Leica's position amoung old cameras

[ongakublue]

Hi

I was looking at the website of my local camera store where they sell used vintage cameras. What stands out is the fact that Leicas are so much more expensive than most other rangefinders and slrs. But the price difference is... ridiculous. The M2 that they have is 700 euro and with no lens. There is a sumicron 50mm and it is I think the same amount of money as the body so in the end almost 1400 for this set up. Now you can buy a rangefinder or slr and prime lens, perfectly decent, for 70 euro. Surely there is something of status or branding causing this? Is the better performance really 20 times more valuable? I am reminded of Apple products

Thanks

 

[BetterSense]

Value is determined by what the market will bear.

 

[frank]

Supply and demand in a free market system.

 

[bdial]

Leicas have never been cheap. There are a great many people who consider the cost commensurate with the value.

That Leica is still in business making cameras when many of their competitors have ceased to exist speaks volumes.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Sure, there is branding and status at work. Conspicuous consumption and all that.

At the same time, there are few cameras as well made as Leicas. With any product you reach a point of diminishing returns. To be 'twice as good' as a Kodak Instamatic is, well, not that difficult. Nor that expensive. Sort of like fine watches- the improvements are small as oyu go 'up' the line, but the costs to make these small improvements keeps rising and rising. Other cameras may have been made as well as, or better than, Leicas, but all in all Leica is among a small number of cameras at its level of design and execution.

And none with the sheer numbers of cameras made- lots, readily available, enough to maintain repair services, but not so many that they are mundane.

Persoanlly, I agree. I sold off my Leica kit a while back and am happy with a Pentax ME Super SLR and a couple of Pentax lenses. No noticable drop-off in image quality. And that I would even say such a thing- no drop-off in image quality- will make some people cringe, then be thankful that such a philistine is no longer in their club. Go figure.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I am happy there are still people to keep these cameras out of garbage can. If you start to question of value of leica with its price , it means you have a very long road to cross.

 

[4season]

Leica is a bit to 35mm rangefinder cameras as Ferrari or Porsche are to automobiles or Rolex is to wristwatches: Even if you don't know (or care) anything about automobiles or watches, you've probably heard of the brands, and have a vague sense that they're supposed to be costly, prestigious and that maybe even The Best. This is true even if that person has no idea what one looks like.

Once upon a time, Zeiss or Nikon might have been the "It" brand of 35mm rangefinder cameras, but that was a long time ago, and people forget. Leica, on the other hand, continues to actively promote the M system, and they continue to do a top-notch job at keeping their products on the minds of friendly bloggers and other reviewers by staging events, making prototype products available and so on.

Why buy a decades-old Leica M camera today? A strong community of like-minded enthusiasts and a pretty decent network for getting the things refurbished, customized, accessorized, even a number of all-new products.

None of which matters much if you simply want to take nice pictures!

 

[Fixcinater]

Hi

<SNIP>...I am reminded of Apple products

Thanks

Whether you value the difference in haptics and tactile experience that either of these (Not that I'm equating Leica with Apple nor the other way round) companies provide over their less costly competitors is something you have to experience first hand, it cannot be described. Is an iPhone "better" than a Nokia/Samsung?

As one online blogger wrote regarding his suggestion to shoot for a year with just a Leica and one lens and one film (I'm paraphrasing): Sure, other cameras could work and be completely suitable for this task. None of them would give you the experience of shooting for a year with a Leica.

I say this as an owner of an M3 and zero Leica lenses, most of the Leitz glass is out of my price range or I have Canon LTMs that work just fine or I prefer over Leitz equivalents. My Canon RFs do some things much better than the M3 does, and I travel with a Canon 7 not the M3.

Link to the blogger: A Leica Year and Why it Has to be a Leica.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Many SLRs and their lenses made so cheap I don't need it for free.
Leica M system was always for those who are more selective.

LTM Leicas and some LTM leica lenses are not really expensive. Yours seventy euro, almost. You could get Leica SLR and their lenses at not so high prices as well.

M Leicas and new of fresh M glass are not so cheap. For some it is only prestige label. But if you are RF film shooter by your choice, not by hipsters fashion choice, at some time you might realize why working film M is on pair with price of some digital advanced P&S cameras with design faking the Leica M. At this point you might want to check M production numbers. Nothing huge, comparing to FSU made by millions for millions.
And they are original, not Japanese "improved", or FSU simplified copies.

 

[pdeeh]

this is a subject that has been beaten to death over the years and yet back it comes over and over

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

There is no wide spread of magazines like 70s today. Best photography magazine is 50 pages or so , full with canon nikon pentax ads and photoshop tricks. I think someone might know to invest in old magazines if he thinks to use a analog process.

Old Hi Fi , photography, fashion etc journals are awesome and read worldwide.

I think there is a good source of analog photography is national geographic complete dvds. If you cant access nothing , invest in.

My copy from 90s and very low res but it gives an impression.

I think we will host lots of 20s aged people who dont know what I am talking about.

I am living in one of the most cosmopolit cities and these somewhere in somewhere people saddens me. I think 30 years later , when the all of the old farts die , leicas will be 5 dollars or so.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have dozen or so Leica magazines and I'm looking only at books with analog photography. The size of print in them doesn't really matter. It is film at any size.

Plenty of young film M users here and where.
All film gear will cost nothing once here is no film.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think the performance would reflect rather closely to the price when new which was not even 2X in many cases. The used price is high because Leica managed to sell the same camera for so long. So if the new Leica cost that much money then an old Leica which basically the same would worth a significant percentage of that. While if you consider a Canon or Nikon the new cameras are so much different from the old that makes the old cameras obsolete and so worth a lot less. Although Nikon RF fare quite well as compared to Leica.

 

[rowghani]

Hi

I was looking at the website of my local camera store where they sell used vintage cameras. What stands out is the fact that Leicas are so much more expensive than most other rangefinders and slrs. But the price difference is... ridiculous. The M2 that they have is 700 euro and with no lens. There is a sumicron 50mm and it is I think the same amount of money as the body so in the end almost 1400 for this set up. Now you can buy a rangefinder or slr and prime lens, perfectly decent, for 70 euro. Surely there is something of status or branding causing this? Is the better performance really 20 times more valuable? I am reminded of Apple products

Thanks

Hi there,

im sure all of use have thought of the same thing when looking at leicas and all one can give is theyre own opinion based on their experience with the product and although they are beautifully crafted pieces of equipment, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase other pieces of glass or bodies made by other companies at a fraction of the price. I have an M3 and recently bought an M6, but will be selling that to get a Zeiss Ikon which I think is a much better camera in terms of use. If you any specific questions on those two M bodies or on a summicron 50mm feel free to message me. Having said all that in my opinion the price difference between rangefinders and SLRs is warranted because I prefer rangefinders in practically every perspective. All the best.

 

[rowghani]

I have dozen or so Leica magazines and I'm looking only at books with analog photography. The size of print in them doesn't really matter. It is film at any size.

Plenty of young film M users here and where.
All film gear will cost nothing once here is no film.

and yet there's nothing showing that this will happen. Quite the opposite actually when you've got new types of film coming out.

 

[MattKing]

If you buy a new Leica film camera with a new Leica lens, it is really expensive.

If you compare that new camera and new lens to something like a used M4 with a comparable lens of similar vintage, the new and old versions will be fairly similar - the differences are incremental at most. So the price of the used camera and lens is relatively high, because it is "competing" in the same, highly specialized market as the new version. And that highly specialized market is fairly similar to the highly specialized market that existed when the M4 was current.

For the rest of the photographic world, the current cameras are in a market that is really different than the market that was current when the older, used cameras were new. So the other used cameras have fallen precipitously in price.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I have dozen or so Leica magazines and I'm looking only at books with analog photography. The size of print in them doesn't really matter. It is film at any size.

Plenty of young film M users here and where.
All film gear will cost nothing once here is no film.

Yes , agree , my mind never been able to adapt to internet , online book stores. But I think best leica photographs are taken by not very professional photographers but ordinary people who knows what they are doing. I am trying to say , if you buy few different german, american magazines , you can get hundreds of times of knowledge and experience compared to photography books. Old magazines and journals were printed with minimum font and most variable knowledge.

I dont know they are usable today but these people and era was awesome. But in my experience some kodak publications were the best among all I have ever read.

Their paper , print technology and the ink were the best. If you have them , you are done right

You can understand leica with using leica lens but you must invest in brain also.

 

[blockend]

I've never been able to tell which photograph was taken on a Leica camera by looking at a print.

 

[gzinsel]

well, that IS a shame!

 

[blockend]

well, that IS a shame!

Yes, and I've shot with a Leica.

 

[Chan Tran]

I've never been able to tell which photograph was taken on a Leica camera by looking at a print.

I don't think I can either but when I do know which camera took which photographs I noticed that the shots made by Leica tend to be less sharp but I don't think that's because the Leica is less sharp but rather I think they are used in condition where sharp shots are difficult to make.

 

[Two23]

I am living in one of the most cosmopolit cities and these somewhere in somewhere people saddens me. I think 30 years later , when the all of the old farts die , leicas will be 5 dollars or so.

I doubt that. Nothing else really has the same feel as the Leica. And, after the old farts die the Leicas will still be working perfectly.


Kent in SD

 

[250swb]

Hi

Surely there is something of status or branding causing this? Is the better performance really 20 times more valuable? I am reminded of Apple products

It would seem every photographer is status conscious on APUG if you go by so many 'my camera is as good as a Leica' style quotes. Even cheaper brands have devotees that defend them. But Leica have earned their status over the years, to think anything other is to be ignorant of the recent history of photography and photographers and the use Leica's have been put to.

And of course they aren't 20 times 'better', to think so is to be ignorant of any brand where detail and build are taken to the extreme, a Timex still tells the same time as a Rolex, so its the same argument. You pay a premium for each smaller improvement because they cost more and more in manufacturing to achieve, it's a fact of life.

But you'll find that unlike an Apple product that becomes next to worthless as soon as the new version is announced and the sustaining technology leaves it behind, sending your M2 back to Leica for a full service is still possible, they don't laugh at you for thinking of such an absurd idea. And there is another thing of course, with any Leica you buy where the price has hit a stable level, such as an M2, you get your money back when you sell it, try that with your iPad.

And then there are the vast number of lenses you get to use with your Leica, both LTM and M mount, and not only made by Leica themselves but a vast number of other manufacturers. Many of these are affordable, particularly the Cosina Voigtlander brand, and you can buy these all brand new, try doing that for an Olympus OM1.

So you should see that an old Leica M2 is still supported pretty much as it always has been with access to the factory, new lenses, and a large base of spares and accessories. You are buying an old camera, but you don't need to think of it as an old camera, and perhaps that is why you are confused about the price and status.

Steve

 

[film_man]

You pay a badge premium, a tactile premium, a materials premium and a rather heft premium for the fact that Leica will still service and fix every single one of them. I was just looking to buy a Hexar AF, in many respects a better camera than many Leicas yet I didn't because bidding £200-300 for a camera that is a throwaway once it breaks is not my kind of thing. I'd rather pay £500 and know I can get it fixed. Maybe it is still cheaper to get the throwaway but I prefer to know I have things that are fixable.

 

[blockend]

Most people recommend getting a CLA on an old Leica. It's a reasonable suggestion but spending a few hundred pounds getting a second hand 35mm camera to function correctly, is more than most people are prepared to spend. The cash spent is on the user experience, not the image quality in my opinion. I can accept that some photographers prefer using their Leicas to other cameras, it's when they claim the quality magically comes through in the image that I feel hot air. I have various lenses I like the look of, and all veer from the ideals of sharpness and optical correction. Character doesn't have to come with four digit prices.