Is the Leica an "Investment?"

[Arklatexian]

Theoretically yes, but in practice you see what you shoot...

And with practice, you can see the subject before it enters the viewfinder, in the viewfinder, and after it leaves the viewfinder, all of which can be very important in shooting action, when using something other than an SLR. This is not to mention that some rangefinder cameras have more accurate focusing than an SLR. I have both.......Regards!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Theoretically yes, but in practice you see what you shoot...

I wonder how well you see from one meter to infinity with SLR. In RF window all is in focus all the time. But on practice nothing beats 1:1 brightline finder, which you could slap on anything. LOL.

 

[Sirius Glass]

yeah i agree but a split second i do not know if
it would really matter much to me my reflexes are slower than my camera's ...

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder how well you see from one meter to infinity with SLR. In RF window all is in focus all the time. But on practice nothing beats 1:1 brightline finder, which you could slap on anything. LOL.

Actually quite well. One can even see what is not in focus either wide open or stopped down. Do not try that at home with an RF camera!

 

[faberryman]

I wonder how well you see from one meter to infinity with SLR. In RF window all is in focus all the time.

Of course, when you get your prints back from the drug store, you'll wonder why everything isn't in focus like it was in the viewfinder.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

On one of my F3/T's I have an H screen (I think it's H2). Bought it in the 1990's. Well, this screen has microprisms over the entire screen. You can focus on any point without having to recompose. However, I bought that screen mostly for the effect: it's fascinating to see my whole image shimmering slightly except for the plane that's in focus.

 

[removed account4]

I wonder how well you see from one meter to infinity with SLR. In RF window all is in focus all the time. But on practice nothing beats 1:1 brightline finder, which you could slap on anything. LOL.

maybe its because i was weened on a slr, but i don't find i ever need to look from 1m to infinity, ever.
ive never had problems with fast photographic situations and i can open one eye and look outside the camera
and one eye through the camera just like with a leica if i want .. maybe i am clueless but ive never found an slr to be
an impediment to my photography.i do have an use a few RFs
getting back to the OP, and thedancefloor's 6 year old thread
OP
anything is an investment... and plenty of people buy everything from 85¢ biscotti to automobiles on credit

YMMV

( added later after i had a cup of coffee )
seems the cameras that are a good investment are those
that were OWNED and USED by someone famous or a pioneer of photography.
maybe HCB's leica, winograd's leica the camera Nicéphore Niépce used to make the first photographs, or Daguerre's .. or nadar's or karsh's ...

maybe after you buy yours and you become famous yours will be worth $$ too?

 

[blockend]

The value of any camera is the amount of film put through it.

 

[guangong]

Leica camera an investment? Financially? In terms of cash and adjusting for inflation, the Leica M4s that I bought in late 1960s have declined quite a bit in value. My Leicaflexs have tanked. I paid in dollars before Jimmy Carter. On the other hand they have given six or seven decades of trouble free use and they are a pleasure to use. Whether a woodworker, machinist or artist, besides the results produced there is a sensual pleasure in using well made instruments.
The same could be said of all quality cameras: Hasselblad, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon. I was able to buy a Nikon F from Japan in 1959—tuition at Columbia University was $15/cr hr. You can but a mint Nikon F now for little more than $150. Nowadays we are just spoiled.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So I've been listening to these audio books by Thomas Stanley about Millionaires. And they're really influencing me. He says that the people who are actually wealthy, don't buy luxury items and that if you do, you will never save enough to be a real millionaire.

I have a Leica M6 Classic, with Canadian 35 Summicron version 4. And one of the reasons why I bought this camera was so that I could chit chat with passersby about it. I've been asked "Is that a Leica?" at least fifty times now, and it was fun, I've even made some friends. It's an awesome camera and I love it. But I could probably sell it for a few thousand and pay down my credit card.

Does a Leica appreciate at 12% (my Visa interest rate)? I'm guessing probably not.

Is there anyone else, so crazy as to have bought a Leica on credit!?

cameras are not a good investment; buy them to use them but don't expect to get your money back; buy them to use them o0r love them and keep them for that reason; talk to an investment broker for investments not a camera dealer.

 

[chip j]

Is Leica STOCK a good investment??

 

[michr]

Which cameras have actually beat inflation (far less than 12% in the US) since they were sold? The UR-Leica of course, and 0-series Leicas, the Ilford Witness comes to mind, but even the American rarities the super six twenty, Bell and Howell Foton, and Kodak Ektra, while expensive, do not cost as much in inflation adjusted dollars as they did when new.

 

[faberryman]

If you buy a used film camera and/or lens of any major brand, including Leica, you can probably resell it without much of a loss. They are already so depreciated, they just don't lose value. So really, it is just a matter of paying the time value of money as a rental fee for so long as you own it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

maybe its because i was weened on a slr, but i don't find i ever need to look from 1m to infinity, ever.
ive never had problems with fast photographic situations and i can open one eye and look outside the camera
and one eye through the camera just like with a leica if i want .. maybe i am clueless but ive never found an slr to be
an impediment to my photography.i do have an use a few RFs
getting back to the OP, and thedancefloor's 6 year old thread
OP
anything is an investment... and plenty of people buy everything from 85¢ biscotti to automobiles on credit

YMMV

( added later after i had a cup of coffee )
seems the cameras that are a good investment are those
that were OWNED and USED by someone famous or a pioneer of photography.
maybe HCB's leica, winograd's leica the camera Nicéphore Niépce used to make the first photographs, or Daguerre's .. or nadar's or karsh's ...

maybe after you buy yours and you become famous yours will be worth $$ too?

I have not so many SLRs where I could watch it with both eyes.
Most of SLRs have my shnobel squeezed, so I have to turn my face to be able to breath. It is kind of difficult to see with both eyes while head is turned.

Investment is for forum theoretics. My Leica was in service three times, because I'm using it. Winogrand used many used Leicas he purchased in camera stores and he was brining them for service frequently.

 

[bimmey]

If it gets you out shooting more, delivers more "keepers" per roll, and generally makes photographing more pleasurable for you, then yes, it is a good investment.

 

[Steve Roberts]

ANY camera is a good investment, as I've told the Mrs over and over!

Steve

 

[narsuitus]

Is the Leica an "Investment?"

Early in my photographic career, I had to decide if I wanted to put my money into a Leica three-lens system or a Nikon three-lens system. Both would meet my photographic needs. Both would eventually generate enough income to pay for themselves.

To me, the Leica, the Nikon, or any other piece of photographic equipment, was an investment if it could generate enough income and/or capital gain over a period of time to pay for itself and generate a profit.

However, since the Leica was about three times more expensive than the Nikon, and since there was no difference in the sale price of the images produced by either; based on my calculations, it would take me about three times longer to recover the money spent on the Leica.

In my case, I concluded that the Leica and the Nikon both qualified as investments, however, the Leica was not the best investment.

 

[btaylor]

And that is how the Japanese trounced the Germans in the professional photographic film world in the 60’s and 70’s. Return on investment, ROI.
Of course there is the other ROI, pride of ownership, status. The dentists and their Hasselblads! But that was all long ago, the Japanese and now Chinese have won those battles. My ROI is the enjoyment I get with these fine mechanical instruments, which I can afford now that they are decades old.

 

[blockend]

My ROI is the enjoyment I get with these fine mechanical instruments, which I can afford now that they are decades old.

It's a kind of grave robbing, isn't it?

 

[btaylor]

It's a kind of grave robbing, isn't it?

Ha! Kinda— I suspect much of the stuff I get is from relatives selling off dead dad’s camera gear from the top shelf of the closet. My kids are going to sell off a LOT of stuff when I fall off the twig!

 

[chip j]

Leicas are props of an antiquated myth.

 

[Yes]

It's an investment in your photography.

 

[chip j]

I've invested Signal Corp still photo training, a BA in art history, and a life-long study of photography & art in MY photography. Cost more than a Leica.

 

[blockend]

Photo books are a better investment. In time, feedback and financially.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

My photography teacher gave me a non-photographic piece of advice. It was to paraphrase it: The rich have all the money and they don't give it up. Enjoy your life. As far as I see it the Leicas that I purchased ten years ago have appreciated. But, did they appreciate higher than the rate of inflation? That I do not know. In the end when you are laying on your death bed what memories do you want to recollect? What regrets will you consider? Should I have worked longer and harder on my boss' project or stayed longer at that party? You decide. If you buy a Leica use it!