Leicas Perform Better than Stocks as Investments?

Frank Petronio

Frank Petronio

Well-known
Local time
6:30 AM
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
1,870
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
View My Gallery
I know that everyone has traditionally said no, never invest in cameras for investment purposes, but if you track the prices of used USER Leicas -- not the foo-foo special editions -- couldn't you say that they've out performed the stock market by a mile lately? And they've been a relatively safer investment since they aren't making affordable M-bodies anymore and yet people will still want them, so their prices may go down 10-20% but never too much?

I only wish I could have invested in Noctilux futures and doubled or tripled my money....
 
It's hindsight! My nasty nextdoor neighbor was going to make a killing in the real estate market a couple of years ago. He bought the house near the top of the bubble, put way too much into fixing it up, and the market turned. Now he owes far more than the house is worth and can't sell. You don't "invest" in the middle of a buying frenzy! Perhaps the real estate investors who bailed in time "invested" in Leicas? The time to buy real estate is now. It's probably a great time to be selling Leicas. Remember a few years ago when stocks were falling and people were dumping them? They were the ones who put their money into nice safe real estate...LOL

Let us ALL know where the next investment bubble is going to be. It won't be Leicas.
 
if the market was booming right now, would the return on a camera seem like a good investment? All this stuff is relative. I cant imagine buying this stuff not to use it. Cash in a shoe box under a bed is a lot less hassle and probably washes the same in the end.
 
Some Leica prices are down 10-20% from a year or two ago, so how's this a great investment NOW? Leicas would be a great investment if you bought a gazillion of them 50years ago, but that would be true of a lot of things like cars, houses, other cameras (Robot Royals) etc. But its all relative. If you had the do-re-mi to buy a gazillion of them in the '50s, you would have been rich anyway.
 
Hmm. This reminds me of the Tri-Elmar I saw on eBay a few years ago, maybe 2005? Seller was in Philly, me in DC, and the Buy it Now was $1,400. Seemed like a lot of money at the time for a lens, now you cant touch them for under twice that amount.
 
Tom abrahams mentioned recently how the price of the 21mm SA was effected when cosina built a comparable offering. It went from the only game in town suddenly to a lens that appealed to a certain section of the market that were interested in its "flaws" since there was a "better" and well more affordable 21mm option on the market. Its somewhat logical to deduce that the price of a noct could be effected similarly if there were a new offering from another company that was of reasonably similar quality (saving a debate on whatever that is) for considerably less money. Its reasonable to think that the noct will relatively hold its value were that to happen however I would think the way the price has screamed through the roof would completely stop. If there was a cosina 50mm f1 lens that was decent enough for a handful of people out there, and it was available 18 months ago, we would probably not be seeing $5k noctilux right now.

If you think about it, a parallel comparison between the 21mm SA and a noctilux is pretty level, they are both "flawed" lenses that definitely appeal to people because of their look. The problem with the noct is that in addition to appealing to the people that like its unique look, it also appeals to every single other person that wants a F1 lens. If the market provides a lens that is way better than the canon f1 I think you'll see a lot of potential noctilux people that just want an F1 lens and dont care about the special noctilux look going that route and especially so if the lens is well lower priced, which it would almost certainly be if you consider the price of the average cosina lens. Once this happens, the noct is now reduced to where the current 21mm SA is, its an awesome lens, its still in demand, however the only people using it are people that understand it and WANT to use it, someone that just wants a 21mm can get one for $300 and not pay the premium on the SA. There's less people in the market now and the high price just cant sustain itself. I got my SA for $600, which is a deal, but flatly impossible years ago. The guy that sold it to me "upgraded" to a newer 21mm from cosina.

Paying $5k for a noct now, to not use it, to me is insane as the instant someone makes a new f1, your "investment" is in trouble. Of course this may never happen, but if I owned a lens company and looked at the demand for noct, I'd certainly be spending my r&d budget for the next while on figuring out a f1 lens. Not everyone that bought a noct wanted a noct, they just wanted F1 and they didnt like the canon...

I know the original poster inquired about camera bodies, but I think this could apply to the discussion.
 
While the easy answer is no, especially if you would never sell it, to play the role of the Advocatus Diaboli, it could possibly be an investment.

Investments usually produce a cash flow. I might invest $2000, because it'll pay me $300 for 10 years. If you are a farmer you might buy a field because of the net profit you can make growing corn over then next 50 years. Investments could also possibly be to avoid future costs. I bought a house while renting was cheaper, but there is the expectation that rents will increase over the next 30 years, while my mortgage will remain the same.

So two ways a Leica could be an investment:
1. You can rent it out. Perhaps a local wedding photographer runs into a customer that wants film, and he wants to avoid buying a camera.
2. If your only real alternative is buying a new DSLR every three years. The expected present cost of purchasing those DSLRs is more than the Leica is today.
 
HA! A few years ago I paid $900 for one and then sold it! :bang:

spicoli said:
Hmm. This reminds me of the Tri-Elmar I saw on eBay a few years ago, maybe 2005? Seller was in Philly, me in DC, and the Buy it Now was $1,400. Seemed like a lot of money at the time for a lens, now you cant touch them for under twice that amount.
Click to expand...
 
At least with Leica's or Nikon's - you can take pictures while you wait for your "investment" do appreciate - or depreciate! Try that with a stock certificate!
Cameras and lenses are tools - and the best you can hope for is get some of your money back when you sell it.
In 1965 I bought a couple of new black paint M2's ( i think they were about $275 or so). Today they are probably worth $2500 each as they are somewhat bashed up. If I had bought some stock at that time - say IBM or IKEA (lived in Sweden at the time) it would have been worth more - much more, but I would have missed all those pictures!
 
Now's the time to buy. When people have money for hobby items such as Leicas, a profit van be turned. Just look at the M8. I'm seeing Ex+ used bodies nowfor $2,800.
 
If your grandchildren find stock certificates in your safe deposite box they'll know what they are, can easily find out their value, and turn them into cash. When they find the box with some of Grandpa's "junky old film cameras" will they recognize your 90mm Thambar on your Leica IIIA , the one equipped with the trigger baseplate that predated the Leicavit?. How about your pair of Compur Leica, both the dial set and rim set versions?
 
Problem is, for every IBM there's 1000 CDCs. Hindsight bias at work 🙂
 
I'm new to Leica and built up a used kit only recently, in November last year.

After lurking on this tread, last night I pulled out a calculor and was thinking about the paper gain on a 75/1.4 V.2 (demo like condition, Made In Germany, no case or box, $1849.00 plus 8.375% NYC sales tax) purchased three months ago.

The ebay prices are now very crazy on some lenses, but the M-bodies, even new ones, seem to be falling, but if I could get a crazy $3K ebay price I'd have a 50% profit, but I would be at a loss be cause I love this lense. Seems very evident that on this lense there is a high probability of a speculative bubble.


EDIT___EDIT

I NEED TO CONFESS: FULL DISCLOSURE

All the above is true, but I have to be honest: I bought about $6K of used Leica gear utilizing zero APR credit like in a carry trade in a "Carry Trade." To me used Leica gear was a way of trading a depriciating asset (U.S. dollars) into a hard asset that, although may be ill liquid, has and retains enduring value.

Even three months ago, the prices were cheap and undervalued, so I "hedged" my depreciation by not only buying used but also buying cheap. It seems I took advantage of the "distressed selling" before Christmas. For some people with good credit ratings and who are not over leveraged there is no credit crunch.

EDIT__EDIT

Speculitive flipping of certain Leica lenses to me is too much like the stock market. I bought my Leica gear as an investment in myself, for my happiness, and for the long term. I think buying and owning remains a very safe bet: buy and hold, and in the meantime enjoy.

Cal
 
Last edited:
Calzone,
I think you were lucky in getting credit. I think the credit crunch is reaching everyone. I know of two people with completely paid off mortgages on $600,000 homes and one couldn't get a $20,000 home equity loan, and the other got refused for $10,000. Sounds too crazy to be true, I know. This was about 3 months ago, maybe the gub't bailout money is now working its way to the people...?
 
Last edited:
It's clear from looking at the market that a Leica is only an investment in limited circumstances:
1. the camera is purchased used but in MINT condition. Even the top models now seem to depreciated very quickly. Someone else must take the depreciation hit.
2. the camera MUST be put away and not used. Some buyers are VERY picky about what "mint" means.
3. you have to get very lucky and hope that particular model will be desirable in the future.
 
I think what you're saying about the initial depreciation and buying used makes sense in the 'shorter long term', but there's also the collector who will pay crazy money for things that were never used or never out of the box. It may take a few years longer for that scenario to play out, I admit.

You also have to choose the right item to sock away and hope there'll still be enough interest in that item decades in the future. I still don't think cameras make any sense as an investment, even after what happened with the aforementioned Tri-Elmar prices! Hindsight is always 20-20. With my luck, I could have socked away 10 new Tri-Elmars and later on that lens would have been ridiculed and no one would want to touch one....
 
Last edited:
Investing is a film Leica in the past year your down, not anywhere what you would be down in the stock market if you were long though. If you have a M8 and want to sell now that the M8-2 is out you are going to lose more than the M film camera.

Its a tool as Al always says and a beater in good mechanical shape take just as good a picture as a treasure pristine M.

Want to invest now invest in gold, silver, steel, cement, integrated oil companies while the price of oil is down. Get out of bonds and keep a bigger cash position. Follow this advise and in two years you can afford an M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom