When did Leica become a luxury item?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Greetings.

At what point in the history of photojournalism did a Leica RF become a luxury item?

When the early Magnum folks, threadbare socialists all, used them, they were considered small, hand cameras, useful for a certain type of spontaneous photography and reportage (along with Contaxes and other brands). When did Leica cameras go from being the necessary implements of starving journalists/artists to become durable goods, accessible only to those with credit cards or trust funds?

I'm interested not so much in how economies have changed but in the way the cameras have been perceived. I do understand that the current demand for them does stem from their illustrious history on the front lines. When did they get their halos?

Thanks.

Preston

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), December 19, 2001

Answers

Here are some interesting prices taken from a 1958 cataloque from a major Canadian photo dealer. M3 w/50mm Summicron - $299.00. IIIg with 50mm Summicron - $160.00. AsahiFlex (grandfather of the Pentax K1000) with 50mm F2 - $125.00. So a Pentax SLR in 1958 was only 25% cheaper than a IIIg and 1/2 the price of an M3, all with similar lenses. Yet even the topline Pentax today (MZ-S) with lens is 1/4 the price of an M6. Leica has definitely gotten pricier.....

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 19, 2001.

You want a Leica M ? thats the price of admission, take it or leave it. And, don't compare Pentax pricing with Leica. Would one compare Mercedes prices with those of Chevrolet? You only get what you pay for!!

-- Stephen Dominick (sdstudio@vaxxine.com), December 19, 2001.

In 1970 my M4 cost within a few dollars of my Nikon FTn. A new M6TTL today streets out about the same price as a new Nikon F5. The differences are 1)in 1970 the "entry level" Nikon, the Nikkormat, was roughly half the cost of the flagship, but today you can get an n65 for about 1/6 the cost of an F5; 2)The 1970 Nikon had TTL metering but otherwise were similar in features to the M4 (SLR vs rangefinder nonwithstanding), yet today the F5 is basically a powerful computer with a lensmount while the M6TTL has barely evolved from the M4. So the Leica isn't so much a luxury item by virtue of its cost, but rather by virtue of its cost relative to its level of sophistication.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 19, 2001.

the cost of skilled labor has risen faster than the general rate of inflation..... Leica makes it's camara using very highly skilled people and very high quality conponets at every step of the prosses.. the resaule is you get a camara that with proper care and matetenance will be able to be use by your grand child when she goes to Mars for a high school class trip...

-- tom Hipple (elizabethmmg@msn.com), December 19, 2001.

Leicas have never been inexpensive or even "reasonably" priced. They always have been difficult for an amatuer to justify. Leica had a huge hill to climb when in the twenties they introduced a camera system based on such a small negative. Their advertising at the time was full of testimonials about the quality and the new found spontineity of the resulting photographs. Not much has really changed since then.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), December 19, 2001.


To follow up John's comments here is a superb little piece written by Ivor Mantale in the 2nd June 2001 issue of Amateur Photographer. (I have very quickly photographed it with a Fuji digital - very sorry about the quality!)



-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 19, 2001.

Just to keep things in perspective: There are probably more Nikon F5s and Canon EOS1s (whatever the current version is) out there that are "luxury items" (as opposed to professionally-used tools) than there are M6s filling that role. Even Nikon makes its share of special edition collectible cameras.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 19, 2001.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has a neat little current dollar converter on its web site. My memory is that I paid $288 for an M3 in 1962 (no, I don't still have it and I wish I did). According to the Fed, the current dollar equivalent of that $288 is $1,697, almost the exact cost of a new M6.

-- Seth Honeyman (sdhoneyman@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

In the early days of photography, a camera was a serious tool, made by craftsmen for professionals. Now, cameras are made to be sold to "consumers."

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

Seth - I wish I'd paid $1,697 or thereabouts for a new M6! Here in the UK a new body is about 1,700 British Pounds (inc. Value Added Tax at 17.5%) which works out to - and I don't have a calculator at hand - approximately $3,000! Do you include any tax on the $1,697?

-- Chris Timotheou (nowayout@talk21.com), December 20, 2001.


Chris, that's list price but most Leica dealers will sell you one for around £1550 (US $2250) - still a lot more than US dealers will charge however!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 20, 2001.

As others have said the Leica has always been very expensive. All that has happened is that "consumer level" cameras have come down in price. In the 70s to own a Japanese SLR (Nikon, Canon) was not cheap and ownersnhip conferred on you the status of a "serious" photographer, now they are a dime a dozen.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

>> In the early days of photography, a camera was a serious tool, made by craftsmen for professionals. Now, cameras are made to be sold to "consumers."

Hmm... Is that really true? Surely amateurs have always made up the bulk of the equipment market (maybe not for Sinars, I suppose). I suspect the amateur market for Leicas has always been larger than the pro market, especially since the introduction of system SLR's.

That Leicas are now luxury items is pretty indisputable, although some pros still use them (mostly as an alternative to their main SLR/digital gear for special applications). I don't think many pros would use _only_ Leicas, though. Depends on what you do.

Thank god for the consumer market. It drives nearly all innovation (as in most industrial sectors) and makes a vast array of choices available to us.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 20, 2001.


Here in Australia M6 bodies sell new for @ $AUD 3800, yet the average yearly wage is roughly numerically identical to that in the USA. Meaning Leicas here cost roughly twice what they do in the US.

Mind you, this isn't as bad as it was in the early 1980s. Back then, a new M4-P would cost $AUD 4500 (in 1981 dollars!) - a small fortune. Part of the problem back then was a 20% (which went up to 32%!) luxury tax applied to all cameras and photo equipment.

These cost disparities go a long way to explain why you can walk around Sydney all day and not see a single M or R. :?(

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), December 20, 2001.


Rob, you're probably right about amateurs always making up the bulk of the market for camera makers. It's just relatively recently that every man, woman, and child is expected to buy a camera. How many of those "consumers" (God, I hate being called that) are going to put more than a few rolls of film through their new cameras?

-- John (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.


After Hermes bought a block of LCA shares

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0046gB

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 20, 2001.


Chris - Leica USA is running a $200 rebate offer currently. Tamarkin-New York is selling the M6 TTL at $1,995 - so with the $200 rebate, cost is brought down to $1,795. There is no tax for buyers who live outside New York State and have the item shipped to them. Tamarkin is an authorized dealer, so I assume those are straight-up official prices.

-- Seth Honeyman (sdhoneyman@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

"In the early days of photography, a camera was a serious tool, made by craftsmen for professionals. Now, cameras are made to be sold to "consumers."

You only need to go to a flea market to see the flimsy pressed tin junk that passed off to consumers as cameras in the era of the Box camera. c1900 and after.

By comparision, today's $250 Rebel 2000 (or whatever) or a $89 Stylus Epic offers vastly superior capability and reliability. Optically, mechanically, photographically.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 20, 2001.


During Leica's financial crisis of the 1970's.

The M virtually disappeared in 1975. By the time it came back as the M4-2 in 1977, the collectors had swung into full gear. Collecting peaked during the Japanese economic boom (and eventual bubble) in the mid-1980s. And while collectors weren't driving up new prices directly, by siphoning off the used cameras they kept used prices very high, which reflected in new prices (AND Leica's advertising!)

And even new cameras were rare - M4-2 production ran about 3000-5000 per year over its lifetime. And rarity also breeds high prices. Leica had become a "boutique" company long before Hermes got involved.

Having seen this post I did a little spot research today while looking for something else in early 1980s photo mags. In 1981 I had to look through 6 issues to find ANY new Leica advertised mail-order. The price was $745 for an M4-2, and $400 for a 50 'cron. The price for a Canon F- 1 WITH 50 f/1.4 was $489.00. (FWIW an R3 body-only was $850!) Obviously Leica had vanished off the "mass market" radar scope during that period in the wilderness.

Leicas have always had some kind of halo. It dimmed in the 60s as the SLR made its impact on the scene - revived a little as collectors started jumped in and photojournalism began to follow new paths after the death of LIFE and LOOK in the 70s - dimmed again as automation drew everyone's attention in the 80s - and now is gleaming brightly once more as the sole maker of solid metal mechanisms in a sea of plastic electronica.

FWIW - Nikon duplicated its 1960 S3 RF camera recently. It costs $5000 and Nikon is losing money on the deal - because it's an even lower production run than the Leica. The Leica M is probably about as cheap now as it has ever been - in constant dollars.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 20, 2001.


Yes. Leica prices were driven up by the large demand from the far east, particularly Japan, Thailand, etc. and by rising demand from third world countries (believe it or not!). The long Asian recession coupled with the more recent economic down-turn in the USA and elsewhere have conspired to reduce Leica prices (used and even new) to as low as it has been in a long time. Collectors are much more cautious about what they buy when the economic outlook is uncertain.

Believe me, the last time you could get a near new Leica M6 for $1250 was in the 1980s. I have already seen mint/near new 24/2.8 Elmarit lenses for $1250. When this lens was introduced not too many years ago it was $ 2500 with USA and $ 150 less without warranty. The various late generation pre-ASPH lenses are quite inexpensive by Leica standards.

Take advantage of this situation if there are items you desire, since I expect prices will start going back up at some time in the near future.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 21, 2001.


Andy, $745 in 1981 is the equal of about $1453 today, according to the U.S. Government handy little (and official) BLS inflation calculator at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm.

So it looks like Leica M prices have held steady, more or less, within a few hundred dollars, in the two decades since. But you get a meter for your money now.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 21, 2001.


"When the early Magnum folks, threadbare socialists all..."

Nice and romantic legend, but it may not be accurate, Preston.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is the son and heir of a wealthy French industrial family, David Seymour "Chim" was the son of a very successful publishing magnate, George Rodgers was middle-class and a Merchant Navy officer, and Robert Capa was the child of tailors (and so definitely not threadbare, even if possibly poor!).

I don't know if any of them were socialist in their politics, though some of them did cover the socialist side of the Spanish Civil War.

I don't know anything Bill Vandivert's other than that he was a big time LIFE photographer.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 21, 2001.


New M6TTL Y180,000=$1550, September, 2001 at Lemon Camera in Tokyo.

-- Emin Kumbaradzi (kumba@mt.net.mk), December 21, 2001.

I don't think Leica camera is a luxury item, it is only high end product

There are many high end Nikon /Canon fast zoom lenses are quite expensive too.

A product becomes luxury item only when it can fetch a prices several time above other similar Japanese products.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 22, 2001.


Leica is of course expensive compared to other brands, but you also have a good resale value and you simply can stop worrying if your lens is good enough. I once bought a second hand Leica equipment (2 R-cameras and 5 lenses) in the mid-80s and sold in 6 years later with a loss of only 10%. Compared with the money that people regularly throw away for new cars, a Leica is a cheap hobby.

-- Thomas Haller (thomas.haller@web.de), December 26, 2001.

A top-of-the-line Hassy body costs about $7000 today. In the late 60's one could buy a Porsche 911 for that.

A camera is a tool. A carpenter can pay just as much for high-end power tools, a clock maker for lathes and milling machines, etc. If a person is serious about playing the game, he/she will find a way to pay for the tools. What's sad is that there are so many people who are dripping with money who have no real need to own such gear, and who do not have the talent to use it to anywhere near its full potential, but who have it anyway simply to use as toys. I can't help but feel that they will pay a karmic penalty for such indulgence.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), December 26, 2001.


Peter, I hope that was tongue in cheek.

Where's the problem with people buying the tools or toys they like? I have a bicycle which certainly cost more than either of my cameras, but I don't have to justify it to anyone. I like it, I can afford it and that's enough for me or anyone else.

Let people work out their karma for themselves, it's no-one else's business. Maybe some of those rich guys will one day produce pictures we'll all be delighted to see.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 26, 2001.


I'm afraid I can be included in that group. I mean, I'm certainly not dripping with money, but I sure don't have any real need to own my Leica gear (except as a hobby), nor do I have the talent to use my gear anywhere near its full potential. But I'm not a collector, either.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 26, 2001.

Aren't all handmade mechanical things luxury items these days? Leica simply chose not to go with micro-motors, servo, and logic chips ( which is sour grapes for not knowing how) and stayed with hand assembled, hand tuned components. It is a lot cheaper to design and built an AF system then something with prisms and mirrors. This doesn't quite explain the R8 so I'll just shut up and have another egg nog.................

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 26, 2001.

Here are my two cents. As far as Leica being a "luxury item", I think this impression probably has a lot to do with the proliferation of commemorative cameras, particular M6s: two platinum editions, several gold plated cameras (eg., Thailand, Sultan of Brunei), many different special engravings, Ein Stuck, Bruckner, many different "leather colors", a whole variety of black paint editions (Millenium, LHSA, Orebundsman, Dragon, etc.). The number of different M6 commems is unbelievable, with many of these having matching lenses. Before the M6, there were only a handful of commemorative M cameras.

Otherwise, a regular version top of the line Leica M (M6TTL) is no more expensive than the top of the line Nikon and Canon cameras, though the M lenses are certainly more expensive than the competition. The Leica cameras and lenses have far fewer features than those of Canon and Nikon. The features of an auto-do-everything camera and lenses with built-in micro-motors and gyroscopes (Canon IS) can be considered "luxuries". After all, one can get along fine with an inexpensive MF body without 7 different metering patterns and three AF modes, etc. So by this standard we should consider state-of- the-art autofocus products from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc. as luxury items.

I'll bet there are plenty of well-healed amateur photographers with Nikon F5s, Canon Eos-1Vs, etc. and the latest apo/SLD/L glass that can't do justice to these products. So you really can't single out Leica as the producer of "toys" for the rich. Finally, I'd like to comment that those who use Leica products exhibit good taste in their selection, and some of these amateur photographers are very knowledgeable and talented.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 26, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ