Economics of Leica cameras: Are they cheaper now?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

This is a post discussing the economics of Leica cameras. If you don't care about economics at all, you don't have to read this. I used the website at http://minneapolisfed.org/economy/calc/cpihome.html to calculate CPI-based prices for Leica.

For those economically saavy people, the consumer price index is a comparison of the price of a particular good in one particular year relative to another year. So an example:

Looking at Stephen Gandy's cameraquest webpage, a 1938 Leica Model G w/ Summar 50mm f2 cost $169.50 at Burke and James camera dealer. That is the equivalent of about $2169.84 in 2002 US dollars. Holy smoke! :) No doubt that Leicas were luxury items back in the day majorly.

Nowadays a new M6 TTL .72X camera plus Summicron 50mm f2 is about $2400 depending on the dealer. Seems like Leicas haven't gotten any cheaper in today's world.

So basically to complain about Leica's high prices is somewhat unwarranted by some people apart from the cost-cutting measures which Leica has introduced over the years. Still, a M6 is built to last...

Seems like a M7 TTL is rather expensive at 2500 dollars just only for the body. Is it worth it? Well perhaps, perhaps not...

Personally I like to see a Voigtlander-Leica collaboration where there is a second-tier "Leica body for the masses." After all, the 1970's Minolta-Leitz CL wasn't a bestseller for nothing.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002

Answers

Actually used Leicas are relatively cheaper and a better bargain for the dough I think. A used M3 not close to mint is a very good investment for a user no doubt.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

They are cheaper today, at least here in the States. Due to several things.

First of all "Fair Trade" laws were legal into the 60's. Much tougher than todays "MAP" pricing. The only way around it for a dealer was by one subterfuge or another e.g. selling the M body with some new off brand LTM lens as a "package", or offering $150 allowance for your Brownie as a trade on a $350 M3. E. Leitz actually "shopped" dealers to catch them though, and would pull a Leitz franchise without hesitation.

There were no rebates.

There were no Leica Days.

There was no "grey market".

No internet worldwide purchasing.

There wasn't as much competition. In 12 years Leitz made and sold 225,000 M3s, along with almost 100,000 M2, M1, and MDs during the same time. It took the half again as long to make about the same number of M6s in all variations. Simply more competition out there.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 17, 2002.


There were no rebates.

There were no Leica Days.

There was no "grey market".

Are you sure? Market economies have been very sophisticated for a long time...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 17, 2002.


Jerry is correct. I remember those days. In addition there were whopping duties on camera imports and the US Customs regularly taxed citizens returning with their Leica gear from Europe who could not prove that their Leica stuff was purchased in the US with receipts in hand or a Customs registration certificate. People scratched off serial numbers to prove that the goods were damaged and could not be resold as new. I have an old LTM 90mm Elmar with a serial number scratched out.

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), April 17, 2002.

A couple of comparisons:

In, say, 1978, a top-of-the-line Canon F1 sold for about $500 while a Leica M4-2 sold for $750.

When the F-1n went out of production mid-90s the last few were selling for $2000 - just about the same as a Leica body.

TOTL Canon Eos1v and Nikon F5s cost about the same as a Leica body now - whether comparing MAP or the best discounted prices available.

Nikon's commemorative S3 rangefinder remake is $6000 - which is way at the top end of what a Leica 'commorative' costs, even adding in lens price. Even a Millenium black paint and lens is about $5000.

The sticker shock comes in lens prices - where the difference is about the same as it's always been. But in the '70's you could get a solid metal Canon or Nikon lens for 1/4 to 1/3 the price of a Leica lens - now you have to put up with plastic barrels/missing aperture rings(eos) to get the price difference. And at the high end the gap almost vanishes (50 f/1, 35/28 f/1.4)

At any rate over the past 25 years Leica has held the line pretty close to inflation and to the competition.

Seems like medium format - at least the stuff 6x6 and larger (NOT 645) has REALLY ballooned over the past decade - by comparison.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 18, 2002.



Regarding lenses, I have a couple of the old (circa '70) Canon all-metal-and-glass lenses. They produce cool-looking images, but in terms of contrast and resolution, the Leitz lenses of comparable age (and older) simply blow them out of the water. I think the new, much-more-expensive Japanese glass is much closer in performance to its German/Canadian counterparts. The reduction in price gap for the upper-end lenses reflects a reduction in the performance gap as well.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 18, 2002.

Re: Mike Dixon's experience w/old Canon lenses. I'm not sure I would entirely agree. I have a lot of Canon RF lenses from the 1950s-60s & to the extent that I can make a direct comparison using my own collection, I think they're easily on par in optical quality w/their Leitz, Zeiss, & Nikon competition from the same time period (although a bit below on build quality).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 18, 2002.

In the early 90's when I first started to get interested in Leica gear I jotted down a bunch of new and used prices in the little Hove Foto Handbook. Here's a small sample, M6 - $2,495 R7 - $2,495 R6.2 - $2,695 35/1.4 ASPH - $4,500

So, over the last ten or so years the camera prices have actually dropped. The lens prices have remained very steady with a few increasing slightly in price and others dropping slightly in price. Used prices have for the most part dropped over the same time period, with the exception of collectibles. Once one takes into account inflation over the time period, Leica gear appears to be getting cheaper all the time.

-- Tom Finnegan (tomf@piengr.com), April 18, 2002.


Yes, Leica really has held the price line relative to the CPI. Alfie makes a very good point. In fact, two bargains these days are Leicas and Gasoline.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 18, 2002.

Moving camera production to Portugal improves Leica's cost structure. If Leica lenses are also moved over to Japan ( following Carl Zeiss 35mm lenses ) or even Portugal, would be even cheaper

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 20, 2002.


Dear Alfie,

I think there’s something wrong in your demonstration. To treat a technical product just if it was something invariable like say the price of a kilogram of oranges just applying the inflation rate to see if it is cheaper or more costly today than 30 years ago is something I consider rather irrelevant.

Back in the early 70’s when the M5 was introduced it faced some competition, though those competitors where SLR’s so originated from a different concept. So we will limit us to compare what was included in both kind of design and neglect what was specific to each.

At that time, which corresponds to the introduction of the famed Nikon F2, but in which the Nikon F was still dominant, the M5 was a little above the cost of a Nikon F body. The shutter of the Nikon F was more or less the equal of the one of the M5 with 1/60th of a second maximum sync. speed (1/50th of a second for the M5) and both had 1/1000th of a second as maximum speed. Both were all manual mechanical cameras. Both had TTL metering with a CDS element with an edge to the M5 in terms of precision (It has an almost spot metering device). The Nikon was easier and faster to load. The price tag was somewhat heavier on the M5 but it was the only possible body for the neatly superior Leica lenses (an I mean neatly superior in everyday use, moreover in B&W which was still the most usual kind of film in use at least for reporters). The limitations (and conversely the advantages) of the rangefinder concept were there but to a lesser extent as the always slow macro-photography was still possible with an M camera through the Visoflex III. By any means the M5 was a state of the art camera body (moreover it used a specific and new body).

Nowadays, Let’s take a closer look to the M7 body when confronted to a Nikon F5 observing the same rules for the game as to what can’t be present or useful to each body because the feature is related to the specific concept each camera is designed. The M7 has the very same shutter the M5 has despite some electronic regulation, the F5 shutter also an electronic one, has much more performance built in (1/250th sync. speed, 1/8000th max speed), the available metering modes authorize even more than what is really actually necessary in the range of focal lens covered by a rangefinder. Two of them at least are nonetheless very well thought: Spot metering and matrix metering. The F5 can be operated manual or AE in both of these modes (an overkill as far as I’m concerned). The loading procedure of the M7 is still the old method in use back in the 70’s which was even at that time a liability. The motor is built in with the F5 and a separate pricey device for the M7. But both are sold more or less the same price. The Nikon F5 is a design less than 5 years old with all it implies in term of R&D costs and the Leica is fundamentally using a design originating in the M3 back in the fifties. Only a limited amount of electronics has been introduced to regulate the old shutter and authorize the AE mode but it is AE mode as could be found in cameras during the 80’s. Clearly you can’t call the M7 a state of the art camera.

And this is why even a slight decline in price, inflation taken into account, is unable to fairly describe the evolution of the price of the M series in a tad more than three decades. I will never discuss the fact the M7 is almost certainly a fine camera in itself, time will tell if it is as reliable as the all mechanical M6. But as far as a comparative can be made with the price of an M5, even taking into account the inflation, you don’t get nowadays the same technological value for money than 30 years ago with an M5, buying an M7.

For years Leica has maintained this policy (or even worse when they went back to bodies without TTL metering with the M4-2 and the M4-P) just because the small format rangefinder cameras were Leica M’s and nothing else. How long this marketing policy can be maintained without destroying the Leica photographic department is something open to legitimate interrogations since serious competitors have reappeared and this time allowing to use on them what is still the best lenses available on the market: the Leica ones due to the mount falling into public domain.

I think Leica marketing policy is crazy and should be corrected as soon as possible if the brand is to survive at least as far as bodies are concerned. I know this is partly (at least) due to an outmoded way to produce the bodies due to a poor (or even inexistent) investment policy in modern production tooling. But should tomorrow Konica decides to produce an Hexar RF 2 with TTL flash, 1/250th of a second sync. speed and 0.7 magnification (all too easy to implement) with only a few bucks more than the RF to spend they are instantly dead. Only a much improved M would justify the awesome difference in price with an Hexar RF even today. And don’t tell me the Hexar RF is cheaper built or finished, just for the example titanium is present and not as a special series feature… For what is technically embodied in an M7 the price to pay for it is disproportionate, even if it is nowadays a tad less costly than the M bodies were before.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 22, 2002.


How do you put a price tag on "feel" and "pleasure"? These days it is around $1699 to those who feel the pleasure from an M body. For Leica to participate in the battle of the clones would be suicidal. Leica was never good at electronics, the R8 motor proved that. Perhaps Leica should form a partnership with a Japanese giant but hopefully more substantial than just put the red dot over the rising sun.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 22, 2002.

Ray,

I may perfectly understand the pleasure to use a totally outmoded camera which could nevertheless produce splendid pictures (albeit in the limited photographic situations which were their limits when they were first issued). I just did that with my M5 as long as it worked, I’m still doing that when I occasionally use the Rolleiflex F I bought for my son or even (say once in a year) when I use an old Zeiss Ikon 6x9 of 1939 vintage (it belonged to my uncle and is still mint in condition). However, all these cameras (excepts the last one which came as an heritage) were bought second hand and only the M5 was used as a real photographic tool for everyday work and anyway it was bought before any alternative to Leica rangefinder cameras appeared on the market.

Just think about car collectors who occasionally drive their proudly owned and maintained favourites. There is a real pleasure to do that. But to compare even the most beautiful old car you can dream of to what is now technologically available (excepts on the aesthetics) is something that will lead to dispel many myths surrounding no less mythical cars. I would be very happy owning and occasionally driving a Jaguar XK 120, but I won’t drive that car everyday nor sustain for example the efficiency of its brakes is superior (not even equal) to what is found now on the humblest of the ordinary car produced today.

Now what is exactly the Leica concept ? Originally it came from the realization by Barnack of the capabilities of the 35mm movie film which could be blown to a readable print. The idea was to get a mobile fast to operate, multiple frame hand held simple camera as small as the film format will allow, nothing more… There was no mean (but a DOF table) to control the focusing of the camera. In a second move, probably under the influence of the appearance of reflex cameras using the same film or rollfilms which had the only defect to be much bigger but the advantage to permit the focus control, a rangefinder was devised and to speed the things a bit, it was coupled to the lens. About at the same time interchangeable lenses were made available. But at that time the focusing was done through the rangefinder and the framing through specific auxiliary viewfinders. This was to be maintained throughout the Leica camera production up to the last Model III. The only adjunctions on the body was flash sync. capabilities. To overcome the inherent limitation of the rangefinder concept, Leica devised a reflex auxiliary chamber which is now known as the Visoflex which permitted the use of much longer tele-lenses and macro- photography. As awkward as this device may appear today, a simple study of the ergonomics of contemporary 35mm reflex cameras will prove it was as fast as them to operate, while the body in rangefinder configuration was much faster and efficient. During the 50’s Leica developed a new model, aimed to an even faster and simpler use: the M. Not only did it replace the screw mount by a bayonet but it introduced a viewfinder with different frames which was also the rangefinder observation window. Finally, in the early 70’s, with the M5, Leica introduced the TTL metering. Not a single model during this period can be considered technologically backward when taking into consideration the original concept developed by Barnack.

Is the Barnack’s concept still valid ? My answer is YES wholeheartedly YES. Not a single SLR camera can do what a small format rangefinder camera can do.

Unfortunately, from the commercial failure of the M5, Leica was unable to cope with state of the art in body technology and after a dark age of going back to the early 60’s with the M4-2 and M4-P they were only able to produce a camera, the M6 which was in fact functionally a revised M5 eliminating the (originally) troublesome meter arm in an even older body design. The M6 TTL brought only a limited TTL capabilities, because 1/50th of a second was the limit as ever. Now the M7 is embodying only a very small amount of electronics to monitor the old shutter and a no less limited AE capability which dates back in its fundamentals to the early 80’s.

I think nobody could deny there was a major change in the way Leica rangefinders camera were conceived and marketed since the failure of the M5. From state of the art cameras respecting the original concept of Barnack and the coupled rangefinder specifics, they had gradually become the refuge of all photographic conservatisms.

Will you buy nowadays a NEW Jaguar XK 120 which has only be modified to embody a 1970’s ignition technology (M6) an air conditioner (M6TTL) and has been recently fitted with a 1980’s technology steering assistance (M7) for the price of a brand new Lamborghini Murcielago? I won’t, not because I’m particularly found of Lamborghinis but because in everyday use I’ll miss sorely the modern disk brakes, the ABS, the electronic controlled ignition and the electronic controlled injection (gasoline is pretty expensive on the old continent in general and in France particularly). Nevertheless, I prefer the aesthetics of the XK 120, its size is more practical for the roads I travel on and so on… For me the XK concept is better than the one of the Murcielago but to satisfy my requirements state of the art devices should be implemented in it to justify an equivalent price if made once again available today.

Because the “ideal” rangefinder body is not available today but some competitors to Leica exist again in the field (moreover without depriving me of my Leica made lens) I took one, the Hexar RF, which is less than half the price of a M7 while offering more or less equivalent quality and surely more useful features for day to day use than the M7 despite its own shortcomings. By any standards, the Hexar RF is fairly priced for what it is worth, the M7 is no more…

I know it is hard to admit for Leica M addicts, but subjective feelings have nothing to do with economics or technological considerations. A camera body might be as engaging as it may be (and I won’t deny the M is), for an active photographer it is a tool and what after all imports is what you get as an image. For all intent and purposes, the Hexar RF is able (provided it is correctly tuned) to give you exactly the same images an M7 can give you but if you use some of the fastest Leica lens wide open (the same applies to the M 0.58 bodies) and is actually easier and faster to load. More or less the shortcomings of the two bodies are compensated by the advantages they have on the other one. The practical difference is only in the price… All the rest is subjective, But here, the difference is so important that subjectivity is quite expensive… At this point I must also reiterate what I have already said in another message: a familiar body has ergonomics we are used too, manipulating another body with different ergonomics will lead most people to feel uneasy with it and most will be tempted to emit a negative judgement. To fairly judge of the superiority or inferiority of the new body will need the time to accustom yourself to it (unless any obviously awkward feature is detectable). I’m sure those who went from a Leica III to the first M bodies felt originally disoriented. Nevertheless, nobody can seriously argue the replacement of the III body by the M was indeed a technical progress. Are we nowadays less open to new technologies than our predecessors where back in the 50’s? And if so, are we still following Barnack’s path by negating systematically any kind of innovation ? Are we going to sustain anymore the suicidal attitude of Leica to produce antic cameras with a few cosmetic modern features for the happy few wealthy nostalgic persons, collectors and speculators or push Leica to regain its leading place in the heart and mind of active photographers?

Now, if for practical reasons Leica has to collaborate with a Japanese brand to make an up to date rangefinder camera, I see no objection to that move, provided the original concept remains unaltered (strictly no AF on a rangefinder camera for example).

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 23, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ