[Merv-O]

Right. At a glance, we have Leica Camera, Leica Microsystems, Leica Biosystems and Leica Geosystems.
Leica - Four Independent Companies Share the Leica Brand

---------- Post added 20-02-19 at 11:21 PM ----------


"Sells more", or sells more expensive?
We just have to pay some $5,000 for a K-1 to make that happen

I think the K-1 series with a half-dozen FF quality lenses is reasonable at about 5K. My Leica M (typ 240) was over 5k for the body alone....more expensive yes...twice as good? No...Pentax's also have a harder life than many Leicas. I use mine, but some people buy them for the status and later sell them with 6000 actuations for less than 50% of the value (look at eBay for the depreciation on these)....I inherited some great Leica glass from my grandfather and it helped build my kit so I had a head start I guess.

[BigMackCam]

I think they would be equal or more...Leica has a better distribution network. In the Metro Philly area alone (5th largest in the U.S.)--there are no Pentax dealers --ZIp, Nada, Nyet. Leica, in comparison has at least 4 or 5. I go to North Jersey or NYC to look at Pentax....Sad. Leica also has 2 dozen retail stores in major cities...Pentax has Zip, Nada, Yet stores....my best estimate is Leica sells more...plus they have their "value" line of altered Panasonic models for volume....see my comments a few replies above...etc.

I couldn't say whether they'd Leica would achieve less, equal or greater revenue. It wouldn't surprise me if you're right, though.

Yet, despite Leica's better distribution network - and I readily acknowledge that it's way better - the products are much more expensive, as your earlier post describes. How many people have $10K+ to spend on their photography kit, or at least a relatively small chunk of their overall kit? And of those, how many are happy to spend $10K of it on a single body plus a brace of lenses? Value for money is to Ricoh Imaging's advantage here.

I suspect that Leica's profit margins on products are considerably higher than Ricoh Imaging's, even taking into account what I understand to be excellent after-sales care - which is usually, and I think probably quite rightly, touted as the justification for buying a Leica-badged Panasonic. With that and the distribution network, I wouldn't be surprised if Leica's photographic revenue and profits are higher than Ricoh Imaging... but I personally wouldn't make that assumption.

I'd love to see the numbers, just for curiosity's sake

[bobmaxja]

Intetresting concept to get value added like Apple Store. From their site

The main driver of growth is the systematic realignment of the company that has taken place in recent years. In particular, the setting up of an in-house Retail Distribution division has made a major contribution to revenue growth. Leica now has 90 monobrand stores around the world, which are vital in terms of promoting brand experience in the context of photography. ‘China is our number-one growth market,’ says Matthias Harsch, who is planning 20 to 30 new stores in the country alone. The Group is now strengthening its presence in the service sector with the Leica Akademie brand in order to boost the appeal of photography amongst younger target groups.

[StiffLegged]

Quote:The Leica Camera Group achieved revenue of almost 400 million euros in the past financial year 2016/2017

That's five M bodies, twenty three M lenses, a leather case and two neckstraps. Easy finance terms are available!

[Mistral75]

As @stevebrot mentioned, though, Leica's business covers a much wider range than the Ricoh Imaging division. If we could strip everything out of those Leica numbers except for cameras, lenses and accessories, I wonder how the figures would stack up then...

Indeed, the right comparison is with Leica Camera AG. Four independent companies share the Leica brand:

• Leica Camera AG (cameras, lenses and sport optics products)
• Leica Microsystems (microscopes and associated imaging systems)
• Leica Biosystems (histology and anatomical pathology workflow solutions) and
• Leica Geosystems (measurement and survey).

The consolidated turnover of Leica Camera AG is around €400m. That's three times the size of Smart Vision, the Ricoh division that includes (but is not limited to) Pentax.

Leica Camera AG is more a luxury company than an optical company, with a two-digit profitability. Being highly profitable allows them to sustain a comparatively high level of R&D and marketing spend.

[Kunzite]

I think the K-1 series with a half-dozen FF quality lenses is reasonable at about 5K. My Leica M (typ 240) was over 5k for the body alone....more expensive yes...twice as good? No...Pentax's also have a harder life than many Leicas. I use mine, but some people buy them for the status and later sell them with 6000 actuations for less than 50% of the value (look at eBay for the depreciation on these)....I inherited some great Leica glass from my grandfather and it helped build my kit so I had a head start I guess.

I was talking about paying Leica prices for Pentax (e.g. $5000 for a K-1 body only). Those stores are maintained from the much larger margins...

[Merv-O]

I couldn't say whether they'd Leica would achieve less, equal or greater revenue. It wouldn't surprise me if you're right, though.

Yet, despite Leica's better distribution network - and I readily acknowledge that it's way better - the products are much more expensive, as your earlier post describes. How many people have $10K+ to spend on their photography kit, or at least a relatively small chunk of their overall kit? And of those, how many are happy to spend $10K of it on a single body plus a brace of lenses? Value for money is to Ricoh Imaging's advantage here.

I suspect that Leica's profit margins on products are considerably higher than Ricoh Imaging's, even taking into account what I understand to be excellent after-sales care - which is usually, and I think probably quite rightly, touted as the justification for buying a Leica-badged Panasonic. With that and the distribution network, I wouldn't be surprised if Leica's photographic revenue and profits are higher than Ricoh Imaging... but I personally wouldn't make that assumption.

I'd love to see the numbers, just for curiosity's sake

Well stated BMC. The high price of the Leica has the customer service built in, but Pentax is highly reliable and the best camera value in the universe. I now have 3 Leica bodies (that I'm using less and less) and up to 5 Pentax bodies (I have to update the signature photo) including the K-3ii and the K-5ii I picked up over the last month. My favorite Pentax was the K-50. I just loved the 16mp APS-c sensor and to buy a new in box K-5ii in 2019 with no actuations was a dream.The fact that it only cost 420 with a new 18-55 WR DA (I have 3 of them--marketplace here we come) was amazing. I wanted the K-3ii which I picked up in the market place for 480 with 6900 actuations on it but well cared for because I think RICOH is going FF to the wall for this year and I want to be part of the 200K k-3ii actuation thread--which I hope to start.

RICOH has been a good Shepard for Pentax and I believe they will continue to nurture the brand. maybe that's why a k-70 is $650 while a similar NikCanOny is 125 bucks more. The consumer pays for the advertising too....

[E-man]

I agree that it would be difficult for Pentax to reinvent itself as a super premium brand like Leica. At this juncture, it would be facing a double challenge of a large segment of the buying public that has either written the brand off or doesn't even remember it exists, coupled with the fact that many of those who are still familiar with Pentax see it more as a budget brand that also offers some nice higher end stuff. It doesn't work to just declare one's self a gold standard and expect consumers to pony up to buy your products--especially if you're Pentax and you don't spend a dime to promote them. I still haven't figured out how that strategy is supposed to work.

By comparison, Leica is able thrive in that 'gold standard' position today because they have been there for decades, consistently offering products of a caliber that most of their customers seem to believe justifes their hefty price tags, even if some question whether the models co-developed with Panasonic are truly worthy of the Leica name. Interestingly, that partnership is quite similar to the one Pentax and Samsung briefly enjoyed a decade or so ago. When the Leica and Panasonic initially partnered up, Leica was looking to break into the digital world and Panasonic wanted to get into cameras, having had no previous experience in that segment, other than with camcorders, so they each contributed what they were best at. Leica oversaw the development of lenses, which are also included on Panasonic models that have no Leica equivalent, and Panasonic oversaw the electronics. I have a Lumix FZ50 that is essentially the same camera as a Leica V-Lux 1, much like my Samsung GX-20 is essentially the same camera as a Pentax K20D. In both cases, the differences boil down to firmware and cosmetics. Leica offered a standard three-year warranty on their cameras while Panasonic offered only one and commanded a $300 premium over its Panasonic counterpart. Even today, as an aging and fairly obsolete model, used copies of the V-Lux 1 routinely command double the price of the Lumix FZ50, if not more.

[stevebrot]

To break it down a little further, Leica Camera AG has the following business lines:

• Photographic cameras and lenses
• Sport optics (binoculars, gun sights, and laser rangefinders)
• Ophthalmic (eyeglass) lenses

The Wikipedia included microscopes, though one must assume those are made as a B2B line.

As for firm numbers, those are sort of hard to come by since Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co. Ltd is a wholly-owned private subsidiary of its parent (i.e. not publicly-traded). As such any hard data is hard to come by and except what summaries become available only through it's parent's annual report. Hard information on Leica Camera is even harder to come by given that it is privately-owned by two entities, the Kaufmann family (Austria, dba as ACM) and the Blackstone Group, a private equity (buy-out) firm having 55% and 45% ownership respectively. (The Leica brand name is licensed from Leica Microsystems. Leica Camera has no connection other than name.)

Projected 2018 revenue for Leica Camera was about € 365M (per Wikipedia). I could not find revenue for Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co Ltd, though Ricoh proected 2018 revenue for its "Other" line of business at ~ € 2552M. How much of that is from imaging is hard to say. If even half, Leica appears to be somewhat smaller, revenue-wise.

https://www.ricoh.com/IR/financial_data/financial_result/


Steve

[clackers]

I agree that it would be difficult for Pentax to reinvent itself as a super premium brand like Leica.

I think there can only be one Leica. But there can be other niche brands.

In fact, there seems to be a race by Sony, Canon and Nikon to abandon consumers and become premium niche brands. Market dominance is disastrous in an unprofitable market, because the costs are huge.

[monochrome]

I think there is considerable room between Nikon and Leica, so that a niche could become more of a trench if Ricoh were so to choose.

[Merv-O]

I was talking about paying Leica prices for Pentax (e.g. $5000 for a K-1 body only). Those stores are maintained from the much larger margins...

Well Pentax does build a Leica type camera--it's called the 645Z.....

[Mistral75]

@stevebrot

'Projected 2018 revenue for Leica Camera was about € 365M (per Wikipedia).'

That's the turnover in the company's accounts. The consolidated turnover (i.e. including the turnover from subsidiaries) is a bit higher than €400m.

'I could not find revenue for Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co Ltd, though Ricoh proected 2018 revenue for its "Other" line of business at ~ € 2552M. How much of that is from imaging is hard to say. If even half, Leica appears to be somewhat smaller, revenue-wise.'

There is no such thing as Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co., Ltd any more, it was renamed Ricoh Imaging Co., Ltd years ago. It's included in Ricoh's Smart Vision division, itself part of the Other business segment.

You can find the turnover of Smart Vision in the quarterly presentation documents, the latest being https://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/h31q3_1.pdf See page #10: April-December Smart Vision turnover is ¥13.6bn. Add the January-March turnover (¥4.5bn) and you'll obtain a turnover of ¥18.1bn for the whole 2018 year.

¥18.1bn, that's €139m. Hence what I wrote four posts before yours:

(...)
The consolidated turnover of Leica Camera AG is around €400m. That's three times the size of Smart Vision, the Ricoh division that includes (but is not limited to) Pentax.
(...).

Please note these €139m are more than the turnover generated by Pentax-branded products since they also include the turnover generated by Ricoh-branded compact cameras, Ricoh rugged compact cameras and Theta products.

[Kunzite]

Well Pentax does build a Leica type camera--it's called the 645Z.....

Nope - Leica's price for that type of camera would be $20,000.

[RonHendriks1966]

You can find the turnover of Smart Vision in the quarterly presentation documents, the latest being https://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/h31q3_1.pdf See page #10: April-December Smart Vision turnover is ¥13.6bn. Add the January-March turnover (¥4.5bn) and you'll obtain a turnover of ¥18.1bn for the whole 2018 year.

¥18.1bn, that's €139m. Hence what I wrote four posts before yours:


Please note these €139m are more than the turnover generated by Pentax-branded products since they also include the turnover generated by Ricoh-branded compact cameras, Ricoh rugged compact cameras and Theta products.

And Ricoh Industrial Camera is part of that report now.

Pentax is getting pretty small......a niche in it self. For K-mount you also would have to take 645 sales out of it. How much would be left? Is k-mount sales more then 50 % of Smart Vision?