The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Official USA Pricing for Leica S2

stephengilbert

Active member
Jorgen,

So if you buy the least expensive version of the listed items you can be far away from $100,000. What a bargain.

However, if you buy the deluxe version of the cameras, and the center shutter versions of the lenses, you'll exceed $90,000 for two cameras and one of each of the listed lenses. And that's with the cheaper of the two service plans. No doubt future lenses will be quite competitively priced as well. I doubt a zoom will be much over $10,000.

I know that the dollar is weak, but that shouldn't be a problem. Leica doesn't need to sell in the U.S. They can sell their 1000 cameras elsewhere.

SG
 

fotografz

Well-known member
How many adaptors have been on the market for CanonikonMino... lenses to a Leica R ? None of I know of !
Why ? Because the primary interest in Leica are the lenses, not the bodies (exept the M). So an adaptor for Hassy lenses to Leica S body for example has no real interest.
The buyers of the S system, if any, want before the S lenses before anything else .
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Anyone that can afford the S2 probably could afford this "power-pack":

http://www.dentonimages.com/lensove...8_FE_Tele-Superachromat_with_APO-Mutar_1.7x_E

That, and the Zeiss 250 SA would be nice if they could be adapted to the S2 ... like they can on a Mamiya 645, Contax 645, or used straight on a Hasselbald 203FE with a CFV-II/39 meg back that costs a paltry $13,000. ;)
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Leica have patented their lens mount design in the past and refused to license third party lens designers. Given the investment involved I very much doubt if this will change now with the S2. Heaven forbid, a Zeiss lens on a Leica!?
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Leica, on the other hand, still produces a camera system where you can use most of the lenses that they made in pre-historic times (before I was born anyway)
Jorgen, A year ago I might have said the same thing...but the long standing R system with all those beautiful R lenses have been given the chop by the Leica management.

This is a process that started way back at the beginning of last year or before in my view when brand new R lenses were offered for sale at 50% or more discount by Leica dealers. This was a stock clear out long before the end of the R line announcement and before the current recession was even on us.

The writing was on the wall then, but like you I had my head firmly in the sand and believed that Leica would support the R through thick and thin as they always had with the M system.

Remember when Leica had said that a digital rangefinder was impossible?

It took an office equipment designer to design one that looked very much like a Leica...the excellent little Epson RD1 manufactured by Cosina. It suffered a few QA issues but it worked well enough and was the bees knees in the RF world until the M8 was born. It even took Leica M mount lenses!

Sorry Jorgen, but I no longer believe anything that Leica tell us.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Leica have patented their lens mount design in the past and refused to license third party lens designers. Given the investment involved I very much doubt if this will change now with the S2. Heaven forbid, a Zeiss lens on a Leica!?
Used to use my V lenses on the DMR all the time. I now use the same set of V lenses on the D3X and Sony A900 ... and used them on my Contax 645 and Mamiya 645 when shooting those cameras.

The 110/2FE is in a league of it's own when it comes to portraits ... (think M75/LUX). That would be the first lens to adapt to the S2 IMO.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Used to use my V lenses on the DMR all the time. I now use the same set of V lenses on the D3X and Sony A900 ... and used them on my Contax 645 and Mamiya 645 when shooting those cameras.

The 110/2FE is in a league of it's own when it comes to portraits ... (think M75/LUX). That would be the first lens to adapt to the S2 IMO.
No, you probably used a third party lens obviously with an adaptor on a R8 or R9 SLR fitted with a DMR back. There are no third party lens designs sold by the original manufacturer with Leica R mounts as far as I am aware other than the odd manufacturer who were able to agree with Leica to fill gaps in their R range during the period that it was built up.

I can only begin to imagine the quality of your V portrait lens on the R8/9/DMR and yes I am sure that there will soon be little workshops springing up and eager to produce conversion kits for all sorts of lenses on the S2. If you don't mind stop down metering and MF it will be a much cheaper option than the S2 lenses that's for sure and who knows, the quality could be as good or even better.

There is even a manufacturer in Kiev producing a tilt and shift adaptor for Zeiss lenses to fit various cameras including the Sony A900. How long before he can make one to fit the S2 I wonder?
 

John Black

Active member
Whether or not Leica licenses the S mount to other companies is moot. Lets say it costs company A $100,000 to integrate an S-mount into their line-up, produce it, distribute it, etc. If 10% of the S users buy that lens the cost of the adaptation per lens (without any margin) is $100,000 / (1000 x 10%) = $1,000 --- plus the lens itself. Those new Zeiss "Classic" lens for the Hass are insanely expensive, so now add another $1k on top of that for the S mount. Yikes! I don't think the economics are there for a 3rd party company to produce S mount lenses.

On the other hand Leica would be very wise to sell adapters. Hass V on a S2 seems like a very natural fit. Many people do that already with their medium format Mamiya & Contax systems. If Leica is targeting professionals, then they need to provide a transition strategy. For somebody who already has Hass V lenses, they can start with a basic S2 kit and add S lenses over time. It's still quite expensive, but not as daunting as spending $50k from the outset for a S2 and lenses. Fotodiox or similar companies could probably do a cheap adapter for $120'ish per pop. But even the adapter makers would probably pass on the S mount adapter simply because the market is so small.

Such an adapter made by Leica would be a nice little profit maker for them. And it gives Leica a marketing story for how to transition V owners into the S family. Stop down metering isn't pretty, but many of us have dealt with it for years.
 

LJL

New member
If a much larger user base begging and pleading for Leica to just put a simple lens table in the firmware of the M8 so lenses other than Leica coded ones could be used on the camera, and Leica refused....even as an option, do you really think they will start up a new manufacturing line to create adapters for third party lenses on their new S2 when they are trying to sell more lenses? That is almost more wishful thinking than Leica offering to sell the S2 body at a cost closer to cost, or with a smaller margin just to penetrate the market. I do not see Leica building an adapter for anybody else's lenses onto their cameras.

LJ
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sorry Jorgen, but I no longer believe anything that Leica tell us.
Tragic isn't it - everything Nikon and Canon and others tells us becomes true, whereas Leica change their mind in the face of world recession . . . . .

But . .. Hang on a minute. . .

Canon and Nikon and others tell us NOTHING - EVER about their intentions.

As for Lieca they clearly intended to produce an R10 with the spin off technology from the S2 - it was events which screwed it . . . not Leica. Added to which, they then admitted that they weren't going ahead with it. In neither case would other manufacturers give any information.

Of course, you could criticise Leica for trying to keep their customers informed to the best of their ability . . . .
 

jonoslack

Active member
If a much larger user base begging and pleading for Leica to just put a simple lens table in the firmware of the M8 so lenses other than Leica coded ones could be used on the camera, and Leica refused
Actually LJ - as I remember it, they were on the brink of agreeing to do it, (together with other options requested by Sean Reid and others) when some unsightly punch ups about what was wanted on the LFI forum stopped it dead. I could name names . . .but it would be undignified and unnecessary.

It's important to remember events as they were.

. . . . it sounds like I'm coming across as an apologist for Leica, but when people are misrepresenting information (and there is lots of that on this thread), then it's only fair to put it right.
 
It's important to remember events as they were.

. . . . it sounds like I'm coming across as an apologist for Leica, but when people are misrepresenting information (and there is lots of that on this thread), then it's only fair to put it right.
That's exactly what it sounds like, Jono.

To my knowledge Canon and Nikon haven't abandoned their entire 35mm SLR user base after saying over and over that a new model was in the works (let alone pulling the plug on their entire 35mm slr lens line). N & C are no less immune to the world economy than Leica.

And given the r&d Leica should have been (and probably was) investing in their "first" digital 35mm SLR (the DMR was a stopgap solution to buy time) it certainly would not have required selling an R10 for upwards of 9K. If they weren't investing time and $$ into an R10 than shame on them for misleading their user base all along.

This isn't (as many keep harping about) entirely about price. It's about trust, about past history with poor support for the DMR and M8, repair cockups that are too numerous to list, misleading information and then shutting down an SLR line that, five years after development still provides IQ with the best of the competition, albeit at smaller file sizes.

And for what? To more firmly entrench itself in the Hermes alligator clad super exclusive market (will there be a special "white" fur seal edition S2 for those who want to set themselves apart from other S2 owners) well- heeled few who want to show off their latest Leica jewelry?

What a pathetic joke this once "state of the art" company has degenerated into!
 

jonoslack

Active member
That's exactly what it sounds like, Jono.
Well, I said it first :ROTFL:
To my knowledge Canon and Nikon haven't abandoned their entire 35mm SLR user base after saying over and over that a new model was in the works (let alone pulling the plug on their entire 35mm slr lens line). N & C are no less immune to the world economy than Leica.
To my knowlede Canon and Nikon never say ANYTHING about their plans, so that whatever they do is, at least, not broken promise (as they've made no promises).
And given the r&d Leica should have been (and probably was) investing in their "first" digital 35mm SLR (the DMR was a stopgap solution to buy time) it certainly would not have required selling an R10 for upwards of 9K. If they weren't investing time and $$ into an R10 than shame on them for misleading their user base all along.
I'm quite sure that they were investing in it - the problem was that it WAS going to cost upward of 9K, and they had no possible way of competing with the new full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon in anything except image quality . . . and, unfortunately, as we all know, that doesn't sell cameras
(high ISO does - more MP does - more AF points does . . .but IQ doesn't).

This isn't (as many keep harping about) entirely about price. It's about trust, about past history with poor support for the DMR and M8, repair cockups that are too numerous to list, misleading information and then shutting down an SLR line that, five years after development still provides IQ with the best of the competition, albeit at smaller file sizes.
Well I can't (haven't) argued about poor support - it clearly happens (although not all the time - I've had good experiences). . . . . and bad experiences with others

As far as trust goes - if you say nothing (as others) then there's no broken trust (no communication either).
And for what? To more firmly entrench itself in the Hermes alligator clad super exclusive market (will there be a special "white" fur seal edition S2 for those who want to set themselves apart from other S2 owners) well- heeled few who want to show off their latest Leica jewelry?
Oh Bollocks - Leica have ALWAYS done this - pandering to collectors - who cares, it earns them money? what's your problem? I can't imagine anything I want less than a white leica, but people like those things.
What a pathetic joke this once "state of the art" company has degenerated into!
Always state of the art? M5? state of the art? come on. the M8 has been a (qualified) success, the S2 is, at least, brave. there's talk of a FF M9 - there's a whole range of excellent (if expensive) new lenses- they seem to me to be more dynamic and state of the art than they've been for at least a decade.
 

LJL

New member
It's important to remember events as they were.

. . . . it sounds like I'm coming across as an apologist for Leica, but when people are misrepresenting information (and there is lots of that on this thread), then it's only fair to put it right.
Jono,
Fact is Leica DID NOT put a table in the firmware. Period. They had resisted the entire concept with lots of reasons about how they could not possibly cover all the options, what they might be held responsible for in vignette corrections, etc. I was there too, complete with all the heated discussions and pleas.

Look, I know you and I have disagreements over some strategic things, but the way you look to be calling me out on this is out of bounds, I think. Bottom line, I have not misrepresented information here, as you intimate.

So in this case, you are coming across as a Leica apologist, and not setting any real records straight on this issue. Leica did not put a table in the firmware of the M8 to accommodate any lenses other than Leica coded lenses, which by the way are Leica lenses only, as all of the other coding, while it works and many of us use it, is not supported by Leica. Heck, they do not even support ALL of their M lenses with coding. Though the number is few that do not support, it is still there.

Maybe apologies to forum members rather than for Leica would seem more appropriate at times like these, eh?

LJ
 

sinwen

Member
Sorry Sinwen, but that's actually a misconception. You are partly right in that people tend to prefer Leica lenses, but the reason you don't see any other SLR lenses being used on Leica R is because Leica R has the longest flange to focal distance of common 35mm SLR's. It is possible to put a Leica R lens on almost any other mount with an adapter, but to put any other maker on Leica R would require a glass element in order to achieve infinity focus.
That is one point I missed, you are very right.
 

carstenw

Active member
Look, I know you and I have disagreements over some strategic things, but the way you look to be calling me out on this is out of bounds, I think. Bottom line, I have not misrepresented information here, as you intimate.
I don't think that his comment was aimed at you, but at some previous entries, but I am sure he will jump in and clarify. In general though he is right: there have been posts by a number of people who on one hand dole out inaccurate "facts" and on the other hand attack anyone trying to straighten it out by calling them "Leica apologists" and worse. This is really common all over the place, and for some unknown reason seems to happen a lot with Leica, a lot more than with other brands. I really don't understand it. If people could just stick to facts and stop twisting everything, we would probably all agree.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,
Fact is Leica DID NOT put a table in the firmware. Period. They had resisted the entire concept with lots of reasons about how they could not possibly cover all the options, what they might be held responsible for in vignette corrections, etc. I was there too, complete with all the heated discussions and pleas.

Look, I know you and I have disagreements over some strategic things, but the way you look to be calling me out on this is out of bounds, I think. Bottom line, I have not misrepresented information here, as you intimate.

So in this case, you are coming across as a Leica apologist, and not setting any real records straight on this issue. Leica did not put a table in the firmware of the M8 to accommodate any lenses other than Leica coded lenses, which by the way are Leica lenses only, as all of the other coding, while it works and many of us use it, is not supported by Leica. Heck, they do not even support ALL of their M lenses with coding. Though the number is few that do not support, it is still there.

Maybe apologies to forum members rather than for Leica would seem more appropriate at times like these, eh?

LJ
I need to be careful here - but the first thing I should say is that I wasn't implying that you had misrepresented anything - seriously - there has been a lot of misrepresentation in this thread (surely you don't expect me to call names) but I'm not aware that you have been guilty of this.
Of course, our disagreements strategically are just that (and I thought we had had a rational and civilised private conversation about it).

As I understood the situation with respect to the lens table, there was a 'representation' to Leica, which I fully subscribed to, with respect to the lens table, and other issues, which really seemed that it was going to happen. Then there was an intervention by someone else (who doesn't post here), which muddied the water to the extent that Leica simply walked away (Just as I would have done in the same circumstances). it caused a lot of anguish, and a number of valuable contributors left.

So - as a final point - do you really feel that I need to be apologising to forum members here - because if you do feel that way, I will, of course, apologise, and withdraw. i don't need to be spending time where it isn't valued. If you don't feel I should apologise . . . perhaps someone else should?
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
I don't think that his comment was aimed at you, but at some previous entries, but I am sure he will jump in and clarify. In general though he is right: there have been posts by a number of people who on one hand dole out inaccurate "facts" and on the other hand attack anyone trying to straighten it out by calling them "Leica apologists" and worse. This is really common all over the place, and for some unknown reason seems to happen a lot with Leica, a lot more than with other brands. I really don't understand it. If people could just stick to facts and stop twisting everything, we would probably all agree.
Thanks Carsten
As you say - nothing was aimed at LJL, who I simply disagree with (I even disagree with my wife sometimes, and nearly always with my sons!).

I'm not aware that he is ever guilty of inaccurate 'facts'. But I'm pretty grumpy about the idea that I should be apologising.

I guess my fate is in his hands :eek:
 

Christopher

Active member
This will happen as soon as Leica gives us some proof that this camera can deliver what it promises, or when the first real IQ issues surface. (m8) We soon will know where the road leeds.
 

LJL

New member
O.K., time to get things back to some sort of normalcy......maybe, I hope.

First, my apologies to any members or readers that may have gotten into this fracas now scratching their heads and wondering WTF!! I sincerely hope and doubt that any of my comments or statements have been promoting anything but facts, but have carefully been stipulating conjecture or speculation. Yes, some of my comments have had a bit of a sting toward Leica, and personally, I am not ashamed of that. They have said and promised a lot of things and screwed up the delivery more than once on those issues. I doubt anybody here in unaware of that sort of thing.

Second, to Jono, I did take your comment as feeling directed toward me since you were responding to something I had put out there about Leica most likely not ever going to make lens adapters for somebody else's glass. I used the example of the M8 and how so many folks were so frustrated for so long when they 1) could not get their existing lenses coded in any reasonable timeframe, 2) could not get new Leica lenses delivered in any quantities or reasonable time (let's leave prices aside), or 3) really wanted to use some other lenses the had very nice drawing, but had some issues with vignetting, both before and after using IR/UV filters (more on that in a bit), and for which Leica had built in algorithms into the firmware to adjust for this with their coded lenses. So, folks were asking Leica for some relief, and at one point were even asking if Leica could make this an "upgrade option"....meaning they were even willing to pay for that sort of help. Leica looked for any way to shut that down, while still appearing to "appease" the masses who were really growing restless. One more straw to the request was all that was needed to let Leica walk away from something they were being "pressured" into, and for which I firmly believe they were not at all interested in ever doing.

(Sidebar: Leica even went so far as to make sure the UV/IR cut filters that were now required to correct the too weak IR cover glass on the sensor, which they tried to pass off as a design feature with too close tolerances to be done any other way, were of a slightly different strength and wavelength than the more available B+W filters, and pretty much the only other source for folks to be able to shoot color images with more or less correct IR filtering. The Leica filters were nearly impossible to get, even though they were passing out 2 free ones to everybody who bought an M8. They also cost more than the B+W filters, which were available and Leica would not recommend them, though they did not directly tell folks not to use them. Here we had a $5k camera that besides all the other issues, could not be used at the wider angles without the filters, and there were few filters available. So folks asked for at least the ability to get the vignetting corrected with non-Leica codes lenses, for which they had some filters from B+W, so that they could at least only have to correct for slight color shifts, rather than color and vignetting shifts. Leica did not help with that situation.)

Still reading.....thank you. Thirdly, Jono is correct, there have been a fair number of misstatements and flat out incorrect information passed along in this thread and others, that has not been called out every time, and gets perpetuated wrongly....on both sides of the debate. That is going to happen everywhere, but this forum has been pretty good about providing, or trying to provide accurate information. Sometimes emotions help twist and bend facts a bit, but sometimes stuff is just flat out incorrect, and it does nobody good to try to make decisions and choices or judgments from incorrect information. Jono, I just wish you had made your comment as a separate entry, and not tied it to my comments. I got washed with your brush, and I do not feel it was justified, hence my response.

Sorry for the long entry, but I felt like I got stung for no reason, responded, and set off a bit of a dust-up. I hope I have gotten a few of those issues straightened out correctly. I am sure somebody will add a correction if they need to.

I have been very honest and open about what I think Leica is doing with this S2. I love the concept. I want something like it. I think they have priced it at a premium that seems excessive, exchange rates aside. They have made some promises and proclamations over it that have yet to be seen or proven. It may deliver nicely, but we do not yet know that, and Leica does not have a very good record on that front with other releases and promises. They try to make good on things, and I think that is partly what keeps folks believing what they say, but frankly, there is a lot more marketing at this point than anything else. I am not suggesting anybody buy or not buy. Those are your personal convictions and intentions, governed by needs, budget, shooting style, etc. Just worth being aware of what you may be getting into, so you may not be too surprised later....either way.

Finally, the point that touched all this off was wondering if Leica would be making adapters to accommodate lenses made by somebody else. My opinion....not on your life. Somebody may try to get into that business, but I would bet Leica may aggressively pursue their patents and stuff. Further, I will go out on a limb right now by asking aloud, since there is nothing other than sales chatter, how much of the correction for the lenses is being done in Maestro? While Leica can make outstanding glass, there is no way any of us can know or test one of these new lenses against something else....Leica S2 glass will only work on the S2, nothing else, and nothing else will be able to work on the S2. So how are we to know just how much correction may be cranked into the file in-camera? For some folks that may not matter, but we still have the raging debates of DAC, Phocus, etc......at least there you get the option of turning it on or off. With the S2, since there is no proprietary software where one may have that option, you get whatever Leica pumps out to the DNG file....meaning we have no way to know what those really expensive lenses are or are not delivering without the in-camera processing. Can somebody answer that question without just sales speak?

LJ
 
Top