Relative cost of M9 today to M3 in 1954

mabelsound said:
I suppose I am trying, and failing, to convince myself that buying an M9 would not be a ridiculous luxury!

Thanks for crunching the numbers.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting perhaps the most salient comparison point - an M3 still works 60 years after its manufacture.

Anyone want to wager an M9 will be obsolete about 53 years sooner than that? A more precise way to look at a digital camera (of any sort) is to classify it as a computer, not an actual camera.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I think this is partially a tribute to how little the American dollar is worth now. For many reasons, I buy only American when I can, not the least of which is the fact that imported goods keep on getting more expensive because of our devalued dollar. Not really any American-made cameras any more, unfortunately.

Of course, the fact that the dollar is weak makes it cheap to buy our stuff. So, for everyone else in the world, get to consuming our goods!
Click to expand...

We try ! But there's a tendency in the classifieds to say "CONUS only" ... so don't complain to us ! We'll complain to you 🙁

Stefan.
 
Colin Corneau said:
You're forgetting perhaps the most salient comparison point - an M3 still works 60 years after its manufacture.

Anyone want to wager an M9 will be obsolete about 53 years sooner than that? A more precise way to look at a digital camera (of any sort) is to classify it as a computer, not an actual camera.
Click to expand...

Now that APS-C and larger sensor cameras pretty much equal film in IQ, they won't become obsolete any more. That way of thinking about digicams is itself now obsolete. Good digicams are now good enough to use as long as they last.

It would be so awesome if there could be one thread on the whole internet that is not about this asinine film-vs-digi crap.
 
tom.w.bn said:
BTW. Is it useful to compare cameras with a completely different functional set? As it's not useful to compare prices of a 30 year old mercedes to a new mercedes.
Click to expand...

Sure it's useful. Using an index, assuming one can agree on its validity for the purpose, allows you to compare prices in equivalent USD. One *could* say the difference between a hypothetical new M3 priced at current $2,000 and an M9 at current $7,000 is the price of technological advancement. And that sounds like a somewhat plausible relationship since we actually can choose today b/w a $700 used M3 and a $7,000 new M9.
 
Last edited:
tom.w.bn said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris00nj
1) German labor costs which have outpaced inflation

It's a common myth that the German labor costs are ridiculously high. At the moment the labor costs here are behind denmark, belgium, luxemburg, france, austria, finnland and netherlands in a european comparison.
__________________
quote]


You're looking a relative cost to today amongst nations today. I'm looking at the changing cost over time.

If $250 in 1954 is worth $2175 (CPI) today, that indicates a year on year growth of 3.94%.

The average salary index (US) in 1954 was 3,155. In 2009, it was 40,711. However 3,155 at 55 years of 3.94% growth would only equal 26,408. So my original assumption on labor costs outpacing inflation holds true.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Click to expand...
 
And of course in 1954, the M9 would have been an excellent illustration of "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Each camera probably embodies more computing power than was available in the world at the time. As others have already noted, this should also be taken into consideration when making comparisons.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Colin Corneau said:
You're forgetting perhaps the most salient comparison point - an M3 still works 60 years after its manufacture.

Anyone want to wager an M9 will be obsolete about 53 years sooner than that? A more precise way to look at a digital camera (of any sort) is to classify it as a computer, not an actual camera.
Click to expand...

Depending on your definition of 'obsolete', anyone with half a brain will take that bet.

Looking at an M9 as a computer is far from 'precise'. It's an incredibly narrow view, completely ignoring the fact that it's also a mechanical device that takes very good pictures and will continue to do so for a lot more than 7 years.

Of course, if you want to be selective in your definition of 'obsolete', the M3 was obsolete as soon as the M4 came out. Or the Nikon F. Or... no, sorry, your argument is simply insupportable.

Was Discovery 'obsolete' when she made her last flight a few days ago? Is Voyager 'obsolete' as she leaves the solar system? Still under control, still sending back information?

Cheers,

R.
 
I'll PM anyone with a Noctilux 1.0 my address. Now that the F/0.95 is out, your lens is obsolete, I'll recycle for you.
 
Well my M9 arrived today.

Fully funded by selling equipment at least 35 years old.

The scary thing: I have so much classic equipment left. The Noctilux would be nice, clear a lot of shelf space selling stuff.

My Pentium Pro is great. Use it for writing embedded code. About the same speed as the embedded processors, so no false sense of security when testing code. Bought it in 1998.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps a more complete picture would include the change in the average price of cameras over time. But, at the end of the day, it is not very relevant to pricing of goods. Efficiency gains do not drive high-end camera prices like they drive, say, consumer electronics and low-end cameras; market demand does. The M9 price is what it is in large part because that's what buyers would pay. The fact that they're selling like hotcakes at their current high price point is what we should be looking at.
 
The M9 actually looks like reasonable value compared to the full-frame Canon DSLRs, which are huge, have tons of features you don't need and don't take Leica lenses.

I don't think you'll be posting one off to DAG's successor in 60 years' time for a CLA, though. At some point it will fail and be unrepairable, same as any electronic gear more than a few years old. Maybe there will be a market in scrap ones for cannibalisation, as with cars.
 
rogerzilla said:
The M9 actually looks like reasonable value compared to the full-frame Canon DSLRs, which are huge, have tons of features you don't need and don't take Leica lenses.

I don't think you'll be posting one off to DAG's successor in 60 years' time for a CLA, though. At some point it will fail and be unrepairable, same as any electronic gear more than a few years old. Maybe there will be a market in scrap ones for cannibalisation, as with cars.
Click to expand...

See post 28.

Leicas are not cheap consumer electronics, built down to a price, and designed not to be repaired because they will never be worth repairing. They're not even like cheap cars. I'd be amazed if many M9s were still in use in 60 years, but 20 (Leica's promise for support) seems entirely reasonable.

Cheers,

R.
 
mabelsound said:
Well, Brian, how do you like it?
Click to expand...

I'm reading the owner's manual... Must say, I miss the LCD on the top deck for the Battery Charge and remaining picture count.

I will take it out soon with the Summarit. It arrived today, I was in the middle of rebuilding a Sonnar and a 1953 J-3. Had to degrease to unpack the M9.

My oldest working Digital Camera came out in 1992. Monochrome Infrared. Still works, internal SCSI drive and all.
 
I know that my father back in the '60's with a good, respectable job in a good, respectable firm could not afford an M3.

I'm now in a good, respectable job in a good, respectable firm and I can't afford an M9.

At least, for both of us if we did really want one then we could probably pull together the money to buy one, but it would be a stretch.

But he was content with his Zorki and I'm content with my M3.
 
I have to agree with the above post by Austerby
Here is my personal barometer...... in 1990 when I first wanted a Leica I could not afford a new M6 so I bought a M3DS, in 2011 after a close inspection of my finances I find that things have not changed as much as I would have liked and not only can I not afford or justify a M9, M8, MP or even a used M6 I recently added a M4-P that is making me very happy. so for me the better question is how much was a used ten year old M3 selling for in the 60's and how much will a used M9 be selling for ten years from now

( BTW a big thank-you to any one buying new Leica products as my concern is not whether our cameras will be working twenty years from now but rather will Leica be a strong company then...I am pretty sure my twenty year love affair with the brand in which time I have never purchased anything new has not helped them near as much as your purchase of a M9. If I see you out on the street shooting I will tip my hat to you and want to see the images on the back of your camera)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom