Leica pricing: then and now

[dave lackey]

Reference M3 Manual circa 1956:

...For the LEICA is more than a superb miniature camera; it is an investment in true photographic enjoyment and interest, an insurance against failures and missed opportunity. Not least, it is a companion. ... You know already that the name LEICA is a hall-mark of optical and mechanical precision and lasting reliability. ... Like other instruments of fine precision, ...It will repay... with extra years of trouble-free photography. "

I haven't found this kind of language in any of the voluminous manuals of any of my more modern plastic cameras. Could it be that the newer products are not designed/built to last years?😛

Just checked the M9 manual...only a "thank you" for purchasing just like in the latest Nikon manuals. No mention of YEARS of reliable service and enjoyment from a fine precision instrument. Could it be the world has changed to more or less disposable cameras, do ya think?

 

[ndnik]

No doubt Leica lenses have become a lot more expensive compared to similar products by other manufacturers, as demonstrated by the OP. M bodies not so much.

Without having to refer to any elusive qualities inherent (or not) in Leica products, simple economics may explain some of these observations. Compared to Canon and Nikon, I'm quite sure that Leica market share has decreased rapidly since the late 50's through the 80's and this trend continues to today. I guess that not only market share but also absolute production numbers have gone down. That would have me expect cost increase.

 

[richardhkirkando]

Nikon/Canon have gone to much more modern automated manufacturing and cost-lowering.

It's not that automated. Check out this video:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index.html

 

[dave lackey]

At the end of the day, what is wrong with those of means purchasing what they want at the prices Leica or any other manufacturer charges? The economy and demographics are not what they were 30 years ago. So what?🙂

I cannot and will never be able to afford new lenses, or bodies for that matter, from Leica. I have been out of work for nearly 29 months but I do not have a problem with Leica prices. I simply buy what I can afford. That is, when I HAD money to buy anything at all.🙄

 

[Roger Hicks]

The only exercise like this I have seen that has made sense to me compared the Leica III to the M9.

The III cost around £35 in 1935. The M9 costs something like £4000. Both equate roughly to the monthly take home (after tax) pay of a senior manager or similar. For example a current salary of around £100,000 would buy you an M9 a month and little else...

Can't find where I got this from or the salary figures for 1935!

Michael

In 1935 the solid sterling (92.5% silver) half-crown was still in widespread use, even though the silver content had gone down to 50% in 1919. It weighed about half an ounce, 14.5 g. At eight to the pound, £1 was therefore 4 oz and £35 was 140 oz. Anyone with the time or energy to compare troy and avoirdupois ounces, and check the spot price of silver, can work out a better figure but very roughly that's $3500 at today's silver prices.

Comparing an M9 and a III is hardly realistic, and the extra features of an MP with its meter, mutiple finder, combined range/viewfinder, top speed of 1/1000, single speed dial, etc., can quite easily account for the (modest) increase in silver price as compared with the III.

Differences in wealth distribution between the rich, the middle class and the poor, from 1935 to 2011, make comparisons based on salary less useful than they might seem.

Cheers,

R.

 

[berlincontemporary]

The only exercise like this I have seen that has made sense to me compared the Leica III to the M9.

The III cost around £35 in 1935. The M9 costs something like £4000. Both equate roughly to the monthly take home (after tax) pay of a senior manager or similar. For example a current salary of around £100,000 would buy you an M9 a month and little else...

Can't find where I got this from or the salary figures for 1935!

Michael

As a side note: 1980s Deutsche Mark (DM) roughly equals todays Euro in value. A Leica M9 is much more expensive today - in absolute terms - than 1980s M4-2. However, prices for all "pro" cameras haven gone way up (Nikon F2AS vs Nikon D3X, Canon F1 vs EOS 1Ds Mk whatever).

 

[Roger Hicks]

As a side note: 1980s Deutsche Mark (DM) roughly equals todays Euro in value. A Leica M9 is much more expensive today - in absolute terms - than 1980s M4-2. However, prices for all "pro" cameras haven gone way up (Nikon F2AS vs Nikon D3X, Canon F1 vs EOS 1Ds Mk whatever).

Yes, but that's hardly a fair comparison. Compare a mechanical camera (MP) with the M4-2 and I suspect it's a lot closer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[berlincontemporary]

Yes, but that's hardly a fair comparison. Compare a mechanical camera (MP) with the M4-2 and I suspect it's a lot closer.

Cheers,

R.

The M4-2 was around 1400 DM, todays MP is 3600 EUR.