eyepiece - for their goods.

I'm in the wrong business. Maybe I'll start making better designed accessories AND charge a fair price AND make money. Are you listening Lutz Konnerman? What would Leica charge for your well thought out accessories?

I'll bet Pounds for Yen that Leica DOESN'T even make the thing!

-- more money than brains (bitter crotch@arswhole.com), January 18, 2002

Answers

Far be it from me to defend Leica but I do believe they really struggle to make money. I don't know if it is still the case but I have heard from different sources that they really don't make a dime on M bodies.

Presumably the sale of lenses and the odd accessory at inflated prices helps the balance sheet?

I really, really don't understand why they don't have a budget (in Leica terms) range along the lines of the Voigtlander line-up.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 18, 2002.

Giles:

In answer to your question, my guess is that a cheaper M range will dilute their premium brand positioning. It's like Rolex bringing out a budget line of watches. If that is their aim, they should launch a new brand and protect the many years of hard built branding invested in the 'legendary' M. That way if the budget [brand] range fails it does not drag the M down to the bottom of the ocean with it. Just my 2p worth. Cheers,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 18, 2002.

we all have to face it: it is very possible that leica will turn its belly up in the near future. look at their share prices! i really hope not. but many people use old leicas with delight, not too many new ones are bought. a company doesn't live off products sold a few decades ago. i guess a japanese company will take over the management pretty soon, and after a while you will find good, modern and still very expensive products from them. (remember contax?)

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

Stefan,

Maybe we should all support Leica by buying new M6TTL's and M7's or whatever new model they bring out. I buy both new and old. But I do find the eyepiece is over-priced per grammage for what you get.

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 18, 2002.

Well, start with some basic overpriced magnifier like the Schneider 4X loupe. Figure $150 or so for this cemented 2-element wonder. Now add $20.00 for some metal to couple the magnifier to the camera. OK, $30.00. Now we're up to $180. Now add $25.00 for engraving the word "Leica." Finally, add $25.00 for the Leica Company Survival Surcharge. There's your $230.00.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 18, 2002.

This "Leica is ripping us off" thread comes up regularily here and elsewhere. What amazes me is the general lack of understanding about business. So, to try and explain, Leica is a very small company with lots of overhead--salaries to pay, factory rent to pay, advertising to pay, and on and on. If you make a small amount of product to be able to meet those expenses you have to charge for the product enough so that your total income equals at least your expenses, if not then you go out of business. Ferrari, for example, makes about 3000 cars per year and they charge about $150,000 per car. Is it worth that much money? I doubt it. But that is what it takes for the company to stay in business. Are the prices Leica charges way to high? Yes they probably are. But that is what it takes for them to stay in business.

-- Steve Lehuray (steve@icommag.com), January 18, 2002.

Lets also not forget that Leica is into a lot of "loser" business as well. For instance, Leica is still producing batches of elements for all of its previous M mount lenses. I don't think there are any other manufacturers doing this kind of thing. Eats into the resources. Branding is another problem that Leica will have to deal with in the near future because of the infiltration of digital. Leica's pitchline for the last 80 years has been "we brought 35 mm to the masses". Now with Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic on the cutting edge of digital where does that leave Leica? Really, the only moneymaker for Leica now is the microscope division: Leica Microsystems. And rightfully so because those products are a JOY to use (compared to Olympus and Zeiss) with many thoughtfully designed features that researchers use DAY IN AND DAY OUT.

How many M buyers (not pro users) can honestly make the same statement about their Ms? Certianly not me.

Its a sad thing to say but looking back on some of Leica's quarterly reports it looks like the market is rightful in its "non support" of their business model. Which leads us to another sad but true pillar of truth...

The market is ALWAYS right.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

"Really, the only moneymaker for Leica now is the microscope division: Leica Microsystems."

Not a division. A completely separate company from Leica Camera A.G. Check out www.leica.com.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

I've always been amazed how CHEAP Ferraris are. If they make 3000 cars/year, that would be 500 of each model/comfiguration? They are largely hand made, having 1000's of parts, many not interchangable between models. And most, apart from the instrumentation is made in- house. Ferraris are works of ART; Leicas are TOOLS. I never oood (sp?) and ahhhhd at my Leica; photos yes, equipment no. vrooooom! Some day/some way. Actually I'd probably get a used Porsche Carrera 4 Cabroilet. I need the back seat; one for the tripod, the other for the flash 8^)

Leica probably doesn't know how many they will sell in a year so, how can they price them.

Leica probably does not even make the eyepiece.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 18, 2002.

Sparkie went off on a riff about Rolex watches and diluting a premium brand, yada, yada, yada..........for half a century now Rolex has made and marketed a "down market" line of watches called the Tudor series. For most of the 80's and early 90's these could be purchased new for under $1,000 and as far as I know it never hurt their primary business. The Tudors are also well made watches but have fewer features and less pricey finish materials.

-- kirk tuck (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), January 18, 2002.

"Leica probably doesn't know how many they will sell in a year so, how can they price them."

O dear if they don't know this then they cannot fix a budget and they cannot operate a company. I bet they know very well how many they can sell in a year. They are not a bunch of morons although they have made their mistakes (many actually seemed sensible at the time).

I love the idea of refusing to pay their prices..All that will do is drive the company out of business which may happen anywhere. They probably have priced the viewfinder just right, bearing in mind that it is very difficult to obtain so I assume has sold out. In fact maybe this means they should have charged more for it?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

Just on the eyepiece theme - Leica UK were apparantly allocated a whacking FIFTEEN of these desirable little objects!

Next deliveries are in March!

Imagine the M7 allocation.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 18, 2002.

So far every eyepiece in the US has been sold and those dealers willing to keep waiting-lists have them filled. So where is Leica's faulty pricing strategy?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

My mistake Rob, I should've clarified my loose semantics.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

Giles, you bring up a good point - availability. If there is an M7 I'm sure it will be hard to get, but this is the way of high end cameras these days - which I think helps disprove the theory some have put forward in this thread about how much we are being ripped off. Try getting a Canon Eos 1d. They will only take orders if you are a Canon CPS member (meaning bonafide pro), and even then there is a 2 to 3 month wait. I'm sure if these companies were making the gazillions or percent profit some claim that they would be making these cameras in much great quantities that they are - IT WOULD MEAN MORE MONEY - but of course lots of people like to make speculate on these matters with no idea whatsoever of how business operates. And yes Leica is a business - not some photo God to make sure we all have our little whims met....

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

If they SOLD OUT, it's obvious that Leica could not foretell the FUTURE. They could've made MORE money for R&D/survival. Do they know the future price of GE, and tell me? 8^)

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 19, 2002.

"If they SOLD OUT, it's obvious that Leica could not foretell the FUTURE."

It's not necessarily a sign of poor planning. I don't know how much new tooling and manufacturing equipment must be devoted to making eyepieces, but that may well be the limiting factor. Since the market for the eyepieces is finite and small, it could make more sense to manufacture a smaller number over several years (which helps maintain a high demand and high prices) than to produce many of them quickly (which would satisfy the market, reduce demand, and require a subsequent reduction in production).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 19, 2002.