Originally posted by Merv-O 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