Is the Leica an "Investment?"

[georg16nik]

.... 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.

You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.

... And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing...

You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.

 

[StoneNYC]

You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.



You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.

I think burgers is a bad example, since I was talking about how the quality wasn't actually usable in the Leica so it's more like if you added that the proteins in the healthy food weren't digestible by humans..

Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line. Sure in optimum NO BUDGET LIMITS circumstances sure, there may be slight advantage but real world application is much different. So you're paint for results you can't even fully take advantage of unless you're a millionaire ...

Side note, there's a poster in another thread who asked a question and the result answer was instruction on optical printing and how to correct in that process, the STUDENT's reply was that he had planned to get into optical printing someday but since his school only used scanners that's all he had available, this is a school with a photography degree. Some don't even teach film anymore. So again real world application is much different than on paper statistics.


~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

 

[georg16nik]

...
Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line....

The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
Same with Leica.

 

[StoneNYC]

The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
Same with Leica.

Heh (in a fun non threatening sort of way, just a bit of needling...) I couldn't have said it better myself "you 'get it' or you don't.."

(EDIT :Spelling)

~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]

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.

I agree with all the post, and I arrive to say that also regarding houses smart people earn interest instead of paying it.
I mean that if people knew some financial mathematics they would easily understand that it is much cheaper to rent a house, and save and invest the difference between rent and mortgage, than paying a mortgage.

I have actually put my house on sale. I will invest the sale proceed in shares, earning dividends (very easy to make 5% after taxes nowadays, I hope I sell my house before the next stock bubble). The dividends will pay for a nice rent on the outskirts of Rome, plus a comfortable "rent" living.

Mortgages make people poor. Buy a house when you have the money to pay it cash, I say. A mortgage is a way to pay interest on a large capital. Saving is a way to earn interest. A mortgage instalment is much bigger than a rent for the same house if the market is in a normal state. The monthly difference, properly invested for the long term, will buy a house faster than the mortgage.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Leicas are smooth running well machined optical instruments.

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.

In the jewelry category, try wearing a wide angles Rolleiflex, a normal Rolleiflex, and a telephoto Rolleiflex all at once when taking photographs.

 

[EASmithV]

I guess i'm just not a rangefinder guy at heart. I've played with Leicas and wasn't too impressed. My friends M3 just didn't feel as right as any Nikon I've ever used (from the F to the F6). If you're obsessing about raw image quality, you can buy a damn Hasselblad KIT for less than a Leica + lens. If you're obsessing about weight, a smallish SLR or even an Olympus XA are versatile, cheaper, and compact. I can understand paying a premium for a certain "look" but, I find it's easier to get the looks I like on Large format with it's respective lenses, if I am really looking for something non-modern.

In the jewelry category, try wearing a wide angles Rolleiflex, a normal Rolleiflex, and a telephoto Rolleiflex all at once when taking photographs.

This is why they invented the Hasselblad
That being said, TLRs still have a few advantages.

 

[Yashinoff]

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.

So are most other cameras. There is absolutely nothing special about Leica durability or longevity. A $39 Argus or $99 Praktica from the same era work just as well with as much, or even less attention. The lenses are great admittedly, but then again Leitz isn't the only great lens maker in the world and certainly other companies have made sharper lenses, sturdier lenses, etc. Frankly there is nothing special about the Leica, the only thing it excels at is being a rangefinder in the post-rangefinder era.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Why all the Leica bashing? Walk over to your bookshelf and pull out a few books by photographers that shot 35mm. You'll find quite a lot that used Leicas. They're great tools that a huge number of very talented photographers have found to be the right camera for their use. These people were not stupid, and they also mostly were far from rich.

What the heck does the "post rangefinder" era have to do with it? This is the post film era. A Nikon F5 is no more up to date today than a Leica M4.

You can use whatever you prefer - Holga, pinhole, or Argus, but it is obnoxious to bash other peoples camera choices.

 

[Yashinoff]

Don't be silly. Pointing out that lots of old cameras are durable isn't bashing Leica. There really is nothing special about the durability and longevity of Leicas, it's pretty normal. That's not bashing, that's just a simple truth.

"Post rangefinder" simply points out that as manufacturers switched to SLRs for their system cameras, the Leica basically became the unique excellent rangefinder system. There are however many great systems out there, Leica just happens to be a rangefinder system. That is all.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

My post was directed more at the "jewelry" comments, etc. I did not dispute your statement about durability; my Nikon F's have been amazingly durable and reliable cameras. But, I do disagree with your comments about there being nothing special about the Leica. I'm sure there are things that are special about an F3, or Aria, or many others too. If they suit your needs use them. The people who do not find a camera to be of interest to them are not really the ones whose opinion of those cameras is very useful.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Your not going to make any money purchasing an item when it is already known as a collector's item. The people who make money anticipate what is going to become valuable. Not too many people have this skill.

 

[StoneNYC]

Your not going to make any money purchasing an item when it is already known as a collector's item. The people who make money anticipate what is going to become valuable. Not too many people have this skill.

+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

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree with all the post, and I arrive to say that also regarding houses smart people earn interest instead of paying it.
I mean that if people knew some financial mathematics they would easily understand that it is much cheaper to rent a house, and save and invest the difference between rent and mortgage, than paying a mortgage.

I have actually put my house on sale. I will invest the sale proceed in shares, earning dividends (very easy to make 5% after taxes nowadays, I hope I sell my house before the next stock bubble). The dividends will pay for a nice rent on the outskirts of Rome, plus a comfortable "rent" living.

Mortgages make people poor. Buy a house when you have the money to pay it cash, I say. A mortgage is a way to pay interest on a large capital. Saving is a way to earn interest. A mortgage instalment is much bigger than a rent for the same house if the market is in a normal state. The monthly difference, properly invested for the long term, will buy a house faster than the mortgage.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to rent something if the same size. It's just that most people don't have enough for a down payment. Also you can't "move around" too much.

Still it's foolish to pay rent when the money is going into the owners mortgage instead of just paying your own. The homeowners game is long term, you don't see the benefit until around the time you hit the 10 year mark, then you really start understanding the increase in value and actualizing the profit as real estate values increase over inflation.


~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]

This thread is hilarious to me, as someone who has pussyfooted around buying the best gear and was a notorious alternative-seeker along every step of the way, in multiple formats. Once you buy the good stuff, the anti-Leica/Hassy/whatever rationalizations sound quite silly.

Shoot what works for you. Make great photos. But don't pretend for a second that finely crafted gear is the aesthetic equivalent of the alternatives that we all *could* make great photos with if we had to, minus the nuance which is our justifiable option.

 

[Diapositivo]

I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to rent something if the same size. It's just that most people don't have enough for a down payment. Also you can't "move around" too much.

Still it's foolish to pay rent when the money is going into the owners mortgage instead of just paying your own. The homeowners game is long term, you don't see the benefit until around the time you hit the 10 year mark, then you really start understanding the increase in value and actualizing the profit as real estate values increase over inflation.


~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

I get my numbers from Financial Mathematics, a branch of mathematics, with its own inner financiary logic.

The mortgage payment is always composed of two parts: the interest part, and the capital restitution part. When you pay a house with a mortgage, you payback your capital AND you pay interest on the capital which you have not yet paid back.

If, on the other hand, you just save and invest, you will earn interest on your capital instead of paying it. The "interest" you pay is the rent. Rent is nothing more, in nuce, than the interest on the capital you rent (the house). In a normal house market interest on houses is somewhere around 3 percent of the value of the house.

In a normal mortgage you pay much more than 3% on the capital you borrow. 5% is a much more normal rate.

The "down" payment doesn't change the logic. If, instead of buying a house now (let's say $300,000 down payment and $300,000 mortgage) you just invest the $300,000 you have and you rent a house of a value of $600,000 you will find that you will more easily buy a house after X years (your mortgage duration) by saving rather than by buying on credit.

As a banal example, the case may be that the $300,000 invested can give you 5% after taxes while the rent of the house will cost you 3% of the $600,000 house. That means the interest on the "down" payment will actually pay most of the rent. You will "save" the amount you would have spent for your mortgage and invest that. The "non-mortgage" minus the "rent not paid by active interest" is the actually "capital building" you make every year. You earn interest every year on that.

The idea that real estate increases with time is a prejudice. Real estate can increase, decrease, or remain stable. That's like saying that paintings increase value over time, or porcelain. There is no guarantee that houses rise in value in real terms in the long term.

The capital you invest will typically grow more than inflation for sheer economic reasons (we exclude particular, anomalous situations).

Don't buy. Rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage.

Don't buy giving a "down" payment. Invest the "down" payment, rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage (same logic applies).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The logic to buying any "luxury" good is this: if you "invest" up front in a better quality item, it will last you much longer than the cheaper item, and in that sense pay for itself by not having to be replaced as often. I state "luxury" in quotes because quality and luxury are not interchangeable, although the cost of quality often makes something otherwise utilitarian a luxury. I have a set of Calphalon pots and pans - I got them close to 20 years ago because they will in all likelihood be the last set I buy - I may add to the set from time to time, but I will never NEED to replace them. Before, I had some non-stick pots and pans that the coatings were wearing through every couple to three years and had to be thrown out. The same logic goes with cameras - Hasselblads are for most people truly luxury items, but first and foremost they are workmens' tools. A wedding pro who shoots 20+ weddings a year and several hundred portrait sittings will wear one out in a decade. The average user who buys one, though, will probably die with it still in good working order. Same goes with vintage Leicas (and standard production Leicas... the fancy-pants collector Leicas are just flat-out luxury goods and not really meant to be used), Rollei TLRs, and most view cameras. Stainless steel Rolexes and Omegas are in that same camp - rugged, accurate timepieces that will outlast the original owner. THAT is your investment - something you can buy once and use forever without having to replace it. That degree of "luxury" spending is entirely justifiable because it pays for itself over time.

 

[JBrunner]

The logic to buying any "luxury" good is this: if you "invest" up front in a better quality item, it will last you much longer than the cheaper item, and in that sense pay for itself by not having to be replaced as often. I state "luxury" in quotes because quality and luxury are not interchangeable, although the cost of quality often makes something otherwise utilitarian a luxury. I have a set of Calphalon pots and pans - I got them close to 20 years ago because they will in all likelihood be the last set I buy - I may add to the set from time to time, but I will never NEED to replace them. Before, I had some non-stick pots and pans that the coatings were wearing through every couple to three years and had to be thrown out. The same logic goes with cameras - Hasselblads are for most people truly luxury items, but first and foremost they are workmens' tools. A wedding pro who shoots 20+ weddings a year and several hundred portrait sittings will wear one out in a decade. The average user who buys one, though, will probably die with it still in good working order. Same goes with vintage Leicas (and standard production Leicas... the fancy-pants collector Leicas are just flat-out luxury goods and not really meant to be used), Rollei TLRs, and most view cameras. Stainless steel Rolexes and Omegas are in that same camp - rugged, accurate timepieces that will outlast the original owner. THAT is your investment - something you can buy once and use forever without having to replace it. That degree of "luxury" spending is entirely justifiable because it pays for itself over time.

Scott,

You are quite right, I agree the most economy can usually be found in the highest quality, however componding credit card interest on that quality item as the OP proposes makes that economy a moot point, just as it will handily obliterate any appreciation. Giving $8000 for a $2000 camera (or whatever) doesn't sound like a very good investment to me.

 

[BradS]

I get my numbers from Financial Mathematics, a branch of mathematics, with its own inner financiary logic.

The mortgage payment is always composed of two parts: the interest part, and the capital restitution part. When you pay a house with a mortgage, you payback your capital AND you pay interest on the capital which you have not yet paid back.

If, on the other hand, you just save and invest, you will earn interest on your capital instead of paying it. The "interest" you pay is the rent. Rent is nothing more, in nuce, than the interest on the capital you rent (the house). In a normal house market interest on houses is somewhere around 3 percent of the value of the house.

In a normal mortgage you pay much more than 3% on the capital you borrow. 5% is a much more normal rate.

The "down" payment doesn't change the logic. If, instead of buying a house now (let's say $300,000 down payment and $300,000 mortgage) you just invest the $300,000 you have and you rent a house of a value of $600,000 you will find that you will more easily buy a house after X years (your mortgage duration) by saving rather than by buying on credit.

As a banal example, the case may be that the $300,000 invested can give you 5% after taxes while the rent of the house will cost you 3% of the $600,000 house. That means the interest on the "down" payment will actually pay most of the rent. You will "save" the amount you would have spent for your mortgage and invest that. The "non-mortgage" minus the "rent not paid by active interest" is the actually "capital building" you make every year. You earn interest every year on that.

The idea that real estate increases with time is a prejudice. Real estate can increase, decrease, or remain stable. That's like saying that paintings increase value over time, or porcelain. There is no guarantee that houses rise in value in real terms in the long term.

The capital you invest will typically grow more than inflation for sheer economic reasons (we exclude particular, anomalous situations).

Don't buy. Rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage.

Don't buy giving a "down" payment. Invest the "down" payment, rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage (same logic applies).

Please check your assumptions:

1) mortgage interest now stands at around 3.67% (national average for 30 year fixed) here in the US.
2) just as there are no guarantees that real estate values increase, so to, there is no reason to expect investment values to increase.
3) you've completely ignored the tax advantages to owning a home - which are substantial here in the US.
4) "safe investments" no longer pay any significant interest....the interest rate paid on certificates of deposit, for example, is now well below 1%
5) rent invariably goes up. One has total control over his mortgage payment...which stays fixed over the term of the loan and can go down if one refinances.

In summary, Stone is correct...buying a home is much preferred here in the US - especially now, and especially if you are smart enough to buy in a region of the country that has and will continue to have strong employment.

 

[pbromaghin]

Diapositivo, your calculations are ignoring a very large factor - risk.

The purchase of a home hedges the risk (borne by a renter) of rising home values and hence, rising rent. There is value in having one's housing expenses relatively fixed for a number of years, as provided by a mortgage. Further, in assuming your investments will be profitable, you also dismiss the risk of your skill in choosing investments that will (as you do recognize in the case of land) go up, down, or stay the same.

There is another thing to be said for real estate - they ain't making any more of it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Scott,

You are quite right, I agree the most economy can usually be found in the highest quality, however componding credit card interest on that quality item as the OP proposes makes that economy a moot point, just as it will handily obliterate any appreciation. Giving $8000 for a $2000 camera (or whatever) doesn't sound like a very good investment to me.

I wasn't really addressing the question of credit card interest. That all depends on how quickly the buyer can pay it off- 12% interest, or even 21% interest, is a relative moot point if you're going to pay the thing off in say 3-6 months. If you're carrying the debt for multiple years, then yes, it's stupid.

I'll amend my original statement then to say "buy the best you can afford", and not carte-blanche "buy the best". Like buying a Rolls or a Rolex or even a Leica or Hasselblad, all mechanical things require service to keep them running properly. It doesn't matter that you can afford the entry price - don't buy it if you can't afford the upkeep. Not as big a deal per se with cameras, which unless used heavily (or very rarely) don't require much upkeep, other items do require EXPENSIVE routine servicing. For example, there are quite a few vintage Rolls-Royce and Bentley automobiles (in good working order) available out there for under $25K, about what I paid for my brand-new Honda Accord. But if you should need routine service on the suspension, well, Rolls-Royce designed their suspensions to require a proprietary tool. The servicing, which is recommended every 50,000 miles or so, costs over $1000 per wheel, and must be done at the Rolls dealer (note the proprietary tool). Rolex recommends a servicing every 3-4 years, which costs nearly $1000.

Please note that I own neither of the above brands of product - they're just cited as examples, point being take into consideration ALL the costs of owning something before buying it.

 

[BradS]

I think it also important to recognize that Luxury is not synonymous with quality.

 

[StoneNYC]

Diopositivo,

The others said what I would have said. The only other thing I would add that after say 10 years of renting, that house will most likely not be $600,000 any longer, even in a terrible market like right now, the prices won't drop long term and the 600,000 house is now $800,000 or more.

Anyway if you don't understand you won't agree and I wish you luck with renting.


~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

 

[pbromaghin]

This doesn't always happen and may be an extreme example, but the increase in value of my last home completely paid for the principle and interest over the 9 years we lived there.

 

[StoneNYC]

This doesn't always happen and may be an extreme example, but the increase in value of my last home completely paid for the principle and interest over the 9 years we lived there.

+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