pgk
Well-known
Whilst new Leica prices are high so are resale prices. When a similar question was asked elsewhere a year or so back I did a rough estimate of what my Leica gear had cost me, in terms of depreciation and actuality, and found that relative to my other camera gear it had cost quite a bit less. Digital camera bodies all depreciate: Canon 1DS cost was ~£5.5k new - today they are a couple of hundred - contrast the Leica M8 which cost ~£2.6k new and they still sell for £0.7~1k - which has lost more value?. And Leica lenses depreciate very little indeed (I've sold a few for more than I paid and upgraded as a result).
And if new cost is too high then used is a bit better and if you don't mind poor cosmetics then there are good bargains to be had. I bought a battered but warranted M9 for a huge discount because of the high price of a replacement top plate - its badly dented and presumably wasn't considered cost-effective to replace - the camera had though, been serviced by Leica and carried a full year's warranty from them. An advantage of high part costs perhaps?
So do I feel alienated by their high prices? Of course not. In terms of cost viability they beat many other cameras. Outlay can be initially high but life is about trade-offs isn't it?
And if new cost is too high then used is a bit better and if you don't mind poor cosmetics then there are good bargains to be had. I bought a battered but warranted M9 for a huge discount because of the high price of a replacement top plate - its badly dented and presumably wasn't considered cost-effective to replace - the camera had though, been serviced by Leica and carried a full year's warranty from them. An advantage of high part costs perhaps?
So do I feel alienated by their high prices? Of course not. In terms of cost viability they beat many other cameras. Outlay can be initially high but life is about trade-offs isn't it?