Overpriced German Equipment

Scott's damnation of the Leica marque is probably reverse snobbery.

To me it's no surprise that Leicas remain relatively expensive, they manufactured 200,000+ M3's, more than any other model, If 300,000 new german camera collectors sprang up over night prices would go through the roof.

 

These are strange times for photography, many now doubt the survival of the film medium (without questioning the shortcomings of digital photography), ignore its historic associations and forget the intrinsic value of a handmade instrument that continues to deliver the highest quality results 40, 50, 60 or even 70 years after leaving the factory. Just my opinion but used Leicas are probably closer to being fairly priced while used Nikons, etc, are under-priced.

Well Roger I have a big problem for you one of my favorite outfits is a 1951 Canon model III w/rapid winder and a 5cm f2.8 Elmar! My other favorite rangefinder type setup (no rangefinder involved) Is my 1955 Leica If which normally mounts either my 35mm f1.8 Canon Black and chrome or a 28mm f2.8 nFD

 

I shoot mostly Canon FD having 14 bodies (sorry as of the other night 15 bodies) and 40+ lenses from the 17mm f4.0 nFD to the 600mm f4.5 nFD But I also shoot Rolleifelx 3.5E, Voigtlander Vito II, Braun Paxettes, Canon Rf's from the Model III to the G-III QL-17 Canonet, Demi's, Zeiss-Ikon Nettars, Yashica 44, Konica C35, Retina, Braun Gloria 6X6 and Norca 6X6/6X9, Canon APS Elf, And Canon Digital G3

 

 

I still think what makes a great photo is the subject.

 

As to German equipment being over priced. Having NEVER bought a single Piece of German equipment less then 40 years old I can't help you there sorry.

 

 

 

Maybe it's cause they are so expensive.<div></div>

The only straight apples-to-apples comparison between German and Japanese glass I

know of is in large format, where there are four major companies (Fuji, Nikon, Schneider,

Rodenstock) who make lots of lenses, and all of whom make as far as I can tell

approximately equally capable glass with

approximately equal price. There are some exceptional products from each of the

manufacturers--to pick a sampling, the

Nikon 90mm SW, the Schneider 110XL, the Rodenstock 150 APO-Sironar-S, the Fujinon

250mm f9 A--but neither region has a particular leg up on the other.

 

In most other

product categories, it is difficult to get a straight comparison of modern lenses; is a

Bronica SQ-Ai equivalent to a Hasselblad 501CM? Is a Nikon F3 equivalent to an M7 (to

pick bodies that are superficially similar, in that they have apeture priority autoexposure

and are battery dependent)? Even when the lens mount is the same, is it

really reasonable to say "Oh, Japanese glass isn't as good as German glass" when you're

comparing the Voigtlander 35/2.5 at $229 to Leica's 35/2 ASPH at $1795? Surely not!

 

It is reasonable to compare the 35/2.5 and the 35/2 ASPH for use, of course; but we can

make no good claims about the total ability of each manufacturer from here, precisely

because the price points are so different.

<i>Stuart you can be so boring and stuffy...with all due respect.</i>

<p>

Allen, you're right. I find communikating on the internet very fifficult.

Germans pay themselves too much.. meaning their products are also expensive, especially after they get all the taxes and charges applied to them after being transported here.

Allen, you're right. I find communikating on the internet very fifficult

 

I'm always right. I sat on the 'font of all knowledge' and it stuck to my rear. Sort of like piles;) Hey, i'm not alone with this condition.

<I think it is entirely accurate to note that some of the greatest photographs ever taken were taken with Leicas.>

 

 

"Some" of course. And some, obviously by others. When someone takes a photo and other people--family, friends, clients, whoever--show their sincere appreciation in words spoken or written, cash tendered or even with a warm smile, admit it, doesn't that make the photographer feel it is one of the greatest photographs ever taken regardless of equipment used?

most of the time, i wouldn't even consider posting a response on a thread that concerned itself with optics.<p>

today, however, went to the tate (with the missus), saw frank, bought london & wales. felt good.

<p>

went to bookshop. waited for missus, looked around. no books on arbus. bought book by boris mikhalivov called case history. frightening stuff.

<p>

could have been shot with glass made in bhutan. just as effective

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"I'd like others' views on which cameras and lenses they have used for their most successful pictures"</i><p>My better images have all been made using German glass. The reason for this is simple; I've only got German glass. Successful pictures are created by people.

And who is this Scott person, and what did he actually say. A quote or citation to his statement would be help in assessing the value of his opinion. How can so many people have so many opinions without the facts before them?

Successful pictures are created by people.

 

There's a thought. The glas is a looooong way behind.

Anyway, time for a photo..........<div></div>

The old adage about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing comes to mind.

 

My most succesful shots have been with Leica cameras and glass. That's good enough for me without even beginning to wonder why.

Roger

 

Don't you think that the lens design is the important thing here, as I believe that even Leica obtain [some of?] their glass from Hoya.

 

Who made the first designs, that have been copied in one form or another for a century or more?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

"Overpriced" is a relative term. I don't use Leicas, because they are "high" priced. But look at it this way. At one time, a fair number of cameras were made in the USA. And I assume the USA still makes high-quality optics for military equipment, etc. But why is there no domestic manufacturer of reasonably quality 35mm cameras and lenses? I can only assume that, despite the high prices, the Leicas are actually cheaper than what a comparable-quality USA-made camera would be.

 

For years, Japan has been the leader in the camera industry. Yet, they are running into the exact same problems that the USA faced. So my "Japanese" K1000 was actually made in Singapore or somewhere like that. And I assume there will come a day when there are practically no Japan-made cameras available, either.

 

As far as the actual prices go, I think on any consumer product, you'll find a very steep price-to-benefit curve at the high-price end of things. Take the highest-quality camera lens available and ask yourself, what would it cost to exceed that quality? You'd be looking at millions for some kind of Nasa-type project.

 

You'll also find that the cost to make items more durable and dependable (as opposed to actually giving better pictures) runs the cost up quite a bit. I remember noticing this long ago when digital calculators starting coming out. The earlier expensive ones (expensive due to the IC's in them) also had much higher quality buttons & would last forever. Now you can get one for $5 that will do all the same stuff, but won't last out the year. Check your local stores and see what the best pro hammer costs compared to the cheapest you can find (about $30 versus $3, I'm thinking). They'll both hit a nail, but you do pay for that durability. Compare cast-iron anvils to steel anvils, same effect.

 

Anyway, the sum of it all is, whatever floats your boat. If we all liked the same cameras, there would only be ONE brand. The fact that there have been dozens of brands, different features, different prices, different built qualities, just points out that different people like different things.

 

There is actually such a thing as snob appeal, too. I'll bet right now, there are some people using Leicas that would not use them if they sold for $20 at Walmart. But snob appeal alone doesn't make a product successful, or keep it that way. DeLorean and a lot of others have proven that.

I'm not sure it makes sense to judge equipment "quality" based on the choices of those whose skill makes it possible for them to use whatever equipment they wish, and I expect that very many of those people use Japanese equipment in any event. Also, the sample represented by the types of photography books most of us favor is probably neither large enough nor objective enough to be the basis of an assessment of equipment "quality." <p>

 

If you believe the 80/20 rule is a useful way to look at many things, it suggests that you pay 80% of the price of something for the last 20% of whatever it is you want from that something. The skew between marginal cost and marginal gain in "quality" only increases as you approach "perfection." I'm sure that with many sorts of products you could pay twice as much to get from 98 to 99 percent of "perfect." <p>

 

The fact that something continues to exist on the market at all is a pretty good argument that it's not overpriced for someone. Someone wants it. Maybe for $1000 you could make a ruler that was within .000001 inches of being exactly a foot long. Presumably that would be overpriced for everyone and therefore it doesn't exist. But if Bill Gates and his friends all wanted to buy one, it <i>would</i> exist and would not be overpriced at least in their minds. But if the top people who measure for a living were then given these rulers for free, that would say little about the quality of the rulers, the necessity of the rulers or whether the rulers were overpriced. <p>

<I>Of course I want to sell my books -- I don't eat otherwise...</I><P>

 

Well Roger, looking at my book shelves, I would guess that several of the meals that you enjoyed in the last 15 years or so have been bought by me. I hope you enjoyed the food as much as I enjoyed the books. ;-)<P>

 

Seriously, <B>35mm Panorama</B> was the book that made me pull the trigger on getting a Leica, both from the photos and the narrative. Over priced? I don't know since I bought used for about 10 years, only going new-in-the-box for my M6. I made more money back on every Leica that I sold than I initially paid, so in effect the experiment was free. Right now, that M6 has cost me about 150 Dollars a year to own, and that price goes down every year that I don't sell it. Several of my Nikons cost less, but if I sold that M6 today, I'd get much more back than I would for a Nikon FM2. If you use the Leica gear forever, it might actually come in cheaper over time.

When I was deeply involved with painting, some rare earth colors were horrifyingly

expensive for just a little tube of the stuff. Most people couldn't see a difference from

considerably less expensive oil paints of a similar color. Yet, there were a select few who

could ... but more importantly, so could I. So it was worth paying the price.

 

The assumption that those who level bombastic POVs against specific Leica qualities can

see it, or ever will, is a mute point. Who cares if Scott Eton or any one else can see the

difference? The question is, can you?

Allen,

I would be very VERY careful about what you post in your pictures

Check the top right hand corner of the doodle

Allen, I would be very VERY careful about what you post in your pictures

 

Good point. I missed that sad crap. Shame on me.

Hey, if merely buying expensive gear gets you <I>believing</I> you're a better photog,

then who can argue it's overpriced?

This is so silly. Let's ask Jay Leno which one of his 80+ cars are overpriced? Maybe he paid too much. Or perhaps only the German cars and motorcycles are overpriced. Wonder what kind of point-and-shoot camera he uses. . . pinhole to save money.

>hank boneroneo , jan 15, 2005; 05:57 p.m.

 

>Viewpoint? I wish it were confined to that. I actually have a high degree of respect for

Scott and his ability to ignore the personal invective that seems to come from the good ol

boys when they start to lose a rational argument.

 

Gee Frank, I guess you are jealous! It's been months since anyone has responded to a

single one of your posts...

I hate to say it, but with German Glass, I think you are paying a premium for intangibles like tradition, history, and mystique.

 

German Lenses have always been widely perceived of as being "The Best" (though as the P.J.'s working in occupied Japan discovered, there were some lenses better than what Leitz/Zeiss could offer).

 

If whatever you manufacture is perceived of as being "The Best", then you can safely charge an awful lot more for it on that basis alone. Yes, it also costs a lot in R&D and quality control to maintain that claim, but I think the claim itself is more of a marketing issue then any issue of real, perceptible, optical performance.

 

Cosina, who are also shamelessly cashing in on that fine old German heritage with the Voigtlander name, seem to be doing a great business consistently producing the second best lenses available for the Leica. Some of their lenses are so close to being the best that only Irwin Putts can tell the difference.<div></div>

<i>Are German (and Swiss Alpa) cameras and lenses overpriced?</i>

<p>

Yes. That's why most of us buy them used. Sure, some people like the look of older lenses, or the "bang for the buck" of CLA'd beaters. However, like Roger, I too would like a new MP and 35 Asph Lux if money were not an issue... but use older M's and new(or newer) CV's. I suspect most do, too.