There is really no reason to think that you have calculated the good value cameras here. What is more likely is that you have calculated the *bad* value cameras--the objects that have lost the most relative value would normally do so because no one wants to buy them; things that are desirable maintain their value. My Leica M4s cost around $400 new, and now they sell for c$1000 and more. That makes all of your Nikon examples look like serious losers, some much more than others.
Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?There is really no reason to think that you have calculated the good value cameras here. What is more likely is that you have calculated the *bad* value cameras--the objects that have lost the most relative value would normally do so because no one wants to buy them; things that are desirable maintain their value. My Leica M4s cost around $400 new, and now they sell for c$1000 and more. That makes all of your Nikon examples look like serious losers, some much more than others.
Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?
Leicas are fine cameras, even fun to play with but, for example, my Nikon F5 system is a much better production tool set for my current work than any Leica ever made.
That's not a bad concept Chan, the lighter cameras are the cheaper they get.
For me it's the flexibility the F-mount, the focusing options, the metering, the flash options, the film loading, ...Back in 77 when I was shopping for my first camera. I did considered the Leica M4 and I don't remember exactly but I think the M4 plus the 50mm f/2 lens cost more but not double the price of the Nikon F2AS and a 50mm lens. It was expensive but I could afford it. Today even with the F6 at $2300 new compared to M7 or MP plus the 1 lens the Leica is more than twice the price.
I went for the Nikon back then because I loved the SLR and didn't like the rangefinder.
Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?
Of course it's silly. That's why I have parallel Leica and Nikon systems.One for some things, the other for the other, both for some.
Seems many of you forget Leica made SLRs. An R-5 body lens combo that sold for $5000 new can be had KEH EX+ for $600
I think the opposite is true. Look at the current value of fixed lens Japanese rangefinders from Olympus and others. The price of such cameras new was generally lower than the cheapest SLRs from the same company, now they're up there with used professional SLRs. A friend sold his Nikon FM3 a while back, and a dealer offered him just short of £300! Light, well made bodies attract a premium. From the OPs list I'd opt for an original FM, which takes Nikon's lenses back to pre-AI days, or a Nikkormat if weight doesn't count.That's not a bad concept Chan, the lighter cameras are the cheaper they get.
Most interesting, could I ask please on your comparison costs "when new" ? The F4s sold from 1980 to 1996,
You might want to double check your sources. The Nikon F4 was first available in 1988, not 1980. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F4
Ignoring inflation for the moment, the F4 can be bought now for about 10% of what it sold for new. Add in the 4.6% per year and it is selling for even less now than this 10% figure.
About the same as buying a 30 year old used luxury car.It may have been expensive when new, but the rigors of time have a way of being a great equalizer.
Several things to keep in mind with Leica R is that most of the bodies (R3/4/5/7) are nothing to write home about (Leicaflex SL and R8/R9 being the exception) and the really desirable glass is still expensive compared to Nikon.
A combo you would really want to shoot R8 + 35/2 still sets you back ~1200$ that said, its one of my favorite combinations in 35mm ever.
Ignoring inflation for the moment, the F4 can be bought now for about 10% of what it sold for new. Add in the 4.6% per year and it is selling for even less now than this 10% figure.
About the same as buying a 30 year old used luxury car.It may have been expensive when new, but the rigors of time have a way of being a great equalizer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?