There is already a Leica M9 Titanium :
I am curious to see if the camera will sell for that price. As far as I know all 500 pieces of the M9 Titan were sold out already weeks ago.
Update: there is another Leica M9T on Amazon for $59,999.
Related posts:
24 Comments
there is one at the local Leica dealer in Sankt Moritz (CH) for list price
Shame. My max bid was $39,000
You’re in luck, the price has dropped to $36K
There is one on Amazon that comes with a free Leica S2-P & Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00464WUOU/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=
there is one on amazon that comes with a free S2-P and Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5
Is it this one? $60k…
The Neiman-Markus edition is actually a better collector camera because Leica only made 50 of them, not 500 as in the Titan. That’s where the collectors should put their dollars. You’ll get a much better return on your investment.
btw, my local Leica store has the Neiman Markus edition in stock:
http://www.proshopforphotographers.com
Wow. I guess Leica special editions may be losing there luster? I wouldn’t give any more than a new M9.
People really do jump on the nonsense wagon nowadays – and jump off just as quick. Leica for a short while has flooded the market with the Special Editions which have made them money – quickly. But now what?
They still have manufacturing shortfalls as to production capability and they have a very limited market for a traditional design that will never truly be enough to keep the cash flow coming in large amounts. It’s not rocket science. They have to reinvent themselves into a market they’ve left – the popular DSLR or something that they had the beginnings of in the R line – or a design of some type that will ‘replace’ it, and bring people back, and into the brand. The S line or X1 won’t do that.
No amount of fancy special editions will pay for that. I hope they have some deep(er) pockets.
Mr. Nobody Special, you appear to post the same message over and over again regardless of the topic . . . if you don’t care for Leica then why do you keep following them? I won’t even go into the whole suggestion that Leica engage in the DSLR business . . . if it isn’t obvious, there is no shortage for Leica products (as you aptly noted).
Yes, you are correct, I do post a similar message often (you don’t have to read it). But as a Leica user since 1969 starting with screw-mounts and the SL, SL2, and various M models, and actually being offered a position with Leica USA back in the mid 70′s (which I refused as they had already started to miss the boat in the ‘R’ market) I guess you could say that Leica thought I had something to offer.
But who cares? If you truly understand the complete history of Leica camera, you would see how for the first time, they dropped a complete system, (they did that with the screw-mount, but replaced it with the M), the R, while they still promised the DSLR-R. They changed their minds, fine. They left every R user that was waiting at the side of the road with no apology, etc. I still use Leica cameras, but it will be a long time before I invest thousands into a system that they cannot be trusted to support or carry on with.
Steven Lee, was the individual that came from Best Buy to help ‘right the ship’, and he was passionate about it including the importance of the R. For who really knows for sure, and there are many ideas out there, he got canned. But don’t kid yourself, the recent sales ‘bump’ is because of the FF M9 and it’s glass.
It is a unique and well-crafted camera with some great glass, but it’s a stretch at this moment to think they are on their way – the M9 is a specialty image tool, but it has never been the major bread winner for them. They have, for many years now been in the same boat – a new owner, then a quick splash, and then back to struggling along.
My dad has the R series camera (the R8). I’ve tried it and didn’t really like it. I feel that a DSLR (of which I own three) should have AF and a very large variety of lens available (for shooting sports, fashion, news, or certain travel conditions where weather is a factor). It should also be compatible with modern studio strobe systems, etc. I just don’t know whether the R system can ever compete with the modern DSLRs, so as a small company, I don’t think it was an unwise decision to abandon the system (which wasn’t selling well in the first place). as for credibility issue, that is different and I can understand the frustration. But Nikon at one time made RFs and they’ve moved on. Companies evolve, the way we take images evolve, and Leica and Nikon are image companies. If Kodak had realized they were an image company, not a film company, they would be in a much more competitive position today. But lets not kid ourselves, Leica is also at the same time a luxury company, and to that end they’ve also done well. As long as they make fantastic lenses, I don’t see any near-term demise of the company.
BTW I don’t disagree with that the recent sales bump is due to the M9 and Leica’s glass; in other words, the Leica M system. That being the case, I don’t understand why that is a bad thing? So Leica is selling a lot of a new product they just introduced (the M9), which is also driving up a lot of demand for their M lenses (most of which seem consistently out of stock). And perhaps your legitimate complaint here is that Leica is not ramping up the production sufficiently to meet the demand and has no business making special edition cameras, but doesn’t that also rebut the suggestion that Leica should re-engage in the development of the R system, which was never a commercial success? Why invest resources into a commercially inferior system when you can’t even meet the demand of the commercially superior system? At least the special edition cameas (for the most part) brings in substantial margins.
David, Leica is a special product that relies on product longevity and a loyal customer/user base for the company survival. They have for years been a company that has survived on the edges of the ‘pro’ market.
But they have also through the years made some major management decisions/blunders. The one that had the biggest affect was AF, which Leica basically invented or showed to the masses in the mid 70′s in prototype form. Management would decide that Leica users know how to focus manually, why do they AF?
That was of course, for the R line. Which never recovered, but they kept producing it through ownership/management changes. Thus many of us held on to the system that they themselves stayed loyal to by maintaining production. Once they started to make the promises of a DSLR, it was obvious to everyone that they were very late to the party. It is true that while they waited they basically nailed their coffin closed. But they left the loyality that they had been surviving on behind – after they had continued with promises. It is not a bad thing that they are making money at the moment on the M, and with luck, they will reinevent a wheel of their making that will pull new users in.
But in doing so, and by following the path they are on, they have aliented a very loyal customer base that had helped them to survive – a risky manuver when those customers were willing spend big dollars on a quality system. It is very hard for many to take them seriously now, as they try and move forward. It has been a legacy of sorts that Leica has tripped through like this in the past.
NS, I hear what you are saying. That said, it doesn’t change my mind that reengaging the R system doesn’t make sense to me considering, as you agree, the DSLR market is a ship that is too far ahead for Leica to catch and that the S2 system is already out. Other than bestowing an apology to ones like you who may have counted on them continuing to support the product line, your suggestion (to the extent they call Leica into action) is simply not a business proposition that would, IMHO, result in commercial success.
Again, if Pacific Railway understood that they were a transportation company, not a railroad company, we’d been flying Pacific Airlines (at least for a while). The ability for a company to evolve is important. Here, the R system was an effort to evolve, however it was a failure. Just as important to evolve is the ability to cut your losses by admitted a mistake or a blunder (hint hint Nokia). Ok, so maybe history could have played out differently had Leica invested more resources into the R system, added AF, and made the R system into a competitive DSLR player. But at the end of the day, Leica went back to what they did best, the RF cameras, reinvented themselves within that space by introducing a digital form factor that still held true to the spirit of the M system. In that regard, Leica delivered 110% to it’s loyal M customers, which in my opinion has always been the stronger base of support for what Leica has eventually become known. And, as I suggested, at the same time they never abandoned the luxury aspect of the brand.
And to be certain, the customer base of Leica is evolving. While folks who counted on product longevity and sat on the border of pro market were once (and perhaps continue to be) the largest consumer base for Leica, you cannot ignore that, as China becomes the second largest economy with GDP approaching double digits, and the largest consumer of luxury goods worlwide, there are folks in China who are less than 30 years old wielding a M9 Titanium on the streets. They don’t bargain, they want what they want, and, like in Russia, Leica is becoming more significant as a vogue, yes, vogue, possession amongst the wealthy in China that simply a reliable piece of camera that takes good photos (largly thanks to the enthusiatic sales ppl in HK, where many rich mainlander visit; if you are not Chinese you may have a hard time understanding this trend, but it is easy for me to comprehend). Meanwhile, both Russia and China are experiencing inflation (latest Jan number according to WSJ today is 4.9% YTY), and guess what? camera equipment and luxury goods are excellent inflationary hedge! So no unlike Mercedes, LV, Chanel, Gucci, Hermes, Leica is investing resources to cater to that luxury market and so far with good success because of the simple fact that Russia and China are the two largest consumer of niche luxury goods today. To them (the wealthy), a good camera needs to do more than just take beautiful photos, it needs to be a piece of art in itself. And Leica certain is that.
Now, is that offensive to a photo affectionado, to a purist, such as perhaps yourself? Perhaps. But is is prudent to ignore that market? I don’t think so.
It is what it is, Leica traditionally has always moved forward by a ‘system’ adaptive supported method.
When making decisions as they have it seems that some major ego differences and opinions were doing battle, the ones who won (own the company) decided against maintaining that tradition. R users/waiters got burned and Leica never has apologized. Straight up; that’s a BS way of doing business.
Why should anyone in this position feel ‘the loyalty’ still exists. They cannot make it on the M line alone in the non-Chinese markets. Oh, The R system never evolved due again to short-sided management decisions over the years. You are young, you haven’t experienced the decisions many of us have. Yes, there is a new ‘market’ out there in China, I don’t care about ‘trinket’ buyers there, or elsewhere. Oh, and there is no ‘investment return’ in the R systems any longer. This is the new Leica.
They had hired an American from Best Buy not too long ago. Basically he had tried the formula Nobody Special is proposing. That guy got a quick early retirement from that job. Since then they have gone back to their roots – building high quality gear that is not available from anyone else – M series and added the S2. And guess what, the profits started flowing again. And they did it during one of the worst economic downturns in decades. In hindsight their plan was brilliant and so far also their execution. I hope that they continue with their present vision. Might be a valuable lesson there for other camera makers
Leica business is growing up year after year. What you are saying seems in contradiction with reality.
Wait, let me check my piggy bank. Darn it! I’m only $59,899 short.
They have 2 for sale. Numbers 457 and 467.
Hummmm, I can’t decide which number I like best. Maybe I’ll get both!
I agree, get both, one can go in the display case in the study, the other in the library.
The price tag should not at all attract many potential buyers, it’s a limited edition ‘digital’…
I agree that it would be challenging to maintain the value of anything digital (see, e.g., M8 White and M8 Safari). The M7 titanium was a much better investment. The good news for Leica, of course, is that there appears to be no shortage of buyers despite the knowledge of digital rot, so they get to do this on a regular basis and cash in on vogue that is special edition cameras.
It would appear that vanity is just as, if not more, important as photo quality when it comes to profit margin. Of course, I am not the first one to suggest that outrageous proposition. Steve Jobs can be the first one to tell you that emotionalization of technology is a key to profit margin, that design and appearahce is as important as functionality. A simple example for a controlled comparison: Sony was the first to introduce pink digital cameras, and I recall during their first year of introduction the pink cameras were all sold out, and were selling on eBay at a 50% premium to the silver and black counterparts, this was despite knowning as we all did that next year (if that long) a better digital camera would come along.
agree on your point of view, i am not against digital, i have a M8 myself, but to me a digital’s role is really to be used, not collect, the value is just not there (versus film). I have a couple of limited edition film Leica’s, but they also get to be used, and some scratched here and there, not going to sell them so that’s really okay in terms of losing value I guess.