▲ | lb1lf 16 hours 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 16 hours ago | parent [-] | |
> '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). |