Prices of Leicas and motor cars

[maddoc]

All the best wishes for fast recovery of your wife`s eye-sight !

About cars and cameras, I still can`t understand why somebody would spend a huge amount of money for either buying a - new - (and / or exclusive) car or an expensive hobby gadget (Leica M9) ... (My last camera purchase was $120, works exceptional well and has "Leica" written on its top-plate ...)

If it is for work, I fully support the idea that only the best tools are sufficient enough.

 

[ferider]

Conversely, I have wondered why somebody would be driving an old clunker ("they don't make them as they used to, anymore") but insist that MP and M9 are the best way to go for rangefinders, "if you can afford them".

All the best to Frances, Roger. All in good humour, of course.

PS: my favorite car and camera (see my avatar) are from 1965. So am I 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

First, thanks for all the good wishes to Frances. This is her second cataract operation, and on her (very) dominant eye, so although she was worried about it, she was basically looking forward to it.

To return to the question of cars, well, I live in rural France, so I do need a motor car (one bus a day). But when I lived in London (Chelsea, use the tube) or Bristol (Easton, walk, bicycle or motorcycle), I didn't.

My real question was more along these lines: some people denounce Leica buyers as 'wasting money'; of buying out of sheer ego, etc. But they don't say the same thing about buyers of quite ordinary cars: we're not talking about Ferraris here, or even Porsches.

Of course there are cheaper cars than 20,000€ around -- a Dacia is about half that -- but the fact that 20,000€ cars are widely advertised on television leads me to suspect that many people do, in fact, buy them.

Is it not more irrational to watch 5000€ evaporate as you drive your new 20,000€ car out of the showroom, than to put that towards an M9? In other words, isn't it just that we are conditioned to throw money away on cars, and indeed on consumer electronics, which are often replaced as 'obsolete' long before they break?

As for why I have old cars and Leicas, well, I don't care about cars very much, as long as they work and here we run into more cultural conditioning. Well-maintained 'old clunkers' may well be at least as reliable as a new car, but more importantly (to me) if they do go wrong, I can usually fix them myself without having to wait half a day for a breakdown vehicle to arrive, and then pay a fortune to have a new computer chip installed. Bear in mind how many of today's airliners are 20 and 30 years old. The secret is (a) maintenance of (b) something that is designed to be maintained.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Of course there are cheaper cars than 20,000€ around -- a Dacia is about half that -- but the fact that 20,000€ cars are widely advertised on television leads me to suspect that many people do, in fact, buy them.

They do. Indeed, they do not seem to want really cheap cars. A Dacia is considered the cheapest of the cheap - but by eighties standards it amounts to a large middle class family car with plenty of luxury car gadgets (servo steering and ABS) thrown in, and its price reflects that.

What was a middle class family car in the seventies now is a micro compact (the original VW Golf was about the size of the "new Panda"), and the current middle class family car is the size of an 70's oversized military transporter for one squad in full battle dress (the current Golf VI Plus is barely smaller than the initial Range Rover).

 

[al1966]

First, thanks for all the good wishes to Frances. This is her second cataract operation, and on her (very) dominant eye, so although she was worried about it, she was basically looking forward to it.

To return to the question of cars, well, I live in rural France, so I do need a motor car (one bus a day). But when I lived in London (Chelsea, use the tube) or Bristol (Easton, walk, bicycle or motorcycle), I didn't.

My real question was more along these lines: some people denounce Leica buyers as 'wasting money'; of buying out of sheer ego, etc. But they don't say the same thing about buyers of quite ordinary cars: we're not talking about Ferraris here, or even Porsches.

Of course there are cheaper cars than 20,000€ around -- a Dacia is about half that -- but the fact that 20,000€ cars are widely advertised on television leads me to suspect that many people do, in fact, buy them.

Is it not more irrational to watch 5000€ evaporate as you drive your new 20,000€ car out of the showroom, than to put that towards an M9? In other words, isn't it just that we are conditioned to throw money away on cars, and indeed on consumer electronics, which are often replaced as 'obsolete' long before they break?

As for why I have old cars and Leicas, well, I don't care about cars very much, as long as they work and here we run into more cultural conditioning. Well-maintained 'old clunkers' may well be at least as reliable as a new car, but more importantly (to me) if they do go wrong, I can usually fix them myself without having to wait half a day for a breakdown vehicle to arrive, and then pay a fortune to have a new computer chip installed. Bear in mind how many of today's airliners are 20 and 30 years old. The secret is (a) maintenance of (b) something that is designed to be maintained.

Cheers,

R.

I could not agree more, when I was driving I bought old bangers. It was post having to give up driving for health reasons that was a revelation. We spent less on bus tickets than fuel by a shocking margin let alone the insurance and so on. Also I found myself a whole lot less stressed not having to deal with all the people on the road.

 

[Roger Hicks]

They do. Indeed, they do not seem to want really cheap cars. A Dacia is considered the cheapest of the cheap - but by eighties standards it amounts to a large middle class family car with plenty of luxury car gadgets (servo steering and ABS) thrown in, and its price reflects that.

What was a middle class family car in the seventies now is a micro compact (the original VW Golf was about the size of the "new Panda"), and the current middle class family car is the size of an 70's oversized military transporter for one squad in full battle dress (the current Golf VI Plus is barely smaller than the initial Range Rover).

Though I've not looked at it closely, I am reasonably confident that you are 100% correct. I wonder if the reason for this is that it's easier to add gew-gaws (such as power steering and ABS) than to make a car that (a) lasts and (b) is worth keeping. The parallel with cameras is exact: 2 dozen modes, 33-point autofocus and 117-point metering don't actually give you any more than a camera with a shutter speed dial, a diaphragm control ring, a shutter speed dial and a simple meter -- as long as you know what you're doing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Soeren]

Best wishes to Frances
I do 170 +km a day and very soon we need to buy a new car since fuel economy really matters these days and our othervise nice Renault Scenic refuses to do better than 7.5L/100km some years ago Ihad it do 5.9L/100km but its getting old and tired it seems.
To tell you the truth I'd rather spend the money on photo equipment 🙂
Best regards

 

[SR1]

First, thanks for all the good wishes to Frances. This is her second cataract operation, and on her (very) dominant eye, so although she was worried about it, she was basically looking forward to it.

To return to the question of cars, well, I live in rural France, so I do need a motor car (one bus a day). But when I lived in London (Chelsea, use the tube) or Bristol (Easton, walk, bicycle or motorcycle), I didn't.

My real question was more along these lines: some people denounce Leica buyers as 'wasting money'; of buying out of sheer ego, etc. But they don't say the same thing about buyers of quite ordinary cars: we're not talking about Ferraris here, or even Porsches.

Of course there are cheaper cars than 20,000€ around -- a Dacia is about half that -- but the fact that 20,000€ cars are widely advertised on television leads me to suspect that many people do, in fact, buy them.

Is it not more irrational to watch 5000€ evaporate as you drive your new 20,000€ car out of the showroom, than to put that towards an M9? In other words, isn't it just that we are conditioned to throw money away on cars, and indeed on consumer electronics, which are often replaced as 'obsolete' long before they break?

As for why I have old cars and Leicas, well, I don't care about cars very much, as long as they work and here we run into more cultural conditioning. Well-maintained 'old clunkers' may well be at least as reliable as a new car, but more importantly (to me) if they do go wrong, I can usually fix them myself without having to wait half a day for a breakdown vehicle to arrive, and then pay a fortune to have a new computer chip installed. Bear in mind how many of today's airliners are 20 and 30 years old. The secret is (a) maintenance of (b) something that is designed to be maintained.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I'm not sure about the reference to cars. I like most, have become addicted to the ease with which a car allows me to get around. A car can save me hours each week over using public transport and so it could be said the car improves the quality of my life/time with loved ones etc.

As I do about 20,000 miles a year I want a car than is reliable and so I change it every 5 years or so because unreliability is something I can't afford to live with.

That can't be compared to a camera unless you're a professional and then you would most likely have 2 bodies with you. No one tows a spare car with them just in case!

With the post above, I thought you were moving the discussion to the perception of value and here I ageee wholeheartedly.

If I told a work colleague I had spent nearly £3000 on my M8 they would look at me like I'd gone mad, yet one has just announced he has spend £18,000 on a caravan and no one bats an eyelid. He'll use the caravan perhaps 4 times a year and sell it is a few years for the latest model. This attitude seems to be based on size mokre than anything else.

Buy an expensive watch for £3000 (which will last a lifetime) and people think you're nuts. Buy an kitchen for £20,000 and that s fine.

Hope Frances recovers quickly.

 

[Jamie123]

My real question was more along these lines: some people denounce Leica buyers as 'wasting money'; of buying out of sheer ego, etc. But they don't say the same thing about buyers of quite ordinary cars: we're not talking about Ferraris here, or even Porsches.

Well the answer to that is simple. One could say of people who buy a Leica that they are wasting money because they could get something that gives similar results for much less money. You cannot say the same about a $20k car. Sure, you could get something cheaper but you're still on the lower end of the spectrum. Leicas, on the other hand, are at the upper end of the spectrum for 35mm digital cameras and if you want to compare them with cars it's more apt to compare them to Porsches (as Leica does). And people say all the time that Porsches are a waste of money or that people buy them out of sheer ego, etc..

Buy why fight this? An M9 is somewhat of a luxury item. Nothing wrong with that. Is it well made? Probably. Is it useful? Sure. Can you use it every day and take it with you anywhere you go? Yes. But the same can be said of an expensive hand bag.
But it's useless trying to compare values of different luxury items. A lady friend of mine has a closet full of hand bags that probably equal ten M9s in worth, yet she would never even spend $1k on a camera. And why should she? The hand bags are much more useful to her than any camera ever could be.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Well, most people would rather have the car than a camera. I'd rather have the M9, but I'm just saying.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I'm not sure about the reference to cars. I like most, have become addicted to the ease with which a car allows me to get around. A car can save me hours each week over using public transport and so it could be said the car improves the quality of my life/time with loved ones etc.

As I do about 20,000 miles a year I want a car than is reliable and so I change it every 5 years or so because unreliability is something I can't afford to live with.

That can't be compared to a camera unless you're a professional and then you would most likely have 2 bodies with you. No one tows a spare car with them just in case!

With the post above, I thought you were moving the discussion to the perception of value and here I ageee wholeheartedly.

If I told a work colleague I had spent nearly £3000 on my M8 they would look at me like I'd gone mad, yet one has just announced he has spend £18,000 on a caravan and no one bats an eyelid. He'll use the caravan perhaps 4 times a year and sell it is a few years for the latest model. This attitude seems to be based on size mokre than anything else.

Buy an expensive watch for £3000 (which will last a lifetime) and people think you're nuts. Buy an kitchen for £20,000 and that s fine.

Hope Frances recovers quickly.

Yes, thanks, she's getting better all the time. Eyesight already better than it was before the operation and it's generally 2-3 days before the after-effects of the operation wear off.

And yes, I was talking about value and the perception of value. A fitted kitchen is an even better example of an expensive item that will have (for most people) a very limited life. It was just that I'd seen all these car ads, and as Sevo pointed out, people don't seem to want cheap cars.

What struck me was that the difference between a new Dacia and a new (modest) Peugeot or Toyota is a good deal more than the price of an M9. People think in relative terms -- car A is twice as expensive as car B -- rather than in absolute terms, car A is car B plus an M9.

In other words, "If I'm going to spend 15,000€ I might as well spend 20,000€". This neglects the point that while that's only 33% more for the car, in absolute terms it is still a lot of money.

Of course, there are always those who are puzzled at others' priorities (I often am) and those who are unable to understand that anyone else COULD have different priorities (or opinions, or ways of expressing themselves...)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mongo Park]

Most people cannot afford an M9, Ferider.

Roger's comparison of the price between a camera and a car does not make sense to me. Either is required for completely different reasons.

If you can splash out several tens of grand on a car without wincing then why not buy an M9 - that's just about all that makes sense to me but, what if you don't want or need a camera?

Buy an M9 if you want one or can afford one or both. They are expensive but if you want one ... why not, unless it means your family goes without the necessities of life.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

What channels were you watching? And I hope your wife recovers soon. Must not be fun at all.

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

You are wrong. WRONG! There's this Ford Model T I saw last year. Running. Being driven. It cost, what, a few hundred dollars new? The M9 is over 10 times that, and it's only a few years old. So THERE: shame on Leica, for making cameras not priced like a Model T.

 

[_goodtimez]

I've thought about the situation more than once. At the end of the day I drive a 26 years old MB (300 Diesel) as a daily commuter with 576000 km on the odo (that is my youngest car) and I shoot film more than anything else.
Any EMI/EMP blast and all these nice new digital cars and cameras are all good for the scrap.
And RFF as well !

 

[user237428934]

If I could afford it I would like to have a new car every 3-5 years. I simply hate it when things are not so smooth anymore, the seats are not that good anymore or something starts to squeak. Because I can't afford it I buy cars that are 1-2 years old so they are almost new but lost the most value and drive them 5-8 years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I could afford it I would like to have a new car every 3-5 years. I simply hate it when things are not so smooth anymore, the seats are not that good anymore or something starts to squeak. Because I can't afford it I buy cars that are 1-2 years old so they are almost new but lost the most value and drive them 5-8 years.

Best seats I ever had were Recaros. Even in the 15-20 year old Rovers in which I had them, they were every bit as comfortable as the new Recaros in a friend's 911. When he found out how much Porsche leather cost, he ordered it without front seats so he could have Recaros fitted. When Porsche asked how they were supposed to deliver it without seats he replied that it was their problem, not his.

Good quality cars stay astonishingly smooth and squeak-free. Most of my experience is with old Rovers (pre-1970) but I've also driven Bristols, Daimlers and Bentleys. Very few cars are of that sort of quality.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moto-Uno]

HI Roger
This sounds rather similar to a post I made a couple of days ago under the heading
"Expensive cameras"It's a good thing though that you haven't seen the old "LeCars" I used to love driving.Speedy recovery and great vision to your wife!

 

[SR1]

Yes, thanks, she's getting better all the time. Eyesight already better than it was before the operation and it's generally 2-3 days before the after-effects of the operation wear off.

And yes, I was talking about value and the perception of value. A fitted kitchen is an even better example of an expensive item that will have (for most people) a very limited life. It was just that I'd seen all these car ads, and as Sevo pointed out, people don't seem to want cheap cars.

What struck me was that the difference between a new Dacia and a new (modest) Peugeot or Toyota is a good deal more than the price of an M9. People think in relative terms -- car A is twice as expensive as car B -- rather than in absolute terms, car A is car B plus an M9.

In other words, "If I'm going to spend 15,000€ I might as well spend 20,000€". This neglects the point that while that's only 33% more for the car, in absolute terms it is still a lot of money.

Of course, there are always those who are puzzled at others' priorities (I often am) and those who are unable to understand that anyone else COULD have different priorities (or opinions, or ways of expressing themselves...)

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

You could take the kitchen example and extend it to whole houses. As I'm sure you know, in the UK, many people buy houses not on the basis of what they need, but on how much it will impress their friends/familiy/colleagues. Whist they could once have relied on it rising in value, no one seems to have learned from the negative equity problems of the mid 1990's and UK property is now highly over valued.

I think we all have our own "limits" which are often set with no reference to logic. There are those who's limits are well above their actual means and they spend their life going from one financial crisis to the next. Of course many have limits set in the opposite direction and will spend a life living in near poverty, only to leave a fortune when they die.

Getting back to cars and cameras, I too don't understand the need to spend twice as much for a car that does the same thing. In fact during the early days of DVD players when they cost thousands, I bought a cheaper car than I was planning so I could buy a DVD player.

My personal "limit" on cameras allowed me to buy an M8 new but I wouldn't buy an M9 at £5000. For me it's too much money. That's not to say I think they're expensive though. In fact it could be argued that in the UK it's too cheap as Leica dealers have only just managed to begin to hold them in stock. 18 months of backlogged orders suggests Leica could have easily charged more.

Regards

Simon

 

[John Camp]

The real comparison is not $20,000 cars vs. Leicas, but Porsches vs. Leicas...the comparison that Leica itself makes. Both are unnecessary luxuries except for a very tiny sliver of users (and I can't even think of what that sliver of Porsche users would be. Celebrities who, for professional reasons, need to demonstrate their status?)

Very few serious photographers, pro or amateur, have chosen Leicas as their only camera, because they are too limiting; they are, essentially, a luxury item, and you pay extra for the luxury of using them, just as you do with a Porsche. Both machines, of course, may also provide a very high function for some very limited number of people.

I drive Porsche Panamera, because I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford it, and while it's a fine car and extremely comfortable and agile, it really is not as practically functional in a number of ways as a well-made station wagon. In fact, when I finish with the Panamera, my next car may *be* a well-made station wagon.

I recently sold off all my digital Leica gear and most of the lenses, saving only a M7, and fast 35 and 21m lenses (the latter for a 35mm "look" on my Epson RD-1.) I did that for generally the same reasons that I probably will not buy another Porsche -- the practicalities were beginning to wear me down, and the status benefits are not great enough. I now carry either a Panasonic GH2 or a GF1 in place of the Leica, and I'm better off. For the size I print (no bigger than 13x19), not many could tell the difference.

(One major difference, though -- when I sold the Leica gear, I got nearly as much back, even after deductions by the consignment seller, as I paid; if only I'd invested in a whole pile of Noctis back in '05, instead of stocks. When I sell the Panasonic gear...well, I probably won't be able to. Nobody will buy them.)

In addition to people who buy these machines as luxury items, I think there are also a fairly large number who buy them because they simply like mechanical devices...which is why on Leica forums, you often see people talking about Porsches, and fine watches and fine pens, etc. A fine watch will not keep time as well as your cell phone, and a fine pen won't write much better than a fifteen-dollar fountain pen, but the fascination with mechanical function, in the eyes of some, justifies their purchase. Not so much for the status of them (how many people would recognize a fine fountain pen?) but for the pleasure of extreme mechanical performance.

JC

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

"unnecessary luxuries" -- a bit like "dark nights", "wet water", "exterior found outside", "money value", and my favorite, "redundant redundancy".

As Nikon, Panasonic, "luxury" and "expensive" have already been mentioned, allow me to add: Canon, X100.