RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
Dowling's was located in the Flatiron building:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=175+Fifth+Ave,+New+York,+NY
Check out the satellite image!
R.J.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=175+Fifth+Ave,+New+York,+NY
Check out the satellite image!
R.J.
doubs43
Well-known
RJBender said:Walker, I like my Exaktas and one of these days I'm going to send for the rebuild manual that you mentioned on another thread.
With prices falling, it's very tempting to buy as much gear as you can.
R.J.
I also like my Exaktas..... and Leicas, Pentaxes, Prakticas, Super Ikontas...... I think you get the idea! Arrrrrrgh........ I'm going broke buying bargains! But at least I'll be happy.
I did get a copy of Laney's "Leica Collector's Guide" today. It's a 1994 printing but in excellent condition and a great book to have if you've any interest in Leicas at all. It was a bargain too.
Walker (Poorer, but probably no wiser!)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yeah, but I'd still have to deal with interface designs that I don't like, handling that's NOT OM-ish, not to mention no RF digi-body.RJBender said:
I've had a bad cold for 2+ days, so right now I just enjoy kvetching. :angel:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Bertram2 said:
EXACTLY. Leica's marketing is stuck in the 50s.
VinceC
Veteran
>>In that 1954 ad, the M3 came with a f/1.5 lens and the dealer offered easy financing with no interest. $3500 gets you a M7 body without a lens. <<
That's true. But there are a lot of economic factors at play beyond pure inflation; 52 years ago, labor was considerably cheaper in western Europe than in the United States. That's no longer the case. Also, dollar-deutschmark exchange rates in the 1950s were very different ... the U.S. dollar had significantly more purchasing power compared to the mark. That was the era when "Europe on $5 a Day" was a comfortable reality. Today, it's more like Europe on $100 a day.
I think, but am not certain, the exchange rates in the 1950s were fixed at 4:1. If they weren't fixed, they fluctuated in that area. The DMark not longer exists, but it was exchanged into the Euro at about 1.95 to 1. Today's Euro rate is EURO 0.76 to $1. Thus, today's DMark exchange rate would be 1.48 marks to the dollar. All other things being equal, today's Leica would have to sell for three times more to match the favorable exchange rates of the 1950s. Imagine how many $10,000 cameras they'd sell.
Getting back to the present, purchasing-power parity for the $ and Euro are rougly one-to-one. But the US dollar is at a 25 percent disadvantage, so everything costs 25 percent more. And these rates fluctuate, but the current low-dollar-high-euro is a main contributor to recent price increases of Leica in the United States. The rates a few years ago were opposite ... $1.25 to 1 Euro ... in other words, a 50 percent drop in net income from sales to the United States.
That's true. But there are a lot of economic factors at play beyond pure inflation; 52 years ago, labor was considerably cheaper in western Europe than in the United States. That's no longer the case. Also, dollar-deutschmark exchange rates in the 1950s were very different ... the U.S. dollar had significantly more purchasing power compared to the mark. That was the era when "Europe on $5 a Day" was a comfortable reality. Today, it's more like Europe on $100 a day.
I think, but am not certain, the exchange rates in the 1950s were fixed at 4:1. If they weren't fixed, they fluctuated in that area. The DMark not longer exists, but it was exchanged into the Euro at about 1.95 to 1. Today's Euro rate is EURO 0.76 to $1. Thus, today's DMark exchange rate would be 1.48 marks to the dollar. All other things being equal, today's Leica would have to sell for three times more to match the favorable exchange rates of the 1950s. Imagine how many $10,000 cameras they'd sell.
Getting back to the present, purchasing-power parity for the $ and Euro are rougly one-to-one. But the US dollar is at a 25 percent disadvantage, so everything costs 25 percent more. And these rates fluctuate, but the current low-dollar-high-euro is a main contributor to recent price increases of Leica in the United States. The rates a few years ago were opposite ... $1.25 to 1 Euro ... in other words, a 50 percent drop in net income from sales to the United States.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
C
ch1
Guest
VinceC said:
Vince,
I think you need to get out more. Europe on $100/day means sleeping in the streets and eating at MickeyD's!
I think Europe on $1000/day is more realistic..
C
ch1
Guest
Getting back on topic - I think the comment was made in the thread I started asking about buying a new ZI vs. a used (very good condition) M6. I asked that because they currently share the same price point.
I don't want to denigrate Leica but I will say that I just cannot justify the price of a new M7 for what you get. Oh, I am sure it is a superb camera, but it's just not part of my nature to purchase something which includes a high mark-up for "vanity".
I do not wish Leica any ill - and if they can survive and thrive at the top end - more power to them.
I do think that the digiM is their last best hope to remain a camera maker. I suspect they will sell a great number of these at the beginning of the production run. One can sense the anticipation for the camera here on RFF (I don't look at other sites but presume it's the same) and there is a much larger group of high-end camera consumers who will also want one.
I might be among them - if I do follow through and purchase an M-mount camera - although if Bertram is correct about the $7000 price tag - I won't be hustling down to Adorama or B&H to be one of the first!
Over the long run - I think Leica will have to follow Zeiss's example and move to out-sourced production. That and hope that their corporate alliances enable them to sell a lot of "glass".
I don't want to denigrate Leica but I will say that I just cannot justify the price of a new M7 for what you get. Oh, I am sure it is a superb camera, but it's just not part of my nature to purchase something which includes a high mark-up for "vanity".
I do not wish Leica any ill - and if they can survive and thrive at the top end - more power to them.
I do think that the digiM is their last best hope to remain a camera maker. I suspect they will sell a great number of these at the beginning of the production run. One can sense the anticipation for the camera here on RFF (I don't look at other sites but presume it's the same) and there is a much larger group of high-end camera consumers who will also want one.
I might be among them - if I do follow through and purchase an M-mount camera - although if Bertram is correct about the $7000 price tag - I won't be hustling down to Adorama or B&H to be one of the first!
Over the long run - I think Leica will have to follow Zeiss's example and move to out-sourced production. That and hope that their corporate alliances enable them to sell a lot of "glass".
S
Socke
Guest
copake_ham said:Vince,
I think you need to get out more. Europe on $100/day means sleeping in the streets and eating at MickeyD's!
I think Europe on $1000/day is more realistic..
Ah no, I live in Europe and get along with some $200 a week.
C
ch1
Guest
Socke said:
Yes, but you don't have to find a hotel room every night!
C
ch1
Guest
RJBender said:
Anyone here who's never seen Steiglitz's famous photo of the Flatiron Bldg. in the rain should be flogged with a soggy spaghetti noodle!
Ariya
Peter Williams
copake_ham said:
I do not own a Leica, but I do own some nice things. Why is it that an appreciation of quality automatically equates to "vainity"? Art can be created in many different ways - why is something that is so obviously of high quality not appreciated as such? It's a shame that we allow ourselves to be blinded to this fact simply because it also can perform a function. I think that is the crux of the issue - whether or not we see the ________ in terms of 1) what it is vs. 2) what it does. If I looked at everything in terms of it's function, then my photographic prints have little to no value. They are simply pieces of used paper. I have to appreciate them for what they are, not what they can do. When I hold something that is precision made, I can appreciate the inherent quality of that item. I believe that is what Leica afficionados are doing. They are appreciating a thing of high quality, not in comparison with anything else, but simply appreciating it for what it is.
Peter
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Ariya said:
C
ch1
Guest
Ariya said:
Peter,
By "vanity" I meant paying for something beyond the "quality" of the item. I too have nice things (I shoot Nikons not Lomos) - but I don't enjoy paying a lot extra for "intangibles" that do not add any additional "quality" to physical goods. Particularly since I am a camera user and not a camera collector.
As I said, I bear no ill-will toward Leica and wish them all the good fortune they can find.
Ariya
Peter Williams
Bertram2 Peter said:
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
copake_ham said:Anyone here who's never seen Steiglitz's famous photo of the Flatiron Bldg. in the rain should be flogged with a soggy spaghetti noodle!
I think you posted it in another thread a few months ago, George.
Do you think that photo was taken from the southwest corner of Madison Square Park? Here it is again:
source: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Flatiron-The-Royal-Photographic-Society-Posters_i393526_.htm
R.J.