retow
Well-known
Olsen said:
Your last sentence hits the nail. No reason to be annoyed with Leica, they are not (or only marginally) beneficiaries of nominally higher USD prices for Leica gear. And even without knowing underlying details, their publicly available financials, unfortunately, tell the same story. A company, struggling to sustainably produce profits.
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Is your camera bag ½ full or ½ empty?
Is your camera bag ½ full or ½ empty?
All I know is my M6, M7 and Noctilux have all doubled in value. I don’t have a problem with that. It is very rare to own any tool that goes up in value with age. Can it not be said, Leica’s value has kept up with inflation.
Is your camera bag ½ full or ½ empty?
BNF said:
All I know is my M6, M7 and Noctilux have all doubled in value. I don’t have a problem with that. It is very rare to own any tool that goes up in value with age. Can it not be said, Leica’s value has kept up with inflation.
naos
23 Skidoo
POINT OF VIEW said:
But this is bad for the people who would like to get a Leica, but are set back by the outrageous prices!
tomasis
Well-known
sitemistic said:
I have nothing to disagree with.
If you say the same thing about M8, then it is fine. So you seem to be liking M8 again
:angel:because m8 is leica product which costs much as noctilux
POINT OF VIEW
Established
Bottom line, you can’t go first class and pay coach prices.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
So far the "Basic Leica" if bought second hand isn't a bad deal. I've depended on my Leicas for supporting me and the family, buying a house, boats and cars, seeing two kids through grad school, etc. My newest Leica was made in the early 1970's while others date to the 50's. Minimal money has been spent on keeping them running and earning money. I did get M4 style contacts put on them when they were otherwise in for service anyway.
My accountant complains that I have no depreciation to write off my taxes! They're reliable and still paying the bills. An M3 body bought used in 1967 for $100? Yet $100 was a fair amount of money back then, like $500 or $600 would be today. Over the long haul it was a real bargain. It's earned tens of thousands of dollars, and could likely sell for$500 or $600 on today's market.
My accountant complains that I have no depreciation to write off my taxes! They're reliable and still paying the bills. An M3 body bought used in 1967 for $100? Yet $100 was a fair amount of money back then, like $500 or $600 would be today. Over the long haul it was a real bargain. It's earned tens of thousands of dollars, and could likely sell for$500 or $600 on today's market.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Leicas have done very well, but remember, that sort of value is only there if you can find a buyer. The value to Al is different, he is looking at value as it delivers functionality which in turn allows him to create value.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
tomasis
Well-known
Al Kaplan's post illustrates best example of functionality as bill said above. wow I would love live on leica
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Come on, Al, you KNOW professionals don't use Leicas. Ask anyone here! Therefore, either you and I have never earned a penny with our Leicas, or we've been deceived and we've really been using Canon DSLRs all these years. As has Salgado...Al Kaplan said:
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
Interesting how the prices increased differently for different lenses.
Roland.
Roland.
Thardy
Veteran
Thardy said:
Al Patterson said:
Let's see, I take $1,000,000 and buy a bunch of new MP's (actually 250) , 2 years later, the Leica part of my portfolio nets me about $575,000. I think Warren Buffet did the same thing last year.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The thing about my Leica kit that seems to drive people crazy is just how beat up they look, with dings, dents, and brassing. One body that I did buy new, an M2-R, came with a 50/2 D.R. Summicron. Leitz was unloading them and the combo was $375.00. I kept the original box, import certificate, and instruction manual. The body really looked like crap until I bought a new "skin" from Cameraleather a couple of years ago. The one time it went back to Leitz for a CLA I had M4 synch sockets and M4-P frame lines installed. No collector would want it after the modifications I'm sure!
The frame line upgrade was a waste of money. I sold my 135 Tele-Elmar after buying some Leica lenses at an estate sale for a song. The goggled 135/28 I picked up uses the 90mm frame lines, and I discovered that my newly acquired 28 was a rare first model Wetzlar black paint in like new shape. I swapped the 28 for a pristine 21/3.4 S.A. and a late model M2 body in cherry condition. I never use the 28 and 135 frames in the finder.
The frame line upgrade was a waste of money. I sold my 135 Tele-Elmar after buying some Leica lenses at an estate sale for a song. The goggled 135/28 I picked up uses the 90mm frame lines, and I discovered that my newly acquired 28 was a rare first model Wetzlar black paint in like new shape. I swapped the 28 for a pristine 21/3.4 S.A. and a late model M2 body in cherry condition. I never use the 28 and 135 frames in the finder.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I have a photo of a picture I took in 2001 of a gas station advertising a gallon of gasoline for 0.99(9) cents.BNF said:
The average right now is about $3.00
Thank you, Scalia, and your cascade effect.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Thardy said:
I hope you know I'm kidding a bit, but an MP will probably have better resale value when I retire than an M8 or Canon 5D or Nikon D3.
And, I get a few years of use out of it. I only look at the precious metals part of my portfolio once or twice a year when I need something from the safe deposit box at the bank.
I keep the State Quarters at home.
Thardy
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Was gas prices really that low in 2001?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
They were indeed about a buck a gallon back when I could afford to run my boat and go fishing.
Olsen
Well-known
Gabriel M.A. said:
3 $ a gallon (3,785 liters) equals $ 0,79 per Liter which equals NOK 4,27/Liter. Here in Norway, this very afternoon, a Liter of 95 Octane petrol costs NOK 12,66. That should be $ 8,87 per Gallon. The difference is 'taxes' (health care & lavish pension funds for all and all that stuff, you know).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yeah, don't get me started on that. On this side of the pond, the word "taxes" is as evil as the word "communist".Olsen said:
There is a showdown between our incompetent governor of Minnesota and the state Legislature over a few cents a gallon for taxes which are sorely needed for road infrastructure renovation. The urgency was a slap in the face when the I-35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis back in August, 2007.
Not even that will make him get the money. He wants to run the credit card, like all good conservatives; let the people pay later. It worked so well with the sub-prime mortgage pyramid scheme...
Anyway. My point in any case is that it's three times as much, including the exclusion of taxes.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yes. At $3/gal., it's still cheap compared to the rest of the world; with the exception of Venezuela and Mexico, as far as I'm concerned.Thardy said: