OK, I have been exonerated by both AgX and 250swb: their figures corroborate mine to a large extent. Looks like I might have been more correct than wrong. But...then benjiboy had to muddy the waters by his all too rational approach with (paraphrased) 'Leica not being able to stay in business selling only six per week' stuff.
Problem is, he makes sense: How DOES Leica stay in business selling so few bodies? - David Lyga
David, have a look at their sales program.
I have no idea what you are talking about, AgX. Is this published data? - David Lyga
150 million net sales for the camera division. I heard the number in some tube video about leica S research and development.
If we assume that an average "item" is 5 grand, be it a lens or a body, then
150 000 000/5000/365=80 units per day
If an average item is 10 grand, 40 units a day.
David with "sales program" I just meant this
Their range of cameras. Including those digital ones! They also make "sports"-optics.
As I said above they are building two new, larger plants to move to.
I got the number of 1/4 billion revenue in 2011.
Last edited by AgX; 04-14-2013 at 02:08 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
OK, AgX, et al. It all adds up, I guess.
But I am still trying to understand how sex appeal can warrant USD 10,000 for a camera and lens. It's well made but it still can hit the pavement. And, I also wonder, is the Leica Passport passé? - David Lyga
David if only people who actuall needed top of the range $10,000 professional cameras in general not just Leica bought then the volume of sales would be so small it wouldn't be worth the while of the manufacturers to produce them, and like many expensive articles they are aspirational, become fashion accessories and status symbols for people with the disposeable income to indulge their tastes.
Last edited by benjiboy; 04-14-2013 at 03:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Everybody buys things they don't need, but when Leica is mentioned it's conflated with snobbery or status. Thats nature of life, people, and a lack of insight. For instance why don't they buy some cheaper shoes, buy a cheaper car, eat a burger not a lobster, downsize their house? They don't because it never occurs to them, criticism starts at somebody elses front door.
I, and many other people are happy and proud and boasting that they bought a car that isn't the base model. But the padded luxury and go faster stripes are devaluing as you drive away from the lot. I have Leica lenses that are worth more than I paid for them. My Leica MP, which I bought in 2003 has been productive and well used for ten years, but if I sold it now I'd get more than I paid for it. Compare that with the other photographic equipment we all buy and take a massive hit on. Of course the type of photography makes a difference between buying a quick to devalue DSLR or a Leica MP. You aren't going to be doing bird photography with an MP. But to say Leica equipment is expensive is kind of missing the point by a country mile. It holds its value better than nearly all other photographic equipment, in some cases it goes up in value, and in the long term you know that what you bought five, ten, twenty, thirty, or more years ago can still be used now (and into the future) alongside current products. A 1950's 50mm Elmar can still be used on a modern MP or M9 without adapters. How does that fit with Nikon or Canon and the amount they make you pay in new equipment to remain 'upgraded'. But I can appreciate the alternative point of view from people who see photography as a short term dalliance, it doesn't pay to spend too much.
The op was about the MP volume not Leica total volume.
Leica acknowledged that the MP was a model that they did to keep (sic diehard) people happy, they based it on extant production items the M7 (e.g. the MP uses the M7 chassis, and did it to high standards of finish and top plate text... They did not expect it to sell in any real volume so priced it as a lower volume flagship.
They were surprised when it then outsold the M7 at least initially, but the customer is always right so they have kept on making them, and the custom accessories like the faster rewinder...
Which last is also a useful option if you have a M2 or M3... If you have a M6 already Id stick with it, rather then upgrade, they both have the same sensor pixel count and ISO after all
OK, the reason I stated 'MP' was for exactly that reason, Xmas: the ultimate camera for purists (like me), but with considerably more disposable income than, again, me.
I will admit that there is something magical about the mechanics which derive power from, essentially, nineteenth century technology, a clock spring, and freedom from battery power (except meter) is comforting to some. But, to 250swb and others: there really are very affluent people who would more than hesitate before buying an MP because, truly, no better pictures are delivered there as opposed to, let's face it squarely, from a K1000 or SRT. Such people seek value in life and, to be truthful, that is how I was brought up, judging value before sexiness.
In other words, not all people with money use that money for the misguided purpose of enhancing an ephemeral social status. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 04-15-2013 at 09:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.