Leica price increase coming to the US on May 1st, M10 goes up by $300

Leica will raise most of their US prices on May 1st. I do not have the full list, but here is what to expect:

  • Leica M10: up by $300
  • Leica M Typ 262: up by $200
  • Many of the Leica M10 accessories are going up in price as well, for example the M10 thumb support is going up by $45
  • Leica 007 Typ 007: up by $1,700
  • Most of the Leica M lenses (except the Summarits) are going up by $100, here are a few examples:
    • Leica Summaron 25mm f/5.6: up by $100
    • Leica Elmarit 21mm f/3.4: up by $100
    • Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95: up by $100
    • Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4: up by $100

Update: see this post for the full/new price list.

If you haven't noticed yet, prices of photo gear have been going up for a while now and will continue to do so as the industry continue to shrink. If you are planning to buy a new Leica camera, lens or accessory, I recommend you place an order before the end of this month:

This entry was posted in Leica Lenses, Leica M10 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • saywhatuwill

    Omg, another price increase?

    • I am not sure I understand why Leica is doing, they had rebates and discounts and now they are raising prices. The dollar/euro ratio has not changed.

      • EnPassant

        Maybe simply because the demand for M10 is high and they raise the price to what they think the market are willing to pay?

      • Tim Rule

        For the M10 its 4.5% increase. Leica does that each year, and after a while, it starts to add up – the M10 is even new to the market. And since the rebates and discounts apply to the list price … Leica’s customers can afford it, right?

        • They announced the camera 3 months ago, they could have easily started with that price. A price increase 3 months after the announcements is strange.

          • Tim Rule

            Its incoherent. And its the same each year.

            IMHO Leica is taking a hit from above (HB XD1) and now from below (new Sony A9) which is really going to make it hard to sell the M and SL to anyone … other than the people who are already Leica customers, and they can afford it right?

            I think that is Lecia’s strategy, its worked for the past few years, I doubt it will work in the future. I like what they do … but its just not very compelling given the alternatives.

            I find only the M-A and M-D uniquely interesting.

          • What you said is probably correct for the SL and the S but the M is unique and basically has no competition. People buy the M because of the unique style of shooting, not because of the high tech inside.

          • Tim Rule

            I don’t disagree, however, some people buy the M because of the brand and status (like me to be honest). In that case, the HB X1D is also also very interesting; its Medium Format, has a brand history and is quite unique in its implementation.

            I find the X1D more interesting that the M10. They are both really great, however, with an entry price close to 15K for the best Body+Lens … well, not so easy. X1D Hasselblad is pretty cool – been to the Moon.

            It has to be hurting Leica’s sales.

          • eric

            i like the images that come out of the x1d but no comparison with M in terms of style and comfort. xd1 feels like big camera in your hands, not like the m with small lenses. and the x1d is not a rangefinder, different shooting experience for sure. i dont know anyone who has ditched leica for hasselblad and if they have they’re will be more young people to replace them. i see young people shooting old film leica’s now & leica q was a hit with those wanting automatic. so leica brand has been doing well in my opinion.

      • Laud Farter

        4.5% covers the costs of labor increases/inflation. This will continue to for the next several years with the move in US to increase minimum wage (money to pay for wage increase has to come from somewhere). Couple that with a shrinking market and pressure on the euro (due to imbalances and problems in Europe), don’t expect the trend to change.

        In NYC alone, costs and prices of many staples have gone up by over 5-10% this year. Everyone loves a wage increase, but nobody thinks to pay the Piper.

        • eric

          this sounds more like conspiracy than fact. higher camera prices are caused by a shrinking camera market caused by the ubiquity of smartphones. has nothing to do with minimum wage increase. im ok with the people at the bottom having a few more dollars to live on.

          • Keith

            Not really the place for a lesson on economics but … the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant 1) for people with no skills to obtain skills and work their way up as they gain skills and 2) kids to make some spending money. No one until a few years ago would seriously argue that making fries at McDonald’s or working at Starbucks was meant to be a lifelong career upon which one could support a family.

          • Keith

            Additionally, there is reality to consider. As the price of labor increases artificially (increased minimum wage) and the price of technology decreases organically we will find technology displacing labor. In fact, we see it clearly spreading in restaurants with kiosks gradually replacing workers in minimum wage jobs. We see new reports of robots being able to replace workers in food preparation as well. Although self-driving cars are in their infancy, I think we all see in the near future that delivery jobs – taxi drivers, truckers – will be obsolete. The higher the cost of labor is artificially elevated, the more non-skilled workers will be priced out of the market, replaced by technology. So the question is would you rather have a job at McDonald’s at $7.50, or would you rather have a machine replace your job when your wage hits $10.

          • eric

            lol…so are you that guy who stiffs a hairdresser on tips because it’s not a “real job” even though people now can make a living and support a family on that alone. i dont think people working at mcdonalds or Starbucks are looking to work there forever…but its still work. no need to devalue work, if McDonald’s or Starbucks doesn’t want to conform to public policy they have the rest of the world to sell too. people also make living mowing lawns now, when i was growing up kids did that. times change man. be grateful you can afford a leica at any price.

          • Keith

            Hi. I don’t know how you got anything about devaluing work. All work is valuable. From a material perspective one’s work is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay. A person can take orders at McDonalds. A kiosk can take orders at McDonalds. If a person demands $7/hour to take orders, no one is going to look at automating his McDonalds. If the owner is looking at “Fight for $15” it is a very easy decision to automate. It will be much much cheaper financially and practically – kiosks always show up to work. A business owner doesn’t have to scramble to make up for a worker who didn’t show up.

          • Keith

            Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but supply-and-demand is a reality. You can fight against it, but labor is a cost the same as rent, the same as widgets. When the price of one goes up, a rational actor in an elastic market will find alternatives. You really don’t have to argue theory though. You see this in real life.

          • Keith

            Finally, for the record, I generally tip generously as long as service is decent or good. I believe in merit.

          • ZoetMB

            No, that’s incorrect because the extreme case of “what someone is willing to pay” is slavery. Where does it end? If someone is willing to work for 25 cents an hour, is that what profitable corporations should pay? Is that ethical? Furthermore, it doesn’t account for the fact that when corporations don’t pay living wages, their employees require public assistance, funded by taxpayers.

            I don’t remember corporations complaining about the minimum wage when it was $1.85 in 1970. Using the Federal inflation rate (which I believe is understated), the minimum wage should today be $11.53.

            We need to hit at least $15 an hour because without it, we’re going to have even more people living in the streets then we have today. We’ll be like a third-world country. And one of the things that people who believe what you believe don’t realize is that virtually every penny of that $15 will find its way back into the economy because low-wage people have to spend everything they make. If that means that McDonald’s has to charge $1.35 for a burger instead of $1.20 or make a Coke a few ounces smaller, so be it.

            All these corporations who complain about rising minimum wages pay their CEO’s and other executives ludicrous salaries. Steven Easterbrook of McDonald’s is among the poorer-paid food/retail industry CEO’s and he makes $3800 an hour ($7.9 million). Steven Ellis and Montgomery Moran of Chipotle each make over $13 million (over $6500 per hour). Howard Schultz of Starbucks pays himself over $20 million (over $9600 an hour).

            This isn’t about what they’re really worth. This is about being members of the “old (White) boys club”.

          • ZoetMB

            Maybe it wasn’t meant to be a living wage when it was only paid to part-time students or people in temp jobs, but when large corporations started paying it to large numbers of employees, that changed the game. And a lot of the companies who paid minimum wage never increased wages even when their employees gained the skills you speak about.

            I paid for college working minimum wage jobs (90 hours a week in the summer, but still minimum wage). That’s not possible today – one couldn’t even pay for the books on minimum wage. And see my post above about corporate welfare for McDonald’s and the like.

            When I was young, Federal minimum wage bought one 8 subway tokens or 8 slices of pizza. Now it gets you 2.6.

            Your theory may have held true when there were jobs that paid more than min wage that someone who had worked in a McDonald’s could move to, but those jobs largely don’t exist today.

        • ZoetMB

          That’s absolutely ridiculous. Prices of staples have not gone up by 5%-10% in NYC. If you believe that, show us some proof with real data. Inflation is still quite low. If food prices have gone up at small supermarkets in Manhattan, it’s not minimum wage increases that’s driving it – it’s the ludicrously high retail rents in Manhattan, which can easily reach $200 per square foot (and up to $2000 per square foot on portions of Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue, although a supermarket wouldn’t take that space). That’s $2 million a year for a 10,000 square foot supermarket.

          Furthermore, when it comes to minimum wage increases, either the corporations pay it or taxpayers pay it. One of the reasons for the increase in fast food worker minimum wages is because nationally, 52% of fast food workers have at least one family member on welfare and because in New York State, fast food workers were receiving an average of $6800 per worker per year in public assistance – a cost to taxpayers of over $700 million. As a taxpayer, I resent the fact that we were giving McDonald’s, Burger King and the rest what was essentially corporate welfare.

          Furthermore, what would NYC minimum wages have to do with Leica’s pricing in the U.S.? Or any other foreign camera manufacturer for that matter?

          Leica is a luxury item. It has nothing to do with minimum wage and sales of Leicas are probably very price insensitive. They’re largely purchased by people for whom its high price is an advantage – they’re buying it in part because most other people can’t, like buying a fine watch.

  • eric

    ive been reading about this issue for awhile. several people have already predicted cameras to go way up in price over next decade as demand in market shrinks. with the popularity of the m10, im not really surprised. i will probably get a 50mm summilux before the end of month now.

  • Bo Dez

    Leica always put their prices up.

  • Laud Farter

    I might just order the M10, given that the Sony A9 is priced at $4500–and this seems the trend for newer cameras. The M10 seems like a better relative value (and I’d buy and use and M10 many times before I’d consider the A9)–but that’s just me.

    • Teemu Kustila

      Apples vs oranges…

      One does 20 fps, shoots 6K video
      oversampled to 4K without pixel binning, has the latest 6th generation full frame Exmor RS BSI sensor, 693 AF points and no viewfinder blackout when shooting 20 fps. So needless to say I think the new Sony is very impressive and it will go head to head against Nikon D5 and Canon 1D X II and imo, surpassing them. And one is Latest and most refined digital rangefinder ever designed to use M lenses without autofocus and features no video what-so-ever. Note: i am not bashing Leica here, but it seems like this is such a weird comparison. Get the one which you prefer. And if you want M10, better buy it before the price increase 🙂 I will probably skip both, as I don’t really need 20 fps camera and M10 does not really warrant a worthy upgrade over my M 240.

      That said, I am curious how the high ISO and dynamic range will compare for A9 vs Leica M10. I would expect A9 to be about 1.5-2 stops better in both categories, because A9 has the latest Exmor RS sensor. A lot can be expected from this latest BSI sensor, which should be state of the art sensor by all accounts.

      I Like your user name, by the way 😉

    • eric

      yes, the trend for higher priced cameras is real. i bet in a decade people will be very nostalgic for the days when they cost 5k or 6k.

  • i like how leica is raising the prices, must be for bankruptcy purposes =) remember panasonic losing money in the camera game. which is strange, i thought a lot of people bought the gh4 & gh5

    • eric

      leica is not going bankrupt, lol…the last numbers i saw had them doing quite well, especially during the years a new m model was released.

      • raziel28

        Luckily for them, rich get richer. 🙂

  • Shrinking market because all of the camera manufacturers are raising the prices of new models by significant proportion, which results in a reduced demand again because people can’t afford the damn things.

    I had a Canon 5D Mark 3 which I bought for A$3K and now the body of the Mark 4 is $5K? How the help does that work out when you have four years between versions? You’ve just priced your own customers out of an upgrade path.

    I’m glad I bought by M 240 when I did. I got it for about A$7.1K over 2 years ago and now the body is $9K… A four year old model!

    What gives Leica? Is Leica no longer about photography? There’s a lot of great photographers who aren’t rich who could be making amazing images with your cameras.

    • The Leica M 240 is still $7k, but the new M10 went up by $300 just three months after it was announced. Almost all Leica M lenses also went up by $100 on May 1st.

  • Back to top