Why such M-bodies price values

[Rhodes]

Many times I found myself with the follwing conervsation witha friend of mine. He is a entusiastic/amateur photographer as I, but he uses a digital slr and I film cameras.
One of my goals is to have a Leica M6. The discussion may times is, why do the camera body matters in film fotography. As he says, in digital, the body matters because of the sensor. In film, what matters is the lens and the film it self (discarding here the developing/printing/scanning phase).
He also can not understand why one can spend 1000€ or more, for only a body camera. If it's for the lightmeter, why not buy a early camera (M3 or M4) and use a lightmeter.
I tell him that even a M3 or a M4 can go to 800€, so plus 200 or more euros I can get a M6. I talk about reliability and other mechanical stuff. But he replies, why not a body with the some mount, like a voighlander r2, r3 etc. The they have lighmeter and uses M-mount lenses.
I decide to post here the question, to see what one can discuss about it. Even if the reply is, "because it's a leica!"

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Has your friend used an M3 or M2? Looking at the repair manual, it is more more complex than a Canon 7 or Nikon RF of the day. It is more complex than the Bessa R2.

The same can be said of cars. My 1972 Mustang had a 302 engine, 2-barrel carb. My neighbor had a 72 Mach I Mustang with dual-point distributor, headers, 4-barrel carb. His would sell for more than mine.

 

[Rob-F]

Many times I found myself with the follwing conervsation witha friend of mine. He is a entusiastic/amateur photographer as I, but he uses a digital slr and I film cameras.
One of my goals is to have a Leica M6. The discussion may times is, why do the camera body matters in film fotography. As he says, in digital, the body matters because of the sensor. In film, what matters is the lens and the film it self (discarding here the developing/printing/scanning phase).
He also can not understand why one can spend 1000€ or more, for only a body camera. If it's for the lightmeter, why not buy a early camera (M3 or M4) and use a lightmeter.
I tell him that even a M3 or a M4 can go to 800€, so plus 200 or more euros I can get a M6. I talk about reliability and other mechanical stuff. But he replies, why not a body with the some mount, like a voighlander r2, r3 etc. The they have lighmeter and uses M-mount lenses.
I decide to post here the question, to see what one can discuss about it. Even if the reply is, "because it's a leica!"

I guess what your friend means is, that the sensor is the part that matters to him. But as a film photographer, the rangefinder, film advance, and shutter are parts that matter to you. And in a Leica, those parts are hand made with high precision, as is the rest of the camera. That costs money. Your friend seems to dismiss the importance of the parts he doesn't care about.

 

[maddoc]

... because .... 😀😉

.... 50% for the brand name, 20% for the complicated way of producing / buying parts all over the world in small amounts, 30% for the labor-intensive assembling in Germany (to be able to call the final product "Made in Germany") = 100% more expensive compared to a German-designed Zeiss Ikon, produced completely in Japan ... 😛 (actually closer to 300% more expensive)

 

[Particular]

I think the price of a used M6 is determined mostly by its desirability, and market forces. There are plenty of very well made film cameras that can be had for a lot less.
For me it is about handling. It feels right, it works right, the finder is right, and it sounds right, so for me it is worth the money. Find a camera that feels right to you, and pay as much for it as that is worth to you. It is all subjective.

btw. to your friend: I got rid of a dslr quickly because I hated the viewfinder for manual focussing. There was nothing wrong with the sensor.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why does a Bristol cost more than a Mercedes?

Ever driven both...?

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

Some people like hand-crafted hammers with a wooden handle. Others like fully Stainless Steel hammers with a steel handle. Others like a pneumatic nail gun. Some prefer screws, and fit them manually while yet others use a power drill to drive the screws in.

The result is (mostly) the same, things get stuck together. But it's the ease of use (which is a personal preference) that makes the difference!

I hope your friend can relate to this!?

 

[damien.murphy]

Personally, I don't adhere to the philosophy with film cameras, that the body/ camera is merely the light-tight box, whose only use is in housing the lens. People put too much emphasis on the lens and film in my opinion, and ignore the valuable role the body plays - i.e. that of actually getting the shot in the first place.

Once you have the shot, then the lens and film will determine the ultimate quality of that shot, but if you've nothing to begin with, what use is the best lens and film? I think Ansel Adams put it best when he said 'there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept'.

 

[mugent]

I think it's quite simple, you prefer one over the other. A bag of rice will stop you from being hungry, but a nice rare steak will be much more pleasurable, the job is the same.

I use a Mac, I prefer them to Windows PCs, but the end result is the same, if I use PS or Lightroom on both, even the usability is probably 80% the same, but the devil is always in the details.

In a digital camera, there is so much more to it than a sensor, I sold a NEX and bought a Sigma SD15, there is of course, a substantial sensor difference, but the tactile usability is probably more important to me.

MT

 

[Fawley]

But it's the ease of use (which is a personal preference) that makes the difference!

I hope your friend can relate to this!?

For me, this is what its all about, plus what was said earlier about desirability. There is no doubt that Leica's are collectible. I don't own a Leica, probably never will, but I can definitely understand other people for whom owning one is a must. The closest I get is my Canon P and I love useing it, even when a different camera might produce a better picture. For me, and many other people, enjoying the process is all important.

 

[jsrockit]

Ergonomics, ease of use, and the best quality in the business.

 

[Steve_F]

I had always owned Nikon SLR's and a friend had always banged on about Leica even though he didn't own one at that time (Minolta SLR followed by Nikon). I dismissed his comments as snobbery.
I thought I'd like a RF and so went to a dealer who sold Zeiss RF & Leica. Picked up Zeiss and thought this is nice, had a play and was quite impressed. I picked up a Leica, M7 I think, and literally went wow. The build felt solid, compact and all the actions felt so smoothe. It's the simple things such as when winding on film, the smoothness, it's so slick. My FM3A felt course in comparison.
That's what did it for me. I sold my beloved F5 I'd had from new to fund my M6 TTL & the FM3A has gone too.
As somebody who used to enjoy servicing my own Kawasaki's, the feel of polished metals, valves, rings etc etc I could feel and appreciate what was happening in that Leica.
Worked for me.

Steve.

 

[ferider]

Mechanically, with respect to reliability, etc., there is NO rational reason why a Leica is more expensive than, say, my US 200 Canon P, my US 60 Olympus OM1, or my US 150 (?) Hasselblad 500.

Nobody needs a Leica, many people want one.

The only reason for the price is demand, based 100% on emotions. That being said, easier to take good photos, when you like your camera. Also, it's a cheaper hobby than many others 🙂 But rational arguments won't lead far.

Roland.

 

[Steve_F]

I was once told that with Leica you pay once for the equipment and once for the name.
Who cares. Our roads seem to be full of arrogants driving German cars, all the rage at the moment and will probably traded soon for latest model, probably on contract hire. They're like DSLR's.

Steve.

 

[umcelinho]

take the price of the camera and divide by the years it will last and function as new. there you go 😉

i've inherited from my late grandpa a yashica lynx 100, a leaf rangefinder, 45/1.7 lens, speeds from B to 1000. all in all, the same as the 1967 M4 i have been using as my main camera. but looking at the yashica viewfinder and the leica's is a completely different experience. i don't know how better was the yashica's when it was brand new, but after 50 years the M4 is flawless. and it will be for many more years to come.

that has a price.

also, part of the whole photography pleasure is to use a camera that feels good in your hand, and at least to me a leica will feel better than a bessa. even so, only after a whole year with an M6 i was able to shoot with an M3 and finally "get" it: the smoother film advance, the subtle differences that make it stand out over an M6.

this will not affect the actual images, but will make the shooting more or less pleasurable, just for me.

 

[jsrockit]

Mechanically, with respect to reliability, etc., there is NO rational reason why a Leica is more expensive than, say, my US 200 Canon P, my US 60 Olympus OM1, or my US 150 (?) Hasselblad 500.

well, that's debatable. Depends on your attention to detail.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Ask your friend if in film it is the lens and the best lenses are Leica what body would you have me put the lenses on?

 

[Steve_F]

take the price of the camera and divide by the years it will last and function as new. there you go 😉

That sums it up perfectly. When I bought my Leica it was with the intention of keeping it.

Steve.

 

[Boherk]

Yes you could drum up something about cost over years, or best build in the business, but all of that in my mind is just elitism at it's finest. What the reality points to is the photographer not only needs but requires the camera to aid in keeping the action of photography comfortable for them.

Think for a moment if you were using a hammer(to keep that type of analogy going) that you perceived to be a weak tool, or something that isn't right for the job. Would each blow be as hard, as smooth, as well placed as if you were using a hammer you thought to be the best for that application? Or do you think you'd be more content, more comfortable with the hammer you thought was the best.

Taking great photographs is less about your camera than about your mindset at the time the decisive moment happens. What matters is how clear your mind is, and how comfortable you are in that moment. The camera is simply a tool that aids in decreasing doubt and hesitation. That is why you shoot(or covet) with the camera that you do, because you think it's the perfect tool for your job. The knowledge that it is the perfect tool for you is one of the ways you can keep your mind on what is happening in front of you rather than if the little box at your eye will capture what you want it to capture.

This theory also ties into why people get so emotional when someone suggestions that their perfect tool is better, or that their type of camera is better, or that their type of brand is better.

 

[mugent]

As an ex-M6 owner, yes, the build quality is great, but more through simplicity than anything else, it's easy to make sturdy hammer, not so much a swiss watch. I've also owned an OM4ti, which is far more complex, but just as good quality IMHO.
I love a Leica as much as the next man, but I'd get one because I WANT one, I'm not kidding myself it's a great tool, or perfect for the job, I just think they are lovely, and I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting one for that reason.

MT