Are Leicas really too expensive? And what about Nikons? History tells the tale!

Deleted member 65559 · Jul 11, 2023

splitimageview said:
Shoot, used classic M6s were ~$1000 plus or minus all the way into the 2010s. Other Ms like M4-2 were less...even for pristine ones.

....well that is 13 years ago. People these days even school kids are walking around with a $1k cell phone in their pocket. I bought my first Leica when i was a university student. My parents clothed & fed me & put a roof over my head. I didn't own a car. That used M2 cost a month of summer wages, and was 1/3 of a years university tuition. Come to think of it, it was the most expensive thing owned at the time.
I think they are valuable because they (Leica M film cameras) still do what they were designed to do. That said I think all those 50s,60s,70s cameras (Leicas Nikons & others).....are still tools that could capture a Pulitzer prize winning image, no matter whether a $100 Nikon F or a $1500 Leica M4.

splitimageview · Jul 11, 2023

True, although from late 80s to 2010s is a 30+ year period where Ms were flat.

For the reverse perspective, $1k today is ~$400 in 1989 money.

ranger9 · Jul 11, 2023

This is a fascinating topic, since it literally hits us where we live. I've played with it a bit myself. One thing I realized right away was that converting prices to "2023 dollars" isn't as straightforward as it seems. These conversions are usually based on what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (home of the official Consumer Price Index) calls "a market basket of consumer goods and services" which include food, housing, and fuel. The kicker: These items make up a significant portion of monthly expenses for most of us... but for the well-off folks who have been Leica's target market from Day 1, they're just a drop in a vast bucket of income. That means that Leica price changes that are astronomical in terms of "consumer" spending are insignificant by the standards of the very rich people for whom they're actually marketed.

To avoid that, one way I decided to look at the subject was from the viewpoint of "What would you buy instead?" This turned out to be surprisingly tricky, since there are few head-to-head matchups available. Schneider chose the Leica M3 vs. the Nikon S2; to get a better match in terms of photography features, I decided to look at the year 1967, when the Leica M4 was just becoming generally available and its closest competitor, the Canon 7s, was beginning to fade into the sunset. In terms of price, the best data I could find (from scouring old ads and the Modern Photography buying guide) was that the M4 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens was almost exactly 50% more expensive than a 7s with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. (Claim the Leica lens was incomparably better if you want, but that isn't borne out by in-period tests.)

As photography tools, these two are surprisingly close. Both have long-base rangefinders and parallax-compensating bright-frame viewfinders for lenses from 35mm to 135mm, with both companies offering wide-ranging lens lineups. They both have roller-blind focal plane shutters with speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec. They're both well-made and durable; Leica fans might claim the M4 displays more craftsmanship, but I never liked that extra push it needs right at the end of the wind stroke; the 7s advance seems to me smoother and quieter throughout. And its shutter doesn't make that annoying bouncing-ball-bearing noise at 1/8 sec.!

For your 50% price premium, the M4 did give you several features that genuinely aided photography. The range/viewfinder, with its sharp-edged rangefinder patch, was somewhat brighter, dramatically clearer, and much more pleasant to use. Better yet, the Leica selected the correct finder frame for each lens automatically; with Canon you had to select it manually using a dial on the top. (Auto-selecting finder frames are a feature that never seemed to spread beyond the M Leica and its cousins such as the Minolta CLE; the only other 35mm rangefinder camera I can think of that offered this feature was the Kodak Retina IIIS, of all things! Anybody know of others?)

On the other hand, to get these significant photographer-friendly benefits, you had to give up the Canon's burn-proof stainless steel shutter curtains, its more convenient film loading (no separate baseplate to juggle!) and its limited but very useful built-in CdS meter.

So if you wanted a top-end 35mm rangefinder camera in 1967, you had two reasonable choices: the Leica, with a much nicer viewing system, more prestige, and more resale value, for 50% more money... or the Canon, with more convenience features and a significantly lower price. Today? If you want a system rangefinder camera that you can buy new, there aren't any choices: you pay what Leica wants, or you don't play. (I absolutely love my Pixii A2572, but I don't claim it's a head-to-head competitor to the Leica M11 the way the 7s was to the M4...)

(Bonus pricing fun fact: Another time when I looked at this, I found that the then-current Leica M10 with 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron cost more than the national average in-network price for an appendectomy. Leicas have always been more expensive than most other comparable cameras, but now they're more expensive than surgery...)

Deleted member 65559 · Jul 11, 2023

ranger9 said:
This is a fascinating topic, since it literally hits us where we live. I've played with it a bit myself. One thing I realized right away was that converting prices to "2023 dollars" isn't as straightforward as it seems. These conversions are usually based on what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (home of the official Consumer Price Index) calls "a market basket of consumer goods and services" which include food, housing, and fuel. The kicker: These items make up a significant portion of monthly expenses for most of us... but for the well-off folks who have been Leica's target market from Day 1, they're just a drop in a vast bucket of income. That means that Leica price changes that are astronomical in terms of "consumer" spending are insignificant by the standards of the very rich people for whom they're actually marketed.

To avoid that, one way I decided to look at the subject was from the viewpoint of "What would you buy instead?" This turned out to be surprisingly tricky, since there are few head-to-head matchups available. Schneider chose the Leica M3 vs. the Nikon S2; to get a better match in terms of photography features, I decided to look at the year 1967, when the Leica M4 was just becoming generally available and its closest competitor, the Canon 7s, was beginning to fade into the sunset. In terms of price, the best data I could find (from scouring old ads and the Modern Photography buying guide) was that the M4 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens was almost exactly 50% more expensive than a 7s with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. (Claim the Leica lens was incomparably better if you want, but that isn't borne out by in-period tests.)

As photography tools, these two are surprisingly close. Both have long-base rangefinders and parallax-compensating bright-frame viewfinders for lenses from 35mm to 135mm, with both companies offering wide-ranging lens lineups. They both have roller-blind focal plane shutters with speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec. They're both well-made and durable; Leica fans might claim the M4 displays more craftsmanship, but I never liked that extra push it needs right at the end of the wind stroke; the 7s advance seems to me smoother and quieter throughout. And its shutter doesn't make that annoying bouncing-ball-bearing noise at 1/8 sec.!

For your 50% price premium, the M4 did give you several features that genuinely aided photography. The range/viewfinder, with its sharp-edged rangefinder patch, was somewhat brighter, dramatically clearer, and much more pleasant to use. Better yet, the Leica selected the correct finder frame for each lens automatically; with Canon you had to select it manually using a dial on the top. (Auto-selecting finder frames are a feature that never seemed to spread beyond the M Leica and its cousins such as the Minolta CLE; the only other 35mm rangefinder camera I can think of that offered this feature was the Kodak Retina IIIS, of all things! Anybody know of others?)

On the other hand, to get these significant photographer-friendly benefits, you had to give up the Canon's burn-proof stainless steel shutter curtains, its more convenient film loading (no separate baseplate to juggle!) and its limited but very useful built-in CdS meter.

So if you wanted a top-end 35mm rangefinder camera in 1967, you had two reasonable choices: the Leica, with a much nicer viewing system, more prestige, and more resale value, for 50% more money... or the Canon, with more convenience features and a significantly lower price. Today? If you want a system rangefinder camera that you can buy new, there aren't any choices: you pay what Leica wants, or you don't play. (I absolutely love my Pixii A2572, but I don't claim it's a head-to-head competitor to the Leica M11 the way the 7s was to the M4...)

(Bonus pricing fun fact: Another time when I looked at this, I found that the then-current Leica M10 with 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron cost more than the national average in-network price for an appendectomy. Leicas have always been more expensive than most other comparable cameras, but now they're more expensive than surgery...)

Ranger, interestingly enough I bought my first Leica (used M2) in 1967. I remember never even considering a new M4 which cost more than a year's university tuition. But, when i switched from SLR to the Leica, I never even considered the Canon.....nor did any camera store salesman even suggest it....So if the Canon was the head-to-head competitor with the Leica, it sure wasn't in my world.

Godfrey · Jul 11, 2023

Personally, I don't know why the relative pricing of Nikon and Leica cameras over the decades is interesting to people at all. They're both expensive, premium camera brands, and both brands produce cameras and lenses that can create superb photographs. If you can't afford one or the other, or both, as a photographer you simply look to other brands.

Why this constant obsession with the cost of things is beyond me. I'm not super rich, I just have my priorities and know what I'll dig deep to pay for ... as well as what I'll not. I know that I must pay my rent, must pay for my food and clothing, and must pay whatever taxes are levied against me; everything else it a luxury that if I cannot afford, I do not buy. When I have money for such luxuries, I buy what I want/like/need to fit within my available resources. Simple. The point is to get on with the things I want to do, to make the things I want to make; not to waste time and energy thinking about the cost of things.

I guess I'm three standard deviations beyond the mean, but ruminating over all this all seems just a tremendous waste of time and energy to me.

G

Deleted member 65559 · Jul 11, 2023

Godfrey said:
Personally, I don't know why the relative pricing of Nikon and Leica cameras over the decades is interesting to people at all. They're both expensive, premium camera brands, and both brands produce cameras and lenses that can create superb photographs. If you can't afford one or the other, or both, as a photographer you simply look to other brands.

Why this constant obsession with the cost of things is beyond me. I'm not super rich, I just have my priorities and know what I'll dig deep to pay for ... as well as what I'll not. I know that I must pay my rent, must pay for my food and clothing, and must pay whatever taxes are levied against me; everything else it a luxury that if I cannot afford, I do not buy. When I have money for such luxuries, I buy what I want/like/need to fit within my available resources. Simple. The point is to get on with the things I want to do, to make the things I want to make; not to waste time and energy thinking about the cost of things.

I guess I'm three standard deviations beyond the mean, but ruminating over all this all seems just a tremendous waste of time and energy to me.

G

Well....so do more meaningless discussions on this and other forums....

Sonnar Brian · Jul 11, 2023

My Factor of Eight profit on selling a Canon 85/1.5 picked up a number of lenses that came way down in price- ones that I really wanted. Same with selling a couple of other lenses at greatly elevated prices to pick up something I wanted. Keeping up with trends is part of the fun of collecting.

Jason Schneider · Jul 11, 2023

davidde1000 said:
For some of us over a certain age, we are often not in touch with social media influencer culture. A bunch of people who generally did not grow up on film photography hawking the hobby to the masses on YouTube and monetizing the whole thing. These folks early on decided the glam onto very specific cameras -- like the M6, Pentax 67, Hassy 500s, Contax T3, etc., sending the used market for these into the stratosphere. Many of these folks also think that Porta 400 is the only color film stock on the planet. When they get bored or need new content, they pick a new crop of cameras to promote. Some of these kids are extremely talented and generally unassuming, with just wonderful photos that rival anything from the glory days. But lots of it is just abandoned basketball hoops, some classic car at sunset in southern California, skateboarders, and bad passerby street photography.

That's what's really nice about Cameraquest, Jason's articles, and this website in general. Really nice and talented people using cool, often obscure cameras and sharing their knowledge with the rest of us.

Thanks for your kind words--when it comes to "obscure" I'm definitely in the forefront. Maybe for my next project I'll try putting sheet film in my Camera Obscura. You never know, I might reinvent photography. Oops that's an obsolete word; I meant "Imaging."

Jason Schneider · Jul 11, 2023

Deardorff38 said:
Well....so do more meaningless discussions on this and other forums....

Hey, if you don't like articles about the evolution of camera prices or any other "meaningless" topic, just don't read 'em and you'll automatically stop "wasting your time".

Deleted member 65559 · Jul 11, 2023

Jason Schneider said:
Hey, if you don't like articles about the evolution of camera prices or any other "meaningless" topic, just don't read 'em and you'll automatically stop "wasting your time".

Don't shoot the messenger, Jason. I actually enjoyed your article (& all your articles) and took the time to comment. I was offering a rebuttal to Godfrey who suggested talking about prices was a waste of time.....("Why this constant obsession with the cost of things is beyond me." )

das · Jul 11, 2023

dave lackey said:
Better off financially in the 1950s? I respectfully disagree. My father was moving up in the world right after WWII, becoming a master machinist for a major bakery company and he left the truly awful textile industry sweat shops behind. But we still lived a very austere lifestyle. My Mom made our clothes. We grew our own vegetables. Public schools were the only option and those graduating high school were the lucky ones with a somewhat brighter future.., at least they could enter military service or find a decent job. These days, the wealth gaps between upper, middle and lower classes are widening. Perhaps that is why there is an apparent perception that “we” had it easier in the 50s and 60s. Life was simpler, not easier, and certainly different in every way.

I don’t why people think our contemporary life is even comparable to the 1950s. It really isn’t… Everything is totally different now. 🤷🏼‍♂️

In Atlanta, Ga., in the 1950s and 60s, not a single person we knew ever heard of a Leica camera, or could care less about the Nikon F ithey could not understand or afford but they had a Kodak “something”! And that was a major purchase… and, it was good enough. I personally had not even heard of a Leica camera until I was in graduate school (courtesy of working two jobs, and student loans).

As a professional for 5 decades in Urban and Regional Planning, planning and teaching at both graduate and undergraduate levels, I can see where a lack of information skews the perception of the past. It is complex.

In 2023, my personal observation is that most people here still don’t know what a Leica camera is. 🙂 Seriously. And if they have heard of it, they simply don’t care, they just use their phone. Again, everything is different including lifestyles. And they can buy the most expensive IPhone for a fraction of the cost of a new Leica M/Q/S/SL, etc. And they choose from a massive number of all types cameras offered on the market.

The point is, Leica cameras are expensive, always have been and forever will be. Nothing wrong with that. But the reality remains, Leica has long a history as a luxury purchase for most people. It was largely unheard of by the masses in the 1950s and later in Atlanta, and, I suspect throughout the country, as well. It probably was/is not the camera of choice in the rural areas anywhere, LOL. 😇

So, thank you for the research and comparative prices. I appreciate knowing the numbers, then and now. However, comparing prices and extrapolating conclusions without considering demographics, social and economic statistics is not really accurate, it is far more complicated than simply comparing prices of products.

And before I forget, I really enjoy your articles, thank you for all you do.🙂

While I would never disagree with one's own lived experience, in the 1950s and 1960s there seems to have been a greater urban/rural wealth gap with much of the country not yet directly benefitting from the massive infrastructure investments, freeway expansion, suburbanization, manufacturing jobs, and the like. Growing up in a traditionally union town, you had an entire metropolitan area making good money, new houses being built at a price point almost everyone with a fulltime job could afford (let's not forget about the massive racial segregation of that era as well), new roads, new schools, new parks, libraries, etc.. Compared to one's average income, education was cheap, medical care was cheap, gas was cheap, rents were cheap, food was not particularly expensive, consumer debt was not a thing, and most stable companies and governments had guaranteed retirement pensions after as little as 20-25 years of service. Those pensions meant that you could choose to spend more of your take home pay today on goods and services without worrying about whether the stock market will increase enough for you to retire. You also were not spending a big part of your income on servicing consumer debt (cars, credits cards, etc.) or education debt. While the USA is much wealthier overall today, wages stopped tracking productivity during the mid-1970s as the capitalists decided to lower taxes on themselves and pay out more of the corporate profits in dividends and stop paying their workers more. So, most of us living today have not fully enjoyed the overall prosperity resulting from our labor. But productivity and wages were in lockstep in the 1950s/60s. I think a more apt comparison would not be a unionized worker or professional of the era versus a rural or smalltown worker, but to compare the equivalent job positions then and now to determine how much relative disposable income each has compared to the contemporary cost of living. With that metric, many, many Americans doing similar work as people did 60 years ago do not have the equivalent disposable income given the increased cost of living and lack of appropriate productivity wage increases.

While many people may not have been aware of "Leica" in the 1950s, personal, family photography was in its infancy, with most being lucky to have some kind of Kodak box camera or maybe even a cheap TLR. And "real" photography with sophisticated cameras was probably difficult for the average person (as opposed to the dedicated hobbyist) with bulb flashes, 120/620 film, no light meters, lots of scale focusing, small viewfinders, etc. But any quality camera of that era was "expensive" in today's prices. Tower/Nicca Leica copy cameras marketed at Sears (a purported regular person place) sold with a lens for $250 in the mid-1950s. That is $2,800 today. At Sears. So it was not like these items were necessarily "luxury" or for the very select few. Today, for instance, an M11 with a Leica lens (@ $11,000 + depending on the lens) for a non-pro may certainly qualify as a luxury and something pretty much out of reach for a normal worker in the US economy.

Jason Schneider · Jul 11, 2023

splitimageview said:
Shoot, used classic M6s were ~$1000 plus or minus all the way into the 2010s. Other Ms like M4-2 were less...even for pristine ones.

It would be a better world if if were 1954, I was 12 years old, I had $288 burning a hole in my pocket, and could afford to buy a brand new Leica M3. Wait a minute, wasn't that the same year the Russians got the H-bomb?

splitimageview · Jul 11, 2023

davidde1000 said:
With that metric, many, many Americans doing similar work as people did 60 years ago do not have the equivalent disposable income given the increased cost of living and lack of appropriate productivity wage increases.

Yes, and unlike today, families could live comfortably on a single income.

When I was a kid (born 1961) we lived near Detroit, which was the Silicon Valley of its day. We lived a middle-class life on one income, with four kids to raise. We even had a housekeeper. My dad worked for a defense contractor, flew in the Michigan Air National Guard and even had time to win a seat on the Ann Arbor city council. What has happened to that area, and to one-income families since then, after Washington incentivized corporations to manufacture overseas?

FWIW, my dad had a Nicca and three Nikkors that he purchased on a military salary while flying bombers in Korea. All the family photos from the early 50s to the 80s were shot with it.

Jason Schneider · Jul 11, 2023

dave lackey said:
Better off financially in the 1950s? I respectfully disagree. My father was moving up in the world right after WWII, becoming a master machinist for a major bakery company and he left the truly awful textile industry sweat shops behind. But we still lived a very austere lifestyle. My Mom made our clothes. We grew our own vegetables. Public schools were the only option and those graduating high school were the lucky ones with a somewhat brighter future.., at least they could enter military service or find a decent job. These days, the wealth gaps between upper, middle and lower classes are widening. Perhaps that is why there is an apparent perception that “we” had it easier in the 50s and 60s. Life was simpler, not easier, and certainly different in every way.

I don’t why people think our contemporary life is even comparable to the 1950s. It really isn’t… Everything is totally different now. 🤷🏼‍♂️

In Atlanta, Ga., in the 1950s and 60s, not a single person we knew ever heard of a Leica camera, or could care less about the Nikon F ithey could not understand or afford but they had a Kodak “something”! And that was a major purchase… and, it was good enough. I personally had not even heard of a Leica camera until I was in graduate school (courtesy of working two jobs, and student loans).

As a professional for 5 decades in Urban and Regional Planning, planning and teaching at both graduate and undergraduate levels, I can see where a lack of information skews the perception of the past. It is complex.

In 2023, my personal observation is that most people here still don’t know what a Leica camera is. 🙂 Seriously. And if they have heard of it, they simply don’t care, they just use their phone. Again, everything is different including lifestyles. And they can buy the most expensive IPhone for a fraction of the cost of a new Leica M/Q/S/SL, etc. And they choose from a massive number of all types cameras offered on the market.

The point is, Leica cameras are expensive, always have been and forever will be. Nothing wrong with that. But the reality remains, Leica has long a history as a luxury purchase for most people. It was largely unheard of by the masses in the 1950s and later in Atlanta, and, I suspect throughout the country, as well. It probably was/is not the camera of choice in the rural areas anywhere, LOL. 😇

So, thank you for the research and comparative prices. I appreciate knowing the numbers, then and now. However, comparing prices and extrapolating conclusions without considering demographics, social and economic statistics is not really accurate, it is far more complicated than simply comparing prices of products.

And before I forget, I really enjoy your articles, thank you for all you do.🙂

Thanks for your kind words. I agree that comparing prices as they evolve does not in itself present a complete picture, but I don't think what I wrote is "inaccurate" or that I "extrapolated" too many conclusions, other than the fact that Leicas and Nikons were a lot more expensive back in the day than many people realize, and that today's prices are not quite as extravagant as they seem at first glance. Essentially, what you are asking for is a socioeconomic treatise, which is well beyond my remit, my knowledge base, and my pay grade.

markjwyatt · Jul 11, 2023

I have seen this price comparison expressed as number of months of average prevalent wage a camera cost- maybe one month for a Leica with a reasonable 50mm lens. I think this was true with the Contax rangefinder in its time as well as the Exakta SLR. I think the first break may have been the Nikon rangefinder (as you tell here), and this was due likely to cheaper labor in Japan at the time, and maybe some advanced manufacturing techniques. The Nikon F was the final straw, probably cheaper because of mass production techniques. The Contaxes, Exaktas, Leicas, and (guessing here) Nikon rangefinders maybe to a lesser degree were all hand assembled in qunatiities counted in 1000s or 10s of thousand per year, while Japanese SLR production started moving into millions per year (as did the Kiev rangefinder- say 4a, a mass produced Contax II derivative).

The Nikon Fs and following generations of Minoltas, Pentaxes, Canons, etc. were mass produced and designed to be mass produced, and much like the Ford model "T" made precsion 35mm cameras much more available to the masses. No longer was the folder the best consumer grade camera.

jsrockit · Jul 11, 2023

Godfrey said:
Personally, I don't know why the relative pricing of Nikon and Leica cameras over the decades is interesting to people at all.

However, it does not matter what you think thought if others found it interesting right? I mean that with no ill will intended. There is a lot of stuff that people are interested in that I can't understand why they are interested. I just don't bother with those things. I found this interesting though.

splitimageview · Jul 11, 2023

markjwyatt said:
The Nikon F was the final straw, probably cheaper because of mass production techniques.

Hand assembly was common in Japan up through the 90s. A friend of mine worked for Compaq and traveled to Japan upwards of 25x during his time there, and related stories of how efficiently their manual assembly lines operated. Row after row of tables, populated by a (mostly) female crew. Each person on the line was entrusted with one assembly task but they all worked as a team; if the previous person in the line made a mistake the next person simply fixed it rather than sending the laptop backwards.

Jason Schneider · Jul 11, 2023

ranger9 said:
This is a fascinating topic, since it literally hits us where we live. I've played with it a bit myself. One thing I realized right away was that converting prices to "2023 dollars" isn't as straightforward as it seems. These conversions are usually based on what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (home of the official Consumer Price Index) calls "a market basket of consumer goods and services" which include food, housing, and fuel. The kicker: These items make up a significant portion of monthly expenses for most of us... but for the well-off folks who have been Leica's target market from Day 1, they're just a drop in a vast bucket of income. That means that Leica price changes that are astronomical in terms of "consumer" spending are insignificant by the standards of the very rich people for whom they're actually marketed.

To avoid that, one way I decided to look at the subject was from the viewpoint of "What would you buy instead?" This turned out to be surprisingly tricky, since there are few head-to-head matchups available. Schneider chose the Leica M3 vs. the Nikon S2; to get a better match in terms of photography features, I decided to look at the year 1967, when the Leica M4 was just becoming generally available and its closest competitor, the Canon 7s, was beginning to fade into the sunset. In terms of price, the best data I could find (from scouring old ads and the Modern Photography buying guide) was that the M4 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens was almost exactly 50% more expensive than a 7s with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. (Claim the Leica lens was incomparably better if you want, but that isn't borne out by in-period tests.)

As photography tools, these two are surprisingly close. Both have long-base rangefinders and parallax-compensating bright-frame viewfinders for lenses from 35mm to 135mm, with both companies offering wide-ranging lens lineups. They both have roller-blind focal plane shutters with speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec. They're both well-made and durable; Leica fans might claim the M4 displays more craftsmanship, but I never liked that extra push it needs right at the end of the wind stroke; the 7s advance seems to me smoother and quieter throughout. And its shutter doesn't make that annoying bouncing-ball-bearing noise at 1/8 sec.!

For your 50% price premium, the M4 did give you several features that genuinely aided photography. The range/viewfinder, with its sharp-edged rangefinder patch, was somewhat brighter, dramatically clearer, and much more pleasant to use. Better yet, the Leica selected the correct finder frame for each lens automatically; with Canon you had to select it manually using a dial on the top. (Auto-selecting finder frames are a feature that never seemed to spread beyond the M Leica and its cousins such as the Minolta CLE; the only other 35mm rangefinder camera I can think of that offered this feature was the Kodak Retina IIIS, of all things! Anybody know of others?)

On the other hand, to get these significant photographer-friendly benefits, you had to give up the Canon's burn-proof stainless steel shutter curtains, its more convenient film loading (no separate baseplate to juggle!) and its limited but very useful built-in CdS meter.

So if you wanted a top-end 35mm rangefinder camera in 1967, you had two reasonable choices: the Leica, with a much nicer viewing system, more prestige, and more resale value, for 50% more money... or the Canon, with more convenience features and a significantly lower price. Today? If you want a system rangefinder camera that you can buy new, there aren't any choices: you pay what Leica wants, or you don't play. (I absolutely love my Pixii A2572, but I don't claim it's a head-to-head competitor to the Leica M11 the way the 7s was to the M4...)

(Bonus pricing fun fact: Another time when I looked at this, I found that the then-current Leica M10 with 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron cost more than the national average in-network price for an appendectomy. Leicas have always been more expensive than most other comparable cameras, but now they're more expensive than surgery...)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Creating this article was challenging enough without poring over vintage camera ads to calculate actual selling prices. I was well aware of the discrepancy which is why I included a prominent disclaimer in the piece. As for the second (1961) iteration of the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, it was definitely better than its leading competitors, the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor, the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar and the 50mm f/1.4 Canon based on the objective tests we conducted at Modern Photography at the time. The difference was particularly noticeable at f/1.4 and to a lesser extent at f/2, especially off axis. I cannot speak to other test results, but the type 2 Summilux was the best of the 4 according to our tests though all of them delivered creditable imaging performance.

Deleted member 65559 · Jul 11, 2023

Jason, on the subject of price changes over time, I sold off my (recent) MP in the spring of 2018, and for the same $3k replaced it with a '68 black paint M4. It's interesting (to me anyways) the sudden meteoric rise in asking prices for black paint M4 cameras. Today the Leica Store in Vienna lists one for 21,000 euro. & there are a number of them currently listed on Ebay for $28k to $42k USD. A very sudden appreciation in perceived values....
The same sort of thing has happened in the past 2 years in the world of vintage (1930-45) Martin acoustic guitars. While not the 10x+ sudden price rise for black paint M4s, those guitar prices (already in the 5 figures ) have risen 2x-3x ++

markjwyatt · Jul 11, 2023

splitimageview said:
Hand assembly was common in Japan up through the 90s. A friend of mine worked for Compaq and traveled to Japan upwards of 25x during his time there, and related stories of how efficiently their manual assembly lines operated. Row after row of tables, populated by a (mostly) female crew. Each person on the line was entrusted with one assembly task but they all worked as a team; if the previous person in the line made a mistake the next person simply fixed it rather than sending the laptop backwards.

Interesting. But they still managed to increase output to 50-1000x what the German hand assembled cameras were producing in the 1930s through 1950s (Contax/Leica/Exakta).

Are Leicas really too expensive? And what about Nikons? History tells the tale!

Deleted member 65559

Guest

coincidence rangefinder

Well-known

Deleted member 65559

Guest

somewhat colored

Deleted member 65559

Guest

Product of the Fifties

the Camera Collector

the Camera Collector

Deleted member 65559

Guest

Well-known

the Camera Collector

coincidence rangefinder

the Camera Collector

Well-known

Moderator

coincidence rangefinder

the Camera Collector

Deleted member 65559

Guest

Well-known