Sure, in '54 you could get an M3 w/summicron for $330. I don't have information on what a lllf cost new but it was certainly less thamn the M. What was a decent wage? $80-100/wk? It was and is an expensive toy/tool and has always been that way. Arguing about whether on not it has the relative value is foolish because opinions are not fact based but based on belief.Claire Senft said:I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.
Claire Senft said:I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.
The major change for Leica is not how expensive it is, not how good it is but the amount of other choices that are less expensive and that may well be viewed by the buyer as better value.
If the cameras are going to sit in the book case and not be used for taking photographs then there are a lot of good choices. If you need a very durable RF camera that will be very reliable and which has available very good glass fully usable at every aperture that comes in very durable mounts then a Leica makes a very credible choice and a good value.
If you work in good light and do not need a camera for heavy duty service that will be used at moderate apertures then a Leica may not be your best choice.
Being mad at Leica for making such a good product that you lust after and can not afford is a waste of emotion.
DBP said:.... In 2002, median household income was $44,389 per year, or $3,699 per month. B&H was listing a Leica M6TTL at $1750 after rebate, and the 50/2 for $995, for a total of $2745, or roughly three weeks gross pay.
df cardwell said:George
As for a Zeiss 35/1.4... they don't make one.
firecracker said:One of my concerns for choosing a right camera, lens(es), etc especially when I'm traveling overseas is to meet the adequacy of the cost of the equipment I carry. For this, I don't like the western standard at all, which is so money-driven and completely disregards the reality out there. It's not so much about the currency rate and/or inflation, but it's just the kind of capitalist mentality that we sometimes cannot get out of, which cannibalizes my soul.
I'm leaning towards a primitivist-end of an anarchist life in a way because I believe photography isn't something that involved complicated technology. It's much like writing poems, drawing with charcoal on a piece of paper, which you use very common and simple tools that are widely available in everyday life to project and depict the images you have in your head.
Maybe I'm just too odd...
df cardwell said:The 35 Summilux is a passport to another world, and if you are enough of a photographer to use it, you can make good pictures. Nothing touches it. Roger: do you have in more wine left ? I'm coming over.
copake_ham said:Why would this lens perform less on a R2A or R2M etc.?
Will this Summilux lens really produce a such a more superior image than a Zeiss at one half the price? (Sh*t, that last phrase rhymes!).
Claire Senft said:I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.
The major change for Leica is not how expensive it is, not how good it is but the amount of other choices that are less expensive and that may well be viewed by the buyer as better value.
If the cameras are going to sit in the book case and not be used for taking photographs then there are a lot of good choices. If you need a very durable RF camera that will be very reliable and which has available very good glass fully usable at every aperture that comes in very durable mounts then a Leica makes a very credible choice and a good value.
If you work in good light and do not need a camera for heavy duty service that will be used at moderate apertures then a Leica may not be your best choice.
Being mad at Leica for making such a good product that you lust after and can not afford is a waste of emotion.
naturephoto1 said:I believe that there are many more professional users of Leica M and R series cameras than you may expect. Rich
I believe among the leading professional users was (hopefully still is) the National Geographic magazine, whose staffers would regularly set out on safari with twenty or so Leica R bodies, chosen for their durability and the very nice telephoto lenses. These guys would apparently think themselves lucky if they returned with even one body working, the rest having been mashed in buffalo stampedes, eaten by crocodiles, etc. A few more customers like this, and Leica would have had no problems!naturephoto1 said:George,
... I believe that there are many more professional users of Leica M and R series cameras than you may expect. ...
copake_ham said:Roger says he can (or cannot) afford Leica bodies (only Cosinas) because Leicas are "caviar" and he can only afford salmon eggs. But then, didn't he say he had Leicas elsewhere in this thread?
And, wait a minute, didn't Roger just review the R2M in that magazine?Go back, George, and you'll see that I seconded Lee's point that 'afford' is a question of priorities. I can afford Leicas because they are worth the money to me; I cannot afford caviar because there are other things on which I prefer to spend the money.
Likewise, I could afford one or at most two bottles of Bollinger Millesime champagne a month, but I prefer to have a bottle of plonk every day. You can afford a Leica, but you choose not to because it's not worth the money to you.
What puzzles many of us is your belief that your priorities are right, and ours are wrong.
As for the relative performances of the cameras, under many circumstances the two will be indistinguishable. At the limits, as Don said, they probably will be distinguishable. As for the 'out of the box' point, my M4-P (my first new Leica) came out of the box 25 years ago. I'm still using it. Much as I admire Voigtlanders, I wouldn't expect that sort of longevity. Yes, I could replace them as they wore out -- but why not buy the best on day 1.
Besides, technical image quality and even longevity are not the entire story. I can get better technical quality from almost any roll-film camera I own. What I can't get from medium format is a camera that I like to use better than any other camera I have ever used; that I can use almost instinctively; and which, therefore, gives me my best pictures.
Put it in terms of clothes. In the days when I had to wear suits, I had them made to measure. They were more comfortable than off-the-peg, and looked better. They didn't keep me any warmer or drier, but I preferred them. Fortunately I gave away my last suit in 1987.
Finally, no. I haven't reviewed the R3M, just the R3A (I live in hope for the R3M -- I've been offered one for review but George at Shutterbug has to agree). I've also reviewed the ZI. My review reckoned that the Zeiss Ikon is about twice as good as the R3A, and half as good as a Leica -- or as Damien Demolder put it in the AP review, if all three were made by the same manufacturer, their prices would fairly accurately reflect their position in the market. Frances actually prefers the ZI because she can hold it steadier.
Cheers,
R.
df cardwell said:Lachlan
Today's Leica is meant for shooting at the margins of what may be caught on film. Shoot from a tripod on a bright sunny day, and almost anything will be good enough. Shoot wide open in low light with dazzling light sources in the scene, and you can throw out alnost every lens on the market: they all fail. Which is why people are justified in buying $3000 lenses for 35mm.
My big photographic interest is recording the lives of ordinary people. It's what drew me to making pictures almost 40 years ago. Now, when you turn on bright lights, or take out a flash, you don't get the image you might have in normal, everyday lighting. Long ago, you had to push film and hope for the best. Today, you CAN use an f/1.4 lens and 400 film, and record amazing detail, in gentle tonality. AND not spend a long time in the darkroom, or on the scanner, making a satisfying image. The 35 Summilux is a passport to another world, and if you are enough of a photographer to use it, you can make good pictures. Nothing touches it. This is saying no more than should be obvious: learn your craft, be committed to what you do, have a compelling urgency to your work, and use the right tool for the job. And go shoot pictures. Tell stories. Be a creative force for good before the maniacs blow the world to bits.
copake_ham said:Guess there has been a heck of a lot more inflation from 2002 to 2006"!
rfshootist said:Roger,
It could be be made much cheaper ! With absolutely the same quality standard. But not in Germany. This is the wrongest place at all for the production of this Dino. Zeiss did it better at this point, which is decisive when we talk about worth the gap or not.
Bertram
firecracker said:One of my concerns for choosing a right camera, lens(es), etc especially when I'm traveling overseas is to meet the adequacy of the cost of the equipment I carry. For this, I don't like the western standard at all, which is so money-driven and completely disregards the reality out there. It's not so much about the currency rate and/or inflation, but it's just the kind of capitalist mentality that we sometimes cannot get out of, which cannibalizes my soul.
I'm leaning towards a primitivist-end of an anarchist life in a way because I believe photography isn't something that involved complicated technology. It's much like writing poems, drawing with charcoal on a piece of paper, which you use very common and simple tools that are widely available in everyday life to project and depict the images you have in your head.
Maybe I'm just too odd...
RogerRoger Hicks said:Dear Don,
Which is why I replaced my original 35/1.4 IMMEDIATELY when it was stolen in India 20+ years ago. I've since tried the aspherics, and they're better lenses with less coma, but they're also a lot bigger -- as is Voigtlander's 35/1.2 -- so I put up with the shortcomings of the pre-aspheric for the tiny size.
I don't think there are more than four or five dozen bottles left but I can always restock if I know you're coming over.
Cheers,
R.
I remember them! I think they sold for 5 gold nuggets a pair?Roger Hicks said:For example, I still wear Levis 501s -- but they have cheapened the brand both literally and in popular perception by having them manufactured outside the USA. They started going downhill when they dropped the old guarantee of 'A new pair free if they rip'.
Cheers,
R.
David H. Bebbington said:I remember them! I think they sold for 5 gold nuggets a pair?
Roger Hicks said:As you might expect, I feel much the same way, except perhaps with more anarcho-syndicalist leanings.
Something that has occupied me for some years, though, is exactly how this fits into current capitalism. Could it survive without the people who queston it? Probably not, without collapsing into revolution as it polatized between rich and poor. But equally, could we actually afford Leicas if it were not for the very rich to whom they are mere toys or something to collect?
Cheers,
R.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?