I would say that those high end canon / Nikon film mechanical cameras were a lot closer to a film M than the latest high end digital counterparts.
Does Leica take advantage of their M users?
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 161
- Views 12K
I would say that those high end canon / Nikon film mechanical cameras were a lot closer to a film M than the latest high end digital counterparts.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Not really. You are comparing the Leica M with the most expensive Canikon, not the technically comparable, like the $1500 Nikon D750. I think you are better off sticking with your argument that, regardless of cost, the Leica M fits your vision and the way you work.
aizan
Veteran
Leicas have always have been expensive, but they were the same price as comparable equipment.
The original price of a Canon F-1 was 78,000 yen body only, which was about $289.50 in 1972 ($1,776.97 adjusted for inflation).
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film78.html
http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-coll/cameras/Canon_F1.html
The Leica M4's original price was $288 ($1,767.76).
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/leica-historical-prices.221733/
I think one of these days I'll have to make a chart of Leica M prices compared to other cameras to show how their prices diverged over time. That'd be interesting!
Huss
Veteran
Huss
Veteran
I think that makes the Nicanons a bargain, and the Leica still very expensive.
How much is a Nikon F-1 worth now? $150? How much is a Leica M4? $1000?
What this tells you is the smart thing to do is buy used.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have only bought used Leica cameras so far. You get around the inflated new prices. M3, M6, M8, M9, IIIf, Standard.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
No because technology doesn't = better. Top of the line would be just as fair a comparison now as it was in the late 1970s. I would argue that the Canon F-1 or the Nikon F-3 are far superior cameras to what Nicanon produce today and were less than half the price of Leica M at that time. I had DSLRs for a decade and hated all the crap that was on them. Complicated menus and stuff that has nothing to do with making good photographs and more to do with having the latest and SO CALLED greatest.
I also owned Hasselblad 500 C/Ms and they were a lot more expensive than top of the line SLRs and most other medium format systems at the time.
This technology further separates the photographer from the process thus making it easier for someone without technical skills to make technically average photographs under average conditions. Many good photographers do not want to be separated and still want the control. We should all be glad there is still an option like that available.
All that stuff on my so called advanced DSLRs got in the way of me creating. The camera companies like car companies have convinced the public that the more stuff on a camera, like a car, the better value it now becomes. And because of new technology changing if you don't stay on the gadget go round you are somehow less or have become out dated and need to upgrade ever year or two. This is in Nicanons best interest to see folks upgrading ever two or three years. With the way cameras have been for the last 5 or so years they are all perfect capable.
As Ernst Haas once said " The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
And a great quote by Edward Weston and is jsut as true today as it was when he said it well over 60 years ago. "The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."
All the digital cameras around now and ones that have been around for a few years now are all perfectly capable.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
If I still had a darkroom I would still have a 500 C/M and I still have my Canon F-1s. I would probably pick up an M 3 but my I don't have a darkroom anymore and my clients all moved me into digital in 2005. I am fortunate that my work pays for any equipment I need. Price, of course, is always a concern but I have moved from DSLRs to all Leica digital M and did so a few years ago with absolutely no regrets. Finding equipment that works for me is, in my opinion, priceless. Well maybe one regret that I couldn't go Leica M digital when I first went digital. Leica didn't make a full frame digital camera at the time. In fact they didn't have a digital camera at the time IIRC.
For my business, write offs, insurance, and reliability used wouldn't be so smart. 🙂
airfrogusmc
Veteran
When I bought my New F-1s in 1982 they were $525 a piece, The price of a Leica M4P IIRC was around $1000. I remember the price being about double because I was actually thinking about buying one.
In the late 1970s I paid almost $500 for the old F-1.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
What would have been the better investment? A new Canon New F-1 cost $525 in 1982 and sells today for maybe $250 in mint condition. What does a good condition M4P go for now? Probably more than what you originally paid for it.
Both are equally good if you have been out there making photographs with them for almost 40 years. What else could give you that enjoyment at such a great price for that extended period of time? And in your case, you could have made money with both of them too!
Huss
Veteran
Let's do some math using an inflation calculator:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
A Canon F1 that cost $525 in 1982 would be the equivalent of $1400 today.
It is worth $250 today so 'you' have lost $1150.
A Leica M4P that cost $1000 in 1982 would be the equivalent of $2659 today.
It is worth $1000 today so 'you' would have lost $1659.
You would be ahead by $500 with the Canon.
Interestingly a Leica M-A today (the closest equivalent to the M4P) is $4700. Which is $2000 more than the adjusted for inflation price of the M4P.
Which circles back to the original topic.
p.s. I have the M-A and it is wonderful. But I bought it used!!
NaChase
Well-known
A Leica M lens or body, much like a Rolex or Ferrari, is a Veblen good, which helps explain the price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Not saying that the M-A isn't wonderful. But the M 10 is also wonderful. Back to the original topic Leica doesn't take any more avantage than say Canon or Nikon that have new technology and only release it in bits and pieces every few years to keep the masses buying the latest. That could be said of any of the camera makers. It's business. The key is to find when that technology fits ones needs. Buy and then don't worry about what model has this or faster that. Because you will never catch up. My F-1 is worth half now of what I paid.. Most mint M4Ps are going for a bit more than a grand.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Then I bought mine at just the right time, before the prices started going back up.
I got my first Nikon back in '73, and remember looking at the Leica's. Seeing as it took a sacrifice of almost a full month of wages to buy the Nikon (Nikkormat FTN with 50/1.4), there was no way I could have gotten an M at that time. Maybe a beat up old Leica II. But I was switching from rangefinders to SLRs anyway.
They are still expensive cameras, unless you can justify the price by using them commercially. That's why I don't think I'll be able to get an M10 unless I hit the lottery, because I'm getting to that age where dropping a few grand on a camera puts a real hurting on my budget. Yes, I have thought about getting something different, but as far as I'm concerned it took Leica a long time to really make a decent digital M, which is embodied in the 10 series. Who knows, maybe I can trade all my other stuff for one.
PF
DanskDynamit
Well-known
its called marketing.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Love my F-1s. They are tanks for sure. As much as I love the old F-1 my fav is the F-1 new. Had and still have some great old glass to. I had an 85 1.2 Aspherical (chrome mount) and still have a 55 1.2 aspherical (chrome mount) with the gold coating. Those are wonderful lenses.
Guth
Appreciative User
I don't think that it took any convincing on the part of manufacturers in either industry. When it comes to technology-laden cameras and cars they are simply giving the consumers what they want. In other words, I believe that a majority of people want both their cameras and their cars to do as much of the thinking for them as possible. There are seemingly very few people these days who are interested in fully immersing themselves in the process of operating a camera or driving a car. If more people truly wanted cameras that provided them with full manual input then manufacturers would be stepping up to meet that demand. On the flip-side just think about how few people are still interested interest in driving cars featuring manual transmissions these days. (There aren't all that many.)
As far as the original question goes, I would only take issue with the wording. I would not say that Leica is taking advantage of M users. But I would say that Leica is capitalizing on the fact that they have become an iconic lifestyle brand catering primarily to the wealthy. Given that the Leica brand is epitomized by their M cameras it is not exactly surprising that they are charging a king's ransom for M system gear. That people are willing to pay what they do for M gear in particular (or Leica products in general) these days says more about the people themselves than it does about Leica and what they might be charging in my opinion. Obviously not all Leica users are wealthy. Those who are struggling with current Leica pricing are basically caught in the undertow of Leica's branding success. But as no one is being forced to buy this gear it is hard to think of it as being taken advantage of.
css9450
Veteran
I suppose it depends on what you use the cameras for. It probably amuses (or horrifies!) the good folks at Nikanon, but I tend to shoot my DSLRs like unmetered manual cameras. Just like my Nikon S2. Sure, there's a nice built-in meter with several metering patterns, many different focusing options, all sorts of flash options, etc, etc but I rarely use any of those. Oh, there's also video mode and (maybe?) GPS and wifi connectivity. I'm not sure if those are even there, but I don't use them anyway. Its easy to ignore all the features I don't use, and they don't get in my way.
I use the menu to check my battery levels.... And to dim the monitor if I'm shooting at night. But just now it occured to me I could probably do the latter via the custom "Fn" button and thus skip the menu entirely. But for the whole rest of the menu? Very rare I need anything in there.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I am certainly not wealthy and other photographers that are my friends that are also Leica owners are also not wealthy. Most are like me, working pros. They, like me, use Leica M as tools. I don't hear folks say that about the top of the line Nikons and Canons which are in the same price range and in my opinion have way to many bells and whistles and are heavy bricks. After a full day of a couple of those over your shoulders (voice of experience) you will wonder what the heck you are doing.
Being that photography is my living and does support the family and has since the mid 1980s I have always put money in the tools I need to do my job. In film days I owned several 500 C/Ms as well as Canon 35mm. (F-1s). Again Leica M has ALWAYS been expensive. If you don't buy all the stuff you might be surprised at what you can afford. I know if I had all the money I spent over the years settling I could have bought what i finally ended up with many times over.
So I guess in my case and many other photographers that choose Leica M you could say that we are working pros that Leica M is the preferred tool. They fit the way we see and work.
I paid for my latest M 10 $5800 from Popflash. New in box with full warranty. IDX Mark II at B&H $5500. Nikon 5D DSLR $5996.
Being that photography is my living and does support the family and has since the mid 1980s I have always put money in the tools I need to do my job. In film days I owned several 500 C/Ms as well as Canon 35mm. (F-1s). Again Leica M has ALWAYS been expensive. If you don't buy all the stuff you might be surprised at what you can afford. I know if I had all the money I spent over the years settling I could have bought what i finally ended up with many times over.
So I guess in my case and many other photographers that choose Leica M you could say that we are working pros that Leica M is the preferred tool. They fit the way we see and work.
I paid for my latest M 10 $5800 from Popflash. New in box with full warranty. IDX Mark II at B&H $5500. Nikon 5D DSLR $5996.
