Leica S2 delayed and possible price?

[carstenw]

About the price ratio of low-end vs. high-end, if you compare a Canon EOS 50D versus the 5D2 and 1Ds3, you will see that for 33% extra MP, the price more than doubles. For the 1Ds3, you only get an improved body, yet pay 3x as much or more. For Nikon the story is the same. For Sony, it is the same. For Phase One, it is the same: a P65+ has a 2.7x the MP of a P25+, yet costs 5x as much. It is the same for every brand. Comparing across unlike product ranges has no meaning. Should a Canon 50D cost the same as a Canon G10? That isn't the way things work, and it isn't the way they will be priced. It would be nice for us, but would probably put the relevant companies out of business.

The S2 will be worth and cost much more than 1.5x a D3x. The lenses will be so much better than average Nikon lenses (or Canon). If the price is really only €15.000, that is only 2x as much as a Nikon D3x. I consider that quite amazing for a sensor delivering 1.5x as much resolution, but in a body with a much larger sensor.

---

Forrest, I am not rich. Photography is my primary hobby and my passion, and if I really want something photographic, I can save for it and get it, provided it is not a new P65+ or anything like that. I am a programmer. If I get the S2, I will have to sell all my Contax 645 stuff, one of my Hasselblad V cameras, and perhaps a Leica M lens or two, and even then, I will have some money to save up. I don't own a car, because it isn't necessary in Berlin. I don't own an apartment, because I have moved around a fair amount. I have some disposable income, because I live a modest life in most ways, except for photography. I will not be first in line, but if the camera is really great, I might save up for one.

In answer to the "red dot" argument: it isn't, and never was about the red dot. It was about the excellence of the lenses and the cameras. The price is high, but for some, what they got was worth more than the money they had to pay. It is like that for me. I found the Canon 5D horribly disappointing, but the M8 I loved from the beginning. The teething problems was something I had to put up with to own this camera. I could have bought any other 35mm camera I wanted for similar money, but there wasn't a single one I liked as much, so the choice was obvious for me.

 

[LJL]

Carsten,
Couple of things tossed into the equations that may or may not matter. In the case of your Canon line examples, there is a lot more going on from line to line. The 5DMkII is not build the same as the 1DsMkIII, and it is NOT just the weather sealing. It is the different and dual processors, the better shutter, the buffer and throughput and a host of other little things. Do they add up to all that is being asked for in price? Many will argue they do not, yet are willing to pay for them as they think it delivers what is needed.

In the case of the S2, it will be offering much of the features in the top end DSLRs, so more of the argument is over the sensor. The lenses are a completely separate issue, for the most part, and premiums associated with high end Leica glass may remain. So if Leica hits the market with a body that is priced way out line, it will not be well received by the folks Leica claims to be targeting. Because the other MF lines are back, body and lens, the pricing of the S2 should be close to back+body, even though the technology is integrated differently, but more like what is done on 35mm DSLR platform.

Basically, I just do not see any other line or models that fit what Leica is attempting to do. There is only one body right now. If one looked at the Canon 1-series, for example, there is a significant price differential between the 1DMkIII and the 1DsMkIII, which is offering just over double the pixels.....for nearly double the price....essentially the same body, but different sensors and very minor other things. Nikon is much the same, sort of, since they cannibalized their own D3 with the D700, but the D3 and D3x share about the same price differential for just doubling the pixel count. So Leica goes for 50% more pixels (more or less) at 56% greater sensor size, but most other feature things being equal to the top end DSLRs. So why should the price point NOT be about 50-60% higher, rather than 100-200% higher? Just how I am looking at all of this right now.

LJ

P.S. And the talk about the R10.....come on folks, the darn S2 is not even out and people are already trying to "price" a camera that has never been officially announced, that has no specs, and is rumored to be quite different from the older R-line. Talk about fantasy wishing and speculation.

 

[fotografz]

Carsten here is something when I was at PMA that i did and have not mentioned and from a point of view that I admit maybe somewhat suspect when buying but it is a interesting comparison. Say the S2 is 16 k and i just walked out of the Leica booth went over to the Nikon booth picked up the D3X and felt pretty close to the same as the S2 than asked the guy the price, reply 8 k. So immediately in my head i go Hmmm 2 for the price of one. Than i walk over to the Sony booth grab the A900 and it feels the same as the S2, D3x and ask the guy how much , reply 3k. Hmmm 5 for 1 and pocket change. Now forget everything else with sensor size and all that for a second. Do you think that Joe Smith doing the same thing that is NOT overly concerned about pushing the envelope but can get a 24 mpx high end DSLR for 3k is going to say for 15k I can buy one body and 6 lenses or so.

Do people think the same thing and it is happening right now the difference in price between the Sony at 3k and a D3X same MPX and same sensor , they can get 2 Sony's and a 24-70 lens for the cost of ONE Nikon D3x. I know comparing apples to oranges and folks that don't exactly think like you or I and most of this forum BUT this does make you bang your head against the wall.:banghead:

Well Guy, I'm not necessarily a Joe Smith .... and I did exactly that kind of math that lead me to the A900 over the D3X. Here you have 8K verses 3K (actually, I paid $2,700.) and gained the 3 Zeiss lenses and a Sony 50/1.4 with change left over. You just get real in your assements of need and expense in times like this ... and all the speculatively and lofty aspects of "this is marginally or perceptually better than that" fall by the wayside. "It's get real time in the old town tonight."

Speculation about when and how much can go back and forth until "the fat Leica sings" ... then we'll know.

Based on my last 20 years of history with Leica it'll be ... 1) Late ... and 2) a lot.

If it's really cool, I'll wait for the S2-MKII to slash the S2 price in half ... and then enjoy one at the price it should have been.

In the meantime, I hope Leica is successful because what I'm stashing the cash for is a M9 FF .... where Leica is king and I have a ton of money in glass just waiting. So I want them to be profitable with the S2 so they can make my camera ...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I know my point about the D3X and Sony A900 is hitting home with a lot of folks and even myself looking at that purchase. It's like a weight and balance issue and you don't slide over to the heavy side without a really good darn reason. And your not Joe Smith which makes it even more relevant , the pro's are doing the same weight and balancing.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LJ

P.S. And the talk about the R10.....come on folks, the darn S2 is not even out and people are already trying to "price" a camera that has never been officially announced, that has no specs, and is rumored to be quite different from the older R-line. Talk about fantasy wishing and speculation.

You talking Leica my friend.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

I love them but just the word Leica brings out a ton of passion, I totally understand it , been there and have gold scratch that platinum T -shirts:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[LJL]

Guy,
Passion and all is fine, but some of these threads have gone from possibly real to purely imagined, based on what is actually known. The stuff about the R10 put me completely over the edge. Here we are still trying to get anything nailed down about the S2 that is credible and figure how that fits into things, and folks are spewing fantasy dreams over an R10 as part of the equation when in actual terms it does not yet exist beyond an off-hand comment or two.....no specs, no real projected delivery date, no information on lenses beyond Leica using some tech learned from the S2. In other words, nada, zip, zilch as far as a real camera goes at this point. Just cracks me up too.

LJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Heck they have been talking the R10 since they discontinued the DMR and that was a year ago or longer. Go figure that one out. Beyond fantasy. We need to enlist a shrink on the forums, he make a ton of money. LOL

Only kidding folks

 

[cmb_]

Another thing to consider in these times, aside from the financial situation which makes budgets for spending on equipment tighter, is that the quality has improved greatly in the last few years. Today, the A900 with a few Zeiss lenses is quite satisfactory compared to trying to bolt on alternative lenses.to the Canon 5D of a couple of years ago. So what you are getting for the money for a Sony or Nikon today is more promising.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well said . Scary thing is not many D3x are selling but the 5d2 is selling like hots cakes. Big price difference

 

[cmb_]

From my perspective, the longer the wait for the R10 the better because I might even have money to buy one in 2010! Until then, I am happy shooting the DMR and M8. Heck, all I really NEED is another firmware update (or two) for the DMR with a few improvements and that would suffice!

 

[iiiNelson]

I'm glad more people are looking at topics like this more realistically. It's a point I brought up to no avail when the S2 was introduced albeit with some different arguing points. I think most people when they buy higher end products expect to invest into products 2 or 3 generations ahead of the regular consumer models. Leica has a habit of just meeting the competition on most of their products but most people buy into Leica for the glass and slight "quirkiness" of the company. By all accounts the M8 body doesn't give that much more IQ over the 5D which could be had with the 24-105 lens last summer for $2200 after rebate. Canon smartly developed the 5DmkII to be near the same price point smartly because the bottom end of cameras is slowly catching up to the mid level which has slowly caught up to the higher end. I think Leica in a lot of ways is crazy for pricing the M8.2 so high above the standard M8 for essentially the same thing with fixes to design flaws. They need to price the S2 right for them to survive and it's still my opinion that a $6000 R10 body with 75% of the S2 design would do more to save the company seeing how there's already a market for the R system.

I think everyone has great arguments for and against but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a sub $1500 FF dSLR kit within 2 years provided the economy recovers and everyone will need to prepare for that. I think that's why we're seeing so many more video options in the higher end stuff now.

 

[paulmoore]

the p65+ back may be holding a high price due to the unique postition is holds..for now..the pressure on leica to come in "at-market" I hope will be factored into its pricing.. hmm, 15k a pop.. maybe 500 sell..thats 7.5m..10k each, at least 3500units sell..thats 35 million..that should give leica pause to consider...I hope.
but what do I know, I can't even sell a stock photo for more than a hundred bucks these days. we who shoot for pay are being squeezed from both ends!
only if I could be satisfied with my new plastic e510 oly..not!

 

[robsteve]

The difference between any possible R10 when/if it's released and whatever a D3x/D700x/1Ds_/A9xx is going for at the time will buy a LOT of older R lenses and adapters, spare bodies - not to mention AF Nikon G and Sony/Zeiss glass.

If and when a R10 gets released it will probably be priced like every other Leica SLR, which was at a premium to the high end Canon or Nikon. In other words, D3x price plus a bit.

Robert

 

[carstenw]

More made up numbers: if the S2 cost 10k to make (Made in Germany):

15k a pop, 500 sell: profit 2.5m
10k a pop, 3500 sell: profit 0



We need to know more to talk intelligently about this. Leica has surely done these calculations.

 

[LJL]

More made up numbers: if the S2 cost 10k to make (Made in Germany):

15k a pop, 500 sell: profit 2.5m
10k a pop, 3500 sell: profit 0



We need to know more to talk intelligently about this. Leica has surely done these calculations.

Well, your last statement I agree with very much....the made up numbers....not so much. Fact is that we do NOT know what Leica's costs are for the S2. Say we were able to put together some rough estimates and other more wild guesses....we do not know their amortization schedule for this system, profit margin ramps, or anything else. Basically, we are blind to that and the rest is pure speculation for pricing and Leica strategy.

That being said, what we do know is what the market pressures are looking like. We have some idea of interest. We have heard from folks about what their personal on/off points are, etc. So, if a segment of the potential buyer base says anything north of $13K (made up number) creates a "no buy" reaction, that does help narrow an entry price possibility, but it could clash severely with Leica's internal plans for what they expect to accomplish and what returns they expect to get over what period of time.

My personal strategy is going to be driven a lot by price points for everything in the S system. So a "free" body may be attractive (like a cheap printer), but if the glass and services are over the top (like the ink tends to be), it has to be factored in over the prospective "life" of the device. Newer models may deliver a lot more, or may only be incremental....another thing we are pretty clueless about.

It can be fun to speculate on all of this, but reality will bring things back to the ground once the products and prices are released.:salute:

LJ

 

[LJL]

A follow on to my own post....sorry....

There is a big difference, I think, between the S2 system and the M8 release. Not talking about service and stuff, but just the nature of the body. For the M8, Leica could ask, and did get a premium for the body. There was already a very large installed base of users and more importantly, lenses to go onto that new body. (Yeah, the filter and coding issue was a bit of a kludge, but Leica extracted its profits from both.) So an M8 buyer was less likely to buy a lot of new glass when they bought the camera, and a lot of folks did not buy tons of new glass. (Some may recall all the older lens discussions and searched for LTM-M mounts that folks could code their own lenses, etc., plus the endless comparisons with CV and Zeiss glass.) With the S2, things are way different, from what we know. There is no legacy glass. Anybody buying an S2 body will have to buy new S lenses. Leica does not have to make any profit on the body, as they could make a lot of that up with margins on the lenses. So Leica could sell the S2 at their cost, sell lenses at some hefty margin, and still do well. Recall, the lenses are all sharing a new manufacture line, and lots of the same parts, so volumes there can carry things a lot further with any reasonable margin. If you think about it, that is really the part that folks are not figuring into the calculations much. What if the 70mm f2.5 CS lens cost Leica only $600 to make, and they sell it for $2,000? (these are just purely hypothetical numbers as an example) Suddenly their profit on the S2 plus a lens jumps to $1,400, even selling the body at "cost". Add two or three more lenses to the kit, and the profit margin on the body becomes rather irrelevant to some degree.

The flip could also be true.....charge a bigger margin on the body and less on the lenses, but make up with more lens volume. A third scenario, and one that Leica has traditionally followed is to overcharge on both body and lenses. If that becomes the case, or if folks sense that is the case again, especially in this economic climate, do not count on booming sales. The number of options for other MF systems is still quite large and price variable, so it will be a lot harder selling something that is perceived to be overpriced with respect to the rest of the market.

Again.....way too many things we just do not know in order to make "calls" on what may happen. If there was a lot of legacy or third party option glass, I would bet on a higher body price. Without those options, and knowing there is a longer margin on glass, I am tending to bet on a slightly lower body price. Of course, I am also ready to ignore all of it if Leica goes its traditional route with high body and high glass costs ;-)

LJ

 

[Forrest Black]

If the S2 costs 10K Euros to make, where does that leave the Leica distributors' and the dealers' profit margins?

 

[iiiNelson]

A follow on to my own post....sorry....

There is a big difference, I think, between the S2 system and the M8 release. Not talking about service and stuff, but just the nature of the body. For the M8, Leica could ask, and did get a premium for the body. There was already a very large installed base of users and more importantly, lenses to go onto that new body. (Yeah, the filter and coding issue was a bit of a kludge, but Leica extracted its profits from both.) So an M8 buyer was less likely to buy a lot of new glass when they bought the camera, and a lot of folks did not buy tons of new glass. (Some may recall all the older lens discussions and searched for LTM-M mounts that folks could code their own lenses, etc., plus the endless comparisons with CV and Zeiss glass.) With the S2, things are way different, from what we know. There is no legacy glass. Anybody buying an S2 body will have to buy new S lenses. Leica does not have to make any profit on the body, as they could make a lot of that up with margins on the lenses. So Leica could sell the S2 at their cost, sell lenses at some hefty margin, and still do well. Recall, the lenses are all sharing a new manufacture line, and lots of the same parts, so volumes there can carry things a lot further with any reasonable margin. If you think about it, that is really the part that folks are not figuring into the calculations much. What if the 70mm f2.5 CS lens cost Leica only $600 to make, and they sell it for $2,000? (these are just purely hypothetical numbers as an example) Suddenly their profit on the S2 plus a lens jumps to $1,400, even selling the body at "cost". Add two or three more lenses to the kit, and the profit margin on the body becomes rather irrelevant to some degree.

The flip could also be true.....charge a bigger margin on the body and less on the lenses, but make up with more lens volume. A third scenario, and one that Leica has traditionally followed is to overcharge on both body and lenses. If that becomes the case, or if folks sense that is the case again, especially in this economic climate, do not count on booming sales. The number of options for other MF systems is still quite large and price variable, so it will be a lot harder selling something that is perceived to be overpriced with respect to the rest of the market.

Again.....way too many things we just do not know in order to make "calls" on what may happen. If there was a lot of legacy or third party option glass, I would bet on a higher body price. Without those options, and knowing there is a longer margin on glass, I am tending to bet on a slightly lower body price. Of course, I am also ready to ignore all of it if Leica goes its traditional route with high body and high glass costs ;-)

LJ

This is exactly a point I was about to make and it's very common in the electronics world to "give away" the hardware in order to profit on accessories (read: lenses, batteries, cases, extended warranties, etc.) I think that would be a best case scenario for Leica is they are to remain viable. I fear your last scenario may be the case though (overcharging on body and lenses) but we will see soon enough I guess.

 

[carstenw]

If the S2 costs 10K Euros to make, where does that leave the Leica distributors' and the dealers' profit margins?

Depends on the price, right? So, if it sells for 15k, then there is enough margin for both Leica and the dealer, on the body. But maybe, as others suggest, the body will go for close to cost, and the dealer will have to make up for it with lens sales.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Well said . Scary thing is not many D3x are selling but the 5d2 is selling like hots cakes. Big price difference

Thing is that I'm willing to bet that only a tiny fraction of those causing the 5D mkII hotcake situation are pro's. People keep saying that the 5D mkII is so popular but I don't think that it is relevant to pro photographers as a statistic.