Sorry for thinking out loud here, but I cannot seem to get the Leica bugg out of the system. I recently sold my M6TTL mainly I wanted a camera with AE feature, also because it had the .72 vf, I wanted a .85 (don't do a lot of wide angel photography). I picked up a Canon SLR and a Contax G2 to cover, but I miss the access to the fast lenes for available light photography (combined w/ small overall package).

This brings me to the M7. I think I would really enjoy the AE feature (not to say the on/off button). I somehow don't mind spending $1,700 or either the Noctilux or the 75/1.4, but somehow I feel that the M7's price tag of $2,350 is somewhat brutal, specially since it is easier, faster and cheaper to produce. Not that I plan to sell it if I do get it, but people that bought the M6TTL for $2,995 when it arrived might feel somewhat worse of that someone who pick it up on a Leica day w/ a $200 rebate...

What is the community's take - is it overpriced? Will the prices come down and by how much? Can someone please talk me out of getting one...

cheers,

pat

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 13, 2002

Answers

i have no doubt whatsoever that the price will come down -- simple economics really. now the demand is very high and the supply is very low. the price should therefore be at its max. when the inverse situation arrives, the price will come down. at the ver least, the m7 will be subject to leica day discounts. however, i don't believe that it wll come down more than two or three hundred dollars -- at least for the forseable future. if you are already planning on spending the four or five thousand dollars necessary to get even a basic m system, it is hard to believe that this amount of money will control your decision to buy. i should also point out that if EVERYONE waits, the m7 (and leica) mite just wither on the vine. if you read the letter to stockholders that kelly posted in response to my m7 serial number query below, you realize just how much leica is counting on the m7 to revive its fortunes IN THE SHORT TERM. the company has to become profitable soon or risk disappearing forever. finally, while the m7 is not subject to leica day discounts, many dealers now offer an EXTRA two years of passport warranty in lieu of a rebate. i think this is a great deal. a five year passport is an amazing thing.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 13, 2002.

HI, I think the price will go down to $2000 after 6 month, and on Leica day, you can get the M7 for about $1800, but you will have to wait until the end of the year atleast, the $2350 price stays firm for another 6 month that is for sure.

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), May 13, 2002.

The dollar will probably fall against the euro this year and will make a buy moot now..may have to wait 6 mos. to a year for significant price reduction.. The camera is worth the cost in my humble opinion and I've had no promlems, quality+++++

-- gary brown (drdad1111@yahoo.com), May 13, 2002.

Pat. How quickly and how much the price comes down depends on supply (Leica makes these cameras in batches) and demand, and it is too early to tell how these factors will sort out. The price in the USA also depends on the strength of the dollar relative to the deutsch mark. Right now the dollar is relatively strong, hence lower prices in US, but that could change.

By the way, I could be wrong, but I don't remember the M6TTL ever selling for anywhere near as high as $ 2995 around here. That number seems quite high to me. Also, where do you get the information that an M7 is easier, faster, or cheaper to produce than a 50/1.0 Nocti or 75/1.4 Slux. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard any documentation on relative production costs of Leica items. If this information exists, it would certainly be interesting, and I'd love to see it.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 13, 2002.

Sorry, I should have said Euro, not deutsch mark. Leica products are now priced in Euros.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 13, 2002.

Whether or not it's overpriced is very much a personal reaction - it depends on your finances and how much benefit you perceive in the new features. For me, it's simple - the M7 is a slam-dunk for Leica, and to me it's worth the extra money over a new M6. The combination of AE, DX and the switch makes a very competent camera even more capable, and even more of a pleasure to use. However, if I was faced with a financial choice between AE/DX/switch and more film, I'd pass on the M7 in a New York minute.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), May 13, 2002.

Obviously, only you can say whether something's overpriced for your needs/wants, but IMHO, the M7 is definitely overpriced (by @ least $500). Like you, I have a G2 for when I need/want AE & autofocus, but switch to my M2, M3, or other manual RFs when I need fast glass. Also, like you, I'm not a huge wide angle guy & I'd much rather have a high-magnification Hexar RF, but that's not likely to happen. My bottom line is that I just don't need the combination of AE, TTL metering, & Leica-compatibility so badly that I feel a great desire to fork out $2350 on yet another camera body. Heck, I can easily live without spending another $1300 or so on a nice used 0.85 M6 TTL--it would be nice to have an on-board meter, but it ain't no big thing (now if Cosina made a high mag Bessa R2 . . .). Like Paul Chefurka, I'd rather spend the $$ on film, processing, digital printing supplies, lenses, etc. (or non-photographic stuff).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 13, 2002.

If the M7 is selling at the rate it appears to be, I'd be hard pressed to entertain the thought that it is "overpriced". One defies the market when it speaks at their own peril. I'd be surprised if the M7 production line has slowed in any way since it started up, or will for awhile.

Like wise I would view the theory that the M7 is "cheaper" with some skepticism also. While much of the M tooling used in the M7 was written down long ago, from my point of view as an IE there is undoubtedly new content in both labor and parts that did not exist before. Not to mention some of those new parts probably outsourced, at costs that must be recovered over volumes that are small compared with other camera manufacturers. Then to I think most would concur there was a little more R & D expenditure to be recovered in this model than recent Ms. You get these back through the selling price.

The exchange rate and any other general economic conditions affecting both producers and purchasers, or really any change in it or them, is the only real unpredictible "wild card" that will affect price as long as demand holds. If either of those holds as is, one won't see price declines till inventories of the M7 force Leica to do so. I think that will be at least a year or so, probably more. Realize that, to some degree, the M7 can be viewed as a very expensive "point and shoot". That's an untapped market for them. And one I'm sure was part of the thought behind creation of the M7.

I was not aware that some dealers were offering a two year extension of the Passport warranty to a full 5 years for the M7. That would be a surprise as even when Leica had the warehouses full of R8s with both rebates and Leica Day 10% off, the warranty extension offered was only 2 years additional on parts and labor. Not 2 extra years of Passport protection.

BTW-Leica does not make production in "blocks" of bodies or lenses. Rather they allocate blocks of serial numbers to certain items e.g. the M7. As an example they may have allocated a block of 10,000 serial numbers for the first M7s. At the same time they may have allocated the next 3,000 numbers to R8s. But they may be producing both the R8 and the M7 at the same time. Whichever body runs out of serial numbers first just gets a new allocation of serial numbers and production may or may not continue based on demand.

The practical effect is that the next body out the door is not necessarily one serial number higher than the next as multiple items are produced at the same time. Sometimes blocks allocated to one item are not used wholly for that item and instances of an entirely different item than the block was initially allocated to are discovered.

The system works the same way with lenses although the lack of any serial number/time of production sequence is even more pronounced due to the greater number of individual lens types.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 13, 2002.

Chris. Since there is some R & D costs, retooling, and the M7 contains some 300 more individual parts than the M6TTL (see Erwin's essay), a 25% increase in cost over the M6TTL does not seem unwarranted. It doesn't seem fair to compare the price of a new in box M7 with 3year USA warranty directly with that of a used unwarranted M6TTL. Of course the latter will be significantly less.

On the other hand, if you think the M6TTL is already overpriced, then it is reasonable to hink the M7 is also overpriced. It is a somewhat subjective judgement. But IMO, there is nothing else that looks and feels like a Leica M, and the M7 is the most capable M.

My only complaint is that for $ 2350 USD, they should have a metal battery cover and a metal on-off switch. Otherwise, I really like the handling and quietude of the shutter.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 13, 2002.

IMO, anything electronic is going to be cheaper to make than the mechanical stuff. If electronic watches are so much cheaper than the mechanical watches they supplanted, the M7 should become a lot cheaper.>>>>>> The stock market might be saying something about Leica's future. Stock charts can be viewed at www.BigCharts.com If you enter the ticker symbol of Leica Camera AG in the appropriate field < DE:646000 > you will get a daily chart of one years' duration. After that, you can click the field that says, "All Data" and get a weekly high/low/close bar chart for the whole history of Leica Camera. The stock looks like it *might* be forming a short term saucer bottom, but volume has all but dried up. The price- earnings ratio is at 50, considered too high for a really money- making company. >>>>>>>>>> Has anyone checked their M7 for shutter accuracy yet????? The electronic should do better than the mechanical. (That's the theory....)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

Everything Leica is overpriced end of story.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 14, 2002.

jerry -- newtonville camera in newton mass offered two add'l PASSPORT years on m7s purchased at its leica day last friday. you get a second warranty form captioned "leica passaport 3+2." i assume this deal was not exclusive to newtonville. eliot -- i was told that the battery cover and switch WERE PLASTIC BY DESIGN. electrostatic discharge is a big issue with electronic cameras -- especially all metal electronic cameras. the two most obvious conduits into the lectronics for dischage are the switch and cover. these were intentioally made of nonconductive materials.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 14, 2002.

As long as there are demands for Leica M7 then the price is not overpriced. I suspect overtime, the price will drop accordingly once Leica recovers their R&D cost. I knew the M7 was coming and I still bought my M6TTL. I guess it's all personnal preferences.

-- Phillip P. (pp12302@nospamyahoo.com), May 14, 2002.

Roger,

The reason I was surprised was that the "Passport" particulars in the Passport warranty were not available at the volution of the individual dealer. Rather they were an item offered by the distributor in the particular country (in this case Leica USA).

If Leica USA is offering a full 5 year Passport (with the damage provisions inherit to Passport) on sales only made on one day and one location, that's news to me at least.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 14, 2002.

yes, on Leica days the M7 is offered w/ extended 3+2 yrs warranty. I recently got a mailing from Tamarkin in NY about their Leica Day on May 16th, and the fact that they are offering the deal mentioned above.

Furthermore, I do understand that "value" is a subjective matter. Even if I'm fortunate in the way that I can afford a M7 if I wanted to, it still comes across as a lot of money for what it is and what I believe the cost of production to be (most of the tooling for the M- series have been written off years ago, a certain amounts of M7 parts are being bought from outside, Euro is getting stronger perhaps making those parts less expensive to acquire, etc.) IMO, Leica's raison d'etre are the optics, and somehow I feel like I'm paying a penalty on the bodies because the Leica company failed to modernize, rationalize and invent (OK, not meant to upset anyone, it is just one line of thoughts, not a proven theory) Or perhaps $2350 is a fair price to pay for a garding particular [manufacturing] values in a buy- and-throw-away world...

Who knows?

cheers,

pat

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 14, 2002.

Of course it depends on what it is worth to you.

However, a price of almost US$ 3.000,00 for a 1950's camera with (end of the) 1970's technology is absolutely too much. It gets time that Leica invests it's money in a modern production line and better production methods so the price can drop.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

The 3+2 deal is definitely for a Passport extension, at least in the U.S. I got my M7 under this deal and the letter from Leica USA is very specific that it's an extension of the Passport warranty.

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 14, 2002.

Sure it is overpriced in the way that many goods are: an old Jaguar XK120, an old Rolex, Bang and Olufson and Bose sound systems, an old painting by Van Gogh etc. etc. Something is worth what people will pay for it. Unpleasant, perhaps irrational, but true. No amount of complaining and whining will alter this. I think the M7 is too expensive for me at present, but Leica seem not to have made a mistake looking at how many have already sold to members of this forum at the current price. They need a success, so do not begrudge them it! They are not in business to give cameras away to deserving photographers, they are in business to be profitable. At present they are barely profitable - the last thing I would do if I was them would be to cut any Leica prices. So I doubt the price will come down much - Leicas are always expensive that is all part of the cachet.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

Leica's will always have an exclusive aura around them, even if the current price is cut by half.

However, I bet that if they cut the price by at least half, they would sell a lot more camera's, making more money in the end. But this calls for an investment in a better production method and I guess Leica sees more future in reproducing it's 0 series or a superexpensive limited production model with a special inscription every 6 months.

What a pity.

Frank

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

as to leica and value for money:

1. remember, as a rule of thumb, actual DIRECT manufacturing cost is about 10% of final retail cost (non-direct mfring costs must be recovered, mfr must make profit, distributor must recover actual costs (warranty costs, advertising, staff salaries, etc.), distributor must make profit, dealer must make profit, duties must be paid, shipping must be paid, etc. this is why expensive products sometimes appear to embody nonsensical cost-cutting measures (the plastic door and rewind fork on the f100 sticks out in my mind). small changes in mfr cost have a big impact on the final retail number.

2. the expensive parts of a leica -- and why the m body costs $2K- 2.35K -- are the machined brass body shell, the rf assembly, and the mechanical components of the shutter. the body is finished to a degree unsees in any camera today -- compare an f100 or a hexar or a contax. they are all nice, but not leica quality.

3. leica does not have advantage of economies of scale that nikon and konica have. that is why they do not make price one of their selling points. their products are always going to cost more due to smaller production numbers, and so they must occupy a unique, high end niche. a hand built day sailor from a small handbuildere in maine in always going to cost disproportionately more than a very nice boston whaler. the buyer of the custom boat is not doing a strict, linear cost analysis. he is buying the custom boat because ut is a unique product that he wants. now if leica had a direct competitor . . .

4. in point of fact, leica, like most camera mfrs, does not make much of a profit on bodies. the margin is about 1/3 of the profit margin on lenses. you are actually getting a good deal when you buy a body relatively speaking.

5. there is also something to be said for letting the market determine the price of something. if leica is selling all the m7s it can make at $2350 (or $9350), then few economists (or anyone else who isn't speakingfrom the vantage point of sour grapes) would say the price is too high. how much is a camera, or a grape, or a diamond worth??

6. given leica's probs in generating sales volume (and concomittant probs with very high inventories of prods), coupled with their history of offering rebates, special one day sales, etc., i think it is unlikely that they are simply refusing to sell their goods at the lowest possible (i.e. reasonably profitable) price. i think leica is doing everything it can to sell stuff. it would not surprise me if the m7 isn't being offered at an artificially LOW price (remember this thing has millions of r&d invested in it over at least seven years of development) to stimulate sales of ancillary prods. i am not sure what the rule of thumb is on recovery of r&d costs, but given the small difference in price between an m7 and an m6, and the likely MUCH higher investment remaining to maortize in the m7, i'm sure the cost should be even higher than 2350.

7. the m7 is not an "electronic" camera; more correctly, it is a mechanical camera with a servo controlled shutter. there is about a 70% parts overlap between the m6 and m7. the shutter still operates at two mecahnical speeds. all that has really happened is that the some of the shutter escapements have been replaced by electronic timers and magnets. it is still largely a mechanical device.

8. on the rustication of its metering: i have been critical of the m7 on this front. i recently shot comparison rolls with the m7 on auto (no comp applied regardless of situation) and an f100 on matrix (also no comp applied). i was very surprised by the results. i encourage others to try this test. i won't bother to divulge my results; you will only believe if you do the comparison yourself.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 14, 2002.

When the M6TTL was introduced in the USA, the price of a new Classic was $1995 and the TTL came out at $2195 in 1998. In the end of 2001 the TTL was selling for $1950 less $200 rebate and at Leica Days there was an additional 10% off the top, bringing the total to $1555. I fully expect the M7 (currently at $2350) to sell for at most $2195 - 10% Leica Day = $1975 by early 2003. If sales slack off dramatically, there might even be an additional rebate. Furthermore by then some of the beta testing will be over and there may even be some improvements ;>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 14, 2002.

It is also widely known that if you charge a lot for something, punters will think they are getting a product of better quality.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 14, 2002.

Roger - for the benefit of us benighted heathens without matrix metered cameras, I was wondering if you'd divulge the results of your comparison? I have the sneaking suspicion that matrix metering didn't make much difference, and that both the cameras delivered pretty much the same exposure. Yes? No?

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), May 14, 2002.

i won't bother to divulge my results; you will only believe if you do the comparison yourself.

Unfair, would like to know your results.....interested.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 14, 2002.

sorry -- i didn't mean to sound arch or sinister. (a) my posting was already so long and (b) i didn't want to get into a fite with anybody over metering systems. i shot a number of rolls with an f100 and an m7 side by side, same subjects. i also shot one roll with an f5 under similar but not identical circs. the matrix systems in the f100 are very similar but not identical. anyway, as to the results: i have never had much luck relying on matrix. it ALWAYS gets really fooled by backliting of any kind AND seems to just go berserk sometimes (admittedly rarely) for no obvious reason. the pattern is too complex to even begin to second guess its "thinking." side by side, the m7 meter produced a significantly higher of correct exposures in conditions that were uniformly difficult (backliting, sideliting, low contrast, high contrast, etc.) using my own very subjective guidelines, i was getting about 75% correc exposures with the m7 (remember this was a torture test) but only about 50% with the f100. in particular, the m7 seemed to handle backliting much much better than the matrix cameras. it was really a very impressive display. i hadn't expected this result and encourage people to try it for themselves (you can rent an f100/f5 for $30 a day). in the end, i guess a heavily centered weighted averaging meter is very good for the kinds of photography for which the leica m is typicaly used -- fast people shots, where the/a person is the central subject. i also found that the m7 overexposes a little (as do other meter Ms i have used), which helps. two last points: i really like metering in the auto mode when i plan to shoot manual. you get a shutter speed and can then very easily translate that into the correct speed for a difficult situation (e.g. the meter in auto says "500" and you know rite off that a three stop backlite adjustment will yield 1/60th). this just seems easier that trying to dial in comp (i hate that even on the ultra convenient, thumb-wheel equipped f100/f5) OR rying to meter with the dot and arrows and then make an adjustment. try this system; you mite like it. number two, i must say that i getthe highest rate of correct exposures OUTDOORS by using my eye and experience. it takes a little longer than with the auto setting of course (not much really), but is certainly the most accurate of the rapid systems IMO.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 14, 2002.

For those interested in the differential between the initial prices of the M6, then the M6TTL and now the M7 in the US. Please do a little homework. Look at the inflation-derived "cost of money" in 1986, 1998, and 2002. In relative dollars, (1986 and 1998 adjusted for inflation) the cost of an M7 is durned close to the early M6s and the M6TTS.

Also, a previous poster hit it on the head. The pure manufacturing cost of a Leica body almost gets lost in the wash - - given both the direct and indirect costs of production, marketing, distribution, customs, and the cuts by the national distributer, wholesalers, and the dealers who spend $$$ in advertising. Yeah, I know that Nikon, Canon, Contax, Tamron, Sigma, etc spend godawful $$$ on their advertising budgets; however, everyone in the food chain has to make a profit. Leica just doesn't have the advertising resources of Nikon and Canon. Just count the number of hands that an M7 must go through - - each with its markup - - and then you may have a feeling as to why the end cost of the camera body is what it is.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 14, 2002.

Roger,

Nice work on the metering comparison. Not surprised with the outcome. The meter on the the M6 and its descendents really hasn't got the credit its due.

You might be a tad low on the 10% of total costs for direct labor and materials though. Leica is a small outfit and always has been (4 MM lenses and 3 MM bodies in 77 years, not all of which they've made in house) plus other low volume items e.g. microscopes, binoculars, etc. All of which are more hand made and assembled than most camera products.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerry Pfile (Jerry Pfile@MSN.com), May 14, 2002.