I came across a 1980 mail order catalog from German dealer Oehling. Here is a quick comparison of Nikon, Canon and Leica prices back then and now for selected lenses.
The standard wide (35/2.0)
In 1980 Nikons 35/2.0 and Canons FD 35/2.0 cost almost the same at close to 400 DM. The Summicron is the most expensive at around 600 DM.
In 2011 one Summicron M Asph equals about 9 EF 35/2.0 lenses. Even the "budget" Summarit buys you 5 Canon lenses of similar focal length.
The fast wide (35/1.4)
In 1980 Nikons 35/1.4 and the Summilux (pre asph) are priced around 700 DM. The Nikkor is even a bit more expensive than the Summilux.
In 2011 the new Summilux ASPH is twice as expensive as the new Nikkor 35/1.4 AF-S G. You could also buy three Canon EF 35/1.4 L lenses - brand new.
The standard (50/1.4)
Let´s see... In 1980 the Summilux is already in another league. Even the 50 Summicron is twice as expensive as the FD 50/1.4. The Nikkor comes in between.
In 2011 a new Summicron 50/2 equals four new Nikkors. The Summilux equals seven.
The fast standard (~50/1.2)
A lot of options in 1980. Nikons Noct-Nikkor and Leicas Noctilux cost around 1600 DM (the Noctilux being a bit more expensive). You can buy two Canon FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICALs for one Noctilux.
In 2011 a new Noctilux equals about six Canon EF 50/1.2 L lenses.
Looks like Leica pricing has totally gone trough the roof. Or not?
The standard wide (35/2.0)
In 1980 Nikons 35/2.0 and Canons FD 35/2.0 cost almost the same at close to 400 DM. The Summicron is the most expensive at around 600 DM.
In 2011 one Summicron M Asph equals about 9 EF 35/2.0 lenses. Even the "budget" Summarit buys you 5 Canon lenses of similar focal length.
The fast wide (35/1.4)
In 1980 Nikons 35/1.4 and the Summilux (pre asph) are priced around 700 DM. The Nikkor is even a bit more expensive than the Summilux.
In 2011 the new Summilux ASPH is twice as expensive as the new Nikkor 35/1.4 AF-S G. You could also buy three Canon EF 35/1.4 L lenses - brand new.
The standard (50/1.4)
Let´s see... In 1980 the Summilux is already in another league. Even the 50 Summicron is twice as expensive as the FD 50/1.4. The Nikkor comes in between.
In 2011 a new Summicron 50/2 equals four new Nikkors. The Summilux equals seven.
The fast standard (~50/1.2)
A lot of options in 1980. Nikons Noct-Nikkor and Leicas Noctilux cost around 1600 DM (the Noctilux being a bit more expensive). You can buy two Canon FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICALs for one Noctilux.
In 2011 a new Noctilux equals about six Canon EF 50/1.2 L lenses.
Looks like Leica pricing has totally gone trough the roof. Or not?
Jaime M
Established
I wish I had a travel machine.
kevin m
Veteran
Nicely done.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I know nothing of Canon but the 1980 Nikkors were constructed far more expensively and well than are 2011 versions; indeed no comparison. Manufacturing processes for Nikon have gotten cheaper as well. Neither is true for Leica.
That said, there is also now a glamor VAT on Leica products that in 1980, when the company was almost bankrupt and seemed only quaint and irrelevant, their products did not have.
That said, there is also now a glamor VAT on Leica products that in 1980, when the company was almost bankrupt and seemed only quaint and irrelevant, their products did not have.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Wow, that is striking.
sper
Well-known
You have just justified all of my Leica rants. This kind of price rise is criminal.
Like I always say, imagine all the great rangefinder styled pictures not being made by great artists because they can't afford these wonderful tools.
Like I always say, imagine all the great rangefinder styled pictures not being made by great artists because they can't afford these wonderful tools.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Agreed that there is a pretty huge leap in build quality between an AiS Nikkor and the current version.
Leica lenses are hand-built in Germany, then and now.
Regular Nikon lenses are made much more cheaply today of molded plastic in locations with low labor costs; higher end lenses are not, of course, and they are priced accordingly.
What was a dollar worth vs. a German mark in 1980?
Regular Nikon lenses are made much more cheaply today of molded plastic in locations with low labor costs; higher end lenses are not, of course, and they are priced accordingly.
What was a dollar worth vs. a German mark in 1980?
Livesteamer
Well-known
Production volume is important to consider. The number of Leica lenses sold is probably tiny compared to Nikon and Canon. Very hard to have a low price when you only make a few and they are the best. Joe
W
wlewisiii
Guest
A few thoughts:
Both Canon & Nikon made lenses with much better materials & standards then. Modern lenses are much more cheaply made. Leica still maintains a certain level of quality that is rarely seen outside of Germany.
Labor costs in Japan are not cheap, but much (most?) production has been moved offshore. German labor is very expensive.
Both Canon & Nikon have much bigger sales figures now. Leica sales are minuscule by comparison.
Canon photographic has a huge highly successful & diversified company behind it. Push comes to shove, the rest of the company could subsidize the camera division until every other player (except, maybe, Sony) fell out.
Currency - 1980 1 dollar = 4DM = 200Yen while 1/11/2011 1 Dollar = .77 Euro = 83 Yen
That last point is the biggest killer.
Both Canon & Nikon made lenses with much better materials & standards then. Modern lenses are much more cheaply made. Leica still maintains a certain level of quality that is rarely seen outside of Germany.
Labor costs in Japan are not cheap, but much (most?) production has been moved offshore. German labor is very expensive.
Both Canon & Nikon have much bigger sales figures now. Leica sales are minuscule by comparison.
Canon photographic has a huge highly successful & diversified company behind it. Push comes to shove, the rest of the company could subsidize the camera division until every other player (except, maybe, Sony) fell out.
Currency - 1980 1 dollar = 4DM = 200Yen while 1/11/2011 1 Dollar = .77 Euro = 83 Yen
That last point is the biggest killer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric L
Established
It's interesting also looking at Leica M body prices (accounting for inflation) through the years. The flagship model M3 in 1960 cost $288 USD (factoid from another post I saw on the Leica User Forum) and that would just be over $2000 in today's dollar. Whereas the M9 we know is $6995 MSRP. Quite a leap.
But then it's hard to say what the real "cost' was when compared to an average person's disposable income back then versus now. My grandfather could have afforded that one camera and probably nothing else for many years to come and not go into debt. Whereas now you could easily get a low-interest line of credit to fund your habits. =P
But then it's hard to say what the real "cost' was when compared to an average person's disposable income back then versus now. My grandfather could have afforded that one camera and probably nothing else for many years to come and not go into debt. Whereas now you could easily get a low-interest line of credit to fund your habits. =P
Mister E
Well-known
How is hand built a feature? Machines are much more precise than men. Hand building is why you hear of people buying the new 35/1.4 ASPH II and it being not even screwed in all the way, but Nikon/Canon surely exceed the 6 Sigma guidelines.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
All good info so fare but some things to consider...
Leica's are more attractive to certain consumers because they are so expensive when compared to either Nikon or Canon.
Often luxury products are priced based on what they can get for the product rather than what it cost to manufacture plus and appropriate profit margin.
In other words it's good old fashioned marketing, supply and demand.
And the price is a big part of the marketing...
I know being made in Germany automatically makes them more expensive (the lenses) but in the case of the new M bodies both digital and analogue...
Those bodies come in kit form from Portugal and the final assembly and testing of those kits is done in Germany.
So you can't tell me Leica's are automatically more expensive because of country of origin.
BTW: Japan has some of the highest wages in the world.
A BMW marketing person I know through work told be BMW's are priced accordingly because if they were any cheaper their customers wouldn't want them.
It's Like... "I drive a BMW and to join my club you must have the cash to buy your own"... Elitist BS and the most of the Western World has bought into it.
---------------------------------
Having said all that I love Leica gear. It's quality stuff and I'm prepared to pay the price to indulge my "hobby"
I'm very careful about what I buy and take my time making decisions. All second hand...
Also... I'm not married and have a good job.
Leica's are more attractive to certain consumers because they are so expensive when compared to either Nikon or Canon.
Often luxury products are priced based on what they can get for the product rather than what it cost to manufacture plus and appropriate profit margin.
In other words it's good old fashioned marketing, supply and demand.
And the price is a big part of the marketing...
I know being made in Germany automatically makes them more expensive (the lenses) but in the case of the new M bodies both digital and analogue...
Those bodies come in kit form from Portugal and the final assembly and testing of those kits is done in Germany.
So you can't tell me Leica's are automatically more expensive because of country of origin.
BTW: Japan has some of the highest wages in the world.
A BMW marketing person I know through work told be BMW's are priced accordingly because if they were any cheaper their customers wouldn't want them.
It's Like... "I drive a BMW and to join my club you must have the cash to buy your own"... Elitist BS and the most of the Western World has bought into it.
---------------------------------
Having said all that I love Leica gear. It's quality stuff and I'm prepared to pay the price to indulge my "hobby"
I'm very careful about what I buy and take my time making decisions. All second hand...
Also... I'm not married and have a good job.
Mister E
Well-known
The number of Cosina lenses sold is probably tiny compared to Leica. Very hard to have a low price when you only make a few and they are the best.
Wait, what? Small batches have little to do with Leica's high prices.
I'm not claiming it to be a 'feature' it's just that while Leica has stayed with the same type of manufacturing over that period, Nikon/Canon have gone to much more modern automated manufacturing and cost-lowering. The price gap has therefore been widened mostly by Nikon/Canon lowering costs rather than Leica raising them.
Pablito
coco frío
I'd have to strongly disagree with this. Leica QC has gone way down.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Nikon and Canon "mold" the glass for the lenses and then polish them to the final shape. Leica lenses are shaped and then polished from glass blanks.
Huge manufacturing cost difference right there.
Does it make a real difference to image quality? Who knows???
Huge manufacturing cost difference right there.
Does it make a real difference to image quality? Who knows???
Dralowid
Michael
The only exercise like this I have seen that has made sense to me compared the Leica III to the M9.
The III cost around £35 in 1935. The M9 costs something like £4000. Both equate roughly to the monthly take home (after tax) pay of a senior manager or similar. For example a current salary of around £100,000 would buy you an M9 a month and little else...
Can't find where I got this from or the salary figures for 1935!
Michael
The III cost around £35 in 1935. The M9 costs something like £4000. Both equate roughly to the monthly take home (after tax) pay of a senior manager or similar. For example a current salary of around £100,000 would buy you an M9 a month and little else...
Can't find where I got this from or the salary figures for 1935!
Michael
dave lackey
Veteran
And yet, Leica has the M9 assembled and completed by hand with well-trained technicians. My Camry was robot/machine built and machine crushed when disposed of... My MGTD was built by hand. Guess which one has stood the test of time?
Yes, machines are more precise, but it seems that "quality" is an elusive term and changes over time.
My wife's 1995 E420 is much better built than today's MB vehicles. The dealer technicians have all told her to keep it in lieu of buying a new one....as if we could afford to buy anything.
Maybe the term "soul" should not be excluded when talking about inanimate objects....
My BMW motorcycle had it. The Gold Wing did not. The MG's had it, but the Toyotas did not. The M3 does but none of the plastic cameras since do....
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I'm going to hand build a Gakken Flex. Perhaps I should resell it for 10X what I paid...
I know not a fair comparision, just trying to a little cheeky.
I know not a fair comparision, just trying to a little cheeky.