Leica Camera Japan will open a new pilot store on the 5th floor of the south wing of the Tamagawa Takashimayashopping center in Tokyo on October 23rd, 2009. The address is Tokyo Setagaya Ward Tamagawa 3-17-1.
Leica Store Originally uploaded by Michael Tendler
Related posts:
- New Leica store to open in Munich
- Leica to open a new store in Washington DC
- New Leica store to open in Hong Kong
- Leica M9 limited edition in Tokyo
- Leica V-LUX 20 spotted in Tokyo
This entry was posted in Other Leica stuff and tagged Leica stores. Bookmark the
permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
23 Comments
Leica can afford to open multiple branches around the world because it has been feeding off from wealthy people who buys their product and doesn’t care how much it costs.
Have you ever seen a successful professional photographer that shoots Leica full time? Certainly not. They use Canon or Nikon. Because they know that it is the best bang for their buck. Unlike the SUPER overpriced Leica.
Let’s see this stores outsell the other camera shops. I’m sure people are still more likely to buy Leica’s from B&H or Adorama or other EU / Canadian stores.
If Leica saved up it’s money, it could’ve offered discounts on their items especially during the economic crisis and upcoming holiday season. Instead they’ve wasted it on showrooms which I am betting that only enthusiasts will frequent. Leaving regular Joe or Jane envious of others who could afford.
Best bang for the buck is a Canon SD880; done. Oh wait I want something a little mor response, them maybe a Nikon D40 with the 18-55mm lens is my best bet. Oh wait, but I might want more mega pixels, so maybe Nikon D700 is better. Oh but wait maybe I want a larger aperture, cleaner corners, and faster focus, so maybe the 24-70mm lens is better. Oh wait but then there is the D3X that gives me even more mega pixels and faster FPS, so maybe D3X + 24-70mm is better. Oh wait since I am now carrying all that weight, I will need to ditch my small tripod and get a heavy duty tripod from Gitzo for those long exposures. Ok where am I now, over $10K and how many pounds?
Oh and I don’t suppose National Geographic photogs like Bill Allard or David Alan Harvey (http://www.davidalanharvey.com/) were considered successul professional photographers, and neither were anyone who ever shot Hasselblad (e.g., Helmut Newton) or Mamiya full time.
If you are sports photog, it’s silly to use a range finder unless you are just that good. If you are a landscape photog, the M9 changes the game. if you are successful professional photog, you can afford whichever camera you like to use. If you are regular Joe or Jane, then none of Leica, Nikon or Canon DSLRs is really necessary.; the point-n-shoots are just fine.
Yes Nikon D3X is a BETTER bargain. Heck the 1Ds Mark III is even more of a bargain.
Try to outfit your Leica rangefinder and you’ll see that your money could buy more lens / accessories if you bought any camera other than the Leica.
Come on. Are you all here blind, or worse stupid?
$10K for 1 camera and 1 lens for a Leica.
$10K for 1 camera and 3-5 lens for other brands.
Leica = SUPER OVERPRICED.
Other brands = just right for the price.
No contest there.
Anyone shooting a range finder needs just 1 lens, maybe two. That’s it. Again, range finders are not for sports photog, or birds, photog, etc. For me a M9 + 50mm Summilux. If you pick up the 50mm from eBay, together with the M9 the total cost is about $10K. I don’t need or realyl want to carry other lens unless I am on a sports assignment or if I am on assignment for landscape journal. More importantly, there are no other cameras out there (other than medium or large format film) that can beat the images of the M9.
Again, if price is the only factor, why aren’t you just shooting a Canon SD880?
Yes the concept of diminishing return certainly applies at some point, but is there no premium for someone who wishes a higher optical quality, and the ability to travel light? How much will your D3X + 3-5 lense (and really, who travels with that many lenses) + heavy tripod + a bag big enought to hold everything will weigh? And what 5 lenses will you buy for the less than total of $2,000? If you choose just the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, yes your price is cheaper at less than $8,500. Have fun carrying that around all day . . .
No one is saying there is no room for Nikon. I have two Nikons and soem lenese to go with them for when I need to shoot things that move, including what many call the overpriced 400mm f/2.8, for which I believe there is no substitute for certain occassions.
Please be more thoughtful on your response and refrain from calling people stupid on this forum, Mr. Anonymous; this form is for adults
Read carefully David.
1.) I did not call anyone stupid.
2.) It was merely a question and I am not directly calling someone stupid.
For all the language experts out there, it is called an exaggeration to make a point.
Yes I agree that no one would carry body + 3-5 lenses + tripod + bag, just because I never said that.
My point was for your money’s worth, you get more with any other brand than Leica. Second point is, if you outfit a Leica or Canon or Nikon all with the same accessories and lens/es you’ll end up spending more for Leica products — which is really troubling that no one cares that they’ve spend huge $$$ on a piece of glass, instead well maybe food, clothing, mortgage (especially those who owns a Leica).
see example below:
1Ds Mark III + 24 f/2L II = $7.5k
D3x + 24 f/2.8 = $8.5k
M9 + 24 f/2.8 = $11k
**had I lower the specs of the Canon 24 to f/2.8 it would be cheaper
See the point?
It seems that you’ve made my other point exactly by admitting that you own a non-Leica camera + lens. Why would you spend $11k on one body and one lens for one purpose when you could buy one body + 2-3 lens for different purpose with the same amount of money on other brands?
I do suggest that before you run your mouth that you be more thoughtful of your response. Read carefully what is posted. You’re too funny I can see you’re annoyed.
BTW.
If you want “fun” in your photography. Try putting on a fisheye. The Tamron is only $300. Oh wait. You can’t fit that on your Leica now can you?
I guess since you’ve already spent $$$ on your Leica, you won’t mind to get a new body for the fisheye.
Ha ha wow, ok my mistake, I should not have interpreted “Come on. Are you all here blind, or worse stupid?” to suggestions that anyone is actually stupid. My apologies I guess I am not a language expert, especially at the art of exaggeration.
I am still confused, why would you buy any of the DLSRs if your primary goal is to get your money’s worth? Why isn’t a Canon point-n-shoot sufficient? Oh wait you want a better camera . . . oh but wait I guess if someone wanted a camera better than what you have identified for a limited purposes must be “blind or stupid” (oh wait, but you are not calling anyone stupid, sorry again for my ignorance!
I don’t shoot 24mm lens anymore, but at did at one point own one by Nikon; anyone seriously comparing the Nikon 24mm with the Leica 24mm must be blind or stupid. When you have a chance you should try a used Summicron 50mm from 1960s that you can buy for less than $500 and compare that lens to the newest G series 50mm lens from Nikon; oh wait you can fit that on your Nikon my bad.
Thank you for your suggestion about the Tamron fish eye, I am sure it is a tremedous bargain and a very useful lens; I am very depressed I won’t have the opportunity to shoot one
I agreed with David here. Just because something costs less money does not mean it’s a better deal. I use a MAC computer, which typically always costs more than a PC. I enjoy going to the Apple stores, which I think was a brilliant marketing move by Apple and one (of several) reasons that Apple is gaining ground on the PCs. But there is no question that the PC is more versatile because a lot more software is compatible with a PC than with Apple. But I don’t need all those software, I just need what I need, and for what I need Apple does a better job in a shorter time. So for me, Apple is a better bargain for my money. Here, I agree that Leica range finders do a lot of things better than a DLSR. I am waiting for my M9 but from all things I’ve read, it will do better than my DSLR for what I need, still light portraits and landscapes. The only camera that even comes close to matching the image quality of a M9 is apparently the DX3, which is more expensive than the M9. And as David said you don’t have to go spend thousands of dollars on new Leica lenses, there are plenty of used Leica lenses, or Zeiss lenses, or Volg lenses that are also superior to the Nikon lenses and all of which costs not much more than Nikon lenses. Since good lens do not depreciate as quickly as camera bodies, I would rather spend more money on quality lenses than a more expensive camera body that I know will be worth 1/2 as much as soon as the next version comes along. Oh and yes, no part of me wishes to tow around a DX3, even with one lens . . .
My two cents . . .
@ David
Huh? What? Errr. Nevermind.
@ Karen
Touche. You have explained better what David up there has been blabbering about. And even though we share different opinions, in your Apple vs PC analogy, you summed up your point on why you prefer Leica over other brands.
Very well said.
Here’s my question to you.
Why is it that PC users still outnumber Mac users? Why are there still more programs being developed and used by PC users?
In relation.
Why is it that majority (95%) of amateur & pro DSLR users use non-Leica brand, if they knew that “nothing compares” to Leica images? Why is it that amateurs look at Canon / Nikon for their first DSLR and even when they move up they choose the same brand?
Ooo it’s the battle of Nikon/Canon v. Leica!
David’s right, if getting your money’s worth is the ONLY factor, a point-n-shoot is the best bang for the buck and you shoudn’t be waisting time looking at Leicas OR DLSRs. Hect I’ll even splurge and go for a Canon G10! But his point is missed because you (whoever you are) keep trying to compare the two systems (Nikon v. Leica) as if they serve the same purpose and produce same quality images, they dont!
And why in the world would anyone spend $8,000 on a DSLR (i.e., the D3X) to presumably get the benefit of the 24 MP sensor, or a Canon 5D Mark II, just to mount inferior lens like the super old Nikon 24mm or, worse, a Tamron fisheye??? For landscape, the only lens that Nikon has that is arguable even in the same league as ANY of the Leica lens would be the 14-24mm, which is nearly $2K (or maybe the old 28mm F/1.4, which they don’t make anymore and costs $4,000). So if you are trying to match image quality, you would end up spending MORE for a Nikon D3X + 14-24mm than a Leica M9 + any one of the several execellent options for landscape, like the Leica 28mm f/2.8 that is tiny and sharp as anything man has ever made . . . If you are not trying to match quality, and price is your only thing, then get the point-n-shoot!
Nikon lens do not justify spending the kind of money D3X costs. The whole point of owning a Leica M9 is to take advantage of their lens on a decent digital camera. Even Ken Rockwell, a once devoted Nikon shooter, has been boycotting the D3X and admitted the superiority of Leica for landscape and outdoor photography!
If you get a M9 with a couple of nice used lenses (from guys like KEH.com), then get yourself a Canon G10, you spend less money than buying a D3X and however many lens you need (THAT ARGUABLY COMPETE AGAINST THE LEICA LENS, like the 14-24mm, or the 24-70mm), and you still can’t carrying all of it at once, whereas the M9 + two lens + Canon G1 can all fit in my back with plenty or room to spare . . . when I want a super sharp image for stock or commercials, where quality matters and determins how much I get paid, I’ll break out the M9; when I shoot for personal stuff, I break out the G10. And I save my wrist from injury . . .
@ Zachary
You and David have the same viewpoint. Which is completely way off from what I’m talking about.
The point here is ‘Which is best bang for your buck?’
As I’ve mentioned before. Canon and Nikon are most of the pros workhorses. Because for your money’s worth, you get more out of these systems.
Regardless of IQ you can admit that Canon / Nikon users get paid for their work. Yes, Leica users get paid too, but is it more than the other guys who use other systems? Certainly not.
It’s simply unjustifiable to buy Leica’s to get your money’s worth.
BTW.
Have you heard Annie Leibovitz is filling bankruptcy. Where’s all here income from shooting a Leica? LOL.
@ Anonymous:
I think David and Zachary both answered your question, “best bang for your buck” is a point-n-shoot. Chase Jarvis can sell a book of photos using the iPhone! I don’t understand what you are trying to say, really . .
First you criticize Leica for opening stores, then you agree that Apple stores are a good idea even though more people use PCs and Apples are more expensive.
Then you say that NO professional photographers shoot Leica, well you were just wrong on that one.
Are you just saying that Leica cameras are expensive? (thank you for the new flash!)
Or are you saying that Nikon and Canon make better cameras for less money? Well I think David and Zachary both made a point that, if you take the best of Nikon or Canon, they can cost just as much if not more.
Yes Nikon and Canon are the only viable options for sports photography, but I think David addressed that too.
So I don’t get your beef here, are you just angry that some people have money they are willing to spend on expensive cameras? Do you also hate people who drive Ferraris instead of Toyota or Honda? Or fly business class instead of coach?
Log off and relax
Peace.
just my 2 cents: Leica has excellent products. Are they expensive – yes, because there is no competition and there is no mass production. The M9 should not be compared with the D3x or any other camera – it is in a class by itself. If Zeiss or any other manufacturer comes up with a full frame digital rangefinder then we can talk about what is better, but until then it is only Leica and that’s it.
I also don’t see Leica having a problem selling the M9 for 7k – if there is a demand then the product is not overpriced.
Amen
@ Oscar
You are just like David. Read C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y.
1.) Since Leica is a DSLR I would like to stick it’s comparison to DSLRs. Zachary and David injected the P&S comparison.
2.) I did not say that Apple stores are a good idea. I merely agree to Karen’s post, that she summed up her opinion and justified her owning a Leica. I think I clearly stated that we have different views.
3.) I did not say no pro photog shoots Leica. I said they don’t shoot Leica F-U-L-L-T-I-M-E. Meaning, they use Canon / Nikon / other brand as their workhorse. Because they know that even though Leica can give them the best IQ, they are limited to the lens they have — unless they have extras. But when they use the other brands, they have options to shoot whatever calls for the situation.
4.) With regards to which is better / more cost effective, I was saying that if you outfit all of the brands with the same accessories you will get a whole lot more from other brands.
5.) Yes, I think that people who buy Leicas are inexplicably overspending. But hate is a strong word. And hateful I am not. The beef here is not just on overspending but also on overpricing.
Just as I said to David.
I do suggest that before you run your mouth that you be more thoughtful of your response. Read carefully what is posted. You’re too funny I can see you’re annoyed.
@ LR admin
Why do people ALWAYS say that Leica is in a league of itself? WHY?
Isn’t it that Leica themselves directly competes with the 1D Mark III or the Nikon D3x? Didn’t they themselves compare the M9 to these cameras? How can you say it’s in a “league of it’s own” when the company itself puts it in the same league as the others? WHY?
Yes of course you don’t see a problem selling the M9 for $7k because the other brands sell it at this price or close to it. What’s bothersome is that you don’t see the problem when Leica sells a lens. Never have Leica sold a lens less than $1k brand new. You can’t say that with other brands.
BTW.
What “demand” are you talking about? Have you seen the economic definition of demand? Let me rephrase that. Have you seen the economic condition? Who in their right mind would “demand” a $7k camera? Who would “demand” to spend $7k for camera — just a camera? When there’s people getting killed in the Middle East. When there’s people starving in Africa. When people are losing their homes due to foreclosure. When people are stranded on their roofs after a storm stronger than hurricane Katrina. Who would “demand” an M9?
Certainly I have more things to worry about than “demand” an M9. Than to spend $7k for a camera. Hope you consider thinking about those situations before “demanding” for the M9.
I didn’t major in economics so I can’t offer an educated definition of “demand.” But I would say that if a product is sold out upon introduction there is demand for the product at the pricing of that product. Or, err did I misunderstand you, Anonymous, again?
So why would anyone buy a car that costs them $20,000 when you can buy a car that gets you to the same place for $10,000, or even less used.
Because if you are a responsible person, you can manage your own budget in order to afford it.
I didnt buy a M8 or M8.2, nor did I buy a 5dMII or 7D or anything else. I am buying a M9 because I deserve it. I’ve always bought cameras & lenses used, I work a good job, I dont blow my money on anything, everything I own is my vintage cameras, a guitar & violin, and a laptop. I am far from rich but I didnt hesitate purchasing this camera since the quality just cant be matched by nikon or canon. I’m sick of plastic bodies with matching plastic lenses. I’m sick of anti-aliasing filters blurring the shots at 1:1. I’m sick of 24mm-250mm zoom lenses. I dont take pictures for money, I do it for myself and for once I want a brilliant manufactured camera with lenses of equal quality. If Canon or Nikon actually made a comparable camera (which neither does) I would consider it. But you cant be serious and try and compare a 1D Mark III to the M9. Get out of your dreamworld for a second (or at least show evidence where Leica themselves are making the comparison).
@ Anonymous:
You say “Certainly I have more things to worry about than “demand” an M9. Than to spend $7k for a camera. Hope you consider thinking about those situations before “demanding” for the M9″
so why is it ok then to buy a $8,000 Nikon D3x? Why aren’t you just shooting a $200 point-n-shoot like many have suggested in response to your financial concerns? Maybe I am blind and stupid too . . .
@ Anonymous: – as I said before, currently there is no other full frame digital rangefinder. If and when we get one, then we can compare it to the M9. I am not saying rangefinder is better or worse than DSLR, I am just saying that there is nothing comparable in terms of handling. You can always compare IQ with other cameras.
Regarding demand – if there is no demand for the M9 I should be able to freely go to my local store and pick up one, correct? Well I can’t and I am not going to be able to for at least few months which means in my books means that there is a high demand for M9. Please don’t mix politics and photography equipment – there are appropriate forum for you to raise your concern for the issues you have listed, this blog is not one of them.
@ David
To each his own. That’s your definition of “demand”, I have no qualms about that.
@ Yoshitoshi
Good for you. You are a responsible, hard working honest-to-goodness man. Enjoy spending thousands of $$$ on a piece of glass. You deserve it!
@ Steve
I’m actually only shooting with a 40D + 70-200 f/2.8 IS / 180 f/3.5 macro / 50 f/1.4 / Sigma 8mm fisheye. Put together is valued only at $4k.
I didn’t buy a Leica for $7k and have to worry about spending more for the lens/es.
Nor did I get the 1D Mark III or the Nikon D3x.
Because that would contradict what I’ve been blabbering about.
Which is for less amount of money, you could buy a DSLR and several lenses to suit whichever type of photography you do.
BTW.
I don’t have an opinion of you. But you called yourself blind and stupid, not me. Just for the record.
@ LR admin
Yes demand, I see you have knowledge about how it works. But did you consider supply? I mean Canon / Nikon / other brands generate it’s products thousands per month. Leica on the other hand only produces tens to hundreds. So if you’re aspect of demand is “I can’t get an M9, therefore there’s high demand”, yes there is demand.
But consider IF Leica churns out thousands of products a month. And you can get an M9 walking into a store.
Would you say there is no more demand?
You mean to say that because I can get a Canon / Nikon / other brand products when I walk in the store there is no demand for those products? Then why do they produce (and continually produce) thousands of products a month if there is no demand? Why?
Get the point?
It seems that your understanding of demand is somehow limited. You’re saying there’s high demand because there simply is no supply!
I think Yoshitoshi should’ve told you his last sentence.
Get out of your Leica dreamworld for a second.
Ok, at this point it’s a comical parade of logical fallacies. Thank you for the entertainment, Anonymous.
@ David
I wouldn’t think you know anything about being comical. You’re more annoyed than amused I presume.
Neither would I think you know anything about logic. So far the person most logical here is Karen.
You might know something about fallacies. Oh wait. That’s a big word. Are you still alright? You don’t seem to know how to accept criticism very well. I don’t think correcting you now would be wise on my end.
What the heck.
If something is logical therefore it must be sensible and reasonable ergo it must stem from the truth. Otherwise it would be illogical. So saying that what I’ve been saying are “logical fallacies”, the two words contradict themselves. I mean you yourself said it’s logical. So you must understand and accept it reasonable and sensible as the truth.
Again, very entertaining
Please feel free to think or surmise whatever might make you sleep better at night 
Meanwhile, for your amusement: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
I will tell Karen, my gilfriend, your compliments. Please give your girlfriend (or boyfriend, wife, husband, whomever) my sympathy.
Oh wait this is supposed to be about the Leica Tokyo store. Sorry LR. Ah hum, I hope to visit it the next time I stop by Tokyo!
@ David
I’m really wondering what’s the logical fallacy in everything I said.
Hmmm.
- Is it that the overpricing of Leica affords it to open stores simultaneously? And to be able to pay Seal to advertise for them? That’s $7k right there. Money that some regular Joe / Jane would draw from their pocket. I’m thinking there’s lens included with the camera they awarded. Wonder who’s the Joe / Jane that’s going to pay for that?
- Is it that other brands are cheaper than Leica?
- Is it that spending $$$ on a piece of camera gear is outrageously bothersome?
- Is it that the only reason why there’s demand is because there is simply no supply to begin with? For goodness sake. Pre-order 9.9.09 and ship only 10.19.09? Ridiculous.
Wonder what’s the logical fallacy in those.
Also confused as to what would be the reason to give sympathy?