Is the Leica an "Investment?"

[elmontanero]

As far as any measure of investment.. if the things worth more than you bought it for and appreciated faster than inflation yes. But It's a crummy way to measure the acquisition of a tool intended for a purpose.
My two Leica lllf's are certainly an investment, but only because they were donated. They'll certainly be worth more than I didn't pay for them.
Now of course the lenses were all nearly rubbish with separation and fungus. So I'm likely to spend too much money on them in the end.

 

[Dismayed]

A camera is only an investment if you are using it to generate income. So, yes, a camera purchased by commercial and wedding photographers is an investment. And if you are purchasing and hoping for the camera to appreciate in price? That's speculation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I buy my cameras for use, not as an investment, other than an investment in my enjoyment.

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't think any of the new Leica is an investment if what you mean by investment as being able to sell them for more money in the future. Even the limited edition I don't think it's an investment either.
However, my brother bought a Leica IIIa at Goodwill for $25 and that was an investment for sure as he sold it for a lot more.

 

[Jim Jones]

I buy my cameras for use, not as an investment, other than an investment in my enjoyment.

Me too. My M4 has given decades of hard service to this amateur. Even at a hundred percent depreciation, that is about the price of a roll or two of color film a month. That beats replacing a less reliable body a few times.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Me too. My M4 has given decades of hard service to this amateur. Even at a hundred percent depreciation, that is about the price of a roll or two of color film a month. That beats replacing a less reliable body a few times.

It always help to amortize the cost of expensive cameras and lenses over the number of years of use, the use and the enjoyment we derive from it.

 

[kmg1974]

The problem with 'using a camera' as an investment is that you will either not have to use it (collectors will want a perfectly looking camera/lens) with no signs whatsoever of use...
and then you have to find someone that is willing to pay what you think the item is worth it...
If you were lucky and bought Contax G lenses before Sony came out with the E mount, you could have gotten a full set of top primes for 500 dollars (28, 35, 45 and 90 mm) with the G1 included.... now they are worth more than that

 

[slackercrurster]

Ancient OP...any Leica I have bought has never appreciated. I don't like talking to people passing by that is interested in my camera or anyone on the street I am shooting.

 

[alentine]

Never have seen performance like that so far.
Indeed investment, in some sort.
Crazy at f/5.6
At f/2 and f/2.8, tunnel background blur. Majestic portrait lens.
At f/5.6, unprecedented sharpness all the way to the last mm. Magnificent landscape lens.

 

[jim10219]

The only thing photography related that I would consider having a decent chance as an investment would be darkroom equipment, recently discontinued film and paper, and some prints.

I've seen film go up in value after it was discontinued. Though film doesn't last forever, and you have to freeze it to keep it in good shape beyond it's expiration date. And that costs money. But if you've got free space in your freezer anyway, then it might be worth while. Up to a point. Eventually, it'll degrade and become worthless, so you don't want to go crazy with it. Right now I have a bunch of Acros that I bought just before it was discontinued. I had planned to switch over from TMX to Acros for cost reasons, but now the Acros is worth so much more money, I'm probably going to sell it and go back to TMX! Same with my FP100C instant film.

Darkroom equipment was almost impossible to sell a few years ago. You could often find enlargers for free or next to nothing. Now that the film revival has got people getting back into the darkroom, the demand for enlargers has picked up a bit. I don't know how much longer the trend will last, and they're still not very valuable, but I've seen the price of enlargers in my area easily double or more over the last few years.

And right now the going price of a print is really low. It's hard to sell a photo for what it costs to make these days. Especially traditional wet prints. But as with all art investments, it's a big gamble as to what will increase in value and what will decrease as trends change. Now would be a good time to diversify and pick up a bunch of prints that strike your interest. Most will probably drop in value, but if you have a good eye and get lucky, a few might skyrocket and cover your other losses over the next couple of decades.

 

[removed account4]

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!?

hi thedancefloor
not sure if you figured out the answers to your questions since 2012
i think one can get a user leica and respectable lens for a lot less than
one thinks, while a few thousand dollars ( maybe? ) seems like a large investment
in a camera/lens if it is enjoyed and used &c than its well worth whatever price was paid
but i don't think its value will increase like an "investment".... seeing 99% of all photographers
are pretty much unknown and not famous enough to create a buzzzz around a camera.

regarding houses--
who knows .. buy a shack its a roof over one's head
buy land its something to be worked or sold later
buy a house and barely keep it maintained or
hire someone that does shoddy electrical or plumbing or roofing
or ... handyman work ( like slumlords i rented from when i college )
you get rent and line your pockets ... until the place combusts or leaks
or falls apart then its worth as much as the insurance says
( as long as an adjuster didn't see what it looked like pre catastrophe
and town/city didn't see how many code violations there were, or how many
people were living there over the legal limit ) ... all the pay-offs to keep the
authorities add up, and might exceed the amount taken in as rental unit profit ?
one of the people i rented from back in the day was forced to give up all his property
because he evaded taxes for a decade and owed about 1/2 million dollars...

seems the camera would be a better investment, even if it worn as bling cause chicks dig bling...

 

[Arklatexian]

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!?

 

[herrbarnack]

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!?

If it were me, I would keep the M6 and 35 'cron. I would get a part time job to make the Visa minimum payment plus $50-100 each month.

If you sell the M camera and lens in your pursuit of membership in the millionaire club, you will sooner or later come to regret that move.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

People like to consider things they enjoy/like/want as an investment.
I use this criteria... if it sends me a cheque on a monthly or annual schedule, it's an investment. A rental property is an investment. My home is not since it never sends a cheque over and seems to cost me money.
A camera that you rent out often would be an investment. A camera that you use/hold and never rent out, is not.

 

[herrbarnack]

JMHO, but not everything has to be about "how much money will it make me?"

My canoe does not make me any money but it brings me many hours of enjoyment, relaxation, communing with nature, fresh air, sunshine and exercise.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think our capitalist society has wrecked the housing market by investing for financial gain in assets other than investment vehicles. The house flippers caused the financial crisis 10 years ago because some folks use shelters as an investment vehicle. This drive up the cost of housing for families making them sometimes unaffordable. I say buy a house to live in, art to enjoy it and cameras to make pictures with and leave it at that. But we live in a free market economy. Sigh...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Cat man, if you'd watched the Miami Beach condo boom of the mid-00s, you wouldn't say that. People there bought what were in effect condo futures in the hope that they could be sold to greater fools before the bubble burst. The last fools in lost everything. It was a bubble pure and simple, like the Dutch tulip bubble.

I've speculated in rare lenses. Or, more exactly, arbitraged between markets. I bought low from ignorant dealers' web sites or tables at ameras show, sold higher via eBay. I wasn't in for the long haul, I was gambling. Usually won, though, because I knew the market better than the people I bought from and the people to whom I sold.

I've never invested in photographic equipment in the old sense of buying an asset that paid me regularly (a bond with coupons, a share that paid dividends, real property that paid rent) or that would certainly appreciate (zero-coupon bond). And also not in the old sense of capital equipment that could be used to make products I could sell profitably.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Cat man, if you'd watched the Miami Beach condo boom of the mid-00s, you wouldn't say that. People there bought what were in effect condo futures in the hope that they could be sold to greater fools before the bubble burst. The last fools in lost everything. It was a bubble pure and simple, like the Dutch tulip bubble.

I've speculated in rare lenses. Or, more exactly, arbitraged between markets. I bought low from ignorant dealers' web sites or tables at ameras show, sold higher via eBay. I wasn't in for the long haul, I was gambling. Usually won, though, because I knew the market better than the people I bought from and the people to whom I sold.

I've never invested in photographic equipment in the old sense of buying an asset that paid me regularly (a bond with coupons, a share that paid dividends, real property that paid rent) or that would certainly appreciate (zero-coupon bond). And also not in the old sense of capital equipment that could be used to make products I could sell profitably.

Your a cleaver dude that is a purveyor of fine gear to rich cats. Good on ya!

 

[mshchem]

Leica and Hasselblad (just to name two) aren't an investment to me. They are testament to modern design, form, and function in nearly perfect balance. I know people who collect watches, beautiful very expensive European made shotguns. Watching my friend shoot speeding clay targets out of the sky amazes me. The Leica M and the Hassleblad 500 series cameras, even in the hands of a novice, feel natural, and instinctively proper.
I have had cameras that I have sold for more than I paid. It was a bit of good luck.
I rarely shoot 35mm, but I have captured images with my Leicas that were only possible do to the silent unobtrusive nature of the camera.
I know digital guys can do this. But I want instinctive control, I can't do that with a digital camera. I would like to explore the Leica M digital offerings, but that's too much $$€€££¥¥ for me.

 

[blockend]

I think our capitalist society has wrecked the housing market by investing for financial gain in assets other than investment vehicles. The house flippers caused the financial crisis 10 years ago because some folks use shelters as an investment vehicle. This drive up the cost of housing for families making them sometimes unaffordable. I say buy a house to live in, art to enjoy it and cameras to make pictures with and leave it at that. But we live in a free market economy. Sigh...

While that sentiment is certainly true, I go back far enough to remember when restoring old properties in undesirable parts of town was regarded as freakish. People wanted new houses on out of town estates, not crumbling Victorian money pits. Renovators went from being regarded as hippies to greedy capitalists, overnight. The difference is financial value, of course. Too many dumps turned into charming urban townhouses and the coffee houses and artisan beer shops move in and prices rocket.

Urban planners have caught on to the idea of letting cheap artists spaces in areas they want to gentrify. When the location is suitably hot, the artists are kicked out and the money moves in. Likewise, I'm old enough to remember used Leicas selling for a little more than a secondhand Nikon F2, and Leitz lenses weren't regarded as a pension fund.

 

[chip j]

Yes, Leica wasn't much more expensive in the days of the Nikon F, until God knows what happened.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

A rental property is an investment. My home is not since...

There's more subtle metrics than making money. Here's an easy test for you: start living in your car. You'll change your tune in a few months. I'm sure.

 

[Wallendo]

I think the impetus of this thread is multiple posts on Photrio that purchasing a Leica is an investment in that you can get your money back when you resell it if you don't like it. Honestly, that applies to just about any used camera these days that is bought at a reasonable price.

Leicas, like other well-made products can be bought and sold for profit by people who know what they are doing. If a person has to ask if any item is an investment, however, that person doesn't have the knowledge and experience to make an investment out of the item in question.

 

[blockend]

Honestly, that applies to just about any used camera these days that is bought at a reasonable price.

Yes, I agree. Lenses hold their value better than bodies, generally speaking.

Leicas, like other well-made products can be bought and sold for profit by people who know what they are doing. If a person has to ask if any item is an investment, however, that person doesn't have the knowledge and experience to make an investment out of the item in question.

Very true. A Leica that needs a full overhaul and replacement parts is unlikely to be an investment in anything except the owner's photography. Even a CLA might take it from bargain status to the going price for the camera.

Collectors are not interested in the capabilities of the camera as a photographic tool, only as an investment vehicle. Glass case specimens live on as reminders of what was, not what is or can be.

 

[mshchem]

I love my M6ttl w 50 Summicron. I also had a beautiful M2 with the 50 1.4. Beautiful camera, but I'm not a collector and I didn't want to scratch it so it moved on. I shoot 6x9 Fujis more than my Leica. Leicas are so great because so quiet and easy to hand hold in dim light. I've always wanted to try a digital M. I would need to go to a bigger market. Iowa City had an amazing Leitz dealer, Henry Louis, started as a drug store. They had a great camera store sold Hasselblad, Leica, very nice. Ended up selling high end microscopes. They were bought out, long gone.

I think cameras are no good if you are afraid to use them.