Leica 2012 lens Prices Increases

[back alley]

as an amateur...i own and use 2 rd1 bodies and 4 cv lenses...complete kit costing less than an m9 body or most of the newer fast lenses from leica.

i 'survive' quite nicely without leica...i wish them no harm, mind you...but i can easily live without them.

 

[tjh]

Another vote for this point of view.

I don't know what cigarettes cost in the UK, but I believe it's around GBP 4 a packet. At GBP 5000 for an M9 that's 1250 days at only 20 a day. About three and a half years. It's quite easy to spend the price of an M9 on a fitted kitchen. And so forth.

Cheers,

R.

It is easy to spend the price of an S2 and a lens for it on a full kitchen renovation - electricians, plumbers, cabinets, floor, stove, refrigerator, etc. I know - I have the kitchen but not the S2.

Tom

 

[Calzone]

If this is true, I say go for it. The problem is that once you go Leica and enjoy it, it is hard to find complete satisfaction anywhere else.

John for me I get a lot of satisfaction from shooting even my old Nikon F3's even though its not the same as shooting Leica. Also there's medium format.

Leica is good stuff, but it only really dominates in the 35mm rangefinder world.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

Leica is good stuff, but it only really dominates in the 35mm rangefinder world.

True Cal, but for those of us who prefer 35mm and do not like SLRs...once you get hooked on Leica, it is hard to get away. That said, out of the 4 cameras that I use...only one is Leica. However, that Leica is my main camera and I'd be sad without it. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I will never understand the equation "stop smoking = saving money" ... People who stop smoking tend to spend more money on subsitutes than before on tobaco, usually gain weight and need a whole new wardrobe.

Yes, but those who've never smoked don't spend the money on cigarettes in the first place. Which leaves us more money to spend on other things.

@Tom: I think I'd rather have the S2. Attached: happy-snaps shot a few moments ago of the interior of our kitchen (M9, 15/4.5 Voigtländer, 1 Mb JPEGs) -- though this evening I'll be cooking trucha a la Navarra, fresh trout lined with a couple of slices of air-dried ham and grilled or (more likely) barbecued.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

True Cal, but for those of us who prefer 35mm and do not like SLRs...once you get hooked on Leica, it is hard to get away. That said, out of the 4 cameras that I use...only one is Leica. However, that Leica is my main camera and I'd be sad without it. 😀

I'd be sad without a Leica too. :bang:

We'll talk more at the meet up. I'm considering downsizing my "camera farm" and possibly culling down my SLR gear and some MF cameras to get a M9 or M10 eventually.

Perhaps 2 Leicas will make me more happy. LOL.

Cal

 

[robert blu]

If there would be a FF DSRL sized as the Nikon M2 or the Olympus OM1, without too many options or capacity to shoot many frames per sec. , just exposure controls, WB, Iso choice auto or manual focus that would be the real competitor for the m9 !
robert
PS: I know, not a rf but better than nothing. Only my 2 cents, maybe wrong...

 

[whitecat]

Roger, do you have room for one more at the table?

 

[redisburning]

I care because Im not going back to SLRs for general shooting. The difference in the amount of shots I can get in good focus is enough for me.

My OMs have sentimental value as they were gifts from my Grandfather but the reality is Ill probably only keep the OM-1 he gave me, the 50mm macro and a few cute accessories and pass the others along to a family member who expresses serious interest.

That being said, I guess Im sticking with Zeiss for sure if I want a lens with a warranty.

 

[noimmunity]

Alas, even the Summarit line is hit

Alas, even the Summarit line is hit

One of the saddest things about the price increase is that even the Summarit line of lenses is included.

The alternatives from Zeiss never looked better.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, do you have room for one more at the table?

We would have had! Normally I cook two small trout each but these were big ones: a little too much. As usual, they looked smaller in the shop...

Cheers,

R.

 

[bigeye]

I dunno.

The right Nikon stuff is pretty stiff, too? I like SLR for tele and I'd like the 400mm...

17-35mm 2.8 - $1770
70-200mm 2.8 - $2400
300mm 2.8 - $5700
or
400mm 2.8 - $9000

D3S body - $5300
D700 - $2700

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Right now My M8 has a Zeiss Sonnar on it and the M9 has a Zeiss Sonnar on it.

Total cost to me for both of these F1.5 lenses, $400.

The thing about Digital Leicas- you have 80 years of lenses to choose from.

As far as prices going up- I'm glad to have way more lenses than I need, collected over the last 35+ years. Paid for the M9 by selling off gear. Small Dent.

 

[steveyork]

An intriguing observation. Please don't take this as an attack, because I'm genuinely curious. If you could get as much enjoyment out of another system, why did you buy the Leica gear in the first place? And what other system had you in mind?

FWIW, I think I'd probably back my old Pentax SV for a really enjoyable (tactile/ergonomic) and absurdly inexpensive system, but lens quality is very variable and ageing shutters run slow.

Cheers,

R.

My grandmother shot an M3, my Dad an M2, my uncles a Leica something on the college newspapers, and an older brother an M6. And when I got into Leica rangefinders 16-17 years ago, the access to information wasn't so good. The internet was just a wee little baby. And back then an M6, a Contax S2, and maybe a Nikon were the only manual cameras being made
, and that's what I wanted, and I wanted new. And a bit of the herd philosophy too. Everybody said Leicas were the best.

Back then people didn't experiment much with different camera systems. They got into one and stayed with it. With the drop in analog prices, there's been a lot more experimentations. In the last 4-5 years, I've experimented lots. Leicas are nice, but hardly essential, and I'm not sure I see a difference that justify all those extra dollars.

My favorite camera this year has been the red headed stepchild of 'Leica World' -- the Leicaflex, both the original and SL. But I get bored easily, so I keep different camera systems.

Given all this, and when I think that I could sell my stuff for closed to 100% profit (my last facelift of my leica M stuff was in the dark days of '05), I wonder whether it's time to pass it all to someone who will appreciate it more.

As I get older, and more automation surrounds me, I find myself looking in the rearview mirror more. Now my MP sounds terribly modern. When you've shot a lot of film, have good pictures isn't the problem; it's having too many. So I'm now getting older cameras. There's a little more game in the hobby.

Maybe I'm just looking for new experiences.

 

[hendriphile]

Why is Leica increasing their prices. Who can even find a Leica lens in stock anywhere.

That's precisely why Leica is raising their prices- - the fact that you can't find one in stock anywhere means that the Market has decided they're underpriced and is willing to spend months on a waiting list. ... which is why they're always "sold out." Leica is *only* listening to the Market.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My grandmother shot an M3, my Dad an M2, my uncles a Leica something on the college newspapers, and an older brother an M6. And when I got into Leica rangefinders 16-17 years ago, the access to information wasn't so good. The internet was just a wee little baby. And back then an M6, a Contax S2, and maybe a Nikon were the only manual cameras being made
, and that's what I wanted, and I wanted new. And a bit of the herd philosophy too. Everybody said Leicas were the best.

Back then people didn't experiment much with different camera systems. They got into one and stayed with it. With the drop in analog prices, there's been a lot more experimentations. In the last 4-5 years, I've experimented lots. Leicas are nice, but hardly essential, and I'm not sure I see a difference that justify all those extra dollars.

My favorite camera this year has been the red headed stepchild of 'Leica World' -- the Leicaflex, both the original and SL. But I get bored easily, so I keep different camera systems.

Given all this, and when I think that I could sell my stuff for closed to 100% profit (my last facelift of my leica M stuff was in the dark days of '05), I wonder whether it's time to pass it all to someone who will appreciate it more.

As I get older, and more automation surrounds me, I find myself looking in the rearview mirror more. Now my MP sounds terribly modern. When you've shot a lot of film, have good pictures isn't the problem; it's having too many. So I'm now getting older cameras. There's a little more game in the hobby.

Maybe I'm just looking for new experiences.

Dear Steve,

Thanks very much indeed for that analysis!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

I am just glad I bought all the M analogue kit I need a good few years back. If a digital alternative to the M9 really does materialise (like a X100 on steroids with interchangeable lenses) I will thin out my analogue M kit a little and buy into this with the proceeds negating the need for any real outlay. So I guess these price rises work in my favour, but I can see why people are annoyed. The endless price rises of new gear (and consequently used kit also) have blunted my enthusiasm for Leica and as soon as an alternative comes my way for light portable digital work, then off I will go. Its a shame, but there it is. I'll just keep a couple of M bodies and a handful of lenses.