How do you justify the Leica prices (for yourself) ?

[Eric T]

The only Leica item I have purchase new was an M8 in 2007. I have purchased six Leica lenses used. Lenses from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s are reasonable and are good enough quality for me. I agree with Tom that the CV lenses are terrific. I buy those new, mostly the wide focal lengths - 15, 25, and 28mm.
And don't forget to look at the Leica R series. I just bought a near mint Leica R8 for under $600. I just couldn't pass that up. I found two reasonable used R lenses, develop my own C-41, and expanding my horizons a bit.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not just the well heeled or status seeking elitists who own and Leicas. Some save and scrape for years to acquire them. It's a matter of priorities for some. For some, it's a photographic quality of life thing.

Some people have boats. Some have motorcycles. Some have fly rods. Some have woodworking shops. Then there are those who have Leicas - with no thought of status.

As for those who have gold plated cameras - some people have a need to flaunt their affluence as well as their affinity for tackiness and poor taste. 🙄

Nicely phrased!

Cheers,

R.

 

[redisburning]

this is a fascinating topic to me. my parents must have done a poor job of installing me with traditional socio-economic values because I buy what I perceive to be the best almost exclusively.

I remember as a younger child when my parents had just gotten out of grad school and we didnt have much money that I was the kid who got two gifts a year. One on my birthday in June, and one on Christmas. And I mostly got exactly the two things I wanted, which I perceived to be the best. I rarely asked for stuff other than those two things, and I brow-beat it into my parents.

Here I am some 2 decades later and Im the same way. My Dad continues to try and teach me the value of settling but I dont think it will ever stick.

After I finished a degree last year I got a little job and wanted to buy my own camera. I was disappointed with my first foray into medium format (6x6 no less). I had convinced myself with the whole "any MF camera trounces any 35mm camera" line of thinking and was heavily disillusioned to say the lest. So, I decided that for this, my camera that I would buy with a serious commitment towards it being "my camera" I would buy the camera I thought was the best, since it was, as is rare for me, truly my money to spend.

It costs what it costs. There is little use worrying about it beyond whether or not you can afford it or not and if you are paying around or below market value.

 

[awslee]

At least for now, for the older Leica fast lens, it is better than putting money in the bank since the bank's return is so bad. At least I can touch the lens, take it out for some shooting and enjoy it.

 

[jsrockit]

As for those who have gold plated cameras - some people have a need to flaunt their affluence as well as their affinity for tackiness and poor taste. 🙄

Haha, funny.

 

[goamules]

I think a lot of people concentrate on the higher cost of Leicas, and spend a lot of brain bits justifying their much higher price. I've have 5 Canon rangefinders that worked fine, never had to CLA a one. I shot a lot of pictures. I bought a reasonably priced IIIc and after a CLA, shutter replacement, and now light leak repair I need to justify the sanity of trying to get this one working. I knew before, and confirmed now, Leicas are not some magic super-camera that are many times better than other cameras. It's just a nice camera that for whatever reasons costs a lot more than competing cameras that do just as well. So justification discussions arise.

 

[noimmunity]

I've never been sure exactly whom they thought they were going to impress, though....But unless you're carrying a gold-plated camera, who is going to notice you're carrying a Leica?

In certain situations, I've noticed that people prefer to let themselves be "exposed" (i.e., photographed) by someone who exudes the respectful aura of knowing what they're doing. The name "Leica" provides a putative indicator of this respectful aura that is easily accessible for the uninitiated.

As I started getting into rangefinders, I noticed, in east Asian cities, that the name "Leica" makes a general impression. In quite a few instances, people would be much more willing to let themselves be photographed in candid situations when they were aware that the lens or the body was a "Leica". People with public images, such as performers and politicians, could be especially sensitive to brand-name recognition.

However, it would be puerile to imagine that esoteric brand recognition is the only way to achieve this effect. As I made slight progress in my photographic skills (which remain rewardingly amateurish), I discovered that there are other ways to achieve a similar end result. People will notice right away what kind of rapport the photographer has with her equipment (not to mention the subject), and this can be as equally or more convincing than brand.

The only two Leica lenses I now own (24/3.8 and 135/4) are used almost exclusively for landscape applications. Do they make the sun shine brighter and the birds chirp louder? Yeah, right!

 

[Roger Hicks]

In certain situations, I've noticed that people prefer to let themselves be "exposed" (i.e., photographed) by someone who exudes the respectful aura of knowing what they're doing. The name "Leica" provides a putative indicator of this respectful aura that is easily accessible for the uninitiated.

As I started getting into rangefinders, I noticed, in east Asian cities, that the name "Leica" makes a general impression. In quite a few instances, people would be much more willing to let themselves be photographed in candid situations when they were aware that the lens or the body was a "Leica". People with public images, such as performers and politicians, could be especially sensitive to brand-name recognition.

However, it would be puerile to imagine that esoteric brand recognition is the only way to achieve this effect. As I made slight progress in my photographic skills (which remain rewardingly amateurish), I discovered that there are other ways to achieve a similar end result. People will notice right away what kind of rapport the photographer has with her equipment (not to mention the subject), and this can be as equally or more convincing than brand.

Intriguing: thanks. But here are two thoughts prompted by your observations:

To those NOT familiar with Leicas, maybe they look more like point-and-shoots. i.e. less threatening than massive DSLRs

Those who shoot with Leicas may be more familiar with their cameras, because they have chosen an out-of-the-ordinary camera, i.e., they have already thought quite hard about which camera to use, and how.

This is not to disagree with your points for a moment, but rather (I hope), to add a little to them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mynikonf2]

I can not justify the over inflated prices of Leica glass. This is the main reason I no longer own Leica equipment. The cameras are not as much an issue in the cost of owning Leica gear, they average about the same cost as the Nikon SP (original in excellent condition or the the modern reissue). I respectfully have to state, that there is no reasonable explanation for the inflated cost of Leica glass, that can satisfy this photographers wallet. I have used many different manufactures' glass, over the years and find that I do not lack nor want for any quality by my use of Nikon glass, including cost of ownership.

p.s. in all fairness, there is some Nikon glass that fall well within that "inflated cost" category too, mostly driven by collector demand. :bang: 😀

 

[kossi008]

I don't. No Leica glass in my collection. And the only one I ever owned was a 1939 Summitar for 200 €, which was quite worth the money.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Let's see... 35 Summilux, 50 Summarit (strictly my wife's), 65 Elmar, 75 Summicron, 90 Summicron, 90 Thambar, 135 Elmarit-M. The Summilux, Summarit and Summicrons were all bought new. Then there was my 21/2.8, stolen in Russia, again bought new. Yes, I'd say they were worth the money, and that in most cases, there are no alternatives that deliver quite the same advantages (tiny 35mm, sharp, fast 75 and 90, soft focus 90). But then, some of my non-Leica lenses from Zeiss, Voigtländer and Kobalux also have unique advantages, such as the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[--s]

"Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice."

absolutely right, roger. no justification necessary. just buy it or leave it.

 

[noimmunity]

Intriguing: thanks. But here are two thoughts prompted by your observations:

To those NOT familiar with Leicas, maybe they look more like point-and-shoots. i.e. less threatening than massive DSLRs

Those who shoot with Leicas may be more familiar with their cameras, because they have chosen an out-of-the-ordinary camera, i.e., they have already thought quite hard about which camera to use, and how.

This is not to disagree with your points for a moment, but rather (I hope), to add a little to them.

Cheers,

R.

I think that is really true: that extra effort required to break away from the pack in the first place usually translates into a more substantial involvement with the whole process. Not to say that people who use DSLRs lack such involvement, but we have all heard time and again how the simplicity of the RF format actually requires greater deliberation and produces, in a lot of instances, much greater user enjoyment.

But of course, today, RF doesn't have to be Leica.

 

[doolittle]

Never considered justifying Leica prices. It's a question of how much the asking price is, how much I'm willing to pay and how much I have to spend. I have only bought Leica equipment second hand, but I think it applies equally to new equipment.

Now justifying to myself why I need the particular item is another matter!

 

[klaz]

once I heard a photographer pointed out, "if you have $100, you should spend $30 on your gears and $70 for travel, because if you spend $100 on your gears, you'll end up photographing your bathroom everyday"... Use your judgement and base on your budget.

 

[MikeL]

once I heard a photographer pointed out, "if you have $100, you should spend $30 on your gears and $70 for travel, because if you spend $100 on your gears, you'll end up photographing your bathroom everyday"... Use your judgement and base on your budget.

🙂

 

[kemal_mumcu]

Leica prices are way out there now. I now look to Zeiss as the best "bang for buck". Still though, I hate buying twice and I'd just as soon buy the Leica piece if I know in my heart that it's what I'll want to buy in the end.

Some people are happy to buy their $50 fixed lens rangefinders and yet spend thousands on going to restaurants. Me, I prefer to spend my thousands (if I have any) on a nice lens and spend the $50 on paninis. One puts their money where their heart is. My rational is that a Leica lens is something that I'll use one whatever camera body for the next 40 years so why not buy once and be done with it.

I bought one Leica lens brand new only once in my life: a 75 summarit when Leica was discounting the lenses. Since then life has been such that I haven't been able to repeat this. It's OK. I'll get along just fine with my cheapo Zuikos, Zeiss' and CV's. If I ever come into money again I'll buy another Leica (maybe). Till then I'll enjoy my summarit @ f3.4 along with the rest of the other lenses too. I'm content.

Buy the best you can afford.

 

[klaz]

🙂

Looks like you have budget to travel to different bathrooms🙂

 

[jsrockit]

once I heard a photographer pointed out, "if you have $100, you should spend $30 on your gears and $70 for travel, because if you spend $100 on your gears, you'll end up photographing your bathroom everyday"... Use your judgement and base on your budget.

Well, that depends on where you live... and also, as other have pointed out, bathrooms have been photographed by well known photographers forever. Living in NYC, I don't feel like I need to travel to make photos.

 

[stormbytes]

I think others have summed it up well, but my experience is that after owning a Leica, I sold it, the extra cash wasn't worth it to me, the money can be put to better use.
If the owning of a Summilux (or whatever), makes you happy, then keep it, if it makes you feel uneasy, like it did for me, then get rid of it.

I get slightly uneasy feelings when eating at expensive restaurants, so I choose not to now.

Very well put. I feel the same way.
I purchased an M6 and it had some issues, so I decided to return it. Sadly, I missed the boat for buyer's remorse on the Summicron 50mm/2, but I got it for a fairly good price and there are practically no version-4's floating around that are both made in Germany and 6-bit coded. I'm not too worried about getting my money out of it.

Cost was a major factor and that 'uneasy' feeling really gnawed at me. I own an FM3a with ai/ai-s 28/35/50/85 lenses. Its as complete a kit as I'll ever need for 35 and if I want to break the quality barriers, I've got my 501cm with Zeiss Planar 120mm/4.

Relief at cashing out is what I'm looking forward to. Nice to see I'm not alone!