Why are Leica cameras so expensive? I just don't understand why they cost so much. For example the M9 Rangefinder Digital Camera Body cost $6,995. I know it is a full frame camera, but what else is it about Leicas that make them that expensive?
Why are Leica cameras so expensive? I just don't understand why they cost so much. For example the M9 Rangefinder Digital Camera Body cost $6,995. I know it is a full frame camera, but what else is it about Leicas that make them that expensive?
Originally Posted by powers_brent
I'm not sure that it is that expensive, relatively speaking. Canon's full frame 1DsIII currently sells for $6100, only $900 less than the Leica M9, and the Canon is an older camera. The Leica is selling at it's MSRP, and at the same point in it's product life cycle (less than a year after release), the 1DsIII was still selling for it's MSRP - $7999, which is $1000 more than the Leica.
Sure, it's a rangefinder vs. a dSLR, but not necessarily inferior. The M9 has a relatively more metal in the body than a Canon 1-series - the Leica M series has a great reputation for durability.
Personally, I can't speak for optical quality. I can tell you that I find Leica microscopes to be optically decent, but inferior to Zeiss. I doubt that translates to cameras, since consumer optics are a different division of each company.
I wonder, too.
I don't know anything about Leica cameras but I would guess the build quality is very good (or they wouldn't be able to charge so much).
However, in terms of features, responsiveness, autofocus, etc, is the Leica more comparable to a 5DII or a 1DsIII? If a Leica performs like a 1DsIII, then I agree- it is not expensive compared to other brands. If it performs more like a 5DII, it seems one is paying for the brand (or maybe the build quality, or maybe the right to blow even more $$$ on lenses)
I am no Leica expert either but, they have some amazing lenses like the 50 mm f/0.9 !!
The lenses are even more outrageously priced but they are said to be among the sharpest optical devices in the world.
They seem to be geared more toward portrait and landscape type work.
Sort of like buying a Ferrari vs. a Ford.....they both can get you to work and back but......
Maybe I should have said a Rolls Royce vs a Ford !!!
OK so it seems that you all summed up my thoughts pretty well. Relatively speaking over priced. Great cameras, but not necessarily for that price. Thanks all for your opinions!
I don't know, but I guess the true differences should have been compared in analogue time where it made it's name. I guess in digital ares the Leica isn't as special as it used to be with film. And therefor it's perhaps overpriced?(Like Apple computers and Nike running shoes[:P]) But I'm really guessing here..
Haven't read it, but it might be interesting: quick test and specification comparison to a 5D2
Where it's pretty obvious that for a FF sensor, the camera is very small..
Jan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote