Prices of Leicas and motor cars

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
5:26 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Many of the TV ads I've seen in the last 24 hours are for cars costing 20,000€+ ($27,000+, sometimes lots plus). I almost never watch television, so it hadn't occurred to me before, but my wife was in hospital for a caratact operation (done at 10:30 and looking good so far), so I had a lot of waiting time.

Now, a lot of these cars are going to be in the scrapyard in 10 years, especially the 'hybrids', where after a very few years, battery replacement is going to cost more than the cars are worth.

At this point, a $7000 Leica M9 looks like something of a bargain, even if it lasts only a decade (and I'd expect a lot longer). Why is this a comparison so few people draw? Don't tell me a car is something you 'have' to have and a car isn't -- the opposite has often been true for me, and for many photographers I know in cities such as London, Paris or New York.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'll think some on your comparison of cars & m9's, but all the best to your wife. I know when my mother had her cataracts removed the world became a more vivid place.

--michael
 
If you compare an M9 to a new car it doesn't seem that expensive. If you compare it to other cameras it does. Why would I go around comparing cameras to cars?

P.S. Best wishes to your wife for a speedy recovery.
 
Well if someone bought an M3 on issue he would certainly have gotten his money's worth many times over. My SS M3 is circa 1967. Seen any, say, '67 VW's that we loved so much back then, still around?
 
You live on a tax-happy continent, Roger... Cars are much cheaper over here. VW just announced the new, US-only version of the Passat. It's going to start at around $20,000, or less than 15,000 euros (btw I refuse to put a currency unit in the singular, as Brussels would have us do), which is causing a bit of a stir back in Germany.

I haven't run the numbers lately but I remember that the US price of a top-of-the-line Leica plus lens back in the fifties would also buy a modest new car, say a Chevrolet. Things haven't changed at all, from that perspective.
 
Certainly my cameras cost more than my car, but not as much as my wife's car. My saxophones does :D
 
Last edited:
I purchased my 2001 Dodge in 2003 for $5000; it already had 63,000 miles on the odometer. Today the odometer reads 142,000 and so far so good. I just purchased a M9 and hope to get at least as many miles out of it!

Best wishes to Frances for a speedy recovery.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why is this a comparison so few people draw?
Click to expand...

Why, first of all there are a lot of other cameras you can compare the price etc against, and for most people it makes sense to compare cameras to cameras. Second the usage of the 2 items you want to compare is in general quite different (of course you can fondle both if you feel like it)

Why not compare you non-expensive camera to a castle? or a space ship? Of course if you compare it to a disposable camera it is very expensive, and the similarities between a M9 and a disposable camera is bigger than with a car, castle or a space ship.
 
Nothing is expensive in comparison to something else.

Good thread though Roger, it reminds me of a show Tommy Boyd had on Talk Radio UK in the late 90s :)
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Why is this a comparison so few people draw?
Click to expand...

Because cars and cameras, at least in Europe, have developed in a very different direction. Cameras have been electronified and greatly simplified, with software taking the place of the majority of the former components. Cars at the same time have grown quite dramatically bigger, heavier and faster - the original Range Rover, in its time the biggest car on European roads, now looks pretty average when parked among compacts.

You might as well compare cameras and Irish housing standards - that one thing has grown irrationally, disproportionally and sometimes disastrously merely makes it a poor measure for the other.
 
Roger, I'd love to move someplace where a car isn't a necessity. Laziness and inertia have a lot to do with my lack of effort. However, if you eliminate the northern regions due to winter weather, as I do, there are precious few urban areas in the U.S. that provide some sort of public transport and can be called affordable. Urban areas in the south and southwest are prime examples of sprawl. Their answer for transportation is to build more roads. San Francisco, on the other hand, is an obvious example of a place where a car isn't absolutely needed. It is also extremely expensive.
 
Dear Roger,

it's a very normal comparison, in particular if you consider what typical additions (like leather seats, air conditioner, sun-roof, custom metallic paint, etc) cost. BTW, changing the batteries on a Prius, per my car mechanic, costs more than an M9 as well :) And it's due at around 80k miles if I remember well (about 2-3 years of average driving where I live).

It also means, that most people indeed can afford an M9; in other words, if they don't have one, it's probably because they don't want one. ;)

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Here's wishing all the best to your wife, including superb vision. What type of lenses did she select?
 
The only difference is that car prices are bound to go up (with increasing metal, labour, shipping etc. costs), while camera prices are going down; just compare what you can by by now vs for same amount 10 years ago. I think I will wait for the M9, or equivalent, a little longer.
 
Speedy recovery for Frances. A friend of mine just had this procedure done, and his vision is better than it ever was. I've known him to wear glasses all his life, now - gone.

In 3 years, a $20,000 car will depreciate more than a new M9 cost.

I've at least been breaking even on $4,000 of camera gear sold in the last two months. That includes recouping the cost of the CLA that went into them. Lose a little on some, make a little on others.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Many of the TV ads I've seen in the last 24 hours are for cars costing 20,000€+ ($27,000+, sometimes lots plus). I almost never watch television, so it hadn't occurred to me before, but my wife was in hospital for a caratact operation (done at 10:30 and looking good so far), so I had a lot of waiting time.

Now, a lot of these cars are going to be in the scrapyard in 10 years, especially the 'hybrids', where after a very few years, battery replacement is going to cost more than the cars are worth.

At this point, a $7000 Leica M9 looks like something of a bargain, even if it lasts only a decade (and I'd expect a lot longer). Why is this a comparison so few people draw? Don't tell me a car is something you 'have' to have and a car isn't -- the opposite has often been true for me, and for many photographers I know in cities such as London, Paris or New York.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I think that's really optomistic ... keep up the faith! :D
 
The real question is why do people buy $70,000 cars to go to work when an old Toyota will do the job? For the same reasons people spend thousands on new cameras: ego! They want the "best" and they want others to know that they have the means and the inherent good taste to allow them to procure the "best". Simple, really.:D

If you worry of depreciation; well, then, you might as well be part of the Toyota drivin', Pentax snappin' hoi polloi!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom