Would be fascinated to know: How many new Leica MP film bodies are sold, worldwide, each day?

[John Koehrer]

They're used as a small camera to keep in the glove box of your Koenigsegg

https://www.koenigsegg.com/car/agera-rs/

 

[film_man]

My next M will be a brand new chrome MA for £3800. That's under £32/month for 10 years. Hardly breaks the bank if you think it like that, I spend more than that on film per month.

The problem with buying used stuff is that unless someone makes new ones the used stuff runs out, ie becomes rare, ie expensive. We should all thank Leica for making new film cameras. It is the only thing keeping the used ones from selling for $4000. Just look at the price creep for things like Nikon F3s, Hasselblads, etc. I bought a 501CM kit for £1000 in 2010. Nowadays that's £1500+. Soon those things will be more than what they cost new. That F3HP I bought for £150 a few years back I sold for £300 last year and good luck finding one for under £350 today. Do you want a Hexar? Ha. Maybe a Contax G2? HA HA. Or maybe you want something a bit more common like a Nikon F5. That's gone up too. I don't know if it is demand picking up, stock going down or both but overall the prices I see are not what they were 5-10 years back. So we can laugh about rich people, sense and money but rich people buying new Leica is the only reason I got my M4 for £800 and not £1800.

Here we are in a film forum talking about rich people and money when we flush a tenner down the toilet every 36 clicks of the shutter...

 

[BSP]

Here we are in a film forum talking about rich people and money when we flush a tenner down the toilet every 36 clicks of the shutter...

Life is measured in toilet flushings.....

 

[NB23]

Here we are in a film forum talking about rich people and money when we flush a tenner down the toilet every 36 clicks of the shutter...

I’m sorry for being pedantic. Nobody throws a roll of film in the garbage after exposing it.

 

[AgX]

He did not speak of film, but of money.

 

[NB23]

He did not speak of film, but of money.

Again, he was talking about money spent on film, therefore throwing money away by shooting film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Again, he was talking about money spent on film, therefore throwing money away by shooting film.

Not logical, spending money on film is not ipso facto throwing money away.

 

[mshchem]

4700 bucks for the body. I paid 550 USD in 1973 for a Nikon F2S. Adjusted for inflation, no big deal. In 1973 Gold was 50 bucks an ounce today 1500.

 

[NB23]

Not logical, spending money on film is not ipso facto throwing money away.

That’s what he expressly implied.

 

[AgX]

Not logical, spending money on film is not ipso facto throwing money away.

Spending money can have several outcomes. One would be getting more money back as in some investment of whatever kind. Another would be "earning" fun.
However as we ridicule some rich people spending their money, quite some not rich people ridicule us for spending a tenner for film and an outcome of only 36 photographs when we could have all that for free.

I assume this self-reflection was the idea of film-man.

 

[film_man]

Spending money can have several outcomes. One would be getting more money back as in some investment of whatever kind. Another would be "earning" fun.
However as we ridicule some rich people spending their money, quite some not rich people ridicule us for spending a tenner for film and an outcome of only 36 photographs when we could have all that for free.

I assume this self-reflection was the idea of film-man.

Exactly.

 

[blockend]

There have always been people who want to own equipment for its brand heritage, and people who want to own gear for what it can do. This is true of any product. It's easy to justify owning a new film Leica for the first reason, Leica is an iconic brand with a long history associated with many of the greats. The second reason is harder. You'd have to prove - at least to yourself - that an MA was a better option than a well looked-after newly serviced M3, as well as the competition, new and old.

I neither know nor care how much disposable income, earned and un-earned people have. Clearly, the 8 grand or so a new Leica and lens costs will be chicken feed or selling a kidney stuff. I'd have to be assured I could see the difference, and not just under optimal conditions but every day knockabout use to spend that kind of money on a new film camera. I'm convinced most of the aforementioned greats would not be using a film Leica in 2019 to express themselves creatively. Unless they were sponsored. They're a gold plated tap in a world of second hand brass taps going cheap, and sell accordingly.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I’m sorry for being pedantic. Nobody throws a roll of film in the garbage after exposing it.

Not logical, spending money on film is not ipso facto throwing money away.

With my daily use, not for forum status use, I need at least four bulls of film per year.
Which is minimum 200 USD per year.
It isn’t big deal and gives more interesting for prints pictures than digital.
The problem is with Leica. If old, it will need more than service every other year or so.
And with Leica it is a lot more than 200$.

 

[campy51]

I can see spending a lot of money for a lens but not for a film body. The lens and film will make more of a difference than a film body. At least the lens you can carry over to digital which will pay for itself by not using film. I do understand the feel some cameras have when you hold it, for me it's my 500 C/M.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Some folks act like Leica is the only make still producing film cameras. Large format is produced new in abundance, you can buy a new F6 right now, just had mine serviced. You can buy new Hy6 Mod 2s, brand new Jobo equipment, new instant cameras, new instant film!

With people like Magicflex you can buy the closest thing to a new Rolleiflex right now. There are probably enough 2.8Fs or similar for everyone who wants one to be able to own one. Magicflex fully restores them to like new condition. I bought a 2.8E from him and it's absolutely gorgeous. And they're still cheaper than some cobbled together copy of an M4 based on spare MP parts. My LX is going through a full restoration right now too. It'll really sing with some Limited glass on it.

Buying Leica does not support photography or analog photography, it just lines the pockets of the rich investors who bought a luxury brand on the edge of collapse. Thankfully Panasonic seems to be largely making their cameras now (SL, Q).

 

[darkosaric]

Buying Leica does not support photography or analog photography

We can agree to disagree .

 

[AgX]

Buying Leica does not support photography or analog photography, ....

We can agree to disagree .

I has been indicated above that the vast majority of film users is not interested in buying a new Leica of that sort. Nor do Leica make a low-priced film camera. Thus what are they funding?
The Leica digital cameras sell much better, they do no need crossfunding from film camera sales. Nor does the Barnack Prize.

I do not see how buying a new film Leica supports film photography by means of the Leica firm.

 

[AgX]

Some folks act like Leica is the only make still producing film cameras. Large format is produced new in abundance, you can buy a new F6 right now, just had mine serviced. You can buy new Hy6 Mod 2s, brand new Jobo equipment, new instant cameras, new instant film!

True, but a Hy6 Mod 2s is with 10.000€ again in the elitist range, furthermore it is a hybrid camera (film and sensor backs available) and thus not the best example,

 

[film_man]

Buying Leica does not support photography or analog photography, it just lines the pockets of the rich investors who bought a luxury brand on the edge of collapse. Thankfully Panasonic seems to be largely making their cameras now (SL, Q).

This is it, isn't? It doesn't matter what group you find yourself in, there will always be people that need to subdivide it to make themselves feel better. Digital vs analog. Choose analog. 35mm vs 120 vs large format? Choose 35mm. Rangefinders vs SLRs. Pick one. Then get into the whole brand thing. Then get into the whole old vs new. Or the made in Japan vs Germany vs Canada vs whatever else.

Mate, you talk about rich people, lining people's pockets then here you are discussing a Hy6 and large format. Remind us how much a Hy6 is. How much money is it for a sheet of film again? I'm sure the profits from every new Nikon F6 sold go for the Nikon help the homeless charity.

Same stuff with film, on one hand people complaining Fuji is increasing prices and discontinuing products then talking down Cinestill and Lomo for daring to make new products that don't conform to their purist views of the world.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[AgX]

This is it, isn't? It doesn't matter what group you find yourself in, there will always be people that need to subdivide it to make themselves feel better. Digital vs analog.

Concerning analog vs. digital
You overlook that Photrio was founded as Apug, a pure analog community, just to differ from the digital community.
I see it as benign that the resting analog only members try to keep up a barrier.

Concerning analog itself:
I can only repeat myself, I find it benign to raise the question what sales in a niche sector as new film Leicas (concerning number users) has impact on the group as a whole. I do not see any splitting attempt in such questioning.

 

[Chan Tran]

OK so that means only about four per day, worldwide: one in New York, one in London, one in Berlin ... Not many for a nearly $5000 body!!!

There must be at least one in Peking and one in Tokyo.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I do not see how buying a new film Leica supports film photography by means of the Leica firm.

How it is not? Who else makes new 135 film format high quality cameras?
Nikon with one camera. This is it.
Without new cameras made, it is Mad Max.

 

[Dali]

How it is not? Who else makes new 135 film format high quality cameras?
Nikon with one camera. This is it.
Without new cameras made, it is Mad Max.

Selling 5 new cameras a day is not what I call supporting film photography... Camera makers are not supporting film photography because they don't want to invest in an non-existing market when they still can make money with digital.

If tomorrow Leica collapses, there won't be any ripple effect in the film photography world. Imagine the same with Ilford, Kodak or Fuji; it shall tell you what Leica really represents today (NIL).

 

[BradS]

How it is not? Who else makes new 135 film format high quality cameras?
Nikon with one camera. This is it.
Without new cameras made, it is Mad Max.

Exactly!

 

[NB23]

Forget the Leica magic Bullshit.

There are enough used film cameras on the market to last us 100 years of amateur, sporadic use. Because not everyone is like me, shooting at least 150 rolls of film per year.
Besides, 150 rolls per year is a very low number. Back when all those cameras were produced, the market dictated that an amateur camera would take 500 rolls per year and a pro camera from 3000 rolls and up.

But ko.fe should know better.
What sustains the film industry is the Film itself, not the cameras. The numbers of film sold is what defines the market, not the numbers of cameras.

A film user defines himself as a film user by shooting 10 rolls a year. Basically, a film camera that would be on the verge of dying at any given MINUTE, back in the day, will give 10-20-30 years of service to a “film user” today.

The way Film is used these days, the used market can sustain for at least 100 years easily.