3 ms·
While that is undoubtedly true, Leica never really catered to the 'I could do with a dedicated camera' crowd, but rather to the 'I am passionate about photograp
by lb1lf 2y ago
While that is undoubtedly true, Leica never really catered to the 'I could do with a dedicated camera' crowd, but rather to the 'I am passionate about photography and am reasonably well-heeled' or 'I am obscenely rich and would like to show off' crowd.
That, and presumably a lot of their revenue is from licencing their brand name to all sorts of phone manufacturers.
I wouldn't be surprised if their own rangefinder line (which is what I believe most people into photography associate with the Leica brand) was at best breaking even - it is merely a means to maintain the cachet of the brand, methinks. YMMV.
(Said as a longtime Leica enthusiast, but the digital Ms are out of my (comfortable) reach - when out shooting rangefinders, it is mostly a Leica M4 (1968) or a Cosina/Zeiss Ikon ZM (2005-ish, methinks)
- FireBeyond 2y ago> 'I am obscenely rich and would like to show off' crowd. The usual joke is "for dentists who want to take some family snapshots" (which is a slur at dentists, not at Leica. I've used two of their cameras, the Q and the SL2, and both are very pleasant experiences).