Leica will increase its prices in the US starting May 1st

Leica is announcing this price hike to entice people to go buy now. Tricky tricky

@ DiffractionLtd:
"or move new stock fast enough to allow us to meet production targets."
Question: How hard is it for Leica to meet their 3 cameras a year production target?

Histrionic responses to statements proves you have no real point to make.

My "real" point is that today if you'll meet a man with Leica on ones' neak , the first thing that comes to your mind is not "that must be a fine photographer if he shoots Leica" but instead : "that must be rich man if he can afford himself Leica" .

Only if you seethe with class-envy.

Calvin Chan, so when did the Nikon d5 or Canon 1dx become cheaper. A Nikon D5 is 6499.00 and a D4 was 5499.00, seems to me that Nikon raises prices just like Leica, but wait a M240 was $6595 and a M10 is $6895. It has been long suggested that leica's were only for rich people , but in fact they are no more expensive that Nikon or Canon's top cameras. Yes the japanese cameras offer more features than leica, but in any camera its just, focus, set the shutter speed, aperture and press a button.

What I am comparing is the pricing of all three manufacturers top models, not comparing feature sets. For everyone saying that leica is too expensive, well both Nikon and Canon are right up there in price, and it's been the Japanese makers that have over inflated their prices. Take a look at a Nikon 400 2.8, what used to be a 5000 dollar lens is now a 11,000 dollar lens. So much for technology getting cheaper.

In my experience the nasty people are the pro Leica people.
I mentioned that I do not understand the fascination for Leica cameras and I was called a Leica hater and that I was envious that I could not afford such an expensive status symbol!
It is not a status symbol. It is to inexpensive for that.
It is an underperforming dork symbol.

If I were rich I would have a NICE house NICE car and a NICE camera which is not always the same as expensive, When your main criteria for choosing something is price you are "nouveau riche" ("new money"),

Almost everyone can buy a Leika and yet the ones that actually do are pretentious people who are not buying it for photography but for showing off, These are usually the same people who believe that their snaps are more arty in B&Wq

So, you tell me - what's wrong with us making fun of them?

Haha, nothing ever beats the comments on a Leica thread! Hahaha! NOWHITELENS - Hahaha!

Petak - Certainly there are *some" pretentious people who buy expensive things just to demonstrate their wealth, but don't make the mistake of tarring everyone with the same brush.

As for your comments about a nice, house, car, camera etc - it is money that gives you the *choice* of which nice house, car, camera etc you buy.

I'm far from being rich. I'm not money-orientated or materialistic, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating a quality product, and I'd love to own and use a Leica M10.

NOWHITELENS - Yes, there are people such as you describe, but there are also plenty of "nasty" (i.e. jealous, name-calling) people in the anti-Leica brigade.

I don't understand the fascination for smartphone cameras, but I wouldn't start calling someone names because they bought an expensive smartphone, any more than I'd slag someone off for buying a film camera, a mirrorless, a DSLR, a Sony, a Canon or anything else.

People around here need to learn some manners, and respect the fact that while they may not *understand* someone else's choices, that doesn't make that person an "idiot with too much money" or any of the other childish and derogatory terms often used here. It just means they have different preferences and priorities from you, and often for very good reasons.

to NOWHITELENS,

So Barney is a Dork cause he uses a Leica? and likes it?

@ClassicPhotoLearner:
That far back in time Leica was actually a top of the line camera.
But you have to admit that Barney Rubble was a bit dorky?

Agree, but I believe there is definitely something going wrong (with us, consumers) when one can have similar/equal (or even better) results at a fraction of that price by using some other camera, especially considering the fact that the digital domain (sensors, processors, electronics, etc.) cary very similar specs... In other words, say... a 24 Mpix FF sensor delivers very similar results, regardless of the name of the company producing it.

I disagree somewhat Michel. Should the Lexus RX350 SUV cost the same as a Hyundai Santa Fe? I mean, they both carry the same number of passengers. Top speed about the same. Etc, etc. The experience of driving both will be different.

Well, one is a "luxury" SUV, the other a very "basic" vehicle - driving experience could be different, but they both carry the passengers at destination (from point A to point B, C, or Z... mileage could vary...). Personally, I am mostly interested in getting to destination or... "result" and in this respect (transpose that to camera domain) what counts most is final image/result. From this point of view, many cameras (carrying similar specs) deliver very similar results... that's all. During the film era, Leica (still expensive) pricing was pretty much justified by two important aspects : mechanical reliability&precision and high quality glass - both reflecting in the final result : the image. Digital changed that - sensors, processors & electronics are in charge with final result (image), thus, within same specs, one can get very similar results. Of course, remains the name... I agree. Cheers, MC

if I were rich I would create a sanctuary for wildlife somewhere in Africa or Amazonia. I love my Olympus + Panasonic gear. They are beautifully engineered.

It allows him to feel superior to people who make different choices than he.

moimoi - RANGEFINDER cameras are *designed* to be focused manually. That's *why* people buy them. They *like* manual focus. They *prefer* manual focus. They appreciate the fact that it makes photography a slower, more considered craft. They prefer to *think* before taking a photograph.

If you want everything done automatically, then a Leica is clearly not for you. And that's fine. We each have choices and choose accordingly.

Moimoi - You realise that some people prefer to use a rangefinder to focus with, rather than a focusing screen or EVF, right?

It's just a different experience. Some people ilke it, some people hate it. By the sound of it, you've never even tried it.

Moimoi - I'm not interested in having a silly long drawn out battle on this, and this will be my last post on the subject, so let me just sum up what I think is the sensible way of looking at things:

It's not all about end results, it's also about how much pleasure someone gets from their camera.

Now, I don't know what type of camera you use, but presumably you like using it. I like using full frame DSLRs, but some people prefer e.g. M43 mirrorless. Some people like rangefinder cameras.

It doesn't matter what type of camera someone likes using, as long as they enjoy using it.

As a back in the day GM centric auto mechanic, I can tell you that Cadillacs were more than just a dolled up Chevrolet. From materials to build quality to design, GM's flagship marquee enjoyed a lot of advantages that its bread n butter line did not.

For instance, the high nickel content alloy allowed the 1968 Cadillac 472 to be 150 pounds lighter than the big block Chevrolet engine which started out at 396 and ended up at 454 CID. The Caddy was and is a better engine, too. Cadillac had fully electronic ignition, electronic multiport fuel injection, temperature regulated climate control, ABS, auto dimming headlights, twilight sentinel (headlights stay on for a time after you remove the key and then shut off automatically) dual circuit brakes.. years before other divisions. Often times, a decade prior to when their rivals implemented these features. Cadillac's R and D then trickled down to other divisions over time.

I'd like to hear from the Leica historians in this crowd..

I wouldn't compare Leica to Cadillac in its heyday. Leica makes quality, precision products and just about every Cadillac from 1971 until the Northstar era was of dubious build quality, with a number of engineering innovations that just didn't work. That early fuel injection didn't work very well, the V8-6-4 didn't work at all, the HT4100 was nightmare, and the downsized transverse engine front drive models from 1985 onward were disastrous in terms of sales. The Northstar V8 wasn't all that bad mechanically, although the noisy timing chain meant that it couldn't compete in terms of refinement in the Lexus era, and the cars themselves remained lousy. Even today, Cadillacs much improved sedans are sales duds. In short, Cadillac burnt entire generations of buyers and was damaged as a brand (outside of China). I can't accuse Leica of that. At worst, Leica products are old fashioned and overpriced, but never poorly made or unreliable.

It has nothing to do with that. Cost does not equal "it must be better".

The simple fact is that a small number of people like to own a manual, rangefinder camera. If you want to buy a new one, Leica is the only game in town. Pay the price or don't. It is a free market.

Comparing a Leica to any other camera is irrelevent. There is nothing on the market to compete with a Leica. This means nothing to 99.9% of photographers. Leica are only targeting the 0.1% who actively want a new rangefinder.

It is not so hard to understand, is it?

Mako, sorry, you fell into the trap that most of the techno-dweeb "photographers" here on Dpreview fall into: statistics, numbers of features, and winning (highest ISO, largest megapixel count, fastest shooting rate, etc.) are the most important features of photography. Leica is not for this crowd. There are plenty of options for the haters, often at lower cost. Time to move on.

They're actively targeting the .1 percent who can afford this level of luxury for a camera with no movie button. They are really well made, though.

@Mr Bolton:

There are people who never do any video (because they are photographers). Those do not need a movie button.

Leica: Das Wesentliche. :-)

makeo69
Have you or any other attackers here actually have actually flown first class or business class? Why don't you tell everybody who fly first or business they are fools and status obsessed when you walk down the aisle?

To this day I still cannot fathom why people ever travel Business class or First Class on airplanes. You arrive at exactly the same time, and if there is an accident, you also crash and burn at the same probability.

I never fly business/first class. I put my savings to buy Leicas and enjoy them.

ClassicPhotoLearner - Try flying long-haul 15 hour flights and you'll soon discover why people fly business class. Among many other things you get double the leg room, you can sleep lying down, you get far superior service, better food, you don't have to stand in a queue waiting to get to a toilet when you need a pee, you have fast access to boarding and disembarking, and much more.

I'm not rich so I normally travel in the often very uncomfortable economy class and have to suffer screaming babies, crap food, lousy service and long queues, but I've been lucky enough to be "treated" to business class by richer friends once or twice, so I can certainly appreciate the difference. If I could afford it, I'd fly business class every time.

We all have different priorities - e.g. I don't own a car or even a TV, let alone the luxuries that many have, but luckily I've paid off my mortgage, so I'm able to save enough to take frequent holidays and buy a nice Canon outfit, and that suits me fine.

Congratulations for completely missing the point, your parents must be proud.

The funny thing is that a) it doesn't occur to you that I may be aware of the D850, and b) you seem to have no idea why the D5 and the 1D may have a higher price point.

But then there's nothing quite like sitting at home masturbating over resolution.

I am still trying to comprehend how someone can mention a Leica rangefinder and a Nikon D5 in the same sentence and seriously think the same person would consider both.

You may as well compare a blender to a microwave oven. They both produce food, but there the similarity ends.

I'm seriously trying to work out how any half way capable photographer can be so completely unaware that different tool have different strengths - particularly after I made that clear in my post.

Next moron.

Let me slow this right down for the cognitively impaired.

The common refrain is that Leica is outrageously overpriced (by comparison to other cameras); that is demonstrably untrue.

In terms of having a red dot on it? Demonstrably untrue. In terms of resolution, base ISO performance, feature set, usability, image quality.. I think those are pretty debatable. I don't think that an APS-C Leica can do anything an XT2 can't, and that includes the XT leaving me enough money left to fly to Africa for a photo safari.. except the XT can do 4k video..

This has just gone from a point about cost comprison to a post about psychology.

Don't worry, if you guys miss the obvious when it comes to my OP, you won't have a hope when it comes to biases and heuristics.

You can also readily adapt Leica M lenses to the Fuji X mount..

Apple iPhone X 64 GB $1099.99
Samsung Galaxy S9 64 GB $719.99

You were saying...?

good reply

@Arastoo Vaziri - I saw a show in Vancouver of Fred Herzog's Kodachrome Vancouver street work done with his Leicas. Some pretty large prints out to around 48". Superb photography and excellent quality prints. He often uses Fuji digital gear now as well....but to quote him...nothing beats the experience of using a Leica.

@mako69 - No. The average tax cut for a family making between $30,000-$40,000 this year is about $360, or about 1% of their income. The average tax cut for a household making more than $1 million a year is about $70,000, or a little more than 3% of their income. This topic has been exhaustively examined.

"Both in the short- and long-term, wealthier taxpayers receive a much greater tax benefit than anyone else. This year, the largest cuts as a share of income go to those in the top 5 percent of the income distribution. After this year, the tax cuts for most income groups shrink. By 2027, 83 percent of the law’s benefit would go to the top 1 percent of earners, and the wealthiest 0.1 percent would get a nearly $150,000 tax break, on average."

https://taxplananswers.com/whos-getting-tax-cuts/

The people needing a tax cut the least (ie, the wealthy) are getting the biggest cut. The people who need it the most are getting the least tax cut. Money buys power, and power gets you tax cuts.