Cute ad hominem attack and, although marginally offensive, totally irrelevant.
You can use different measures and get similar results, that in today's money a new M10 is much more expensive than an new M3 in, say, 1965. The US GDP deflator gives a multiple of 5.923 times from 1965 to 2016 and a cost in today's dollars of $1,617 ($273 x 5.923). If you take what a new college graduate earned in 1965 and now I doubt the results would be far off.
If you used German data the results would be somewwhat different, but in the same ballpark, possibly unless you went back to, say, 1950.
One could also argue that the equivalent camera to the M3 today is not the M10 but the MP or M-A. But that is getting off the point that Bill Pierce started with.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
michaelwj
----------------
Bill,
You bring up some interesting points. Most interesting is the ideas that 1) young "professionals" firstly exist, and 2) that they have any influence in the sales of the camera makers.
1) do they exist? I'm doubtful that there are that many "photojournalists" starting out and if they are that they are buying specific equipment for it. For instance, would an aspiring photojournalist buy a pair of Nikon D5s and some pro zooms? Or would the D7200 and the kit zoom be fine? Or is the modern photojournalist the general public with a phone? From the journalism I see, it is increasingly the latter.
2) "professional" photographers make up such a small meaningless percent of the market that even if every new photojournalist bought a pair of pro Nikons with pro zooms they wouldn't even be noticed in the sales figures.
I'll add a 3) an M10 and a lens is not that much more than a D5 and lens. The issue is not cost but versatility. The Nikon shoots faster, for longer, with zoom and reliable autofocus. We're no longer comparing an M3 with a 50/1.4 to an F with a 50/1.4. We're comparing an M10 with a 50/2.4 to a D5 with a 24-70/2.8. The only place the M10 wins is size.
*I've stuck to photojournalists here. Wedding photographers are highly influenced by fashion, rather than utilitarianism.
You bring up some interesting points. Most interesting is the ideas that 1) young "professionals" firstly exist, and 2) that they have any influence in the sales of the camera makers.
1) do they exist? I'm doubtful that there are that many "photojournalists" starting out and if they are that they are buying specific equipment for it. For instance, would an aspiring photojournalist buy a pair of Nikon D5s and some pro zooms? Or would the D7200 and the kit zoom be fine? Or is the modern photojournalist the general public with a phone? From the journalism I see, it is increasingly the latter.
2) "professional" photographers make up such a small meaningless percent of the market that even if every new photojournalist bought a pair of pro Nikons with pro zooms they wouldn't even be noticed in the sales figures.
I'll add a 3) an M10 and a lens is not that much more than a D5 and lens. The issue is not cost but versatility. The Nikon shoots faster, for longer, with zoom and reliable autofocus. We're no longer comparing an M3 with a 50/1.4 to an F with a 50/1.4. We're comparing an M10 with a 50/2.4 to a D5 with a 24-70/2.8. The only place the M10 wins is size.
*I've stuck to photojournalists here. Wedding photographers are highly influenced by fashion, rather than utilitarianism.
Michael - they key factor, as you say, is versatility. In the 1950s a photographer could chose a Leica and have one of the best tools for news photography. By 1965, the M3 still was a desirable camera, but news photographers were moving in droves to the Nikon F and SLR Asahi Pentaxes and, later, to Canons. Today, the choice is obvious...including the Lumix GX8 — look at the work of Daniel Berehulak in this brilliant NY Times web article, in which not only the photography but the also the web presentation is outstanding.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
peterm1
Veteran
Interestingly I read that one of the cameras not that well known today which was taken up by reporters in the 1950s at least in the UK was the Voigtlander Prominent rangefinder camera. It had a leaf shutter which is virtually silent (more so even than an M3) but the big advantage for reporters was that being a leaf shutter it could be flash syncronised at any shutter speed up to its maximum which I think was 1/500. Although flash bulbs would have been used this could still give an advantage when trying to balance flash with ambient light for flash fill purposes. It would also stop action well of course given the higher flash speeds available at a time when shutters where often limited to 1/25th of a second sync speed. I owned one for a few years and can confirm it was also as solid as a rock in build quality.
Ronald M
Veteran
In 1965 an M3 + lens cost around $500. My first job paid $500/$600 month before tax.
Today M9 + lens is around $9000. How many are making 9000 monthly?
Pros do not make that kind of money.
and there is the situation where normally PJ can not get close enough with a RF. They all use DSLR + 300 2.8
Leica will put them selves out of business.
Today M9 + lens is around $9000. How many are making 9000 monthly?
Pros do not make that kind of money.
and there is the situation where normally PJ can not get close enough with a RF. They all use DSLR + 300 2.8
Leica will put them selves out of business.
Ronald - "Leica will put themselves out of business"? Because photojournalists use "DSLR + 300 2.8"? That's a non sequitur — Leica is a niche player. The new SL has the zoom lenses needed, but Leica is not after the market you're referring to. Still a niche player. Leica could put themselves out of business if they went after "the mainstream" market that you seem to think they should.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Aside from sports, which was never Leica's area, I don't know any PJ shooting with a DSLR + 300 2.8. Most common, DSLR + 24-70 2.8 for news/features. We still like to get in close.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
What I think will turn most people away from long-term use of Leicas is not their cost but their digital-ness.
Before anyone accuses me of being a luddite (I'm not), I should say that you can't really look at a digital camera the way (film) cameras were looked at -- in practical terms, they're really more of a computer...they're obsolete in a few years and the long-term prospects of one still working (or being compatible with the technology of the day) in a decade or two is dim.
Other than the already-wealthy, few people are going to invest that much money in a camera that is basically obsolete within a decade. They'll buy a Fuji X-series, or (like me) get a film Leica and have a hybrid workflow.
Either way, I agree with Bill -- habits generally are set early in one's life.
Before anyone accuses me of being a luddite (I'm not), I should say that you can't really look at a digital camera the way (film) cameras were looked at -- in practical terms, they're really more of a computer...they're obsolete in a few years and the long-term prospects of one still working (or being compatible with the technology of the day) in a decade or two is dim.
Other than the already-wealthy, few people are going to invest that much money in a camera that is basically obsolete within a decade. They'll buy a Fuji X-series, or (like me) get a film Leica and have a hybrid workflow.
Either way, I agree with Bill -- habits generally are set early in one's life.
michaelwj
----------------
When was the last time you bought a 300/2.8 from Nikon or Canon? Add in a pro body any you're over $10k. Hardly cheap...
It's not a cost thing. It's about versatility and reliability*.
* reliability in terms of not breaking, easily replaced, easily repaired, not jamming during a bust, not crashing...
Beemermark
Veteran
Bill, I'm guessing we're not that far apart in age. In 1978 I was one year out of college and making fabulous money as a Mechanical Engineer at a salary of $12,000 a year. On my book shelf I have a 1978 catalog from 47th street photo in NY. Some prices -
Leica M4-2 & 50 Summilux $1369.90
Leica R3 & 50 Summilux $1347.00
Nikon F2AS (just introduced i think) & 50/1.4 $769.50
Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80/2.8 & magazine $1049.50
My 1st "real" camera after graduation -Topcon RE100 & 50/1.7 $150.
Today a starting ME makes more than $80K, cameras are really cheap in comparison. There was no RF competition to the Leica M in '78. None really today IMHO.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I live in a hotshot, showboat area, everybody has a Harley, a Prius to look ECO, heaven forbid they would ever have to drop from and Apple phone to a Samsung, the cops in my town only eat gluten free donuts, and some who don't illegally have Cuban cigars end up with digital Leicas.
A couple of months ago I was at a local car show, which means mostly Ferraris and other Italian cars, when a guy saw my IIIf and to his credit he noticed the logo. He was using some Leica digital, he asked why do you use that? Answer from me, 'it is what I started with.'
A couple of months ago I was at a local car show, which means mostly Ferraris and other Italian cars, when a guy saw my IIIf and to his credit he noticed the logo. He was using some Leica digital, he asked why do you use that? Answer from me, 'it is what I started with.'
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
If you think so?
Well, you should read e.g. the wonderful camera-related books by Ivor Matanle, or by Roger Hicks, both authors can explain the pricing then and today a lot better than me.
And… they won't disagree with me, I'm quite sure.
Other cameras became even more cheap, that's true, but it's a fact, that regarding the disposable income in the past, Leicas have been much more expensive than today.
vide supra.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
USD 500/600 per month during your first job in 1965 — that's far far above the typical trainee remuneration at that time, it's even above the then average earnings in the USA.
cf.:
[For the critical: I'm aware, of course, «average earning» and «household income» is apples and oranges, but you'll get the idea, I hope
]
Richard G
Veteran
Here's a young professional who got herself a digital Leica, the ME and loved it.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...2012/dec/28/leica-m-e-rangefinder-photography
Nowadays there's a choice for a backup, like a Fuji. It's already been mentioned how young enthusiasts like Leica film bodies: we see it on this forum.
I started with an M2 when I was 17. Once I was proficient I could switch to the OM2n with little trouble. I don't know about going the other way. My son, 19, has an X100T. He wanted a "DSLR" but that's just code for a serious camera. I think he's bonding with the X100.
Switching comes when the switch is worth it, even for a professional with long experience in one system I would think. Weight often forces a rethink from what I've read, especially nowadays with these large DSLRs and such good zoom lenses.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...2012/dec/28/leica-m-e-rangefinder-photography
Nowadays there's a choice for a backup, like a Fuji. It's already been mentioned how young enthusiasts like Leica film bodies: we see it on this forum.
I started with an M2 when I was 17. Once I was proficient I could switch to the OM2n with little trouble. I don't know about going the other way. My son, 19, has an X100T. He wanted a "DSLR" but that's just code for a serious camera. I think he's bonding with the X100.
Switching comes when the switch is worth it, even for a professional with long experience in one system I would think. Weight often forces a rethink from what I've read, especially nowadays with these large DSLRs and such good zoom lenses.
leicapixie
Well-known
I am retired , therefor a New Leica out of sight.
My problem (and Leica) is that this year, my M3 (ziggy),
is 50 years in service, doing constant image making.
A few reasons besides price, is the way Leica work.
A DNG. A total slowdown of the digital process for a working pro.
The M10 finally does JPEG. A JPEG that is "now" embraced!
I shot on M8 using the JPEG which I found perfectly adequate.
Long lenses for pros embedded long distance from subject.
Truth tell, mostly mundane shots.
The Leica M whether Film or Digital requires a photographer.
A person understanding apertures, speeds, photographic knowledge and a good eye.
A Fully automatic Canon-Nikon user would rather not prove their inability.
The green symbol and "P" does not a photographer make.
My problem (and Leica) is that this year, my M3 (ziggy),
is 50 years in service, doing constant image making.
A few reasons besides price, is the way Leica work.
A DNG. A total slowdown of the digital process for a working pro.
The M10 finally does JPEG. A JPEG that is "now" embraced!
I shot on M8 using the JPEG which I found perfectly adequate.
Long lenses for pros embedded long distance from subject.
Truth tell, mostly mundane shots.
The Leica M whether Film or Digital requires a photographer.
A person understanding apertures, speeds, photographic knowledge and a good eye.
A Fully automatic Canon-Nikon user would rather not prove their inability.
The green symbol and "P" does not a photographer make.
KM-25
Well-known
You don't know enough of or hang around the right kind of pros then, some of us indeed use Leica along with those Nikons or Canons.
As for the original post, there are way too many assumptions being made for me to even reply. This game has never been a one size fits all and yet we see so many blanket assumptions being made on this photo enthusiast forum about pros. If you want to talk seriously about professional photography then go out and get direct and relevant experience and have actual basis for questions and comments.
Otherwise....enjoy your fun hobby?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Agree.I'm a full time pro, I'm not rich and I shoot Leica M. Dumped my Canon gear over a year ago and NO REGRETS. Leica m is no more eye candy than any high end camera. If it fits the way you see and work then it is a tool that is good for you whatever that is. Leica M is a real choice that's not what everyone else is producing.
PKR
Veteran
Well, I have to agree with Bill. if I was just starting out and wanted a rangefinder system I would likely be using Fujifilm gear.
When I started working in the late 60s I had M gear. I did some assisting work for a NG photographer who had a lot of Nikon gear; provided by NG back then. Staffers were well cared for..times change. He convinced me to begin using SLRs more if I was going to be working with Kodachrome. More fast focal lengths to choose from with Nikon, motors and cameras got repaired quickly, that kind of thing.
I owned a Nikon F that was used with a 135 & 200. My Leica (2 M4's now) lenses were 28,35,50 & 90. The 90 was an f2.8 and was heavy and the frame was small. I never used it. The 35 got the most use, then the 50. This gear got me through my first real job. I spent 18 months in the south west documenting Native American Tribes.
A few years later I was working for graphic designers, ad agencies and did occasional news magazine work. The Leicas got little use. I had a huge collection of Nikon lenses; I think 15 before I began dumping the ones that got no use. My accountant and others taught me.. if its not used in two years .. sell it. The Leica's were gone except for an old M2 and a 35. I had large format and lighting equipment to buy and update.
Now I find myself moving away from FX format gear to DX (APS-C) format. I again need a rangefinder. It will likely be a Fujifilm camera. I find I can work with a much smaller gear load with digital gear. One flash generator instead of two. Just a couple of lenses. I prefer primes to zooms. So, in looking for new gear, Nikon isn't offering much in DX primes. I may look at other companies for DSLR gear.
If I was beginning today. I think Leica gear would be at the bottom of the list because of cost and lack of quick repair & no loaner gear. There is so much stuff on the market that will do the job just as well. Most of my camera purchases were driven by my lens investment. With no big lens investment the field is wide open.
Digital gear is much more disposable than film cameras were. Nikon came out with a new pro film body every 8-10 years in the film days. How many years between the M4 and (M5 didn't count with me) M6? Now with sensor technology and image processing chips bettering in months, cameras update yearly it seems. Look at the X100 -S,T,F. To invest in an expensive camera who's sensor can't be updated is not a smart choice for me. If an X-Pro2, or X100x goes down, and I need it for a job, I'll just buy another body while I wait for repairs. I wouldn't be doing that with an M10. Even in the film days Leica was famous for a slow repair turnaround time.
Sorry to drag this on, but it got me thinking. I recently did some archiving of 35 yeses of film and digital files. 95% of the good ones were made with a 35 & 50. I owned lenses between 15-1000mm. I would travel with 9 lenses minimum. What a waste of time and energy.. and my back. Think about being in an airport with a cart load of expensive gear and you need to use the head. Do you drag it into the head? Pay a Skycap to watch it? It wont fit in a stall..
When I started working in the late 60s I had M gear. I did some assisting work for a NG photographer who had a lot of Nikon gear; provided by NG back then. Staffers were well cared for..times change. He convinced me to begin using SLRs more if I was going to be working with Kodachrome. More fast focal lengths to choose from with Nikon, motors and cameras got repaired quickly, that kind of thing.
I owned a Nikon F that was used with a 135 & 200. My Leica (2 M4's now) lenses were 28,35,50 & 90. The 90 was an f2.8 and was heavy and the frame was small. I never used it. The 35 got the most use, then the 50. This gear got me through my first real job. I spent 18 months in the south west documenting Native American Tribes.
A few years later I was working for graphic designers, ad agencies and did occasional news magazine work. The Leicas got little use. I had a huge collection of Nikon lenses; I think 15 before I began dumping the ones that got no use. My accountant and others taught me.. if its not used in two years .. sell it. The Leica's were gone except for an old M2 and a 35. I had large format and lighting equipment to buy and update.
Now I find myself moving away from FX format gear to DX (APS-C) format. I again need a rangefinder. It will likely be a Fujifilm camera. I find I can work with a much smaller gear load with digital gear. One flash generator instead of two. Just a couple of lenses. I prefer primes to zooms. So, in looking for new gear, Nikon isn't offering much in DX primes. I may look at other companies for DSLR gear.
If I was beginning today. I think Leica gear would be at the bottom of the list because of cost and lack of quick repair & no loaner gear. There is so much stuff on the market that will do the job just as well. Most of my camera purchases were driven by my lens investment. With no big lens investment the field is wide open.
Digital gear is much more disposable than film cameras were. Nikon came out with a new pro film body every 8-10 years in the film days. How many years between the M4 and (M5 didn't count with me) M6? Now with sensor technology and image processing chips bettering in months, cameras update yearly it seems. Look at the X100 -S,T,F. To invest in an expensive camera who's sensor can't be updated is not a smart choice for me. If an X-Pro2, or X100x goes down, and I need it for a job, I'll just buy another body while I wait for repairs. I wouldn't be doing that with an M10. Even in the film days Leica was famous for a slow repair turnaround time.
Sorry to drag this on, but it got me thinking. I recently did some archiving of 35 yeses of film and digital files. 95% of the good ones were made with a 35 & 50. I owned lenses between 15-1000mm. I would travel with 9 lenses minimum. What a waste of time and energy.. and my back. Think about being in an airport with a cart load of expensive gear and you need to use the head. Do you drag it into the head? Pay a Skycap to watch it? It wont fit in a stall..
pluton
Well-known
But now add the "you don't pay for film anymore' factor and the M10(and Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX) are more reasonable. It'd be nice if they cost less, but as they say, the people in hell want ice water...
Personally, I chose a $700 Fujifilm cam because the substantially-unimproved-since-1953-Leica finder doesn't work with my eyeglasses. The M10 promises some improvement in the finder....maybe.
UPDATE: Leica M10 finder is improved for viewing contrast, but, alas, not for viewing with glasses on.