have leica always been expensive?

They may be expensive but, at least for the film cameras, they are a good value. My M3 was born in 1957 and is still going strong. The only service it has needed was a CLA in 1997.<div></div>

I have to second Richard Williams use of Measuring Worth Dot Com. This is a very good inflation tool. Indeed, last year I wrote a small note about doing this in the Newsletter of the Western Canadian Photographic Historical Association (of which Tom A of Rapidwinder fame is a member, see http://www.wcpha.com/) The note was reprinted in the newsletter of the Photographic Historical Society of Canada with wrong attribution -- later corrected.

 

"So you have a record of a camera purchase and you want to know what it would sell for today. There are various online calculators that allow one to do this. But asking “how much is that camera worth now?” is not a question they can answer. This is because the value of an item in the market place changes. However they can answer the question, “how much money is that?” in terms of today’s currency.

 

... useful tools [include]:

...

2. Measuringworth.com,

...

 

The second tool is a web site with several useful calculators. One is for obtaining the inflation of British pounds from the year 1264 onwards. Another is a calculator of U.S. dollar inflation from that currency’s creation up until today. Still another calculator [at MWDC] gives the historical exchange rates between U.S. dollars and British pounds." The currency exchange feature was recently updated to include Yen and Yuan.

 

http://www.phsc.ca/phsc_e-mail/Vol-6/PHSC-E-Mail-V6-12.pdf

http://www.phsc.ca/phsc_e-mail/Vol-7/PHSC-E-Mail-V7-1.pdf

 

I recommend using "Relative Values - US $" calculator and the measures for Consumer Price Index, the GDP deflator, the value of consumer bundle and the unskilled wage. This gives a better sense of apparent cost. BTW if you are working with larger amounts of money wealth of uber rich, M&A, aggregate government taxation records, etc. look at the nominal GDP per capita and the relative share of GDP measures.

I'm sure Al Kaplan would be amused to be called a collector rather than a user! You'll have to Google his site to

see what I mean, as direct links to him from here seem to be forbidden ('refs unpersons verging crimethink'?). As

I recall, he wasn't really making a Leica vs digital argument, rather a Leica vs other 'cheaper' cameras. And for

most of the 20th century, he was probably correct. But times have indeed changed, and I'd agree it perhaps

doesn't make all that much sense to wed an exquisitely crafted and very expensive optical rangefinder assembly

(that might last for many decades) to such rapidly changing digital technology. It's rather a pity that the

program of continuous upgrades that ousted CEO Stephen Lee seemed to be suggesting presumably now won't be

realised. Lenses may still be a good long term investment, provided of course we can be sure that there'll still

be compatible digital bodies in a decade or two...

Kelly F., RE your 1969 price list. That was the year this Indiana farm boy moved to Chicago to find work. My first job at CNA Insurance netted me $140 every 2 weeks. My rent was $90/mo., TV dinners were 27 cents each at the A&P, CTA fare was 35 cents each trip. A movie at the Bryn Mawr, a 2nd run theater, was 65 cents. The most expensive item I bought was a new Schwinn Varsity at $108 tax included. So.....$300 for a used M-4 w/50 was out of my range. I did soon have a nice used Miranda-D with a 50 f1.9 Soligor for $75 though. Wish I still had that camera. John R

In 1969 I was making about $1.50/hr bustin my - - - - washing cars. Had to be at the quarry at 5:30 AM to get on a "team" if I was "lucky." This equates to $60 weekly. Otherwise have a nice day. A year later I was in the US Army looking at the possibility of a tropical vacation in Vietnam. As a private I earned all of $180 monthly. Leicas were out of my reach for long time.

 

Regards, P.

A Leica with a stardard lens used to cost more than an average month's pay in Germany in the 1950s. My father used to be a county officer and his wage was less than 300DM (approx. 150EUR or 180USD) back in the early 50s, and a Leica was somewhat more expensive.

 

Today, in the same position, he probably would have a salary of 3000 or 4000EUR.... and still would have to pay a month's pay for a new Leica.

 

BTW the Braun Paxette cameras which featured coupled rangefinders and interchangeable lenses as well were called "the elementary school teacher's Leica" - school teachers were the worst paid state employees in the 1950s, and they could only dream of a Leica and had to buy Paxettes or cheaper cameras instead.

Leica is the Rolls Royce of cameras... German glass is still the best...

<i>I'm sure Al Kaplan would be amused to be called a collector rather than a user! You'll have to Google his site

to see what I mean, as direct links to him from here seem to be forbidden ('refs unpersons verging crimethink'?).</i>

<p>I know who he is; my comments were tongue-in-cheek as he was a bit of an old-timer when it came to discussions

of film vs. digital.</p>

 

<p><i>But times have indeed changed, and I'd agree it perhaps doesn't make all that much sense to wed an

exquisitely crafted and very expensive optical rangefinder assembly (that might last for many decades) to such

rapidly changing digital technology. It's rather a pity that the program of continuous upgrades that ousted CEO

Stephen Lee seemed to be suggesting presumably now won't be realised. Lenses may still be a good long term

investment, provided of course we can be sure that there'll still be compatible digital bodies in a decade or

two...</i></p>

 

<p>This is precisely why the new micro Four Thirds system is so intriguing to me. It gives a bunch of the

advantages of a mirrorless system (size, noise, and flexibility of lens design), eliminates some of the negatives

(the need for an adjustable, fragile and expensive optical rangefinder assembly) while giving SLR-like framing

accuracy along with live view. The only two "if"s for me in this deal are high-ISO performance (I don't expect

5D-II level, just a clean 1600 or even 3200 would be great) and the EVF. I have yet to be impressed by any EVF

I've seen to date on any camera, with lag, refresh and resolution being the main issues. I'd also like to see

more high- or super-high-grade prime lenses like a 35/2 or /1.4 equivalent (the 20/1.7 pancake is close) as well

as an 75-90/2-2.8. But if

this new system

is everything it's promised to be, it may very well find a place in many working photographers' bags, in the space

formerly occupied by Leica M gear.</p>

"This is the reason why it's retarded for Leica to make a digital camera as expensive as it is for what little it offers,

and why people are fools to buy into it."

 

I guess that's your personal value judgement - and it's not applicable to everyone.

 

What the M8 offers is a small size (compared to DSLRs), great optics, and high quality image files. I can carry the

M8 + 4 lenses in a bag that's physically not much larger than my Hasselblad 500cm with the PME finder and a

50mm lens.

 

While expensive, there's no other rangefinder camera being made - if you want to work with a digital rangefinder you

have a choice of the M8 and.....?

Cameras were once a luxury item, in much the way that DSLRs were a luxury item not too long ago. At this point

though, cameras are becoming commodities (even DSLRs) and what I think you have to evaluate is not whether a

Leica today cost more relative to the average salary than it did in the 50s. What I think you have to evaluate is what

it costs relative to the other high quality camera manufacturers.

 

There are people who would buy a Corvette regardless of it's cost effectiveness relative to say a Mustang. They're

welcome to do that, after all it's their money and they should buy what they like, assuming they can afford it. But

sentimentality aside (and I have a lot for Leica), as was previously said, you have a hard time justifying the price of

an M8 relative to the admittedly bulkier high end DSLRs on the market. And while you might say the "quality at any

price" Leica lenses might be optically better in some cases, it's probably not enough better to justify the steep price

premium.

 

They may not be Leicas (or rangefinders, mores the pity), but modern DSLRs like the Canon 5D (or the new 5D mk

II) are wonderful cameras in their own right -- and without some of the ideosynchrasies of the M8 too (or the high

price). I often wonder what Leica will do after the old Leicafiles with money go to the great leitz factory in the sky.

>>> I often wonder what Leica will do after the old Leicafiles with money go to the great leitz factory in the sky.<<<<

hahaha

Well like Voigtlander reincarnation after death.

<i>What the M8 offers is a small size (compared to DSLRs), great optics, and high quality image files. I can carry the M8 + 4 lenses in a bag that's physically not much larger than my Hasselblad 500cm with the PME finder and a 50mm lens.</i>

<p>This comes with a LOT of "if"s. The M8 is not much smaller or lighter than a digital Rebel, and its image files can only be called "high quality" if the ISO is kept reasonably low. This is the sad irony - that Leica used to be the "king" of low light. Now imagine the possibilities of the 5D-II and a 35/1.4L at ISO 25,600.</p>

 

<p><i>While expensive, there's no other rangefinder camera being made - if you want to work with a digital rangefinder you have a choice of the M8 and.....?</i></p>

<p>No argument from me on this point. But unless one has an infatuation with merging a little double-image in the focus patch, the new micro Four Thirds system seems to capitalize on the advantages of a mirrorless system while avoiding the problems of a separate and expensive rangefinder assembly. I'll suspend judgment until I see some files from ISO 800 and up, and until I can look through the EVF myself; but the concept looks good.</p>

"...it's probably not enough better to justify the steep price premium."

 

Only if you don't know what to look for in the images and aren't that critical about contrast, and subtle color dynamics - or can't afford the equipment. The real advantage of the Leica equipment is the lenses. And yes, they're pricey. If I didn't think they provided a better solution for what I want to show, I wouldn't use them - but, I can see the difference in the final prints.

 

If I were shooting nothing but commercial work, I wouldn't use the Leica, that's for sure. But for personal work, the camera kit is so small and light weight that it doesn't impose itself on you while shooting; and can be carried around all day. The only other camera I could say that about was my Plaubel Makina 670 - but, with that camera I'm limited to a single focal length. With my Leica setup I have 6 focal lengths from wide angle to moderate telephoto in a tiny bag.

 

It seems no matter type of benchmark product you purchase, there are always people who render value judgements of relative merit - usually as a means to self justify not owning the equipment. I also own two John Deere tractors, and to hear other people (who don't own or have never owned John Deere) - you're stupid to buy a John Deere. They're just a big ripoff because they cost too much. Well, I'll tell you - I've been using tractors since I was about 10 years old, have owned a number of different tractors by different manufacturers - the JD equipment is far and away a better product in my judgement and for my use.

 

So too is the Leica equipment.

I know some of you mates are adept of conversion tables in constant money, but Ihave some doubt about the validity of such a comparison.

 

Is the original question related to the absolute value of the gear or more related to the comparative value of Leica gear versus the other cameras for the same peirod of time ?

 

And if so, did the other brands offered similar technical performance and capabilities ?

 

Putting the problem this way might be more appropriate for a fair appreciation.

 

Pre WW-2, set aside the cardboard boxes using 620 or 120 films, any evolved (I mean with at least aperture and speed control) camera was likely to cost in constant money (and moreover when compared to the average income) more the latest film camera of yesterday. Even with a cheaper manpower hour these all precision mechanic hand made devices were time consuming to produce with the contemporary equipment as robots, not to speak of computer controlled machinery was nothing short of science fiction...

 

So a pre-war Leica was certainly a very costly camera by all means, but it offered something not any competitor was able to offer at that time in terms of precision, reliability, quality and over all a perfectly up to date and even advanced system. For Press photographers - at least in Europe - it was the equivalent of today's high end full format DSLR's... A reason why it was so copied everywhere up and including during the 50's ! ...

 

Post war and until the first M was produced, it stood firmly the best 35mm available. Though, with all the copies issued worldwide in perfect legality (the Allied Commission having nullified the German patents), the old LTM series was severly challenged and the emerging Japanese phootgraphic industry was beginning to show with its own Leica copies what it was able to produce and sell for a lower price (it has been said US war correspondents during the Korean war discovered these Japanese "clones" and made praised them a lot...)...

 

During this period, the other way to 35mm photography, namely the SLR, could hardly claim any advantage over the Leica system. Anyone who ever peered into the finder of a 35mm SLR from this period knows it has no inwstant mirror return, had an awful (by our standard) ground glass and was finally no less cumbersome to use than a Leica rangefinder with a Visoflex. The serious choice for the real Press photographer (the main customer's panel for a Leica then) - the American way of using a "Speed Graphic" large format set aside was between a 35mm rangefinder or the 6X6 Rolleiflex TLR ...

 

Leica reacted just in time with the M3 which was a logical evolution of the preceeding models with the remarkable improvement of a finder combined with the rangefinder window and multiple frames and with the M bayonet, which beside speeding-up the lens change had the additional merit for the manufacturer to be exclusive and patented ! ...

 

So, Leica were still expensive but they remained the best in their speciality... During the 50's and until the Japanese made modern SLR systems began to flourish from 1959 on, both the M body and the unequalled optics produced by the brand stood the best money can buy in 35mm photography.

 

Expensive, YES but by all means a good value for money and a true perspective to remain at the spear point of technology for long years.

 

Then came the 60's and this superiority began to be eroded by the Japanese SLR's. Though until about 1965 with the intorduction by Nikon of the Photomic Ftn finder the main advantage of the SLR's over the rangefinder concept was limited to an easier than with a Visoflex use of tele-lenses and macro accessories, the instant return mirror and the so-called automatic aperture (which maintained the lens full open until the shutter was released) were deicisive improvements over the preceeding SLR's. One can arguably consider Leica gear was no more technically superior (but for the lenses) to these new competitors and was more pricey (due both to the higher cost of manpower in Germany then and to the favourable to exports change of the Yen). But habits die hard in the professional world of photography, moreover during those years. So leica was not in major troubles then and was still offering a competitive system.

 

After 1965 and when TTL metering became a standard feature of Japanese SLR's and as the color slides were more and more used by a part of the Press, Leica's situation began a then slow but constant trend toward obsolescence as new generations of pro photographers were more and more numerous to adopt the more polyvalent and cheaper Japanese SLR's. For the first time in Leica history the reac(tion was slow, extremely slow...

 

When the M5 finally appeared which at least had a TTL metering, a lot of press photographers had already parted with the rangefinder concept and joined the SLR bandwagon. Those still encroached to their Leica M's were too old and too conservative to appreciate the virtues of the M5 and harshly ciritcized the new model. Both because of its teething troubles (though they were promptly and fully corrected) and because the shape and dimensions were not the same as with the previous models. With the time elapsed though, the M5 was arguably the most user's friendly M of them all... It was also in terms of price - though a tad more expensive than a Nikon F or F2 - probably the last M to give you technical value for money.

 

Conservatism killed the M5 as the slow reaction of Leica facing its new competitors with a great disdain when they first appeared on the market.

 

Alas, the remedy was worse than the illness... to replace the M5 (instead of trying to upgrade it again) by a cheap copy of the M4 (M4-2) devoid of TTL metering and then by the M4-P was a major fault of Leitz.

 

Here, Leica began the downward spiral they are still in... And these cameras began to be very pricey, not only in absolute term (which is a limited handicap when you are able to offer something above the average) but in value for money when the technical features are compared to other brands.

 

Leitz demise, despite the issue of TTL metered M6 (no less than 15 years too late IMHO !) is a proof this policy was a mess. And M6 were largely overpriced for a camera having only TTL metering when any other serious brands already offered AE as a general feature

 

Leica AG which succeeded Leitz saved his neck by being the only brand to offer an interchangeable lens rangefinder system with superior optics. But the mere amelioration of giving automatic flash TTL metering with the M6 TTLwas nothing short of a mockery when the other brands already used matrix meterinf and true spotmetering options... And from the M6 it is clear that keeping the removable baseplate (a loading system discarded in 1972 by nikon on the F2) was ridiculous. You can do many things and survive when you are the only game in town...

 

The appearance of many special series and other fancy options under the influence of the major share holder of Leica AG eptiomized the orientation toward a fondler and snob customer's panel to the detriment of real users and between them, pro users.

 

From this period on, Leica bodies became really expensive in terms of value for money.

 

The 90's marked once again both the increase of the technical lag of the M series with a M7 which embodied an AE system which would have been possible to embody since the late 70's onward and a backward looking MP... At a price which was again above the reasonable...

 

Unfortunately for Leica, new competitors began to appear at the same time... On the entry level with the Bessas and on the high side the Hexar RF which was curiously superior in some domains the M7 failed short and inferior on some others just as if both cameras had been the result of a divorce between partners!... Stupid rumors of incompatibility killed the Hexar but if was a harbinger of things to come... point in case, the Hexar RF cost less than half the price of an M7...

 

As the film era drew to a close and digital revolution was at the corner of the street, the Zeiss Ikon appeared with a better finder, a modern shutter, a series of first class lenses (almost equal to Leica if not better for some of them!) and a price which was again about half the one of an M7.

 

Leica reacted to the digital revolution with the M8... We shall not enter the recurrent debate on the virtues and vices of the model... Suffice to say the camera is very expensive for what it brings technically and like any digital camera it is far more concerned by fast obsolescence... So its price is perhaps (special series set aside) the worst value for money of all M series cameras.

 

IMHO, Leica M gear has perhaps never been so espensive for what it bings to the user than today !

 

FPW

 

Al was a true leica man a lens on each body, no changing lenses just several bodies, he didn't care how they looked as long as they were good user cameras so he could do his job. And his picture have stood the test of time they are classics. I miss Al and hope he is feeling fine in Florida.

To address your inital question. I cannot speak for the 30s, 40s, 50s. I first held, took pictures with a borrowed M3 in the early 60s. I knew what it was, how fine, but I could not possibly afford one. Yes, outrageously expensive for a young fellow. Beyond my wildest dreams. I waited 40 years until "I could afford" one. In the meantime I used other more afordable Japanese SLR and other cameras.

 

My counsel to a young person. If you are serious about testing your abilities: buy the very best there is or the very best that meets your needs. At least you will have the chance to use the best tools extant to test your skills, potential. Al is right in the sense that Leica stuff holds its value. Buy it right, treat it right and you will not have spent much to own it.

My grandfather's screwmount Leica got stolen in the early 1960s. It was not only expensive, but also known to be expensive.

My Leica CL with 40mm Summicron cost $350 in 1974. The only other new Leica at the time was the M5, and it was over $1000. A clean used M4 was almost as much, since the M5 was not accepted by the market. For what the CL was (and still is today), I thought it was reasonably priced. I can't remember what a new Nikon F cost in 1974, but it was probably a little less than the CL, but I sold a Nikon to get the CL, so as far as I was concerned the value was there. Many people, including me, feel that the CL with 40mm Summi was the best value of any new Leica ever released.

<i>My grandfather's screwmount Leica got stolen in the early 1960s. It was not only expensive, but also known to

be expensive.</i><P>

My college roommate's $10, used AM/FM/cassette player got stolen from his crappy AMC Hornet in the early 80s.

Someone once broke into my car and stole about a dollar's worth of change from the console (valuables were locked

in the trunk). Most things get stolen because a thief has a good opportunity to steal them; it's not proof that

everyone knows they're valuable.

For those interested is seeing whether Al Kaplan is "a collector," as El Fang assumed, or a photographer, which is the reality, here is the URL of his blog:

 

http://thepreisofsilver.blogspot.com/

 

Kaplan paid his mortgage and put his kids through grad school with his photography. Now, there's nothing wrong with being "a collector," but to the extent it was meant either as an insult (as is usually the case in this forum) or simply to derogate the value of his opinion, I think someone owes him an apology.

"This comes with a LOT of "if"s. The M8 is not much smaller or lighter than a digital Rebel, and its image files can

only be called "high quality" if the ISO is kept reasonably low. This is the sad irony - that Leica used to be the "king"

of low light. Now imagine the possibilities of the 5D-II and a 35/1.4L at ISO 25,600."

 

There are no "if's" for me - it comes to the performance that I need when I take photographs. I wouldn't use a digital

Rebel for numerous reasons. Secondly, for my use I don't need or want high ISO performance - so that "feature" is

meaningless for me.

 

Leica was no more the "king" of low light than any other camera. That's a carnard trotted out as "proof" that an

opinion is valid. Low light performance with film has to do with the film's ISO + processing - the only thing that Leica

did was get away from the movement and vibrations from the SLR mirror.

 

If you know how to shoot an SLR, you can pretty much hand-hold it at the same shutter speeds as a Leica. The

early F-series Nikons were heavy, and because of the weight damped out the mirror fairly well. The inertia from the

weight made them not all that bad to hand hold at 1/15 second exposure.

 

The later Nikons damped the mirror far better and with the motorized film advance made shooting at low shutter

speeds quite easy. I never regularly used other manufacturer's 35mm equipment so I can't comment on Canons,

Minolta, or Olympus SLRs - but would assume the same type of results could be attained no matter who

manufactured the equipment.

 

"No argument from me on this point. But unless one has an infatuation with merging a little double-image in the focus

patch, the new micro Four Thirds system seems to capitalize on the advantages of a mirrorless system while

avoiding the problems of a separate and expensive rangefinder assembly. I'll suspend judgment until I see some files

from ISO 800 and up, and until I can look through the EVF myself; but the concept looks good."

 

Unfortunately - I can't take photographs with "concepts." I actually need a camera....

 

The use of a rangefinder has to do with the ability to use both eyes open in some cirumstances so I can see the

entire scene with the left eye and the framing with the right eye simultaneously. You may not need to do that when

you're photographing, I like to have the ability to do that in certain situations.

>>> But for personal work, the camera kit is so small and light weight that it doesn't impose itself on you while shooting; and can be

carried around all day.<P>

 

Yep. that's *precisely* the reason I went with a Rebel XSi. Small, lightweight. Superior ergonomics, IQ, overall performance, battery life,

and reliability. The fact that it's a bargain at $575 is

just icing...<P>

 

>>> It seems no matter type of benchmark product you purchase, there are always people who render value judgements of relative

merit - usually as a means to self justify not owning the equipment<P>

 

And there are always people who feel the more a camera costs, somehow better photographs will be created. Usually as a means to self-

justify owning the equipment.

Unless I have overlooked it, I see no mention that Leica does not job out their cameras/accessories to third rate countries where labor is cheap and workmanship somewhat questionable... All of my Nikon system is made in various countries including China which, as we all know, has a hap-hazard quality control system... This factor alone is why Leica costs are high...

Yes Hal, but a factory authorized German hugs each one before they put it in a box and ship it to you.*

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* F@CT!

It's difficult to give an objective answer to a subjective question. How do you define "expensive"?