squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm curious if anyone knows whether a new M3 was more or less expensive in 1954 dollars than a new M9 is in today's dollars.
Relative cost of M9 today to M3 in 1954
- Thread starter squirrel$$$bandit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 8K
how much was an M3 in 1954?
Ok, according to this calculator
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
And a site I saw that says an M3 with 50 Summicron in 1954 was $350....
In 2010 dollars that is $2,809.75.
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
And a site I saw that says an M3 with 50 Summicron in 1954 was $350....
In 2010 dollars that is $2,809.75.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Oh, to have a time machine . . .
Backing it up, $7000 in 2010 $ was $871.97 in 1954.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
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!
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!
MCTuomey
Veteran
An M3 in 1954 was ~ US$250 (US$348 with a 50/3.5 Elmar or US$447 with a 50/2 'Cron per a price list I've seen). Change in the U.S. CPI since 1954 is 8.1x, so I'd say the M3 in 2010 would run ~ US$2,000. With a 50/3.5 Elmar ~ $2,800. With a 50/2 'Cron ~ $3,600.
So, I guess the data suggest an M9 is 3.5x the price of an M3 in today's US dollars.
So, I guess the data suggest an M9 is 3.5x the price of an M3 in today's US dollars.
Last edited:
rogerzilla
Well-known
A comparison to average annual earnings would be more useful. Over a very long timescale, earnings usually outpace normal inflation by about 2-2.5%, so the M3 was more like $4,000 in those terms.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Wow so it really is true that the M3 has not only held its price but increased in price. Try getting an M3 with 50 Summicron for even twice that price today.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I suppose I am trying, and failing, to convince myself that buying an M9 would not be a ridiculous luxury!
Thanks for crunching the numbers.
Thanks for crunching the numbers.
Figure out a way to make it a business expense then depreciate it, take deductions and all that stuff.
kshapero
South Florida Man
All it does is convince me to eventually get another M3.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Photography is a very tiny part of my professional life...but yeah I think I could manage that.
We'll see. Financial picture is looking better than expected for 2011. It could happen! If I think it might, I will cancel my X100 order and save up.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
So the rate of return on an M3 is less than inflation, but I imagine its held up better than the Canon A-1 or the trendiest in 50s fashion.
I image the increase price of an M9 in comparison to the M3 is driven by:
1) German labor costs which have outpaced inflation
2) The introduction of VAT
3) The weak US dollar.
I image the increase price of an M9 in comparison to the M3 is driven by:
1) German labor costs which have outpaced inflation
2) The introduction of VAT
3) The weak US dollar.
rogerzilla
Well-known
Using meauringworth.com:
If an M3 in 1954 was $350:
In 2009, the relative worth of $350.00 from 1953 is:
$2,810.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$2,370.00 using the GDP deflator
$4,010.00 using the value of consumer bundle
$4,140.00 using the unskilled wage
$4,720.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$6,760.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$13,000.00 using the relative share of GDP
The best one to use (it's all explained on the site) is probably either the $4,720 or $6,760 figure. The consumer price index, as I've explained upthread, is not ideal for our purposes, especially for "luxury" goods which are more closely correlated to income.
So your answer is: the M9 costs about the same as a new M3 did in 1954.
If an M3 in 1954 was $350:
In 2009, the relative worth of $350.00 from 1953 is:
$2,810.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$2,370.00 using the GDP deflator
$4,010.00 using the value of consumer bundle
$4,140.00 using the unskilled wage
$4,720.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$6,760.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$13,000.00 using the relative share of GDP
The best one to use (it's all explained on the site) is probably either the $4,720 or $6,760 figure. The consumer price index, as I've explained upthread, is not ideal for our purposes, especially for "luxury" goods which are more closely correlated to income.
So your answer is: the M9 costs about the same as a new M3 did in 1954.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Rogerzilla, an M3 without a lens in 1954 was around $250, not $350. What you'd get for $350 in 1954: an M3 + a 50/3.5 elmar. Add the value of a lower-end Leica lens to the M9 if you want to do the comparison representatively.
Interesting point of view, disagreeing with indexing the price of a consumer good (a camera) using an index of consumer goods and, instead, substituting an index of the price of labor. Buying an M9 is the purchase of a consumer good, not a purchase of someone's labor. This isn't a question of affordablity, at least I don't think that's what was asked. It's a question of the effect of inflation on the price of a Leica camera over time. You may not like the way the CPI is calculated but it's a more appropriate measure of inflation than the last 4 references you provided above.
If you average the first three measures you cite above and then divide that average by $350, then you get about a 8.7x ratio b/w 1954 and 2010. $250 M3 in 1954 USD ---> $2,175 in 2010 USD.
Interesting point of view, disagreeing with indexing the price of a consumer good (a camera) using an index of consumer goods and, instead, substituting an index of the price of labor. Buying an M9 is the purchase of a consumer good, not a purchase of someone's labor. This isn't a question of affordablity, at least I don't think that's what was asked. It's a question of the effect of inflation on the price of a Leica camera over time. You may not like the way the CPI is calculated but it's a more appropriate measure of inflation than the last 4 references you provided above.
If you average the first three measures you cite above and then divide that average by $350, then you get about a 8.7x ratio b/w 1954 and 2010. $250 M3 in 1954 USD ---> $2,175 in 2010 USD.
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, each is the best rangefinder camera of its day. Or so you could argue. An M9 sent back in time would likely be worth zillions of 1954 dollars. As, for that matter, would a new boxed M3 sent forward in time to now.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Interesting...
I found this piece of info on the headbartender's site:
Strangely enough the March 1959 Philadelphia photo show saw the US introduction of three new top brand Japanese SLR lines: the Minolta SR-2 with 55/1.8 and a list price of $249.50, the Canon Canonflex with 50/2 and a list price of $299.95, and the Nikon F with a 50/2 had a list price of 359.50
I found this piece of info on the headbartender's site:
Strangely enough the March 1959 Philadelphia photo show saw the US introduction of three new top brand Japanese SLR lines: the Minolta SR-2 with 55/1.8 and a list price of $249.50, the Canon Canonflex with 50/2 and a list price of $299.95, and the Nikon F with a 50/2 had a list price of 359.50
Similar threads
