taskoni
Well-known
You get what you pay for 😀
How do you justify the Leica prices (for yourself) ?
- Thread starter Niko
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 184
- Views 20K
Richard G
Veteran
1. All my Leica stuff is second hand and the first Leica was given to me.
2. No need to justify it.
3. With my Zeiss C Sonnar I am not hankering for a 50 Lux ASPH, but if I was I'd buy it.
4. I don't play golf and don't pay annual fees for the golf club membership.
5. I don't have orthopedic problems and spend almost nothing seeing doctors or any other professional - compare with a D3 toting man of same age.
4. Look up letter to George on The Online Photographer. $1000s of dollars of second rate purchases get shelved or trashed before eventually getting what was always the best thing in the first place.
2. No need to justify it.
3. With my Zeiss C Sonnar I am not hankering for a 50 Lux ASPH, but if I was I'd buy it.
4. I don't play golf and don't pay annual fees for the golf club membership.
5. I don't have orthopedic problems and spend almost nothing seeing doctors or any other professional - compare with a D3 toting man of same age.
4. Look up letter to George on The Online Photographer. $1000s of dollars of second rate purchases get shelved or trashed before eventually getting what was always the best thing in the first place.
Actually, one of the very reasons to justify a Leica, or especially a Porsche (specifically a 911) is because the depreciation is minimal.
You're just parking money in the gear for a time, and if you need to get it back out, it's easy. If you buy right, you'll get most, or all, or even more back.
This is one of the major reasons I drive a Porsche. I could drive something generic but the depreciation would be brutal. This means I can enjoy a fun car and actually spend less over time. People in their $50k+ Escalades will have a $25k Escalade next year, yet I'd have to put another 150k miles on my '98 before it'll lose half its value.
Take care of your gear and it won't depreciate at all...
You're just parking money in the gear for a time, and if you need to get it back out, it's easy. If you buy right, you'll get most, or all, or even more back.
This is one of the major reasons I drive a Porsche. I could drive something generic but the depreciation would be brutal. This means I can enjoy a fun car and actually spend less over time. People in their $50k+ Escalades will have a $25k Escalade next year, yet I'd have to put another 150k miles on my '98 before it'll lose half its value.
Take care of your gear and it won't depreciate at all...
NickTrop
Veteran
I guess I view it too much like an academic. Thinking of Leica in the luxury class of items, trying to differentiate itself to be a "price maker" as a small boutique product competing in an oligopoly. How much of the Leica price differential over Nikon and Canon has to due with the superiority of their market offering? How much is their ability to be a "price maker" as a luxury item, in an economic sense charging "economic rent" for that red dot. I think a good valuation of this is the difference in price between the Leica-branded Panasonic cameras and those sold as Panasonics. So transparent as to be almost brazen, the Leica charges substantially more the the identical product.
So, my answer is most of the price differential has to due with economic rent and marketing than product value.
So, my answer is most of the price differential has to due with economic rent and marketing than product value.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
If at all. Nearly everything Leica I've sold I've come out ahead on even after shooting it for a while. Thanks for reminding me!
thegman
Veteran
I like and buy Leica gear, but I don't attempt to justify other than that I like it, and to me it is worth the money. I know very well that I could buy a cheaper camera, get the same results, and donate the change to a worthy charity. But like most people, I'd rather have the pretty possessions.
DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
DSLRs that are worth as much now as they were when you bought them? I'd like to know what those are!
JMQ
Well-known
LOL ; Dear Robert, you are give me GAS for a Porsche 911 or an S4 !!!
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
It's not me who needs the justifying; I just hope and pray the Missus never gets too curious.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
justify
justify
With a lot of booze
Phil Forrest
justify
With a lot of booze
Phil Forrest
braver
Well-known
When I've paid the house, the insurances, the groceries, a vacation here and there, put some savings away and when I've made my contributions to the community, there's usually still some money left. I've worked my ass off for it so I'll spend it on something I take most seriously, photography. I choose a Leica besause it is the zero compromise option for me. I don't want to fool around here, I want to get it right the first time (you only live once anyway). I don't need a lot, I just need a body and 2 or 3 really good lenses and I don't want the fancy versions.
So, no need to justify unless you're making a mess of your finances and priorites. I can't afford the 50 Lux Asph, but congrats if you can and I hope you make nice pictures with it 🙂
It makes economic sense too. All the Leica gear I've owned has become more valuable while in my possession. In fact I've made hundeds with the stuff I've bought, played with for a while and sold on. The short time I owned digital cameras I always sold at a loss... if I'd stuck to the Leica stuff perhaps I could have been able to get the asph 😉
So, no need to justify unless you're making a mess of your finances and priorites. I can't afford the 50 Lux Asph, but congrats if you can and I hope you make nice pictures with it 🙂
It makes economic sense too. All the Leica gear I've owned has become more valuable while in my possession. In fact I've made hundeds with the stuff I've bought, played with for a while and sold on. The short time I owned digital cameras I always sold at a loss... if I'd stuck to the Leica stuff perhaps I could have been able to get the asph 😉
kxl
Social Documentary
I'm an amateur, so any camera that I buy is basically a toy. I buy one because I want one. If I have to justify it, I don't buy it.
randolph45
Well-known
My first Leica
My first Leica
Hmm.I will have my first Leica at the end of this month.A used 1985 M6 using LTM Canon glass I already own.I'm sure Leica glass is great stuff. With my skill set it probably would be wasted on me 🙂
Your social security is paying for this by the way😀
My first Leica
Hmm.I will have my first Leica at the end of this month.A used 1985 M6 using LTM Canon glass I already own.I'm sure Leica glass is great stuff. With my skill set it probably would be wasted on me 🙂
Your social security is paying for this by the way😀
Last edited:
Peter^
Well-known
I don't buy Leica, and can't imagine I ever would.
Richard G
Veteran
How many new cameras have come and gone in the 36 years I have been using the M2 and tabbed Summicron? How much more then $350 for the 2006 CLA would I have spent on recurrent new systems........? An M Leica might be the cheapest camera there is from an amortization point of view.
emayoh
Established
Interesting question. How do we justify anything? Why get out of bed in the morning? Can you justify a Leica over a Canon? A Porsche over a Honda? Why not a bicycle? Why not walk? Why not a pencil and paper? There is no choice that can't be second guessed. Emerson noted that our eye was placed here and now to testify of the particular ray of light that fell upon it. So, know that the photo you take could be taken by no other being but you, because nobody is where you are when you click the shutter. If you're a Leica user, be that. Be a photographer. Just be yourself.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
We should not forget that 12-15 years ago, there was no alternatives to Leica M-mount lenses. You bought what you needed (or wanted) and used it. Sometimes used and sometimes new.
With the arrival of the Konica M lenses, the Voigtlander Cosina lenses and later the Zeiss M-mounts, we suddenly had alternatives, and often at more palatable prices.
I have bought a fair bit of M-lenses new, just because I needed them - but I have also gotten rid of a lot of lenses by Leica when I found alternatives by other makers that did what I wanted them to do at much less cost - and in some cases better performance too.
At the moment I have 35f2 Asph, 50 Lux Asph and 75f2 Apo Asph and the new Elmar 21f3.4 - all bought new - but at prices that in most cases are 1/3 to 1/4 of what they are today. I would not have paid $4000+ for a Summilux 50f1.4 or the 75f2. However good they are, they are not THAT good. The Summicron 35f2 Asph was bought new when it came out and I have kept it because it is my "reference" lens for f2 35's in terms of sharpness etc - but I cant say that I am enamored with it. Fairly unpleasant "jagged" look to it in bl/w and vastly overly contrasty with color.
The Elmar 21f3.4 was one of those items that I had to have. Having been "attached" to the Super Angulon 21f3.4 for more than 40 years. this was more of a sentimental purchase. Is it as good as a SA 21/3.4 - yes, in many ways it is and in terms of performance at f3.4 better - BUT, I could happily have survived without it.
The 50f1.4 Asph is now "silly" priced. Yes, it is probably the best 50 mm lens ever made - but what would you be shooting that made you need that! Portraits - no way, nobody looks that good. With film you have to use 25/50 and maybe 100 iso to see it, and I find that I grab my C Sonnar 50f1.5 more often than the Asph 50f1.4.
As to justification, it is personnal. If I have the money floating around, yes - it is nice to get those silverboxes with neat padding etc - and those leather cases smell nice.
It is also nice to know that the equipment one uses is better than the skills one has. Cant ever blame the glass - as if a client would care!
I shoot black/white, normally a 320/400 iso film and there are few shots I have taken where the lens was the deciding factor in quality!!!
The optics we have available now are in most cases so good that the quality of the image is more depending on the users skill than the camera and/or glass.
Today I wanted to finish of a roll of the ORWO 74 (400 iso film stock) and I took a LHSA M6 TTL and the Summicron 75f2 and an hour walk. I thought about this as I was walking around snapping - it is a package that would cost me $6-7000 to replace if it got lost! About 4 times what my car is worth! I could have taken a Bessa R3M and my Heliar 75f1.8 or even the 75f2.5 and most likely could not have found a major difference between the images.
Ok, once you have the 50f1.4 Asph and the pain of paying for it have subsided, just use it. That what it is for.
With the arrival of the Konica M lenses, the Voigtlander Cosina lenses and later the Zeiss M-mounts, we suddenly had alternatives, and often at more palatable prices.
I have bought a fair bit of M-lenses new, just because I needed them - but I have also gotten rid of a lot of lenses by Leica when I found alternatives by other makers that did what I wanted them to do at much less cost - and in some cases better performance too.
At the moment I have 35f2 Asph, 50 Lux Asph and 75f2 Apo Asph and the new Elmar 21f3.4 - all bought new - but at prices that in most cases are 1/3 to 1/4 of what they are today. I would not have paid $4000+ for a Summilux 50f1.4 or the 75f2. However good they are, they are not THAT good. The Summicron 35f2 Asph was bought new when it came out and I have kept it because it is my "reference" lens for f2 35's in terms of sharpness etc - but I cant say that I am enamored with it. Fairly unpleasant "jagged" look to it in bl/w and vastly overly contrasty with color.
The Elmar 21f3.4 was one of those items that I had to have. Having been "attached" to the Super Angulon 21f3.4 for more than 40 years. this was more of a sentimental purchase. Is it as good as a SA 21/3.4 - yes, in many ways it is and in terms of performance at f3.4 better - BUT, I could happily have survived without it.
The 50f1.4 Asph is now "silly" priced. Yes, it is probably the best 50 mm lens ever made - but what would you be shooting that made you need that! Portraits - no way, nobody looks that good. With film you have to use 25/50 and maybe 100 iso to see it, and I find that I grab my C Sonnar 50f1.5 more often than the Asph 50f1.4.
As to justification, it is personnal. If I have the money floating around, yes - it is nice to get those silverboxes with neat padding etc - and those leather cases smell nice.
It is also nice to know that the equipment one uses is better than the skills one has. Cant ever blame the glass - as if a client would care!
I shoot black/white, normally a 320/400 iso film and there are few shots I have taken where the lens was the deciding factor in quality!!!
The optics we have available now are in most cases so good that the quality of the image is more depending on the users skill than the camera and/or glass.
Today I wanted to finish of a roll of the ORWO 74 (400 iso film stock) and I took a LHSA M6 TTL and the Summicron 75f2 and an hour walk. I thought about this as I was walking around snapping - it is a package that would cost me $6-7000 to replace if it got lost! About 4 times what my car is worth! I could have taken a Bessa R3M and my Heliar 75f1.8 or even the 75f2.5 and most likely could not have found a major difference between the images.
Ok, once you have the 50f1.4 Asph and the pain of paying for it have subsided, just use it. That what it is for.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I have had perhaps 7-8 new Leica lenses over the years. I would never buy one at today's prices. I thought I was really going overboard when I paid $1895.00 for the 75mm Summilux years ago, or over $2,000.00 for the Noctilux. Look at the pricing now. I at the time felt that the prices were justified for an advanced amateur with a dedication to great optics and workmanship. Today the price of an M body with a computer chip and sensor inside is just too much. The M7 and MP have gone over the edge also. I will mention that the workmanship in a Leica body is the best I have ever experienced. It's a pleasure just to hold one. In my opinion the best combination lens/body options lie with the Zeiss 35 system. The optics are fabulous and the body is still within reach of the average person, although the body has gone up $600.00 since it came out.
Although I want the 50 f1.4 Asph!
Although I want the 50 f1.4 Asph!
wakarimasen
Well-known
Here's another way of thinking about it: you could buy cheaper cameras and lenses - there are many PAS's, SLRs and fixed lens RF's that all have some feature to commend them, and equally passionate advocates.
In doing so, you might end up with many cameras (there's always another interesting body or make...) plus the associated lenses (there's always a 50/1.4 which is 'better' than the 50/1.8 etc)
Yet from the resultant haul, you could only ever point, focus and shoot one at any particular time.
Perhaps the Leica route forces some discipline into the user?
In the end, try what you like and keep what you want.
Best regards,
RoyM
In doing so, you might end up with many cameras (there's always another interesting body or make...) plus the associated lenses (there's always a 50/1.4 which is 'better' than the 50/1.8 etc)
Yet from the resultant haul, you could only ever point, focus and shoot one at any particular time.
Perhaps the Leica route forces some discipline into the user?
In the end, try what you like and keep what you want.
Best regards,
RoyM
JMQ
Well-known
For me, Leica gear have tangible and intangible qualities. Leica glass is very very good, and the built is also upthere. The mechanical cameras have that smooth hot knife going through butter feel. However, these beauties also require constant care and adjustment -- I suppose you can call them labor of love. I enjoy using them, and do not even try to justify my purchases.
Similar threads
- Article
