Leica's opinion of the D800
 

On 27/09/2012 11:08 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:54 pm, Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/622...012-interview-...

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.

I'm not sure that 37.5 MP from a CCD sensor that is noisy at anything
over ISO 400 can ever be considered a huge step up over 36 MP from a
CMOS sensor that doesn't get noisy until ISO 1600.

There is also the issue of cost, because you could buy SIX D800 bodies
for the cost of the Leica S body. In fact you could buy a whole D800
outfit for the cost of the Leica S body.

The S series lenses are also extremely expensive. Alas, Leica is
aiming squarely at a market of wealthier people whereas Nikon is
aiming at photographers who tend not to be wealthy.

Different levels of wealth. A $20k camera with $7k lenses is aimed at
the wealthy. A $3000 camera that needs $2000 lenses to maximize its
capabilities isn't aimed at the middle class either.

I wonder what the result might be if Nikon (or Canon or any other maker)
decided that there was a market for a 55mm f2 lens (equivalent to
Leica's "midium" format 70mm f2.5 "standard lens") and which could have
a market at a MSRP of $5,000.

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

"Me" wrote in message
...
I wonder what the result might be if Nikon (or Canon or any other maker)
decided that there was a market for a 55mm f2 lens (equivalent to Leica's
"midium" format 70mm f2.5 "standard lens") and which could have a market
at a MSRP of $5,000.

Insufficient sales to cover the development costs perhaps?

Trevor.

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

"Trevor" wrote in :


"Me" wrote in message
...
I wonder what the result might be if Nikon (or Canon or any other
maker) decided that there was a market for a 55mm f2 lens (equivalent
to Leica's "midium" format 70mm f2.5 "standard lens") and which could
have a market at a MSRP of $5,000.

Insufficient sales to cover the development costs perhaps?

Trevor.




I don't know how Leica did selling the S2, but it must have a solid
profit built-in at the prices its components cost.

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

"Rich" wrote in message
...
"Me" wrote in message
...
I wonder what the result might be if Nikon (or Canon or any other
maker) decided that there was a market for a 55mm f2 lens (equivalent
to Leica's "midium" format 70mm f2.5 "standard lens") and which could
have a market at a MSRP of $5,000.

Insufficient sales to cover the development costs perhaps?

I don't know how Leica did selling the S2, but it must have a solid
profit built-in at the prices its components cost.

It's the old story, sell lots of items at a modest profit per item, or sell
a small number of items at a large profit per item.
You need a loyal customer base with more money than sense to make the latter
work.
What you *don't* want is to sell a small number of items at a loss per item
(after expenses), regardless of the actual selling price!

Trevor.

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:41:13 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Rich" wrote in message
...
"Me" wrote in message
...
I wonder what the result might be if Nikon (or Canon or any other
maker) decided that there was a market for a 55mm f2 lens (equivalent
to Leica's "midium" format 70mm f2.5 "standard lens") and which could
have a market at a MSRP of $5,000.

Insufficient sales to cover the development costs perhaps?

I don't know how Leica did selling the S2, but it must have a solid
profit built-in at the prices its components cost.

It's the old story, sell lots of items at a modest profit per item, or sell
a small number of items at a large profit per item.
You need a loyal customer base with more money than sense to make the latter
work.
What you *don't* want is to sell a small number of items at a loss per item
(after expenses), regardless of the actual selling price!

It's better than selling a large number of items at a loss per item.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
What you *don't* want is to sell a small number of items at a loss per
item
(after expenses), regardless of the actual selling price!

It's better than selling a large number of items at a loss per item.

True, but not many companies can manage that for long, and even less would
want to!

Trevor.

Leica's opinion of the D800
 

"John A." wrote in message
...
It's the old story, sell lots of items at a modest profit per item, or
sell
a small number of items at a large profit per item.
You need a loyal customer base with more money than sense to make the
latter
work.
What you *don't* want is to sell a small number of items at a loss per
item
(after expenses), regardless of the actual selling price!

Unless it's a "loss-leader" that brings in customers to buy your more
profitable items.

"Loss leaders" are often in name only, they are often sold at a profit, just
a vastly reduced one from the normal profit.
Of course while companies dont "want" to make a loss on anything, sometimes
they do, a successful business avoids that as much as possible. The idea is
for your profitable items to bring in the customers.

Trevor.