Future Re-Sale Values of New Leica M and Leica R

[peter_gale]

I am curious to know if, based on past experience, Leica owners have

opinions on whether, over time, the purchase of a new M7 system is

more likely to hold its investment value over a new R9 system? The

purchase of either camera, a few lenses and other accessories is a

major commitment. However, for whatever reasons, a purchase may not

work out or prove satisfactory. I'd like to know if Leica owners have

had some experience that suggests that one or the other camera system

might show itself to be a better investment. I can imagine that the

answer depends on the lenses one has, the age and use of the body,

etc., etc. But I am seeking a general response, a general impression,

as I have reasons to be considering each system (but can't afford

both!).

 

To put it another way (as I am thinking), is it likely that one or the

other of these camera systems will hold its value better over time so

that a possible later switch, from M to R or vice-versa, or to another

system altogeter, is more affordable because the original investment

has held its value better.

 

Thanks for any input you may have.

[Rob F.]

Judging from current prices for each system, I would say that M system prices hold their value better. But then, it's cheaper to build up an R system from used components.

[doug herr]

If you are concerned about resale value, buy used. Either system is worth only as much as the value you place on the pictures you get from it. Get the system that will allow you to get more of the pictures you want.

[Robin Smith]

Peter

 

Ms hold their value much better and probably sell faster. R's are slow sellers s/h. I always buy R equipment s/h which avoids much of the heavby depreciation. Mind you I buy Leica M too s/h....If you believe the digital hype then perhaps Leicas of all stripes will be falling in price in the future. I think this is quite likely as digital camera become completely mainstream.

[patricks]

Oh, camera systems as investments...

 

As stated, a used/minty M system seem to keep its value better historically, but that is certainly no measurement for the future.

 

As I usually say, if you are new to Leica, buy a minty M6TTL for around $1,200 and a used 50/2 Summicron for around $600 and try it out for a couple of times. You could later sell that at minimal loss.

 

Cheers,

 

p.

[james_elwing]

Anything to do with 'investment' value of electronic equipment is unhinged with denial. The M is 50 next year. Even if electronic shutters and meters last that long, how many potential purchasers will have sufficient confidence to invest? Note moribund R3 & R4 resale values now.

In 10 years we will be lucky if rather ordinary mechanical Leicas have anything but curiosity value. Will anybody want them? once film & processing gets more esoteric and less mainstream? Maybe but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[al_kaplan1]

Pete, you should be choosing your system based on what you want to use it for. SLR vs. RFDR is like changing your religion, your life philosophy. If you think you want to do a lot of close-ups or work with long telephotos go R. If candid shooting is your thing go M. It's that simple.

 

Twenty yearsdown the road a well maintained Leicaflex SL-2 will likely be worth more than an R9. Electronics don't hold up forever and are only repairable as long as manufacturers support them with replacement chips. Gears, levers and springs can be repaired or fabricated by your local tech if required. Might be expensive, but it's possible.

 

Now you want to compare that to Leica's experiment with an electronic M body. Nice bells and whistles. Not likely to be worth as much as an M6 in 20 years for the above reasons unless Leica discontinues production soon enough to make them rare. Get a used M2 and a good quality light meter with incident capabilities. You can upgrade your meter every few years. The camera will retain its value.

[jay_.]

If your primary consideration in choosing between R and M is resale value I have to question how much you know about these cameras and photography in general. It's like choosing between a circular saw or a reciprocating saw. The choice isn't logically made on which has better resale.

 

With the digital freight train bearing down on us, all bets are off as to the long-term resale value of any film camera other than mint rarities of the kind that command 5 and 6-figure prices from wealthy collectors at prestigious auctions. Having parts machined for a mechanical M shutter might be possible once OEM parts have dried up, but it will likely be uneconomical to do so. In fact it might be cheaper and easier in the future to find an electronic technician who can reproduce the M7 electronics than a mechanical technician to machine parts for the mechanical M shutter mechanism...which, BTW, the M7 still contains many of the same or similar.

 

If Leica does happen to come up with a digital R and not an M, the R lenses will hold their value better than the M's, despite the latter being in many cases superior optically. In fact, R lenses can even now be used on Canon digital bodies (though I can't see any reason why anyone would choose to do so--and I did so, for a while, until I found the Canon lenses just as capable and much more convenient). But I personally can't think of a single reason why I'd prefer the R system to Canon or Nikon, although from an ergonomic point, the M system is my choice as a travel outfit.

 

I agree that a mint M6 (late Classic, or TTL)with a 11817 or current 50 Summicron is the best jumping-in point for a Leica newbie. Given the price of the M7 and MP, the above combo will probably be a quick seller (to another newbie) and will return most of its purchase price at least until the cost/availability film and processing start to really be impacted by digital.

[bob haight]

I agree that future resale is a poor reason to buy or choose a system. Buy minimally what you will use, used and you can get out for a small loss. Buy into either system in a big way new, just to unload later and you will get hurt. Digital continues to erode the resale value of film based cameras and glass and I expect that trend to continue.

[peter_gale]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond to my question. It was prompted by my circumstances. I am new to Leica, though not to 35mm SLR's or rangefinders (which I've used, from various manufacturers, for about 40 years). After many visits to this forum, and elsewhere, reading, store visits, etc., I have a pretty good idea what each Leica system can do in their own particular way. I also think I know that each will fulfill certain needs and expectations that I have for my photography at this point in time, and I didn't feel any need in the quesion to unburden myself in that respect.

 

But the choice is not yet absolutely clear to me, and may not be for some time, if ever. Each system will serve me well for similar and different reasons but, perhaps neither will do it completely. And ultimately, it may be a heart/mind thing. Unfortunately, as noted, I can't afford both camera systems. Nor can I rent either camera where I live. But I have to begin with something.

 

So, I will choose the M or the R to start, and if, after time, I feel that the other Leica system may serve me better, then I may be prompted to switch. So, which one to start with? For me, it really could be either system, unless the heart/mind thing sorts things out when I go shopping - which I've done a number of times; and, for the moment, I leave out the looming digital question, which has been so rightly raised.

 

In any event, after time, if I do decide to switch, then it seems to make sense to me to start with the system that may hold its value best (given all of the factors that may affect film cameras in general, or Leica in particular and their choice about digital systems). If and when I feel that a switch will more fully satisfy my needs, then it seems to me that it would be best to start off with the system that is likely to represent the most value when I do make a change. That's what prompted the question, and it may make it an investment decision. But it is one that is, I think, a perfectly reasonable one in this day of uncertain economic fortunes for some of us. I am considering Leica because I am familiar with its superior optics and printed results, which are quite special. I have used both SLR's and rangefinders, and I prefer wet chemistry prints to digital prints, though I hold nothing against digital photography - it is just different, as lithography is from etching or engraving.

 

Both the R and the M have particular merits/capabilities, and I have been accessing them. However, the above question came to mind as one consideration that might be part of my decision-making process, and perhaps the process taken by others.

 

In any event, your suggestions about the M6TTL and earlier models, the impact of digital photography and choices made by Leica, etc., are much appreciated.

 

Thanks again to all who replied.

 

Peter Gale

[albert knapp md]

Peter- buy because you want to use it. Don't worry about resale

because if you like it you will not resell it. Furthermore, many

others have stated quite eloquently one important fact: as time

goes on, more and more people will opt out of film and drive the

cost of even the best cameras down. this is reality.

[bruce mcdonald]

Before everyone gets too worried about the continued value of Leica Ms, or any film based camera, remember "Tubes". When the transistor was invented, everyone said that tubes were destined for the dust heap in the very near future. Well, it's about 50 years later and tube equipment is still being manufactured and is highly prized in some markets (i.e. stereophile). Yes, tubes are becoming difficult to obtain, but they are still being manufactured.

 

My point is that even though digital cameras are becoming commonplace, there will still be some areas where film will always excel. I believe the demise of the film camera is a long way off.

[dougmiles]

As to future value, it's important for either user or collector value to go with top-quality stuff at the outset. As you already appreciate, Leica will typically hold value better, even in proportion to cost, than shoddy gear. And this is true of anything, including cars, firearms, machine tools...

 

As a case in point, I bought my Leica M2 body, used, in 1967 for $150 at a retail camera shop downtown Seattle. It had 10 years of use on it then, but was reasonably clean, and still looks about the same now. At the same time, I bought a new 2/35 Summicron/Wetzlar for $164. A year later at the same store I got a new Tele-Elmarit/Canada for about $190.

 

What a difference time makes, eh? The value of that stuff now 35 years later is higher, even counting inflation I think. But isn't it true that in the late 60's rangefinder cameras were in disfavor (depressing the value), whereas now there's a growing appreciation? Plus I've had 35 years of the pleasure of ownership and a bunch of nice pics. A good investment.

 

At the time, I already had Pentax SLR's. These have been equally satisfactory for nice pics. But of course the sale value of a 1970's vintage Spotmatic is somewhat lower now!

[allan_crook]

when 19 in 1969 the slr began its rise but i wanted a long-term compact super reliable camera and i took a major financial hit of £95 for a good used m2 with 50/2.8 elmar. a new one then cost £132. today my camera in the same cobdition retails at £650. not many things can be used and 40 years later have gained in value.

i think henry rolls said the quality will l remembered long after the price is forgotten. as long as fresh film is available i think this holds true of Leica m i cannot comment on r, but my guess is they are excellent but will never quite match the widespread appeal of m equipment-they are a product of 70years of refinement a better bet then, i guess.

t