Collectors and users

[keepright]

It's just that few of us can afford to collect new, limited edition Leicas. So why should we denigrate those who do?

I wonder if this is triggering the same gene that also responds to people who drive large military-inspired vehicles across beautifully asphalted roads to the suburban grocery store.

From about 1969 to about 1975 I used to collect (screw-mount) Leicas. Sure, I put a film or two through all of them, and lots of films through some of them. I quit when I realized I had well over £2000 (maybe £15,000 in current money) in substantially unused cameras and lenses in my toy cupboard: 'unused' in the sense that I wasn't really using them. Selling them gave me more than enough money to buy cameras and lenses I preferred to use: another M-body, my first 35 Summilux, etc.

I think this is the key part of the question - the idea of collectors driving up the price of used cameras. Certainly, the fact that I was the high bidder for a film camera (that largely sits on a shelf, appreciated but unused) means that someone else didn't get it for less money. Perhaps I kept it out of the hands of a deserving but underfunded artist who would cherish it and use it forever - probably not, but who knows?

What I do know is that the money I've spent on used cameras has gone to other photographers who have used it to buy something else that they need. Hopefully, as in Roger's case, it's camera equipment that will better suit their needs - but if it's a set of golf clubs, that's none of my business. The important point is that cameras and money are traded between photographers in ways that make everyone involved happier.

 

[bob338]

What annoys me about Leica's approach is the branding and product positioning. Nothing to do with collecting, but rather being repulsed by overt association with conspicuous consumption, etc..

Is a Mont Blanc a nice writing instrument? Yes, but their branding and public perception means I carry a Pelican or Namiki (probably a more innovative pen than any Monte Bianco).

Do I like Ostrich skin? Very much, and have carried the same Ostrich wallet every day since 1994 - only possible with the highest quality materials. BUT, vulcanite will do just fine, thank you very much.

Do I like Titanium? Very much, and have some camping items that benefit from it (including a Ti spoon, no silver for me!).

So I scrape off the white Leica model identifier and tape over the logo. I say "it's a rangefinder" when people ask, not "a Leica". I think if someone asks me "Is that a Leica", I'll respond with "What's a Leica?" from now on to see what their perception are of the brand. Will report back on the responses...

Are these examples not conspicuous consumption?

I think there is another kind of conspicuous consumption, one where we're obtuse about having the 'most expensive item in the world that you've probably never heard of,' and in my humble opinion this is what's really behind taping over logos and scratching out model numbers.

I, for one, am quite proud of being able to afford what I want to buy. When you grow up without much it's quite a thrill to point at something and say 'I'll take it.'

As for collectors, there wouldn't be any museums or historical societies without them.

Bob

 

[ederek]

Are these examples not conspicuous consumption?

I think there is another kind of conspicuous consumption, one where we're obtuse about having the 'most expensive item in the world that you've probably never heard of,' and in my humble opinion this is what's really behind taping over logos and scratching out model numbers.

Bob, I do not believe I'm trying to practice an obtuse form of conspicuous consumption. I think you mean a case where not just anyone would notice the "x" item, but "only the people I really care to notice", or something along those lines. It's an assertion that is probably valid, and one we should be on guard against when weighing the motives for our actions (e.g. purchases).

I truly enjoy quality. I also think the M9 is the best tool, the best machine available today for the type of photography I want to do. In hindsight, an M8 probably would have been fine. Interestingly, I treat the M4's with greater care than the M9, and am far more concerned about them than the M9, which is quite utilitarian. I think taping over the logo makes the camera more invisible, and that's my primary motivation. The thought of getting a 'Black Dot' had crossed my mind, but indeed I question if that doesn't border on the "obtuse" form you refer to!

I was trying to use examples of items that are a) truly of high quality; and b) also common objects of conspicuous consumption by [some] people who don't care about the quality so much as the social perception created by having the object (or a certain Service even).

A roomate in college had an M5 (BMW, not a Leica!). It was an awesome machine. He also struggled with the social perceptions versus just wanting to own and drive something of the best quality.

I've carried a cheap nylon wallet with velcro at times (camping, rafting, etc.) and certainly don't feel 'inadequate' using it. It would probably even suffice for every day use, as quality is less important for wallets than other 'tools'.

I write with a Namiki Vanishing Point fountain pen every day. Not because of branding, but because it's the best writing instrument I could find (tried many pens). It's not the most money, but it's the best. The Mont Blanc writes well, but not necessarily better, and it carries the negative aspect of association with Conspicuous Consumers.

From Conspicuous Consumption on Wikipedia

Conspicuous consumption is a term used to describe the lavish spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth. In the mind of a conspicuous consumer, such display serves as a means of attaining or maintaining social status. A very similar but more colloquial term is "keeping up with the Joneses".
Invidious consumption, a more specialized term, refers to consumption deliberately intended to cause envy.
Conspicuous consumption is antagonistic to sustainability because it greatly increases resource use and environmental impact.

or this is nicely put on a blog post by Seth

The reason you have a front lawn? It's a tradition. Lawns were invented as a way for the landed gentry to demonstrate that they could afford to waste land. By taking the land away from the grazing sheep, they were sending a message to their neighbors. We're rich, we can happily waste the opportunity to make a few bucks from our front lawn.
Conspicuous consumption has a long history. Wasting millions of dollars on a shark in a tank, or on $50,000 platinum stereo cables that sound an awful lot like $2000 stereo cables (which sound a lot like $200 stereo cables). And on and on.
In fact, the origins of the luxury goods industry lie in this desire to waste, in public. 350 years ago in France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert dreamed up the idea of bespoke, rare goods as a way of improving France's balance of trade. LVMH and other huge corporations collect brands that telegraph scarcity above all else. Not that they're better at performing the task at hand, merely that they are expensive and rare.

There will come a time, perhaps soon, where our front lawns will be converted to gardens. Hopefully..

I, for one, am quite proud of being able to afford what I want to buy. When you grow up without much it's quite a thrill to point at something and say 'I'll take it.'

That's great! It does feel good, especially when you've worked hard to be able to do that, as I'm sure you have. It is the motivation for 'why' you want what you want that needs to be questioned (I'm not at all suggesting you in particular need to question, this, but in a general sense that we all should).

As for collectors, there wouldn't be any museums or historical societies without them.

I have nothing against collectors whatsoever. Tried to separate this in my statements - I think Roger in his initial post infers that people have a problem with collectors. Often they don't, and in this case it is likely the obvious peddling by Leica to Conspicuous Consumers, which is absolutely sickening!!!!!

 

[wlewisiii]

Now that is 😎

Brian, you win this round 😉

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The look on her face was wonderful when I put it in front of her and asked for an autograph. "Where the hell did you get this". Around 1980, giving the famous nano-second talk at our school.

 

[Brian Legge]

I like damiens distinction. Half of my cameras were heading for either the dump as were non functional only worth a small fraction of what that repair would have cost. Some of those cameras I later sold. Once that aren't totally functional I'm more likely to have kept as I don't like offering cameras in an unknown state for sale.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Are these examples not conspicuous consumption?

I think there is another kind of conspicuous consumption, one where we're obtuse about having the 'most expensive item in the world that you've probably never heard of,' and in my humble opinion this is what's really behind taping over logos and scratching out model numbers.

I, for one, am quite proud of being able to afford what I want to buy. When you grow up without much it's quite a thrill to point at something and say 'I'll take it.'

As for collectors, there wouldn't be any museums or historical societies without them.

Bob

Dear Bob.

That brought tears to my eyes. Not floods, it's true, but YES!

God bless our fathers and the education they made sure we had. Even if we didn't appreciate it at the time. And even if 'God bless' implies more belief in a Supreme Being than we can readily muster.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wlewisiii]

Heh, Brian, I can only imagine. Similar, but not nearly as cool, I have is a 1st edition of "The Traveller Book" for the 1st edition with two of the three primary author's autographs.

 

[FrankS]

With about 50 cameras, I am a collector/user. None are rare, super valuable, or in mint condition, and they do get used, but it is clearly more than I "need".

 

[matthew J Shaw]

Interesting debate...
I'm a user by profession, and a collector by passion, as I type this Im sitting in my office and there is a display cabinet next to me with some 30 odd cameras in it 🙂 (luxury)

All of them are useable with a couple of exceptions, 127 cameras are useable, but its getting harder and harder to by film. Some I have to admit are worth some serious money and others probably aren't worth the recycled bicycle clips they may of been made out of. But each has a personnel value to me, I buy cameras that I feel an affinity to, I pick them up and the just feel "right".

In my time I have been offered some great camera's, at even better prices, but I have walked away as they don't feel right for me. And to me, that is the whole crux of the argument, collecting of any form is a subjective thing, one of my favourite camera's I own is an old Edixa, practically worthless, but I would never part with it as it just feels totally perfect to me.

We all have our foibles, and some people I know think I'm mad as I actually use all of my collectables, but I love them as cameras, not objects, if they are not in use, what use are they?

As I say, that is my choice, and it's no more right or wrong than someone who collects limited edition Leica's purely for display. I'm very blessed that I can afford to indulge my interest, but as Roger originally said, it is all dependant on finance, and one day it may all change, but until then, I for one will enjoy been a collector AND a user.

 

[emraphoto]

Leica makes a lot more 'user' cameras than 'collector', so I can't see how they're concentrating on collectors rather than users.

What innovations do you want to see? The S2 looked pretty good to me. So did the first ever full-frame digital rangefinder. Most of the things people ask for are personal preferences rather than actual improvements, e.g. opening back (I like the removable base). Others are difficult or impossible to get into the small, svelte M-body. For example, the parallax-compensated, frame-size-compensated finder of the Linhof Technika 70 is lovely but it's about the size of an M.

Cheers,

R.

have to chime in with a hearty 'indeed'

that S2 seems easily forgotten but man o man, i'd collect a few of those if i could.

 

[damien.murphy]

Please God, let this be a Photoshopped image! No one wouldreally do this to a fine camera, would they?

If you feel this bad at just seeing the camera, imagine how the Leica camera techs who had to assemble it must have felt, lol

 

[bob338]

The thought of getting a 'Black Dot' had crossed my mind, but indeed I question if that doesn't border on the "obtuse" form you refer to!

I honestly have no problem with black dots and taping up cameras for whatever reason, I only object to people being coy about it. Let's be honest, black dots look cool and taping up your camera makes you(i mean 'you' in a 'we' sense) feel like Jim Marshall.
edit--just wanted to add that I traded a nice M7 for a Black MP Classic for the sole reason that it was so pretty! The M7 is miles away better on every level but that MP is just gorgeous.

I have nothing against collectors whatsoever. Tried to separate this in my statements - I think Roger in his initial post infers that people have a problem with collectors. Often they don't, and in this case it is likely the obvious peddling by Leica to Conspicuous Consumers, which is absolutely sickening!!!!!

I will agree that there is a cringe factor with some of the special editions, but someone else may like it, and If their money keeps Leica afloat for another round of R&D, we get to benefit, we get to buy the new lenses and bodies that were funded by their money!

If I could buy a new ostrich skinned Leica, I probably would. And if I could buy the M9Ti, I would do it in a heartbeat!

Bob

 

[bob338]

Dear Bob.

That brought tears to my eyes. Not floods, it's true, but YES!

God bless our fathers and the education they made sure we had. Even if we didn't appreciate it at the time. And even if 'God bless' implies more belief in a Supreme Being than we can readily muster.

Cheers,

R.

Nice of you to say that, Roger, thanks. I really wanted to impart that many of us have ended up with some nice things after a lot of hard work and I don't think we should feel lousy about it.

Bob

 

[Tom A]

In the case of the M9 Titanium - it will give Leica a net cash infusion of about 5 Million Euros - which will be used to make the M10 ( Electronic finder, full frame sensor, M and R lens capability etc). This is not speculation, Stefan Daniel (Mr M @ Leica) stated this at the LHSA meeting last week in Wetzlar. Probably will show up at Photokina 2012.
As for collectors pushing up prices. yes, if it is something rare or "mint in box" - the prices are high, but for the run of the mill stuff - sellers might think that because it is a Leica, it should be worth a lot - but as a buyer you have plenty of alternatives.
As a rule, I dont buy "collectibles" - occasionally I pick up lenses that fall into this category, but not for collecting, but for using (Nikkor 25f4, Nikkor 105f4 Rf mount and various M lenses). Yes, sometimes they cost more than I really want to pay - due to their collectibility - but if I want it - thats the price I have to pay.
The "Franklin Mint" type of cameras (gold-plated, over-engraved or somewhat far-fetched designation like the Year Of The Rooster M6 ( I still call it the Kentucky Fried Chicken camera) - have no interest to me - unless it's price is the same as that of a stock model.
One advantage of Nikon's Millennium S3 and 2005 SP is that the original versions of these cameras dropped enough to make them affordable to mere mortals. Case in point : a S3 Nikon with a 1st version 50f1.4 (#5005xxx) for $650 and a Olympic S3 for about $1500 - and, yes, both are being used.
Nikon had the fortitude to put limited edition lenses on these two cameras, the Millennium 50f1.4 is one of the best 50's ever - and the SP 2005 35f1.8 with modern coating rivals any other medium speed 35.
For those who collects as a retirement plan - good luck - and for those who collect as historian's - good for you.
Oh, the Titanium M9 was designed by a non-photographer - and it shows. Very clumsy to hold and way too slippery. Nice frame lines though (LED). Titanium is just a fad - not very good for regular use, very good if you are re-entering the atmosphere at Mach 5 or beyond - or if you are in highly toxic environment. It is good to know that at least the camera will survive - even though you are burned to a crisp or dissolved into a organic puddle!

 

[DNG]

I wonder how much "collectors" actually have effected the price of used Leicas in the marketplace. During the 1980's and early 1990's, I did a lot of the big buy-sale-trade shows that were popular then, and there were numerous Japanese buyers at every one them, with brief cases full of cash, buying every decent Leica that came into the place. I talked to a number of these guys, and basically they were buying up every nice Leica they could get and storing them in vaults in Japan.

Now, you can argue this was not a great investment strategy, but I wonder if most of them have found their way back into the market place by now, or if there has been some artificial scarcity (although, Leica's don't really seem to be scarce in the second hand market) because of their actions that has affected the price of these cameras.

I hope they take them out for some exercise 😛

But, I don't think buying up for collections has a big effect.
I think the "Users" have more of an effect when there is a fad on a model, M5 for instance. they could be had $500.00 around 10 years ago, now, they sell for around $700.00 to $1000.00 for a 2/3 lug model in great condition. And, if they had an M6 VF upgrade, maybe more.

It may be just that 10 years added value also. But, regardless, they sell for more now.

So, the heavy buyers user, will, IMO, help drive up price more.

As far as me collecting.... Na, I don't mind paying more on a Leica than other RFs. Because the quality/support in 20 years out, or more is important for a "Leica user". And Leica does this very well form the Original 1954 M3 to present. That is added value worth the added cost IMO.

I don't buy "Collectible" cameras. But, I buy cameras I will use on a regular basis. Now, the model may be collectible, but, it if has what I want, and I can find a " good condition user" or less than perfect one, I will get it. As a side note: I don't need but a few cameras, so, I won't buy a camera to display.

 

[Tony Rose]

Tom, your are the Cat's Meow!

Tom, your are the Cat's Meow!

In the case of the M9 Titanium - it will give Leica a net cash infusion of about 5 Million Euros - which will be used to make the M10 ( Electronic finder, full frame sensor, M and R lens capability etc). This is not speculation, Stefan Daniel (Mr M @ Leica) stated this at the LHSA meeting last week in Wetzlar. Probably will show up at Photokina 2012.
As for collectors pushing up prices. yes, if it is something rare or "mint in box" - the prices are high, but for the run of the mill stuff - sellers might think that because it is a Leica, it should be worth a lot - but as a buyer you have plenty of alternatives.
As a rule, I dont buy "collectibles" - occasionally I pick up lenses that fall into this category, but not for collecting, but for using (Nikkor 25f4, Nikkor 105f4 Rf mount and various M lenses). Yes, sometimes they cost more than I really want to pay - due to their collectibility - but if I want it - thats the price I have to pay.
The "Franklin Mint" type of cameras (gold-plated, over-engraved or somewhat far-fetched designation like the Year Of The Rooster M6 ( I still call it the Kentucky Fried Chicken camera) - have no interest to me - unless it's price is the same as that of a stock model.
One advantage of Nikon's Millennium S3 and 2005 SP is that the original versions of these cameras dropped enough to make them affordable to mere mortals. Case in point : a S3 Nikon with a 1st version 50f1.4 (#5005xxx) for $650 and a Olympic S3 for about $1500 - and, yes, both are being used.
Nikon had the fortitude to put limited edition lenses on these two cameras, the Millennium 50f1.4 is one of the best 50's ever - and the SP 2005 35f1.8 with modern coating rivals any other medium speed 35.
For those who collects as a retirement plan - good luck - and for those who collect as historian's - good for you.
Oh, the Titanium M9 was designed by a non-photographer - and it shows. Very clumsy to hold and way too slippery. Nice frame lines though (LED). Titanium is just a fad - not very good for regular use, very good if you are re-entering the atmosphere at Mach 5 or beyond - or if you are in highly toxic environment. It is good to know that at least the camera will survive - even though you are burned to a crisp or dissolved into a organic puddle!

Tom, your are the Cat's Meow!

 

[sepiareverb]

People here are not fed up with the 'collectors', the latest leica bashing is due to the products they showed under photokina. Nothing new except wrapping

Considering they've barely managed to make enough M9 bodies to satisfy demand I don't see how they could be working on an M10.

In the case of the M9 Titanium - it will give Leica a net cash infusion of about 5 Million Euros - which will be used to make the M10 ( Electronic finder, full frame sensor, M and R lens capability etc).

Which will only create more complaints. :bang: When will they ever learn that the people who don't buy new want an M3 with a digital sensor in it that costs only $1000? 😉

 

[Gumby]

Nice of you to say that, Roger, thanks. I really wanted to impart that many of us have ended up with some nice things after a lot of hard work and I don't think we should feel lousy about it.

Bob

AMEN!


(and Alelluia since "AMEN!" was less than the 10-required characters)

 

[Tom A]

Oh, you mean something like the Fuji X 100!