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

Leicas have always been expensive, but is Nikon far behind?
Comparing old and current prices for both reveals amazing insights!

By Jason Schneider

If you haven’t shopped for a Leica lately and want to experience sticker shock, just cruise one of the major photo retailer’s websites and check out the current prices being asked for new Leica cameras and lenses. While nobody doubts that Leica turns out unique and exceptional cameras and superlative optics, are their prices now out of line with other top companies in the imaging space? Have they outpaced even rampant inflation? To put it all in perspective we’ve compared Leica and Nikon prices from the 1950s to the present and converted them all into 2023 dollars to reveal some surprising facts.

Leica I (Model A) with 50mm f-3.5 Elmar.jpeg
Leica I (Model A) of 1925 was the first Leica sold to the public. At an initial price of $75.00 it certainly wasn't cheap (see text).

The very first Leica, the Leica I (Model A) was initially priced at $75.00 when it debuted in 1925. It was a princely sum, equivalent to $1,303.40 in 2023 dollars. Three years later, in 1928, E. Leitz Wetzlar upped the price of the “Leica A” to $95.00, equivalent to a staggering $1,689.59 in 2023 dollars. And remember this was for a spartan, minimalist “precision miniature” 35mm camera with a non-interchangeable, scale focusing 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens and timed shutter speeds ranging from 1/20-1/500 sec. Obviously, this camera was intended for well-heeled connoisseurs, not for the mass market. However, it sold remarkably well despite its steep price because it was a unique, meticulously crafted camera with a timeless, ergonomic form factor, that was capable of outstanding performance—a formula for success Leica has steadfastly pursued even up to the present day.

To give you the best idea of how Leica and Nikon prices have evolved over the years it helps to select a line of products that has remained more-or-less comparable for several decades—it will not do to compare, for example, the prices of top-tier 35mm rangefinder cameras with those of late model DSLRs or today’s most advanced mirrorless marvels. Fortunately, there are two great lines of 35mm analog cameras that have retained their discrete identities over the course of more than 5 decades, the Leica M series (1954 to the present) and the Nikon F series (1959-2018). Note: Since it’s nearly impossible to determine actual selling prices for cameras, which are largely undocumented except possibly in ads, we’ve compared official factory prices, which reveal the broad trends. Many cameras and lenses, including those listed here, are often sold at discounted prices and in general it’s fair to say that Leica items are more often sold at list price or with smaller discounts than Nikon items. We therefore advise caution in drawing conclusions based on direct comparisons.

Price evolution of the Leica M

The landmark Leica M3 was introduced in 1954 at the price of $288.00 body only ($3,178 in 2023 dollars) and $447.00 with 50mm f/2 Summicron lens (a hefty $4,931.91 equivalent in 2023 dollars!). By April 1959 the price of a Leica M3 with a first generation 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens was $468.00, equivalent to $4,80626, in 2023 dollars, a teensy price drop compared to 1954 when you factor in the faster lens. However, by 1962, a Leica M3 with (improved 2nd generation) 50mm f/1.4 Summilux would set you back $513.00, or $5,075.23 in 2023 dollars, and by 1965 the same outfit sold for $516.00, a slight drop to $4,908.57 in 2023 dollars. For the record, in 1965 a new Leicaflex (the original 1964 model now known as the “Standard”) was priced at $406.00 ($3,862.17 in 2023 dollars) body only, and $585.00 ($5,564.94 in 2023 dollars) with 50mm f/2 Summicron-R lens.

Leica M3 double stroke with collapsible 50mm f:2 Summicron.JPG
The landmark Leica M3, double stroke version shown here, cost $447.00 with collapsible Summicron lens in 1954, but that was a pile of dough!

By 1968 you could buy a new Leica M3 or M4 body (take your pick) for the grand sum of $288.00 ($2,521.46 in 2023 dollars) or an M2S (an M2 with self-timer) body at the bargain price of $249.00 ($2,180.01 in 2023 dollars). The newly released Leicaflex SL was then priced at $465.00 body only, or $639.00 with 50mm f/2 Summicron-R ($4,071.11 and $5,594.49 in 2023 dollars respectively). Prices jumped a bit in 1969 with the Leica M4 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux rising to $612.00 ($5,116.61 in 2023 dollars), and the price of a Leicaflex SL with 50mm f/2 Summicron increasing to $738.00 (a whopping $6,170.03 in 2023 dollars).

Leica M5 with 50mm f:2 Summicron.JPG
The Leica M5, shown here with 50mm f/2 Summicron lens, was a fine camera, but considered inelegant. Its high price didn't help sales either.

By 1972 the Leica M5 arrived, and its initial price was $675.00 body only ($4,874,40 in 2023 dollars) and $948.00 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens (a hefty $6,845.83 in 2023 dollars). If you think that’s high, only 2 years later in 1974 the M5/Summilux combo was priced at $1,320.00, equal to a staggering $8,479.91 in 2023 dollars! Many complained that the Leica M5 was “inelegant” and “un-Leica-like” but its high price surely contributed to its lack of success in the marketplace as well. By the way, the last of the Wetzlar-made Leicaflexes, the SL2, was priced at $987.00 body only, equal to $6,340.66 in 2023 dollars.

Leica M6 with 50mm f:1.4 Summilux-M.JPG
Leica M6 of 1984 looks gorgeous in black with matching second generation 50mm f/1.4 Summilux that was in production from 1961-2004!

The brief tale of the Leica M6, which debuted in 1984, is also fascinating. In January 1985 it was selling for $1,497.00, equivalent to $4,219.42 in 2023 dollars, but by March 1986 it shot up to $2,100.00 ($5,702.41 in 2023 dollars), and by July 1989, it is referenced by at least one reliable source at $3,375.00 (equal to a mind-blowing $8,312.00 in $2023 dollars). Judging by that standard, the forthcoming beautiful new black 2023 edition of the Leica M6 qualifies as an absolute bargain at a mere $5,295.00 and it even comes with a presentation box and a leather Leica strap! Or, for only 400 bucks more ($5,695.00), you can snag a classic black or chrome Leica MP, originally billed as a metered manual exposure version of the late lamented autoexposure M7. Finally, if you don’t need no stinkin’ meter (or its telltale front-mounted battery compartment cover) you can save a blistering 100 bucks (compared to the MP), by opting for the last of the meterless Leica Ms, the timeless classic Leica M-A, in your choice of black or chrome.

Is a new analog Leica M expensive? Sure, but that’s a Leica tradition that goes back nearly 100 years, and the current prices do not, in my arrogant opinion, reflect an excessive escalation when you factor for inflation over the last half century.

Price evolution of the Nikon S and Nikon F

Nikon (Nippon Kogaku) was Leica’s most successful rival in the glory days of elite interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras in the mid-1950s, though by the late ‘50s Canon also became a leading contender. Sadly, the Zeiss Contax never really evolved beyond the lovely Contax IIa/IIIa of 1950 (a simplified, more reliable iteration of the prewar Contax II and III) and it was ultimately discontinued by 1961.

Nikon S2 with 50mm Nikkor-H.C lens.jpeg
Gorgeous Nikon S2 of `1954-1956, shown here with 50mm f/2-H.C Nikkor was first Nikon with 24 x 36 format and life-size 1:1 viewfinder.

The first Nikon to really compete head-to-head with the Leica M3 and M2 was the Nikon S2 of the md ‘50s. It was the first Nikon to provide a standard 24x36mm full frame format, and the first with a large life-size 1:1 viewfinder with a single, fixed, etched frame line for the 50mm lens, and a ratcheted single stroke film wind lever. Like its predecessors, the Nikon S and Nikon M, the S2’s in-body rotating bayonet lens mount and rangefinder mechanism are based on (but not identical to) those in the Contax. However, Nikon’s engineers wisely chose to use a Leica type rubberized cloth horizontal focal plane shutter instead of the Contax’s pesky and more complex vertical metal slat roller blind shutter—and the S2 also had its top shutter speed raised to 1/1000 sec to be competitive with the Leica.

The price of a Nikon S2 in 1955 was $299.50 with 50mm f/2 lens (equal to $3,329.24 in 2023 dollars), and $345.00 with the iconic 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S.C ($3,835.02 in 2023 dollars). The latter is about $1,000 2023 dollars less than a comparable Leica M3 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux, ana in line with the general notion that Nikon cameras cost roughly 30% less comparable Leicas at that time.

Nikon SP with 50mm f:1.4 Nikkor-S.jpeg
The glorious Nikon SP of 1957-1960, shown here with iconic 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S lens, was the last and most advanced rangefinder Nikon

The most advanced Nikon rangefinder 35, the grand and glorious Nikon SP of 1957-1960, which famously has a full array of projected, user selected parallax compensating frame lines for lenses 50-135mm and a separate wide-angle finder usable for 28 and 35mm focal lengths, was undoubtedly the closest thing to an archrival the Leica M-series ever had. And in 1958, Nikon also unveiled the Nikon S3, a simplified, lower cost model, with a life-size viewfinder and fixed etched frame lines for 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm lenses. In 1958, the Nikon SP with 50mm f/2 lens was priced at $369.50 (equal to $3,861.50 in 2023 dollars) and $415.00 with a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S.C (the equivalent of $4,337.00 in 2023 dollars. The “economy” Nikon S3, was offered at $309.50, a paltry $3,234.46 in 2023 dollars. Conclusion: in the heyday of the elite rangefinder 35 Nikons were not exactly cheap, but you could save about 30% by opting for a Nikon camera as opposed to a Leica. Of course, that doesn’t take into consideration which one you’d rather shoot with. Personally, I’d pick the Leica M3, which (for me) has better ergonomics and handling and a brighter, crisper, range/viewfinder, albeit with fewer frame lines than the SP. As for Nikons, I’ve always been partial to the S2, a masterpiece of understated precision with a wonderful (and uncluttered) life-size viewfinder.

Nikon F with plain prism and 50mm f-1.4 Nikkor.jpg
The Nikon F of 1959, shown here with plain prism and legendary F-mount 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S lens, sparked the SLR revolution the '60s.

When the Nikon F debuted in 1959 it created a sensation and revolutionized the photographic marketplace. Nikon’s first SLR was a rugged full system camera with an interchangeable prism and focusing screens, a large bayonet F mount, a titanium foil focal plane shutter, a fully removable back for mounting professional accessories including motor drives, and a single stroke ratcheted film advance lever. It was, in short, the pro SLR version of Nikon’s top-tier rangefinder cameras and by 1962 it was complemented by a full line of F/mount lenses ranging from a 21mm ultrawide to a 1000mm super-tele. The interchangeable prism allowed Nikon to offer a succession of ever more sophisticated coupled meter prisms allowing users to upgrade their cameras as new and better TTL metering systems were developed, a striking example of non-obsolescence that attracted many pros and serious enthusiasts and helped establish the Nikon’s reputation as the top professional SLR.

Nikon F2 with 50mm f:1.4 Nikkor-S and DP 1 prism.jpeg
The Nikon F2, 1971 successor to the Nikon F, shown here with 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S and DP 1 meter finder, is one of the best SLRs of its era.

The original 1959 selling price for a Nikon F with plain prism and 50mm f/2 lens was a surprisingly low $186.00, equivalent to a measly $1,901.18 in 2023 dollars. However, by late 1963, the Nikon F was evidently such a hot item that the prices had skyrocketed to $233.00 body only with standard prism (equal to $2,274.79 in 2023 dollars) and $90 ($878.68 in 2023 dollars) for a 50mm f/2 lens, and a whopping $155.00 ($1,513.27 in 2023 dollars) for a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. Soooo…the most popular combo, a Nikon F with the 50mm f/1.4, would have set you back $388.00, a stupendous $3,788.07 in 2023 dollars. The follow-up Nikon F2 (1971-1980) was listed in 1972 at $660.00 with Photomic finder and 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S (equal to $4,766.08 in 2023 dollars) though discounts were widely available.

The Nikon F6: Last of the line, maybe the best, and a bargain to boot!

The Nikon F6 (2004-2020) was Nikon’s ultimate flagship 35mm SLR, a pro-caliber machine that incorporated all the latest advances. These included an 11-area AF system with 9 cross-sensors that provides exceptional speed and performance, a rugged, weatherproof die-cast chassis with magnesium alloy covers, 41 Custom Settings with a customizable function button, a high-tech Kevlar and aluminum alloy 150,000-cycle shutter with speeds to 1/8000 sec, an improved 1005-pixel Color Matrix Metering System, and i-TTL Balanced Fill-Flash and Creative lighting System functions. Other features: 7 interchangeable focusing screens, maximum burst rate of 5.5 fps (8 fps with optional MB-40 Battery Pack), and full viewfinder information. The last reliable selling (not list!) price we could find for a brand-new Nikon F6 body is $2,549.00 in 2019 ($3.011.29 in 2023 dollars) though it was widely available at $100-$200 less during its last 10 years of production. These days you can snag a clean fully functional Nikon F6 for about a grand on the top online auction sites; about $100-$200 more for one with a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. If you’re a film dinosaur like me, that’s a pretty good deal on a truly great camera.

Nikon F6 with 50mm f-1.4 G.jpeg
Last of the Nikon F line, the Nikon F6 off 2004-2020, shown here with 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor, may well be the ultimate analog SLR of all time.

An addendum on 50mm f/1.4 Summilux price evolution

As you may know, the original 50mm f/1.4 Summulux-M of 1959 was based on the old Summarit optical formula, and it’s a nice lens with pleasing rendition (especially for portraiture) but it’s not nearly a sharp as the exceptional revised version of 1961-1962 that was designed by the legendary Dr. Walter Mandler and remained in production until it was replaced by the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. in 2004!

50mm f:1.4 Summilux-M type 1.jpg
The first 50mm f/1.4 Summilux of1959-1960, aka the Type 1, was based on the Summarit. It's a nice lens, but not as sharp as its successor.

Well, the original 50mm f/1.4 Summilux debuted at $188.00 in 1959 (equivalent to $2,033.42 in 2023 dollars), increased to $216.00 for the new version in 1962 and 1964 (equivalent to $2,136.94 and $2,074.70 respectively in 2023 dollars), and decreased to $210.00 in 1965 (equal to $1,997.67 in 2023 dollars). After some further fluctuations it settled down to $229.00 in chrome, and $252 in black in 1969 (equivalent to $1,914.55 and $2,106.84 respectively in 2023 dollars). Near mint used examples of the second version of the non-ASPH. 50mm f/1.4 Summilux are currently available on the top online auction sites at around $2,500-$3,000 per copy, so you’d have to say they hold their value very well.

50mm f:1.4 Summilux version 2.jpg
The second iteration of the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux that debuted in 1961 is superb, a timeless classic that was in production until 2004!

The latest Summilux-M: Hyperinflation, or just that better costs more?

50mm f:1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. 2023 Edition.jpg
The forthcoming Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. of 2023 is pricey, but it may be the best M-mount Summilux ever and it gets down to 1.5 ft.

The new Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. Lens (Leica M, Black, 2023 Version) is of course an optically upgraded lens and may well be the finest 50mm f/1.4 Summilux in M-mount that has ever been produced. Featuring virtually the same superlative optical formula as the classic Summilux M ASPH. introduced nearly 20 years ago, the new lens offers a few notable updates. Perhaps most significant, like the APO-Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH., the revised 35mm Summilux-M features close-focusing down to 1.5 feet (enabling compelling closeups that can be focused in Live View on digital Leica Ms) thanks to a newly developed patent-pending double cam focusing unit. Also new are an eleven-bladed diaphragm for enhanced bokeh when stopped down, and a built-in retractable circular lens shade. Not surprisingly, acquiring the latest, most flexible, and maybe the best 50mm Summilux-M ever comes at a price, namely $4,495.00 in 2023 dollars, and you may have to wait a bit because it’s just been announced, and is currently listed as “coming soon.” The upside: The previous version, which looks stunning in silver (still currently available but out of stock) costs $300 more!

A realistic end-user’s choice in 1963: Leica M3 vs. Nikon F

In 1963, 4 years after the introduction of the Nikon F, a Nikon F with plain prism and 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor was priced at $388.00, and 9 years after the Leica M3 debuted, it was priced at $513.00 with a (superb generation 2) 50mm f/1.4 Summilux. The difference in 1963 dollars is $125, which doesn’t sound like it would be a game changer for many buyers, but it represents a whopping $1,220.38 in 2023 dollars. Indeed, that’s one reason the Nikon outsold the Leica by more than a 10:1 ratio!

At the time, the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux was the finest series production f/1.4 lens in the world, but the 35mm SLR was in its ascendency due to its greater optical flexibility, TTL viewfinder, and inherent freedom from parallax at all distances. Its lineal descendant, the DSLR, remained the dominant camera type among serious shooters until a few years ago when the mighty mirrorless finally took its place.
 
Last edited:
How does a Leica make a good picture better? Can a Nikon do that too? :)
The M8 and M9 have the CCD sensor. I am not the only person who believes by virtue of looking that these two cameras have wonderful sensors. A good BSI CMOS can come close, and in the HB with their color science bests the Leicas, in my opinion. The M240 is nice, too, but just a teensy bit less nice. I understand it can be made to look like the CCD sensor.

And, yes, hang a Sonnar off the front. I like the Sonnar clan, Soviet, German and the new Amero-Brit Bertele, a truly fine lens. Check my teeny lens test. To me the Bertele has the best color and shape definition of the four Sonnars and better than the Planar Amotal. The Amotal has other virtues, true.

Can a Nikon do this? I do not know. It is in the sensor and color science driving it. I have no Nikons, never have, so I cannot comment. I can say only that it is theoretically possible. But this will lead to my sensor is better than yours and on, and on, and on. It's all silly to me. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.
 

I was under the impression that central banks want to see modest levels of inflation because it encourages spending and investing, whereas if the buying power of money increased over time, people might delay purchases or simply hang onto money. But such deflationary money would be a non-productive asset, a bit like crypto.
 
Understand.

Now, go borrow one. Do you like a 50mm lens? 35mm? Which ever, get one of them borrowed with it. Just that lens to keep it simple. Doesn't need to be a Leica lens - can be a Canon or Nikon or Chiyoko or, even, yes, Leica. Just so it's a good clean lens. If it's a film Leica, run a half dozen rolls through it and if it's digital shoot at least that much as well. That will give you an idea of if USING a Leica is for you.

See, I'm a broke SOB. I work as an overnight audit clerk at a hotel. I don't make **** for an income.

I CAN NOT AFFORD a Leica.

And yet I have found ways to do so anyway. Why? Because I like the process. I like HOW I take pictures with my M 240. I like the look of the pictures I get with my Canon 50/1.4 or my Chiyoko 50/2 Super Rokkor because they look very distinctly different (under the right circumstances) from the images I can get from my Nikkors and my D7100. A Leica is not just another mirrorless camera. It's manual focus for one important thing and for another YOU chose everything.

So I spend my inheritance. I sell things. I take things to the pawn shop. I do without. I eat lots of ramen and peanut butter sandwiches.

Because to _ME_ that Leica is worth every F'n penny.
I think that when you live on 'Struggle Street' (I can relate) the Leica of your desires can be a bit of a carrot. Hanging around RFF can be a frustrating experience for a bottom feeder and I often think I would be better off if I had never stumbled over the place. That said the population is generally knowledgeable and friendly. 😃

And there is nothing wrong with ramen noodles ... the best people eat them. 😂😂😂
 
I was under the impression that central banks want to see modest levels of inflation because it encourages spending and investing, whereas if the buying power of money increased over time, people might delay purchases or simply hang onto money. But such deflationary money would be a non-productive asset, a bit like crypto.
You already know more about economics than I do.
 
I think that when you live on 'Struggle Street' (I can relate) the Leica of your desires can be a bit of a carrot. Hanging around RFF can be a frustrating experience for a bottom feeder and I often think I would be better off if I had never stumbled over the place. That said the population is generally knowledgeable and friendly. 😃

And there is nothing wrong with ramen noodles ... the best people eat them. 😂😂😂
Ramen can be dressed up with veggies and meat or eggs. ;o) Costco sells them by the case and for an old geezer like me they are a quick and easy meal that can also be nutritious. Not my fave but OK in a pinch.

As for "Struggle Street" there was a time when I was living in my car and it was a VW Beetle. I couch surfed and finally joined the Army. Went to France, bought a Canon RF and learned that Agfachrome was more honest than Kodachrome. And things gradually got better. Maybe it was the Agfachrome, which was also sold as the house brand by Costco for a while.
 
I sold off the Leica M some time ago, and have accumulated a little more Nikon, because one seemed overvalued, while the other seemed like it was being undervalued.

Screw mount Leicas actually seem a bit cheaper today than in the 1990s, and this has become a more attractive area for me versus the M-cameras.
 
I am not the only person who believes by virtue of looking that these two cameras have wonderful sensors.

In my old school world, cameras have multiple options for sensors. :) So I'm still curious how a Leica can make good a picture better.
 
I remember the time when everyone thought Leica had better close its doors. That was back in the days of the Leicas R3 and R4, cameras even worse than the Nikkormat EL. Back then nobody cared about Leica, then called Leitz. The factory was slowly revived with the Leica M6, but even then the Leica M5 was Leitz's flagship camera, although that camera was no longer produced. How long was the way up. Only the digital age has helped Leica recover.

Erik.
 
I remember the time when everyone thought Leica had better close its doors. That was back in the days of the Leicas R3 and R4, cameras even worse than the Nikkormat EL. Back then nobody cared about Leica, then called Leitz. The factory was slowly revived with the Leica M6, but even then the Leica M5 was Leitz's flagship camera, although that camera was no longer produced. How long was the way up. Only the digital age has helped Leica recover.

Erik.
Erik, your "flagship" M5 was a comet that was extinguished by '75. The often maligned M4-2 and M4-P kept the rangefinder name afloat until the appearance of the M6 in 1984.....
 
Erik, your "flagship" M5 was a comet that was extinguished by '75. The often maligned M4-2 and M4-P kept the rangefinder name afloat until the appearance of the M6 in 1984.....

Long after the M5 was out of production, the camera was in huge demand because the M4-2 and M4-P did not have a TTL exposure meter. The prices for the M5 were very high at the time. The M6 changed all that.

Erik.
 
Erik, your "flagship" M5 was a comet that was extinguished by '75. The often maligned M4-2 and M4-P kept the rangefinder name afloat until the appearance of the M6 in 1984.....

Long after the M5 was out of production, the camera was in huge demand because the M4-2 and M4-P did not have a TTL exposure meter. The prices for the M5 were very high at the time. The M6 changed all that.

Erik.
Not so much in demand in Canada. In my opinion, it was the 15,000 M4-2 and the almost 25,000 M4-P that helped keep Leica afloat.... not the demand for used M5s.
 

I wouldn't listen to a single word that comes out of that man's mouth. Friedman was a hack at best and a conman at worst; the move away from Keynesian policy to Friedmanite ones has led to nothing but regular systemic collapses, more economic instability, and an increase in the Gini coefficient everywhere it's taken place.
 
I think that when you live on 'Struggle Street' (I can relate) the Leica of your desires can be a bit of a carrot. Hanging around RFF can be a frustrating experience for a bottom feeder and I often think I would be better off if I had never stumbled over the place. That said the population is generally knowledgeable and friendly. 😃

And there is nothing wrong with ramen noodles ... the best people eat them. 😂😂😂
I ate Peanut Butter for a month when in school, after buying a Nikon F2a- new. I still like Peanut Butter. And I still have the F2a, which is now 45 years old.
I might be one of the bad influences here- as far as buying gear. The way I see it- buy gear that needs some work, put it in better condition than when you bought it, enjoy using it, and can sell at a better price than paid. I sold (years ago) a converted Sonnar to an RFF member "at buddy pricing", just to see him flip it a week later for an extra $260. Did not stop me from selling at the same price to others, just not to him.
 
I ate Peanut Butter for a month when in school, after buying a Nikon F2a- new. I still like Peanut Butter. And I still have the F2a, which is now 45 years old.
I might be one of the bad influences here- as far as buying gear. The way I see it- buy gear that needs some work, put it in better condition than when you bought it, enjoy using it, and can sell at a better price than paid. I sold (years ago) a converted Sonnar to an RFF member "at buddy pricing", just to see him flip it a week later for an extra $260. Did not stop me from selling at the same price to others, just not to him.

It takes a pretty thick hide to indulge in that type of opportunism ... I've had it done to me as well! :oops:
 
I have the 1976 test of 32 Normal Lenses, I kept it all these years.

The v2 Summilux among them.



And it pegged the test.

Others here-
What you have provided is a set of test results to support your assertions. They may have been conduccted by knowledgeable people in good faith, but I have no idea what their test methodology was. As the saying goes "your results may vary," and nobody's test results (including ours) are perfect or infallible. In the '60s to the mid-'70s we conducted line pairs per mm tests using precision USAF reticles and did optical bench analysis but did not report out or graph individual aberrations. Later on we upgraded to SQF, which is essentially MTF testing presented as a system of quality grades. I have personally shot with the (rangefinder versions) of the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor, 50mm f/1.4 Canon, and 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar and each is impressive in its own way, but the (version 2) 50mm f/1.4 Summilux (non-ASPH.) provided noticeably better image quality at f/1.4, especially off axis, and edged out the other 3 lenses at f/2 as well. Differences at smaller apertures were relatively minor. I don't present these findings as gospel, and I definitely don't expect everyone to agree with me, but they are my honest opinions based on hands-on and test lab experience.
 
It takes a pretty thick hide to indulge in that type of opportunism ... I've had it done to me as well! :oops:
I agree with you 100%. That is real low roller behavior. Some folks just do not understand how to act. I hope that this individual learned from the experience. Experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other.
 
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
The following was intended as a replete you but I mistakenly posted it to somebody who rebutted you, which is poor form. Apologies

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".
 
Back
Top Bottom