Has Leica alienated photographers?

[bonatto]

I was thinking today about the prices of Leica bodies and lenses today, and the amount of alternatives available that, when pixel comes to pixel, deliver the image.

In 1969, an M4 with a 35mm and 50mm sum micron set would set you back about $700. In today's dollars, about $4600.

The modern equivalent will cost you just under $12.000 at Adorama.

Leica relies today on a heritage built by working photographers of all different walks in order to sell what can only be understood as luxury products.

In doing so, I wonder if they've not completely alienated a generation of photographers who now turn to alternatives?

 

[goamules]

But of course, that's exactly what happened.

 

[johannielscom]

No need for Leica these days, unless you need an item to show off and to complement your expensive watch, fountain pen, bag and suit. Or maybe if you wanna impress people so you can sell them overpriced workshops. It used to be pros that inspired the 'hobby photographer' to buy Leica, it's the overpriced-workshop folk these days. Pros have moved away, I feel.

Photography wise, there's loads of alternatives that deliver the image just as good or better, with more durability and at a better price. I've taken to DSLRs, none of my clients ask for Leica shots or Leica quality (since it is indistinguishable anyway) and if a camera breaks down, I can at least afford to pick up a replacement while it's in for repair.


If one isn't alienated, it's probably because there is spare money to burn and the pros' requirements don't matter all that much.

 

[Ned Bojic]

The whole relationship with money has changed in the past 10 years.

8 years ago, in this very forum, you were openly called crazy, and sometimes stupid, to buy a used Noctilux f1.0 for anything over 1200$. Actually, owning a 1200$ Noctilux when you could own the "super clinically sharp and devoid of any personnality" 50 Lux Asph (again, in this very forum) for 900$ was a very stupid move, according to the web intelligencia.

Mega flame wars.

Today, the same people that would have never touched the 1200$ noctilux are 50 apo asph & Noctilux f0.95 owners.

Something has happened with money. I noticed that it got worthless somewhere along the way.

Even nikon dslr and lenses pricing is totally out of sync with what it was 5 years ago.

 

[Huss]

Actually, owning a 1200$ Noctilux when you could own the "super clinically sharp and devoid of any personnality" 50 Lux Asph (again, in this very forum), for 900$.

.

When was the 50 Asph $900??? It came out in 2004 at about $3000

 

[Ned Bojic]

When was the 50 Asph $900??? It came out in 2004 at about $3000

I'm talking used. Sorry for the confusion.

But let's not forget; just before the M8 came out Leica wasin big trouble. They were offering huge discounts on lenses. Bankruptcy was latent, present.

Kauffman's strategy was a price hike to support an extremely uncertain digital adventure. Back then, a Full Frame M was impossible to make. The official story from Leica was that a FF M leica would simply never exist. The director was fired shortly thereafter.

 

[Huss]

I was thinking today about the prices of Leica bodies and lenses today, and the amount of alternatives available that, when pixel comes to pixel, deliver the image.

In 1969, an M4 with a 35mm and 50mm sum micron set would set you back about $700. In today's dollars, about $4600.

The modern equivalent will cost you just under $12.000 at Adorama.

The modern equivalent is the MP + Summicron 50 = $7000

But I agree with you, Leica has been priced for what the luxury market can bear, not the market.
Clue that the avg photographer was being priced out was with the opening of the Leica boutique stores.

 

[Antielectrons]

I love and own Leica and if anything it has brought me closer to photography but Leica was never the only game in town even in its hay dey. Don't believe the hype.... Photographers have always used a wide range of cameras and brands.

 

[Bille]

The M240 is priced in the range of Nikon D4s or Canon 1DX. A new Summicron 50 is in the range of Canons 24-70/2.8 L II. What Leica is missing is a budget line. But of course, who wants a "second best" modern Summarit for the price of a used pre asph Lux?

 

[Baby of Macon]

The problem for Leica is that it is under pressure from both sides. High end DSLRs match or beat Leica for IQ albeit at a price in terms of form factor. But simultaneously, mirrorless cameras are cheaper and get close or better on IQ, functionality and form factor. The logical response in such circumstances is to target the luxury goods (as opposed to the pro/serious non pro) market.

 

[mdarnton]

Being someone who prefers RF to SLR most of the time, I don't think of Leicas as jewelry, but I've also never bought any piece of my Leica stuff new, so new prices have never meant much to me. My favorite photographers used 50s vintage gear, and so can I, without pain.

There's lots of stuff in this world I can't afford, and I don't resent any of it just because I can't have it. How sick and entitled that whole idea seems!

 

[jaapv]

I'm talking used. Sorry for the confusion.

But let's not forget; just before the M8 came out Leica wasin big trouble. They were offering huge discounts on lenses. Bankruptcy was latent, present.

Kauffman's strategy was a price hike to support an extremely uncertain digital adventure. Back then, a Full Frame M was impossible to make. The official story from Leica was that a FF M leica would simply never exist. The director was fired shortly thereafter.

Source please. There was never any statement from Leica to that effect.
Mr. Lee was fired because of his perpetual upgrade program ideas and for clashing with the corporate culture.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I used to Leika Leica. Now i Hatea Leica.

I started with them when the M7 was released. I was curious prior to that, but always thought the M6's metering system was 'childish.' I bought M7s, and then i met a PJ at the original PhotoVillage location in NYC, and he raved about his R8. I had previously thought the R8 was a ridiculous-looking piece of kit, but i soon after held one, and instantly changed my mind. Bought into that system, as well.

Back then, the prices were high, but they were 'doable.' After Leica went digital, and stopped supporting their older systems and cameras (i had a CM for a while, too), they sorta lost me. I wasn't interested in the digital platform which always seemed like it featured 'last year's sensor.' And, the prices just seemed out of whack for what the cameras could do versus the Canons i was already also using.

They tried to convince us that the DMR was 'magical' in some way, despite specs, and then they stopped making that....

And, now, they're just doing so many silly things, it's hard to take them seriously. They aren't making products for the same people anymore, and i don't want to belong to the 'new club.'

I got into Leica because i loved the look of classic/old images shot with their lenses. Stuff from the 50s and 60s. Completely irrelevant as related to digital.

 

[lukitas]

I am alienated.

And prices are out of whack. It's not just leica.

Today prices for a decent new camera range from about 400 to 7000 dollars. Pro FF's are mostly above 2000.

I wonder how that would have looked in 1985. Or 1975. If I remember well, a months' salary would get you a pretty decent set-up, back then.

But then again, I may have my rose-tinted backwards looking glasses on. When pointed at today, they show an ominous blue-green tint.

cheers

 

[Contarama]

My first system was a used Contaflex a few years back. It came with original purchase receipts and I was always flabbergasted when I converted that to today's money!! So the further you go back it seems the scale on stuff such as Leica was so weighted towards one side that only kings or someone could afford them.

All that being said Leica new stuff is way beyond my means but I still think they are super duper cool and if I had the dough I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat. Really I might just have to settle for a M2 or M3 someday...lol

Alienated...not me and not in the very least. If anything makes me want a M9 and a decent 50 all the more. Kind of like an old girlfriend that played hard to get or something.

 

[icebear]

Lucky enough I am not a professional photographer. I photograph just for my own enjoyment. Everybody has different financial priorities. I never bought a new car in my life and don't plan to change that. I don't smoke and I'm not a lawyer or a dentist either. For all my Leica equipment I spotted good used or demo deals. The only ever new purchase was my MM. Of course stupidly expensive but no other piece equipment has given me so much joy and inspiration to use over and over again. For me personally totally worth the expense.

If you earn a living on photography and there is no particular reasons that screams for you to work with a digital Leica M, then go for some Canikon D1234 Mk25. If you buy into digital Leica M as a pro and can't afford it, get another job or a better tax adviser🙄

Edit: ... and Zeiss-M lenses work on on a MM too. Doesn't have to be the Apo 50'cron.

 

[Godfrey]

According to any of several inflation calculators (google "What is the equivalent value of money today?"), something which cost $700 in 1968 should cost between $4800 and $12,000 today purely due to inflation, depending on which indices are used.

From that, it seems your example of an M4+35+50 lens equivalent costing about $12,000 is right in line with what it should cost, albeit at the high end of the scale.

Not much to complain about there... I remember clearly a Nikon F Photomic FTn selling for about $450-$500 in 1969, which seemed fabulously expensive then, and Leica M and 'Flex cameras being the next tier up price-wise. My brother's new Datsun 510 in 1970 was purchased for $930 out the door.

Today's prices are on a different scale. So are today's incomes, thankfully.

G

 

[uhoh7]

Never has Leica Digital been so affordable used:

M9 2400
M240 4k
MM 4K

There is no alternative if you want a FF digital M glass shooter, except the modded Sony A7.

Used lens prices have fallen alot in the last year as well.

It's as close to 'free' as you may ever see, right now. And for my taste, the best option.

Well, OK, once the new M is announced the 240s will drop to 3k.

Price a nice mountain bike, and it's about the same. These tired complaints really no longer apply, if you look around and see how expensive just plain living is these days.

Not that Leica is perfect, but for many of us, the lesser "EVIL" 😉

 

[Contarama]

A quarter really? Great...now I must study M9's. I've already been studying M2 and M3 here lately. 🙂

I'd feel like a person on food stamps who drove around in a Lexus...LOL Just joking gentleman..kind of. 😀

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Leica is the club. And as any good club it isn't bunch of crapshooters for $50 per year and you are at the camera club.
Even if you are modern crapshooter, you'll be the one with load of money. And it is good filter from cheap crapshooters.
And you have to feel it. If it feels right for you, no SLR will be good.
This is what GW was saying. He took M4 first and used some cheap wide lens before he could afford wide from Leica, I think.
Plus, wearing Leica in public makes you special. I faced it twice in four days as of now 🙂