scratched wrote:EarthQuake wrote:scratched wrote:I don't think the Leica M cameras are relevant here. That's a completely different market segment. One of doctors and lawyers concerned more with status and owning a piece of jewelry.Total rubbish, many a photographer aspires to own a Leica both for its lens qualities and rangefinder format. It just that most cannot afford it so they write nonsense as you have and waffle on about cameras that don't exist.ps My first camera as a teenager was a used Leica, I saved up for one. The choice as motorbike or camera, chose the camera went to the wreckers and built my own motorbike.Certainly, there are photographers who skrimp and save and appreciate Leicas because they are good photographic tools. But that's not Leica's primary market, or at least it hasn't been for decades. It's a luxury brand bought primarily by the wealthy.You make my point with your motorcycle comparison. The price of a Leica equates to that of a motor vehicle. There aren't a lot of people cross-shopping cameras and modes of transportation. A Pen-F or EP7 is a relatively affordable consumer good along the lines of a cell phone or laptop.No the motorbike was a lot dearer that's why when I was a teenager I bought the film camera and made up a bike from wrecked parts most were for free because I was a young kid. But it was about not buying because of gas and I want mentality it was about buying a great product.I know lots of photographers and hobbyists who own Leicas none are particularly wealthyWere they before they bought Leicas?

scratched wrote:EarthQuake wrote:scratched wrote:I don't think the Leica M cameras are relevant here. That's a completely different market segment. One of doctors and lawyers concerned more with status and owning a piece of jewelry.Total rubbish, many a photographer aspires to own a Leica both for its lens qualities and rangefinder format. It just that most cannot afford it so they write nonsense as you have and waffle on about cameras that don't exist.ps My first camera as a teenager was a used Leica, I saved up for one. The choice as motorbike or camera, chose the camera went to the wreckers and built my own motorbike.Certainly, there are photographers who skrimp and save and appreciate Leicas because they are good photographic tools. But that's not Leica's primary market, or at least it hasn't been for decades. It's a luxury brand bought primarily by the wealthy.You make my point with your motorcycle comparison. The price of a Leica equates to that of a motor vehicle. There aren't a lot of people cross-shopping cameras and modes of transportation. A Pen-F or EP7 is a relatively affordable consumer good along the lines of a cell phone or laptop.No the motorbike was a lot dearer that's why when I was a teenager I bought the film camera and made up a bike from wrecked parts most were for free because I was a young kid. But it was about not buying because of gas and I want mentality it was about buying a great product.I know lots of photographers and hobbyists who own Leicas none are particularly wealthyAre we talking about people currently in the market for a new Leica? Or those who bought a used M body and a few lenses in the 60s, 80s, etc?If we consider inflation, a Leica M3 cost about $2,600 when it was released. The original Olympus OM1 was about the same price when it was released. Neither were cheap cameras, but pricing for these brands has changed dramatically in the years since.Leica's current M11 camera costs $9000 new. The OM System's OM1 is $2000 - notably cheaper than the original film camera. The camera's we're talking about here (EP7, Pen-F) are a factor of magnitude less expensive than a Leica M11. A camera that doesn't even autofocus.Now add in a few new Leica lenses, and we're looking at a cost comparable to an entry-level compact car. Leica's current products are not aimed at people who buy M43 gear. They are luxury goods marketed to wealthy consumers. If you and your friends regularly buy the latest Leica M* when it's released, you're wealthy. Maybe not Elon Musk wealthy, but you're not the target demographic for an EP7 or an EM10.If you bought an M3 in 1967 that you use to this day, what I've said doesn't really apply to you. If you still use that camera, you're also probably not the target demographic for Leica's current products.

I am not referring to anything about friendsThere are hobbyists and photographers out there who willingly forgo some things in life in order to get what they feel is important to them camera wise. Evidently you are not one of them and you have a simplistic view of Leica owners. There is many a Leica M9 user who has decided to upgrade to a newer version after 12 years and bought no camera gear in the meantime.

scratched wrote:I am not referring to anything about friendsThere are hobbyists and photographers out there who willingly forgo some things in life in order to get what they feel is important to them camera wise. Evidently you are not one of them and you have a simplistic view of Leica owners. There is many a Leica M9 user who has decided to upgrade to a newer version after 12 years and bought no camera gear in the meantime.So buying a new $9000 manual focus rangefinder camera every 12 years or so is a normal expense? Glad we cleared that up.Anyway, I'm sure there are people, three, maybe even four of them - not people that you actually know, of course - that eat nothing but ramen noodles so they can afford the latest Leica cameras on their postal worker or substitute teacher salary.Sarcasm aside, have you ever heard of the phrase the exception that proves the rule? Certainly, there are people that do uncommon things so they can afford luxury items like Leica cameras, sports cars, expensive watches, etc. And all the more power to them. However, the companies that make these products depend on a different group of customers to keep them in business. This is my broader point.This interaction highlights one of the reasons why Leica can charge exorbitant prices for its products. They have a fiercely loyal customer base. One that will evangelize their products' mystical qualities to the ends of the earth.

scratched wrote:I know lots of photographers and hobbyists who own Leicas none are particularly wealthySo do I (and I do not count my own analog M4-P i bought for 330 Euros, when Leica seemed quite dead, before the M8). You can get digital, used Leicas starting from about $/€2500 without too much effort. If you slap on a Cosina/Voigtländer lens, you are not that much out of standard Canon/Nikon/Sony territory, really, and not that far above the Fuji X-Pro2, which probably is the next best thing to a Leica if you want the viewfinder experience.I know many Leica users with not all that well paying day jobs, who bought one for the unique handling. A $3000 used camera might be expensive for a camera, but in the great scheme of things many hobbies are more expensive than photography. And many Canon/Sony/Nikon users have long heavy teles that cost a lot more than $3000, and that is one thing you can't buy for a Leica MRalph

EarthQuake wrote:Certainly, there are photographers who skrimp and save and appreciate Leicas because they are good photographic tools. But that's not Leica's primary market, or at least it hasn't been for decades. It's a luxury brand bought primarily by the wealthy.Part of the logic here for Leica is: People who do not have the money to buy new Leicas buy used ones. This keeps resale value for the richer people buying new ones up, making them getting newer bodies more often, than they otherwise probably would.

ausserirdischesindgesund wrote:EarthQuake wrote:Certainly, there are photographers who skrimp and save and appreciate Leicas because they are good photographic tools. But that's not Leica's primary market, or at least it hasn't been for decades. It's a luxury brand bought primarily by the wealthy.Part of the logic here for Leica is: People who do not have the money to buy new Leicas buy used ones. This keeps resale value for the richer people buying new ones up, making them getting newer bodies more often, than they otherwise probably would.I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. Secondhand market forces apply to all camera companies.

ausserirdischesindgesund wrote:scratched wrote:I know lots of photographers and hobbyists who own Leicas none are particularly wealthySo do I (and I do not count my own analog M4-P i bought for 330 Euros, when Leica seemed quite dead, before the M8). You can get digital, used Leicas starting from about $/€2500 without too much effort. If you slap on a Cosina/Voigtländer lens, you are not that much out of standard Canon/Nikon/Sony territory, really, and not that far above the Fuji X-Pro2, which probably is the next best thing to a Leica if you want the viewfinder experience.I know many Leica users with not all that well paying day jobs, who bought one for the unique handling. A $3000 used camera might be expensive for a camera, but in the great scheme of things many hobbies are more expensive than photography. And many Canon/Sony/Nikon users have long heavy teles that cost a lot more than $3000, and that is one thing you can't buy for a Leica MRalphSure, you can pay a lot less for used Leica gear and third-party lenses compared to new and Leica-branded lensesYou can pay quite substantially less if you do the same with other brands too. For $700 you can get a used Sony A7 series body and a Samyang lens. And it will even focus automatically - if you can imagine such a marvel of technology.Walking back, yet again, to the point that this tangent has unraveled from, Leica is unique in its ability to sell cameras with limited features at high price points to a rather specific customer group. What Leica can get for their products does not have much relevance to, for instance, what Olympus could charge for a Pen-F II. Olympus does not have the perceived prestige nor the cult-like following to charge comparable prices. It's quite baffling that this would be seen as a contentious point of view, but here we are.

There is no Olympus and there is no Pen F, there is a Pen F and there are Leicas but your  tale of "if only" will continue,

EarthQuake wrote:I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. Secondhand market forces apply to all camera companies.Yes, of course. But Leicas keep a higher value compared to their price when new, in my experience. Take for example the Leica M8, a deeply flawed camera (the infrared disaster, the too small sensor for the lenses) that still goes for quite a bit of money. This is, becausea) there are no "affordable" entry level Leica alternatives to used expensive M Leicas b) Leica seems to actively encourage keeping Leicas in use for a longer time, e.g. making repairs/service a realistic option.When the M8 was new (2007) it cost about $5000. The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III at the same time was a bit more expensive ($7000) and has none of the flaws of the M8. Build quality probably is comparable. But used prices today are flipped around. A used M8 is more expensive than a used 1Ds MkIII, because the M8 simply is the cheapest digital M Leica, even though it has lots of flaws. So people buy this deeply flawed camera, while the alternative to a 1Ds is something like a used D6, much better technically, much newer. Also cheap.And I suspect a higher percentage of M8 is still in practical use today than the percentage of 1DsMkIII.

scratched wrote:There is no Olympus and there is no Pen F, there is a Pen F and there are Leicas end of your tale of woe.I'm glad that we've gotten to the speaking in incoherent riddles portion of the evening.There is no Pen-F, except for the Pen-F that exists in your mind.Very deep, and very compelling. I shall meditate on this in my chamber of solitude.

My mistake It should have readThere is no Olympus and there is no Pen F II

ausserirdischesindgesund wrote:EarthQuake wrote:I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. Secondhand market forces apply to all camera companies.Yes, of course. But Leicas keep a higher value compared to their price when new, in my experience. Take for example the Leica M8, a deeply flawed camera (the infrared disaster, the too small sensor for the lenses) that still goes for quite a bit of money. This is, becausea) there are no "affordable" entry level Leica alternatives to used expensive M Leicas b) Leica seems to actively encourage keeping Leicas in use for a longer time, e.g. making repairs/service a realistic option.When the M8 was new (2007) it cost about $5000. The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III at the same time was a bit more expensive ($7000) and has none of the flaws of the M8. Build quality probably is comparable. But used prices today are flipped around. A used M8 is more expensive than a used 1Ds MkIII, because the M8 simply is the cheapest digital M Leica, even though it has lots of flaws. So people buy this deeply flawed camera, while the alternative to a 1Ds is something like a used D6, much better technically, much newer. Also cheap.And I suspect a higher percentage of M8 is still in practical use today than the percentage of 1DsMkIII.Generally good points, I would counter with a few things:1. The M8 probably has 10K or less shutter acquisitions on it because it has spent most of its life sitting on a dentist's shelf.2. The 1Ds probably has 200K shutter acquisitions and has paid for itself many times over because it was a working professional's camera. Outside of price, the 1D-style cameras are in an entirely different class than an M. The Canon would be more comparable to Leica's medium format studio cameras (again, proper working professional gear*)But yes, the Canon is designed to be used, abused, and replaced, more so than the Leica, I agree.3. The resale value for digital Leica cameras is much, much poorer than their film counterparts. Digital cameras from every brand are inherently disposable, even if Leica M cameras have a longer shelf life than other brands, they're still quite poor if viewed in terms of investment, especially because it's difficult to use them for most types of paid workAn M3 will still work if maintained in 100 years (if anyone still makes the film), and will likely continue to hold some amount of value. Even with a perfect condition, barely used M8, the batteries will fail, you won't be able to find spares, the sensor will fail, you won't be able to find hardware or software to transfer or view the images, etc.* I'll add this disclaimer before someone with a red sticker has an aneurysm: I am not saying there are no professionals that use Leica M cameras. It is simply a very small group compared to professionals who use 1D-type bodies.

And I suspect a higher percentage of M8 is still in practical use today than the percentage of 1DsMkIII.It's not always about the red dot there are those of us that enjoy using a rangefinder but in digital our choices are limited it's either Leica or the newborn Pixii and that needs a lot of work to make it a viable alternative to Leica. I had a Epson RDI that predated the m8 great camera with a voigtlander 28mm unfortunately that went AWOL

EarthQuake wrote:You can pay quite substantially less if you do the same with other brands too. For $700 you can get a used Sony A7 series body and a Samyang lens. And it will even focus automatically - if you can imagine such a marvel of technology.But rangefinder experience is the reason why some people pay more for a Leica. Rangefinder focusing is really special, and while in the 1970ies everybody did it (eg Canon), today Leica basically is the only remaining rangefinder producer. Now if Cosina/Voigtländer built a new digital rangefinder, I suppose the current Leica market would split: Those going for a cheap rangefinder experience would instantly choose Cosina instead of Leica. Yes, there is Pixii, but Pixii is also rather expensive for what it is. Probably some Fuji users would change to such a "cheapish" rangefinder too, because that is what they truely want in a XPro3/X100.Not all, there are of course some Leica buyers that are going for the prestige, ultimate "cost not relevant" quality etc.Walking back, yet again, to the point that this tangent has unraveled from, Leica is unique in its ability to sell cameras with limited features at high price points to a rather specific customer group.Yes, and some of that niche is not about prestige, but about unique user interface.What Leica can get for their products does not have much relevance to, for instance, what Olympus could charge for a Pen-F II. Olympus does not have the perceived prestige nor the cult-like following to charge comparable prices. It's quite baffling that this would be seen as a contentious point of view, but here we are.Of course a Olympus is just a mirrorless. And therefore can ask just for mirrorless prices, not for rangefinder prices (not even for Pixii prices).

ausserirdischesindgesund wrote:EarthQuake wrote:You can pay quite substantially less if you do the same with other brands too. For $700 you can get a used Sony A7 series body and a Samyang lens. And it will even focus automatically - if you can imagine such a marvel of technology.But rangefinder experience is the reason why some people pay more for a Leica. Rangefinder focusing is really special, and while in the 1970ies everybody did it (eg Canon), today Leica basically is the only remaining rangefinder producer. Now if Cosina/Voigtländer built a new digital rangefinder, I suppose the current Leica market would split: Those going for a cheap rangefinder experience would instantly choose Cosina instead of Leica. Yes, there is Pixii, but Pixii is also rather expensive for what it is. Probably some Fuji users would change to such a "cheapish" rangefinder too, because that is what they truely want in a XPro3/X100.Not all, there are of course some Leica buyers that are going for the prestige, ultimate "cost not relevant" quality etc.Yes, and I think there is a lot of overlap between those who are picking up the older, used bodies, and those who have a strong preference for the rangefinder experience.That said, I doubt there is a considerable demographic that likes the rangefinder experience so much that they are willing to pay $7000+ more when cross-shopping comparable cameras. Even less so that would be happy to get fewer features (ie: no AF, among other things). If the rangefinder experience was so critical, the X-Pro bodies would be more popular. But it's a very niche thing, so even in Fuji land, the SLR-style bodies sell in higher numbers, even when similarly priced.In reality, range finders are better in some rather specific ways, and worse in a lot of other ways (framing with a wide range of lenses, live exposure preview, etc) compared to a live feed from the sensor. The ability to switch between the styles on certain Fuji cameras is brilliant.So I'll stick to my original position that Leica is selling the majority of their new, current model cameras to those who are interested in prestige, status, and buying "the best" because they can afford it. If not as the only criteria, certainly as a very important part of the buying process.I'm sure the prestige aspect was much less of a factor 50 years ago when pricing and features were closer to other cameras, and the main choice to make was SLR vs rangefinder.Walking back, yet again, to the point that this tangent has unraveled from, Leica is unique in its ability to sell cameras with limited features at high price points to a rather specific customer group.Yes, and some of that niche is not about prestige, but about unique user interface.Yes, some of it is the viewfinder style, and some of it is an appreciation for the build quality or styling or minimalism. Then we have showing off one's wealth and status, cult-like beliefs that the camera will produce better photos via some sort of magic, simple ignorance - asking a friend what is the best camera money can buy, and being told it's a Leica, etc. It's hard to say what the ratio is on average.What Leica can get for their products does not have much relevance to, for instance, what Olympus could charge for a Pen-F II. Olympus does not have the perceived prestige nor the cult-like following to charge comparable prices. It's quite baffling that this would be seen as a contentious point of view, but here we are.Of course a Olympus is just a mirrorless. And therefore can ask just for mirrorless prices, not for rangefinder prices (not even for Pixii prices).Right, it would be a typical mirrorless camera, and more importantly, lacking the red dot.

I like my Pen-f.  I'm not a dentist and I don't do street, but I use mine and enjoy doing so.  So not "terrible" for everyone.

Tedolph would like to squeeze in here and bring things back on topic.First, he will relate that he owned a Leica CL for 30 years and just recently sold it with two lenses (he realized he just wasn't going to shoot film anymore) .  He sold it all to a camera store for about what he paid for it 30 years ago.  Conclusion: you don't buy Leicas, you just rent them.Second, The Epson RD-1 was very attractive, but the 6mp sensor was garbage in addition to being APS sized for FF M mount lenses.  Those lenses worked better on 4/3 sensor with the 2x crop factor and became nice portrait lenses.Just have Cosina make Something like the RD-1 with OM-10 innards and let Panny/Leica make three totally manual lenses 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses with rangefinder cams.  It will sell like hot cakes.TEdolph

Hot cakes have been delisted from the available  stock and replaced by a auto dispenser

tedolf wrote:So how do you explain the commercial viability of Leica and Fuji X-Pro?Current Leica owner Kauffman said that cameras are money-loosing business but he estabilished cooperation in lens designs with various (smartphone and insdustry) vendors. Leica earns money from optical designs, patents...Fuji managers admitted that without the success of X-T series there would not be any successor to X-Pro / X-E series.