Price vs. Cost of Leica

[jerry_lehrer]

Lest some of you become overly concerned about the impending price

increase, I have checked some prices in a 1938 Leica catalog and

applied an inflation calculation. A few examples:

 

Leica IIIb with 50mm f1.5 Xenon-- $315---->$4055

 

Rapid Winder----------------------$16.50-->$212

 

Elmar 90mm f4---------------------$63----->$811

 

What does this tell us?

 

Jerry

[awahlster]

Your inflation calculator is not accurate

[dan_fromm1]

New Leicas have always been very expensive. So?

[stephen_w.]

http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/

 

What's wrong with his calculator? Do you hava a "better" one?

[jtk]

Use the Elmar's $63 and use a more honest 4% rate. You'll come up with half that number.

 

Calculating a 57yr average inflation in Germany is inherently bogus anyway...it involves a depression, a war, a defeat, a huge capital infusion from the US, and a free ride on the back of the US economy for decades.

 

Current Leica prices reflect exactly the same value system that Paris Hilton's performance contract reflects. Same PT Barnum marketing.

 

Hermes :-) See the joke in that?

[eliot_rosen1]

What does this tell us?

 

It tells us that a IIIb with a 50/1.5 Xenon is a bargain at today's prices??

[john_newell2]

Addressing the second paragraph in John Kelly's post above, it would be interesting to dig up a late-1950s price list and use an M3 and accessories. I bet you'll find that the M7 and a 50mm Summicron is cheaper today in adjusted dollars than an M3 with comparable lens. What that tells us (assuming I'm correct) is a subject for interpretation and debate... ;^)

[summitar]

The Leica IIIb was probably in better condition in 1938 than it is today.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

a free ride on the back of the US economy for decades.

 

 

HUH?

[ronald_moravec1]

My 1964 catalog listed an M3 with Summicron around $350. I can`t seem to find it right now. My 1965 Chevrolet was $3000. Comperable Chevrolet today is $2500.

 

8x 350 is about $2600 for the new Leica. I don`t think they are too out of wack.

[EricM]

too bad we don't have a time machine.

[stephen_w.]

The Motel Six chain was founded in the early 60's and named so because of the room rate at the time: $6. What is the rate today?

[paul_neuthaler]

In 1968, I bought a new M3 (1134707) with mint rigid 'cron for $245; a 135 Elmar, mint, for $95. Sold it all in 1975 for $500.00 with a Leitz Tiltall tripod.

[billsr]

They never get cheaper. A new MP in July will cost around $1000 more than I paid for mine in June 2003.

[john15]

Leica might have done well if they had designed a useable fixed lens camera based on the Barnack original and sold it for not much more than $1000 but they chose instead the "O" which was not much more than a curiosity.

[jerry_lehrer]

Mark,

 

My inflation calculator is one of many on the internet. And no, Kelly,

it does NOT reflect a fixed rate per year.

 

The IIIb was top of the line that year, that is why I picked it. I have most Leica prices available for most years, but WTF good does it

do to know that?

 

Jerry

[Andrew in Austin]

It seems about right given that Leica ownership was probably more exclusive during the Depression Era than it is today. For a Big Mac versus Apples comparison, one could still buy an American made care for under $1000 in 1938. Chevy, Ford and Plymouth offered low end models that were in the $800 range.

[canfred]

A simple and quite accurate inflation calculator is the price of a loaf of bread, compare the then to now and work out the % this you can apply.

[gabrielma]

<i>Your inflation calculator is not accurate</i><BR>

It's taken from the secret Greenspan cuffs.

[Brian_Edwards]

You have to keep in mind that the consumer price index (CPI) is based on a market basket of goods and services that has been revised over the years. Accordingly, changes in the CPI represent changes in the overall cost of living to consumers, based on a weighted average of changes in the prices of the items included in the CPI calculation. Being an economist myself, I am a bit skeptical of using the price of any one particular good or service (a loaf of bread was suggested by one), since the price of a loaf of bread reflects market conditions for that good alone, a market whose behavior does not necessarily coincide with how the markets for other goods and services have behaved over the same period. The calculation at the top of this thread is probably a reasonable approximation to what the cost of a Leica was in those days, but expressed in current prices, rather than the prices that prevailed in 1938. However, you have to keep in mind that it is, nevertheless, an approximation.

[jack_fisher1]

In 1951 I was bringing home $51 a week, and felt good about it.

 

JF

[awahlster]

well lets see My 1961 Oregon State College book store photo catalog offers the following prices for Leica stuff

 

M3 w/ 50mm f3.5 Elmar $349.00

 

M3 w/ 50mm f2. Summicron $447.00

 

M3 w/ 50mm f1.5 summarit $396.00

 

Body only $297.00

 

90mm f4.0 Elmar $108.00 screw or M

 

50mm f2.8 Elmar $66.00

 

 

So in 1961 a M3 cost less then a IIIb did in 1938 as I said your calculator is inaccurate.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When I bought my used Noctilux for 400 bucks; Carter was President. A used running beater Ford Pinto would fetch 400 bucks. Walmart that 400 could have bought 16 shares of Walmart; and split 128 times to today; or be 2048 shares; worth at friday close 47.37 per share; or 97,000 dollars. This assumes all the dividends were NOT invested; just spent. Maybe is reinvested worth 150 to 250k?

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello,

 

I won't enter the debate on how accurate is the inflation calculator of our friend Jerry.

 

I wouldn't even be surprised if a pre-war IIIb as new had a retail price superior (in constant value money)to a present M7... Just because this comparative means absolutely nothing and I should write two times nothing.

 

First, absolutely all high end precision devices were far more expensive then than now, moreover taking into account the average income of the period. There used to be many times more manpower hours involved for the lack of automation in many steps of the making and adjusting process, even if the manpower hour cost was lower (which is not demonstrated in terms of buying power). So, such a comparative is like the fabled comparative between apples and oranges.

 

Second, A Leica IIIb was an unequalled (but for some Contax models) PJ tool and this quality justified the investment for a professional photographer because the quality v.s. price ratio and the RELATIVE efficiency v.s. price ratio were highly favourable to the IIIb.

 

So both the comparative between the price of similar precision devices and with eventual competitors of the period were neither shocking nor unfavourable to the Leica IIIb.

 

What makes a present Leica M7 (and probably even more for the MP) apprently so expensive is : first, the fact the average precision device has become much more affordable because of the use of new technologies both during the manufacturing process (mainly through automation) and because the new technologies used to make it perform (most of the time even better and more precisiely) are cheaper to implement (semi-conductors for example) than the all mechanical process once used. Second, the fact the built-in technological capabilities of the M body are no more at the forefront of what is to be expected from a professional photographic tool. Add to these considerations, after it was devoid for a long period of competitors it has now direct ones which are less expensive in retail price and you can easily figure out why for most potetial customers of the user variety the investment appears so heavy and unjustified.

 

Leica policy was to present this product has a "boutique" item and to market it as a living legend... To a certain extent, it works for sometimes. But the legend is dying with the passing of generations and the bunch of real users who dared to buy a M because this body was the last small format rangefinder in production are now turning their heads to a reborn competition, not necessarily superior, but at least potentially equal and much more fairly priced.

 

One should also notice the present price of the three 90mm lenses available in Leica range today and compare with the Elmar 90mm f/4

 

Here are the price quoted from the site of "La Maison du Leica" in Paris (in Euro, VTA included):

 

Macro-Elmarit 90mm f/4: 1350 Euros

 

Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8: 1645 Euros

 

Apo-Summicron asph. 90mm f/2: 2460 Euros

 

Considering the Elmar 90mm f/4 ltm was probably the high end of the range in 1938 and should be first compared to the Apo-Summicron of today as such and admitting Jerry's calculator is accurate the present lens costs more than THREE TIMES the Elmar price in constant money.

 

This might be justified by a considerable increase in performance and maximum aperture, and when compared to other prestigieous lenses is not really shocking. But it is clear the Leica lenses of today are not more affordable than they were in 1938, all on the contrary...

 

To a certain extent, this is justified by the actual technical progresses... To which extent seen on a practical way this might be partly objectionable, at least when the camera is handled in the way it is primarily designed for (hand held photography with not so slow film) as underlined even by Erwin Puts. Beside, I'm almost sure a $ 315 Apo-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 from Cosina's range does perform much better than the original Elmar and probaly well enough to satisfy the needs of a photographer operating hand held with a 400 ASA-ISO film like a Tri-X.

 

Such a raw comparative as the one proposed by Jerry, not taking into account the changes the world has known since 1938 seems to me irrelevant and certainly a very unconvincing way to defend the present Leica price policy and challenge the obvious fact the M bodies are extremly heavily priced for what they bring to their potential USERS.

 

A second hand Leica gear is certainly able to convince more people and a good second hand M body is still able to make someone hesitate between it and say the future Zeiss Ikon body as new as the later deosn't bring really something new in terms of available technological feature. But, new for new, in all objectivity, buying an M7 is certainly paying twice more for an even more technologically obsolete camera (due to the 1950's shutter used even after being modified for an electronic regulation and the complicated loading procedure). There is no need to seek the digital tide to explain why, under such circumstances, Leica doomed itself.

 

Best regards

 

Fran�ois P. WEILL

[scott_mcloughlin]

Oh, I don't know. So many considerations.

 

1. You just pay an arm and a leg to buy stuff touched extensively by human hands, particularly skilled ones. Maybe we should look at services inflation numbers and use that to guage relative Leica prices over time. Try these days to find a shirt with perfectly stitched buttonholes and overall stitching to last a decade or so - you'll pay. I still hunt around for NOS BB shirts.

 

2. I marvel at the technology in my D70, but that said, alot of "new technology" in cameras seems to be Chinese (or Thai, etc.) workers working at slave wages, lots and lots of plastic and designs that accomodate loose tolerances.

 

AF is cool, but want manual focus smooth as butter? Well then you still pay. Want longer focus throws for precise manual focus? Go buy older AIS lenses. Want top notch optical quality packed into smaller sized lens barrels - you go to Leica or Zeiss and pay. Want a big, bright, clear VF on a DSLR - you pay for a D2H or D2X or whatever.

 

Look at the price of the nicely made Nikkor 45/2.8 AI-P (CV made, BTW) compared to a plastic 50/1.8. Build quality just costs.

 

3. I agree partly on the silk shutter. It's sturdy and rated for a gadzillion exposures, which is very cool. But it's accuracy throughout the speeds compared to a metal isn't likely to be so high. I like the quiet, but as a precision instrument, Leica might well use a faster shutter with greater accuracy and higher flash sync.

 

4. Loading film into a Leica M is really, really easy. I'm relatively new to Leica, and the idea that it's hard is just a myth, IMHO.

 

5. Leica's still cranking out new, updated, improved prime lens designs. Most other manufacturers have pretty much given up prime lens R&D in a market dominated mostly by plastic zooms, or "fast" f2.8 zooms. Leica's gotta cover the R&D costs somehow.

 

6. Don't get me wrong. I actually wish Leica would produce an inexpensive polycarb body, feature rich, motorwind, electronic RF camera. I just don't fault Leica for producing their lovely, expensive traditional M bodies.

 

Scott