Having a hard time understanding the Leica Mystique - aka Astronomical Prices

BobD · Nov 27, 2011

frank said:
I don't understand people who say they can't understand why people buy Leicas when Canonets take almost as technically good pictures. To them I ask: why do people buy cars more expensive than the cheapest brand and model available, when it too will get them from point A to B? Same thing with any consumer goods: why buy anything but the cheapest, if it does the job?

And, what are your answers to these questions?

frank · Nov 27, 2011

Value is a function of cost and quality. The cheapest item is not always/ often not the best Value.

This discussion is muddied and confused by the fact that there is more than one motivator in play for different people, and sometimes there is a bit of overlap.

Some buy expensive items because the collector market, based on rarity, dictates high prices. A collector desires to posses such items, for investment and/or it makes them feel good/powerful to possess stuff that not everyone else can. Check out this expensive Canon camera: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Canon-F1-Oly...Film_Cameras&hash=item4a9e591394#ht_500wt_689

Some buyers of expensive items buy because the items are built to a higher degree of quality in engineering/design and materials. These people use the items and want the best tools they can afford. Think of chefs and their knives, just to give an example outside of photography.

Then there is the group that gives everyone else a bad name. The ostentatious buyers, who buy and flaunt expensive goods to compensate for personal insecurities.

It is incorrect And simple-minded to lump them all together and paint them with the same brush. This is my opinion.

gb hill · Nov 27, 2011

It's no different in the fine art world. If the one that took the print is as reputable as the name Leica, no matter how simplistic looking the print might be, it will demand large sums of money.

frank · Nov 27, 2011

gb hill said:
It's no different in the fine art world. If the one that took the print is as reputable as the name Leica, no matter how simplistic looking the print might be, it will demand large sums of money.

The art world - there's a whole 'nother can of worms.

lensworker · Nov 29, 2011

frank said:
The art world - there's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Worms? How about maggots??

phaedrus · Nov 30, 2011

lensworker said:
Worms? How about maggots??

Naw, can't have that. They'd eat the investment bankers in formaldehyde.

benjiboy · Nov 30, 2011

Because everyone knows " you are what you own"

Double Negative · Nov 30, 2011

For me, it's because of its simplicity and solid build.

In this day and age of plastic-everything, it's nice to hold something still made of metal. I appreciate that aspect. So it's no surprise that I also like mechanical watches and fountain pens. Not only the materials, but the "fit and finish" as they say. It drives me insane when there's play in a control such as the focus ring. Ever use a Canon EF L lens to focus manually? Despite having a manual focus switch and the ability to do so - it's merely an afterthought. There's more slop in that ring than a pig sty. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Canon (that's my other rig).

Another turn-off is pages and pages of menus to wade through. Even with customizable buttons (which seem to multiply as well) and what-not. I need glasses to read, hate wearing them otherwise - especially to shoot. I need four controls; ISO, focus, aperture and shutter speed. Anything more than that is fluff.

Leica, for some, may be "boutique" or "jewelry" but to me it's well-built, solid stuff that's a joy to shoot. It doesn't try to cram technology down my throat. That in itself is a welcome retreat - just like shooting film.

one90guy · Dec 1, 2011

Well my simple and robust 35mm is a Argus C-3 and for 120mm a Ricoh Diacord, it is simple with working light meter although robust its not. I would love to have a Leica but finances say no.

T42 · Dec 11, 2011

Hello one90guy.

What is the true cost of ownership of a camera?

In one way of thinking, the cost of ownership of a Leica can be quite reasonable. You can buy a good one used for a price which you or your heirs can recover when it is sold later. Your only cost will be in routine maintenance and in whatever amount inflation takes the value out of money... more or less.

I bought an M3 with Summicron in 1999 for $600. I had Sherry Krauter go through it for about $250. $850 altogether. It would bring about that today, I think. In the meanwhile, I have enjoyed using it for 12 years. If I had put that $850 into a shoebox at that time, its value would have been attacked by inflation also, and it would not have given me the joy of using a Leica M3 in the intervening 12 years.

120mm ???

Lots of folks say that.

We will never see "120mm" on a roll of "type 120" roll film. IIRC, 120 is a product number which Kodak assigned to one of its various 6cm roll film types long ago. It is not a physical measurement of format. Same with the 135 cassette which is a product number identification, not very indicative of the fact that there is 35mm film inside the cassette.

Happy day.

one90guy · Dec 11, 2011

T42 If I sold all my film kit I still could not afford a Lecia. Not that I would not like to use or own one. My only point is there are other robust and simple cameras, would you not agree.

Thank you for the mm 120 information, I am fairly new to medium format. I have used 35mm since 1968 and when ordering 120 I assumed it was the same. I have learned a lot from this board, I spend a lot of time lurking and reading. I do not find many questions or subjects that I think I could add anything.

David

dhosten · Dec 11, 2011

apconan said:
No actually, it is very easy to understand. Here is a 3-step guide that for everyone!

1. People accumulate money. Often this excess of money comes in retirement.
2. They buy the most (recognizably) expensive camera they can. Leica.
3. Now they justify the 200%+ premium over other camera brands by posting endlessly about the 'mystique' and how awesome Leicas are. Meanwhile, their photos are still sub-par. The more they spent on the camera, the more time they spend online talking about their cameras, and the less time they spend shooting or in the darkroom.

Hilarious, but unfortunately more true than many would care to admit. No, I do not have Leica envy, I have Porsche 911 Turbo Whale Tail envy. I had a perfectly good M3 DS, and only took average quality pix with it. So I sold it.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 12, 2011

dhosten said:
I had a perfectly good M3 DS, and only took average quality pix with it. So I sold it.

The camera could only take average quality pix? Clearly the camera's fault... Bad, Bad Leica!!!

Jim Jones · Dec 12, 2011

My Leica M4 has proven practical and economical for 41 years. A camera that reliable and inexpensive to own doesn't have to produce masterpieces.

dhosten · Dec 12, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
The camera could only take average quality pix? Clearly the camera's fault... Bad, Bad Leica!!!

I also took crap pix with Bronica ECTL, and was also really horrible at 8x10 with an unstable B&J. I don't blame cameras for bad pictures, but figure that if I take better pictures, in some cases almost unrecognizably better, then I must not work well with the cameras with which I produce lack lustre results. So, I ditch the ones I don't work well with, and gravitate more to the cameras I produce better work with. I must be the only photographer who regularly shot utter crap on an M series Leica.... it is not the rangefinder itself though, as I have taken very good pictures with an XA, and a 4x5 Razzledog 110 conversion, so I am not sure what the problem was.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 12, 2011

dhosten said:
I also took crap pix with Bronica ECTL, and was also really horrible at 8x10 with an unstable B&J. I don't blame cameras for bad pictures, but figure that if I take better pictures, in some cases almost unrecognizably better, then I must not work well with the cameras with which I produce lack lustre results. So, I ditch the ones I don't work well with, and gravitate more to the cameras I produce better work with. I must be the only photographer who regularly shot utter crap on an M series Leica.... it is not the rangefinder itself though, as I have taken very good pictures with an XA, and a 4x5 Razzledog 110 conversion, so I am not sure what the problem was.

Fair enough... Many reasons not to have good results, either technical or artistic, with a given camera.

While IMHO I've taken some very good pictures with my Nikon F & Nikon FM, I never managed to take a decent picture with my F2, even though the shots were technically impeccable and the F2 is supposed to be a "better" camera (certainly ergonomically!).
Sometimes certain cameras "work" emotionally, ergonomically or creatively for some people and some just don't.

On a more technical side, perhaps your M had an old/hazy/decentered/unadjusted/jinxed lens or whatever: plenty of technical reasons for lackluster results as well.

So, more than ever, YMMV...

mhcfires · Dec 13, 2011

My M2 is so easy to use, no dead battery, no pesky autofocus, just pure pleasure.

Someonenameddavid · Dec 13, 2011

Mr Kuiper of the Netherlands if you truly have a black M3 sell it for more money than you paid and buy an M6

ic-racer · Dec 13, 2011

lilmsmaggie said:
IMHO, collectors are making a mess of the used camera market. Especially when it comes to Leica's.

The good thing is that you can use just about any other 35mm camera and get a picture that no one can prove was not taken with a Leica.

I'm just glad I don't need a '58 Les Paul sunburst to get my guitar sound. Collectors have driven those up over $50,000.

MaximusM3 · Dec 13, 2011

ic-racer said:
The good thing is that you can use just about any other 35mm camera and get a picture that no one can prove was not taken with a Leica.

I'm just glad I don't need a '58 Les Paul sunburst to get my guitar sound. Collectors have driven those up over $50,000.

You mean $500,000...I sold my '59 burst 10 years ago for $75,000 and I thought I was being smart
As far as that sound, through a Marshall Bluesbreaker combo...I can still hear it and no, there isn't anything else like it.

T42 · Dec 17, 2011

@dhosten

Hilarious, but unfortunately more true than many would care to admit. No, I do not have Leica envy, I have Porsche 911 Turbo Whale Tail envy. I had a perfectly good M3 DS, and only took average quality pix with it. So I sold it.

I suppose that whether one writes and signs his name with a pencil or with a Montblanc 149 his signature and writing style will come right on through.

I have several rangefinders and several SLRs. My way of taking pictures, for better or worse, is about the same with all of them. But my pleasure of use is really high with the Leica M3.

@one90guy

T42 If I sold all my film kit I still could not afford a Leica. Not that I would not like to use or own one. My only point is there are other robust and simple cameras, would you not agree?

I agree absolutely. One can make pictures with a Kiev 4a and 50mm Jupiter 8 (Carl Zeiss Sonnar Clone) which would appear equally good to most folks, and that for about 10 cents on the dollar compared to an M3 with a 50mm Summicron. The same could probably be said about some Feds, Zorkis, and Canonet rangefinders, among other "affordable" choices.

Thank you for the mm 120 information, I am fairly new to medium format. I have used 35mm since 1968 and when ordering 120 I assumed it was the same. I have learned a lot from this board, I spend a lot of time lurking and reading. I do not find many questions or subjects that I think I could add anything.

We are both students here, then. I also have learned much from our fellow APUG Members. I suspect that you and most folks here know much which could help some others learn more about this hobby we all love so much.

AgentX · Dec 18, 2011

It shouldn't be that hard to understand why a truly classic camera with a storied history of both use and optical/mechanical quality, sought by photographers, collectors, and fondlers alike, commands high prices.

That doesn't mean the camera itself is going to be the be-all and end-all of performance, especially with regard to a more current design. It does speak to some uniqueness, especially in the modern era, and long-term quality.

Priced an e-type Jaguar lately? Some people would love one of them to keep in the garage and polish, others to go out and tear up the road, others to restore and drive conservatively, etc. That multiplicity just raises the demand even higher.

If current Leica prices put you off, but you want a rangefinder, there are other options now, which is pretty awesome, especially since you can try classic or modern Leica glass on most should you choose, or perfectly high-quality brand-new options from CV. They might lack some of the fondler's lust, but they do pretty well on that score, too.

Still, the internals of a classic M camera are a type of hand-fit quality from another era, like a fine watch. For those of us who use the camera from the outside, and to whom the film advance is a way to get to the next frame of film rather than a tactile orgasm to be quietly repeated in the privacy of one's living room, I doubt it matters all too much. But there's nothing stopping appreciation of its quality while in real-world use, either.

I dunno, I like my M3 well enough, although replacing it with an FM2 would likely not change my photos much. The smaller size of the Leica is what I really love.

T42 · Dec 20, 2011

Priced an e-type Jaguar lately?

Back in the early 80s I had a discussion with a gentleman who owns a Jaguar dealership here. He told me that when someone wants a new Jaguar, he has a "special talk" with them. The prospective customer needs to know that these cars require "frequent attention" to keep them running well. They are not a good choice for reliable, affordable, basic transportation, he said. But they can make a wonderful "social statement."

IMO, Jaguar's similarity with Leica ends with the social statement. And I wonder about that. Most folks do not even recognize an M3 when they see it. But they probably would recognize a Jaguar.

I have never owned any other mechanical device which I felt was equal to the Leica M3 in terms of concept, fit, finish, ease of use, maintained value, freedom from trouble, and durability. Nikons F and F2 are close.

But I have owned three European cars. One Triumph and two Mercedes. My uncle who is a life long mechanic says of them "When there ain't no oil under a European car, there ain't no oil in the European car." In my three samples, he was exactly correct.

AgentX · Dec 21, 2011

T42 said:
Back in the early 80s I had a discussion with a gentleman who owns a Jaguar dealership here. He told me that when someone wants a new Jaguar, he has a "special talk" with them. The prospective customer needs to know that these cars require "frequent attention" to keep them running well. They are not a good choice for reliable, affordable, basic transportation, he said. But they can make a wonderful "social statement."

IMO, Jaguar's similarity with Leica ends with the social statement. And I wonder about that. Most folks do not even recognize an M3 when they see it. But they probably would recognize a Jaguar.

I have never owned any other mechanical device which I felt was equal to the Leica M3 in terms of concept, fit, finish, ease of use, maintained value, freedom from trouble, and durability. Nikons F and F2 are close.

But I have owned three European cars. One Triumph and two Mercedes. My uncle who is a life long mechanic says of them "When there ain't no oil under a European car, there ain't no oil in the European car." In my three samples, he was exactly correct.

I hear ya; wasn't trying to make an extended analogy, but just point out that while there are mid-level sporty cars out there that are modern and far more reliable which will blow the doors off some classic cars, the classics are still often more expensive, and most people understand why.

The leica's similar in that respect, although on the maintenance end the analogy begins to fail. Not that a mechanical shutter doesn't require more maintenance attention than an electrically-timed one, but yeah.

Anyhow, I don't think it should be so hard to understand how Leicas end up priced how they are, and for those seeking cameras to use, especially to own and use in the long-term, the cost of ownership isn't really that high. Only the glass-case collectors are buying gold, brass, and three-legged ostrich-skin pearl jubilee models that cost $50k. Why? I dunno. But if successfully selling those things keeps Leica in business, cool!

T42 · Dec 21, 2011

Anyhow, I don't think it should be so hard to understand how Leicas end up priced how they are, and for those seeking cameras to use, especially to own and use in the long-term, the cost of ownership isn't really that high. Only the glass-case collectors are buying gold, brass, and three-legged ostrich-skin pearl jubilee models that cost $50k. Why? I dunno. But if successfully selling those things keeps Leica in business, cool!

I agree wholeheartedly. First cost is often confused with cost of ownership. First cost really only applies with disposable products and consumables. It probably costs less to OWN a Leica than most folks realize. But getting them past that initial purchase hurdle seems to be the blockade to realizing the low cost of ownership and the high level of satisfaction in using a Leica M.

Having a hard time understanding the Leica Mystique - aka Astronomical Prices

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency