Is the Leica an "Investment?"

cepwin · Dec 27, 2012

Jim, you have an excellent point. Yes, I have gadgets but I didn't go into debt to get them. The problem I think is a lot of people aren't "tough" anymore. It has I think a lot to do with the entitlement society and attitude among too many people. Furthermore, parents today often let there kids get away with stuff that there is no way we'd get away with. (Although that being said, I do know people who are strict parents.) It's very frustrating to watch.

Dismayed · Dec 27, 2012

Ahhh, the good old days. Average income fell by 40% between 1929 and 1933. And most people didn't need to worry about saving for retirement since life expectancy was about 60 years. And, of course, antibiotics weren't generally available, so people had more kids because they didn't expect them all to survive. Yes, people learned to make do.

Of course, anyone who looks back fondly on the Great Depression either didn't live through it or is delusional.

Yashinoff · Dec 27, 2012

Jim Jones said:
Income isn't what makes people wealthy as much as outgo keeps them from saving money. We tend to keep up with the Jonses. As an ancient Jones, I try to make that easy, but people persist in wasting money on large screen TVs, cell phones with cameras and GPS, video games, dinners out, and other money sponges. Most of these don't enhance the quality of life, but they do keep us from really living. Henry Thoreau may have overdone the basic lifestyle at Walden Pond, but it certainly beat going into debt for unnecessary baggage. Many Americans learned how to make do with nearly nothing in the 1930s. It was a tough time, but it made tough people who could teach their descendants much.

I think this is pretty silly idea. One would have to be some sort of neurotic miser, fixated on collecting money to think savings counts for more than income. There's really no point in having a million in savings, if you lack the income to the maintain that sum when you spend it. Indeed there is no sense in having any money at all if you don't plan on using it for something. I agree however with everything after the first sentence.

pbromaghin · Dec 27, 2012

Eventually you will have no, or drastically reduced income. At that point you start drawing down on that pile you put away. A good financial planner can run calculations that will tell you about when you will run out of money. Hopefully it's the same day you die.

cliveh · Dec 27, 2012

A cameras value is only in the pictures it creates.

lxdude · Dec 27, 2012

The only way to see your Leica as investment is if you buy a vestment with a pocket big enough to hold it.

mhcfires · Dec 28, 2012

I would only hope that those who keep saving their money and never spending it on anything for fun would realize that they can't take it with them. I once heard a pastor say that in the many hundreds of funerals he had attended he never once saw an armored car following the hearse!

250swb · Dec 28, 2012

cliveh said:
A cameras value is only in the pictures it creates.

I agree on the basis that productivity is the prime reason to buy a camera.

To the OP, a camera that makes the pictures is worth more than one sat in a drawer, whatever the purchase price of each. Except every Leica body or lens I have ever bought (excluding a relatively recent full frame body that cannot be mentioned on APUG for reasons that go against the 'prime directive'), is now worth considerably more than I bought it for (ten lenses, currently three film bodies). Yet they are not investments, they are to use, and so have to take the potential abuse. So an 'investment' would be something to put out of the way of risk as much as possible, otherwise trying to use it is likely compromise the pictures made by being too careful.

Steve

cbphoto · Dec 30, 2012

I shoot Leica and have bought and sold a few lenses. I have always profited, even if I paid "normal" used price when buying. I know at least one lens I owned that was worth $1100 in 2006 is now going for well over $2000. So yeah, if you choose lenses carefully, they will generally all appreciate. Bodies, not so much.

And I can't think of a time when Leica lens values went down rather than up.

JBrunner · Dec 30, 2012

Jim Jones said:
Income isn't what makes people wealthy as much as outgo keeps them from saving money. We tend to keep up with the Jonses. As an ancient Jones, I try to make that easy, but people persist in wasting money on large screen TVs, cell phones with cameras and GPS, video games, dinners out, and other money sponges. Most of these don't enhance the quality of life, but they do keep us from really living. Henry Thoreau may have overdone the basic lifestyle at Walden Pond, but it certainly beat going into debt for unnecessary baggage. Many Americans learned how to make do with nearly nothing in the 1930s. It was a tough time, but it made tough people who could teach their descendants much.

I have zero debt. Friends and acquaintances are very confused about how I manage to be semi-retired at 46 with a thirty foot boat. Some of it was just plain good luck, but it was important that I was in a mental and financial position to allow that luck to happen, and then be able to take advantage of it. Everything you have that you don't own, owns you. I learned that some time ago.

All my camera gear has been an investment, but the investment is realized by the cash flow created by my use of the camera. There are about a zillion better investments than capitol appreciation on a camera. Burying money in a hole is among them.

cliveh · Dec 30, 2012

JBrunner said:
Everything you have that you don't own, owns you.

A very wise and true statement.

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2012

JBrunner said:
I have zero debt. Friends and acquaintances are very confused about how I manage to be semi-retired at 46 with a thirty foot boat. Some of it was just plain good luck, but it was important that I was in a mental and financial position to allow that luck to happen, and then be able to take advantage of it. Everything you have that you don't own, owns you. I learned that some time ago.

All my camera gear has been an investment, but the investment is realized by the cash flow created by my use of the camera. There are about a zillion better investments than capitol appreciation on a camera. Burying money in a hole is among them.

+1 heck +10

Want to pass along some of that luck? I'm ready to receive it, I really am, tell me where to go and what to do and I'll do it

Also, a Leica is just like a leaky boat, too expensive and not worth the effort in labor... Hehe

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Diapositivo · Dec 31, 2012

pbromaghin said:
Yes, let's take a look around. Who would want to bring children into the world as it is? After all, the U.N. 1990 poverty goal for 2015 was met in 2008. The world economy grew 6% in the last 7 years, but fossil fuel consumption went down by 4%. Life expectancy in Africa is 5 years longer than it was 10 years ago. The last decade had fewer war deaths than any decade in the 20th century.

Who would ever want to bring children into the world as it was in 1945? Oh, right. My sister was born in 1946.

Who would ever want to bring children into the world as it was in 1916?. Oh, right. My parents were both born in 1917.

My mother was born in 1938, my aunt in 1940 and my other aunt in 1942. After which, my grand-father went volunteer in WWII in 1943 (he was 32 and with three children, never to be called) to defend the fatherland from the incoming invasion by the bloody foreigner. Apparently somebody with a lot of belly and not many hair told him we would have repelled the invader on the shores of Sicily*.

The lesson I can derive from this is that if only rational people made children, the world would be inhabited by now

* He told me later that on southern Sicily where he was sent the defence was constituted by an average machine-gun every 11 km of coast. Not joking.

sangetsu · Jan 3, 2013

My outlook on investing, and business in general, is always to do a little better tomorrow than I did today. In business, I try to increase my inventory and sales by 5% a month. It's not at all easy, I don't have a lot of experience being in business for myself, but after three years of steadily increasing sales, I have learned a lot. Last year I passed the point where my business income passed what I get from my regular job. I find that now I have money, but I rarely have any free time or a day off.

In the next year I will incorporate, and if sales improve as much as they hope, I will quit my job, and work for myself. I recently branched out into a new field of goods, and the results were better than expected. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to pursue the new goods until I hire a helper to do some of my current work.

When I was young, I didn't have a good idea about how investments worked. It seemed like black magic to me. I discovered that investing was simply buying low and selling high. I eventually found a niche in which I could invest in something I understood and enjoyed. I was surprised that I could make money at it.

It is nice to see business and investments grow. It is like building a house, or creating a painting. It is fun to try other ideas and see the results, and even more fun when the ideas are successful. I now have to become a better time manager.

EASmithV · Jan 3, 2013

I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.

StoneNYC · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.

+1

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

darkosaric · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
Leica is more jewelry than actual tool.

Actually it is both , but you must be in peace that you use this tool and not be worried about every scratch that will bring your value down. When you decide that you will never sell your Leica, and you use it and enjoy using it - then it is more tool than jewelry. If you consider to sell it in future and make profit - well ... .

cbphoto · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.

Strongly disagree. Leicas are extremely durable, last a long time (like, generations) with occasional tune-ups, are available in user condition for non-insane prices, and the lenses are just beyond. Also, what other system outside of large format has usable, dedicated lenses dating back 80 years, covering just about any look you want - soft, vintage, ultra-modern, etc? Leicas are extremely practical - just because people collect them doesn't mean they are solely collectors' items!

georg16nik · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
...., a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool.

..Only if You haven't shot with Leica.

JBrunner · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.

Leica is a fine camera, an outstanding tool particularly when you examine the performance of the lenses that are available for it, i certainly would own one under the right set of circumstances, but here's the but, gear doesn't make you money, clients do. The OP is wondering about the camera as an investment offsetting the amount of interest he would pay. I have no doubt collectors can get positive returns, but collecting as a business is a business like any other, and I doubt paying a high 12% monthly compounding interest rate in hopes of offsetting it with simple non compounding annual appreciation is a wise financial move. Even stellar appreciation would soon be a footnote in the world of compound interest. The OP should take note of the difference between them. If the camera doubled in value every year it would still fall behind. Many people think it is apples to apples. It isn't, not by a long shot. A pizza on a credit card can cost up to several hundred dollars. Why many are so blind to this I can't figure out.

I have quite a few things that were chosen at a premium because I liked them, but I would never have undertaken debt to get them. Debt is a scourge, a slave maker. Credit card debt is the worst of the worst. The only thing more dangerous is borrowing money from a leg breaker.

The key to my success was given to me by a very rich man when I was about 20 years old. I asked him what I should do to be financially successful. He looked me dead in the eye with a coldness I had never seen in him before. Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.

Jim Jones · Jan 3, 2013

EASmithV said:
I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.

For quality, the Leica and a few competitors were tops in 35mm. However, the economy of the 1930s and the scarcity of film during WWII make the half-frame Mercury almost viable. A Mercury II was my first venture into half-good 35mm photography in 1951. By then most people preferred the full frame Argus C3.

StoneNYC · Jan 3, 2013

JBrunner said:
Leica is a fine camera, an outstanding tool particularly when you examine the performance of the lenses that are available for it, i certainly would own one under the right set of circumstances, but here's the but, gear doesn't make you money, clients do. The OP is wondering about the camera as an investment offsetting the amount of interest he would pay. I have no doubt collectors can get positive returns, but collecting as a business is a business like any other, and I doubt paying a high 12% monthly compounding interest rate in hopes of offsetting it with simple non compounding annual appreciation is a wise financial move. Even stellar appreciation would soon be a footnote in the world of compound interest. The OP should take note of the difference between them. If the camera doubled in value every year it would still fall behind. Many people think it is apples to apples. It isn't, not by a long shot. A pizza on a credit card can cost up to several hundred dollars. Why many are so blind to this I can't figure out.

I have quite a few things that were chosen at a premium because I liked them, but I would never have undertaken debt to get them. Debt is a scourge, a slave maker. Credit card debt is the worst of the worst. The only thing more dangerous is borrowing money from a leg breaker.

The key to my success was given to me by a very rich man when I was about 20 years old. I asked him what I should do to be financially successful. He looked me dead in the eye with a coldness I had never seen in him before. Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.

Sounds like the pre-rich dad, poor dad advice

Sadly I did some real estate investing in ...2003... Didn't work out so good for me... Lol

That said I still agree. Some other good advice I was given.

"When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall"

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Jan 3, 2013

cbphoto said:
Strongly disagree. Leicas are extremely durable, last a long time (like, generations) with occasional tune-ups, are available in user condition for non-insane prices, and the lenses are just beyond. Also, what other system outside of large format has usable, dedicated lenses dating back 80 years, covering just about any look you want - soft, vintage, ultra-modern, etc? Leicas are extremely practical - just because people collect them doesn't mean they are solely collectors' items!

I think using the word "practical" very loosely, NOTHING that costs as much as a Leica compared to its other 35mm RF brethren can be considered practical. You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica. And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing.

As was just said, I don't think that hanging a photo "shot on a Leica" will bring any more added value to the buyer. But what do I know, my next hanging show isn't till April...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

cbphoto · Jan 3, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I think using the word "practical" very loosely, NOTHING that costs as much as a Leica compared to its other 35mm RF brethren can be considered practical. You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica. And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing.

As was just said, I don't think that hanging a photo "shot on a Leica" will bring any more added value to the buyer. But what do I know, my next hanging show isn't till April...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Resolving power is not an issue when describing any lens worth talking about. The contrast signature and other things like flare (or lack of) are more interesting and define the look of a lens, and are readily apparent in a print. That doesn't mean Leica is the only game in town - the look works for me. At one point I fell in love with modern Zeiss lenses and used those for while (selling my Leicas to pay for them), but I've reversed my taste since then and sold them all for Leicas again.

In terms of the economic practicality, I don't think that is too big a deal either. Considering the resale value of even user Leica gear, it's all free if you eventually decide to sell it! And compared to any digital camera, used Leica gear is not that expensive, unless you want a Noctilux or something crazy like that. A user M2 and 35 pre-asph Summicron can be had for around $1500 if you look hard enough.

cliveh · Jan 3, 2013

Charles Dickens - Micawber Principle
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Is the Leica an "Investment?"

cepwin

Dismayed

Yashinoff

pbromaghin

cliveh

lxdude

mhcfires

250swb

cbphoto

JBrunner

Moderator

cliveh

StoneNYC

Diapositivo

sangetsu

EASmithV

StoneNYC

darkosaric

cbphoto

georg16nik

JBrunner

Moderator

Jim Jones

StoneNYC

StoneNYC

cbphoto

cliveh

Is the Leica an "Investment?"

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency