What the heck happened to used Leica prices???

[Roger Hicks]

He certainly did explain about the lack of market, but I still don't see the technical problem in making a back adaptable to a 35mm camera.

Let me ask this, and maybe I'll have my answer:
On a Hassie 500 CM with a digital back, how is the capture done?
Does the lens need to be open on B, and the capture is digital, making it usable only in the studio?
If it's the case, well yes, I see the huge problem...

Getting the sensor into the film plane, which is 35mm wide. You'd need to machine out the film rails and film guide, because a 'full frame' sensor is a good deal bigger than 35mm wide. Then there are all the connectors around the edges. As rxmd explained, with a camera that's designed to take interchangeable backs in the first place, it's (comparatively) easy. If you have to machine out the film gate, it's a LOT more difficult and expensive.

Yes, Leica managed a dual-platform 35mm/digital camera, but it was designed that way from the beginning. With the exception of a handful of interchangeable-back 35mm cameras, no others were designed that way.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sanmich]

Getting the sensor into the film plane, which is 35mm wide. You'd need to machine out the film rails and film guide, because a 'full frame' sensor is a good deal bigger than 35mm wide. Then there are all the connectors around the edges. As rxmd explained, with a camera that's designed to take interchangeable backs in the first place, it's (comparatively) easy. If you have to machine out the film gate, it's a LOT more difficult and expensive.

Yes, Leica managed a dual-platform 35mm/digital camera, but it was designed that way from the beginning. With the exception of a handful of interchangeable-back 35mm cameras, no others were designed that way.

Cheers,

R.

Got it
thanks

 

[kulma]

Guys,

only way to make prices lower is to stop buying used leica stuff. Greatings,

kulma

 

[jsrockit]

only way to make prices lower is to stop buying used leica stuff.

But you can't buy new due to almost everything being out of stock.

 

[j j]

Sure. For how many different camera models were you considering this?

Five Nikon reflexes? Ten? Twenty? Canons? Pentaxes? S-series Nikons? Leica Ms? Rollei TLRs? Mamiya C-series?

I have a Polaroid back for my Nikon Fs. It was made by NPC. It was not cheap, but apart from the optical transfer block (Forscher patents), the components were. The same company spents hundreds of thousands on trying to make a digital version of the same thing, and decided it wasn't worth it.

This isn't a question of expensive components getting cheaper. It's a question of VERY MUCH more engineering difficulty than most people begin to understand, and degrees of precision in assembly that were simply never envisioned by the designers of the film cameras that armchair fantasists imagine converting.

Cheers,

R.

I was not considering any different camera models, merely pointing out that such things exist already and can be attached to a number of different cameras designed originally for film.

 

[shaunmlavery]

Guys,

only way to make prices lower is to stop buying used leica stuff. Greatings,

kulma

That won't really change much. We need nearly everyone to stop buying it. The market of 5-10 years ago would be great.

It's really simple. Supply and demand. Too many people are now shooting leicas for leica to keep up with the demand. This is what I always liked about leica but now that everyone is one the bandwagon, it is tough to try out certain lenses because of the price hike they have seen. Forget buying new. I can't afford that.

At the same time, it is nice because are gear, even though it makes us money, goes up in price at the same time. My noctilux I grabbed a year or so ago, has gone up. I felt dumb buying that, risky. Well, if someone wants that from me now with the way prices are, I think I may let them have it. I don't have to have it "that much."

Even though some of these prices may seem inflated, you can still find "deals" and come out okay if you time things right. The main problem, you just have to have more money to play with. I want a 35 summilux but it makes me cringe how much people are willing to pay for those. I guess I don't need one just yet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was not considering any different camera models, merely pointing out that such things exist already and can be attached to a number of different cameras designed originally for film.

And I am merely pointing out that unless the 'cameras designed for film' were also designed for interchangeable backs, you normally need an optical fibre transfer block, which is OK for Polaroids but definitely not OK for images that are going to be enlarged more than about 2x. You get 'dead fibres' (like 'dead pixels'). How do I know? As I say, a friend's company spent very large sums of money on finding out.

Cheers,

R.

 

[batterytypehah!]

I've noted that since KEH boosted their prices on M stuff 6 months or so ago (I get their catalog) their turnover has decreased substantially.

(Pulls just-tossed catalogs vol. 2 and 3 from the bin)

Yup, sure looks like that:
Vol. 2 - (5) M2 bodies, (3) M3.
Vol. 3 - (3) M2, (8) M3.
Vol. 4 (current) - (8) M2, (10) M3

Too lazy to count the 4 5 6 and 7.

 

[doubledan]

Prices of used Leica lenses are a problem not only for would-be buyers, but also for potential sellers: In this market, how in the world can anyone determine what a "fair" asking price is?
It's on my mind because I'm considering shifting more toward film MF plus a one-lens NEX or Ricoh setup, and reducing my RF holdings. In that case I would likely sell my 35 Summilux pre-asph, a late German (series 7) version. But lately, the few comparable pieces that I see for sale are all priced in the stratosphere, and even at that level there seems to be no consistency from one lens to the next.
Please note that this is not a back-door ad. If and when that time comes, I'll post the 'lux on the classifieds here. I'm just curious to get the forum's collective sense as to what would pass for sane in a crazy world, with this particular lens as an example.
Dan

 

[Tzelet]

I guess that the supply bit is getting slimmer, also. Speaking for myself, I put a lot more thinking into getting rid of lenses now, than I did two or three years ago. If I sell something now, I make sure that it is a lens that I can do without. Buying them back will be all that much more expensive.

As for pricing: My way is to price them comparably low, and set my own rules. There are places I will not ship, and there are people I don't want to sell to. I know I take a small loss money wise, but in the end it takes the hassle out of a sale. Other than that, I prefer to do trades these days. My "investment" in Leica has more or less been stable for the last 18 months, and if I get rid of something it is to get something else, so trading has worked fine for me.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I always try to buy gear at 'reasonable' prices by researching current trends and previous sale prices ... I know enough to not let emotion get the better of me. If I start obsessing about a particular lens or camera, I try to give myself time to cool down. Otherwise I ALWAYS end up paying too much, and I also contribute to the general inflationary trend.

As a seller, I never try to make a 'profit'. If I break even -- great. I sell at a small loss, I don't mind, as long as I know I'm selling to a decent buyer and the item will be going to a good home.

I'm a strong believer in buyer/seller karma. Pragmatically, I know that the general trend of prices has inexorably been rising, and my quaint notion of the marketplace is very quaint, indeed.

 

[mynikonf2]

Lens MADNESS

Lens MADNESS

Just looking through the KEH catalog at some of the M lens prices and wondered if I picked up the comic section of the newspaper by mistake. How about a BGN grade chrome rigid Cron for $1079? or what about a chrome 35 Canadian Lux in BGN grade for $4299?? These are not Mint examples we're talking about here. How can you ever hope to build a kit with these kind of prices? :bang:😎

 

[Scheelings]

How come they are driving the market crazy, and in the same time, you can't sell there?
Or: it doesn't seem very logical that they are selling crap at very high prices and don't buy decent gear at fair prices...

They will eat 711 lunch boxes for months & scrimp and save on everything to buy a product that gives face. People want brand over there because that indicates wealth. A Chinese man without wealth will not find a wife. 118 male children to ever 100 female.

Everything is about image.

 

[jsrockit]

People want brand over there because that indicates wealth. A Chinese man without wealth will not find a wife. 118 male children to ever 100 female.

Man, way to make every Chinese woman look like a gold digger. 😉

 

[sanmich]

How come they are driving the market crazy, and in the same time, you can't sell there?
Or: it doesn't seem very logical that they are selling crap at very high prices and don't buy decent gear at fair prices...

They will eat 711 lunch boxes for months & scrimp and save on everything to buy a product that gives face. People want brand over there because that indicates wealth. A Chinese man without wealth will not find a wife. 118 male children to ever 100 female.

Everything is about image.

You want tell us that enough women in China are attracted to men because they have a Leica as a status sign? 😱
How many do you think even know what a Leica is?

 

[sanmich]

A you normally need an optical fibre transfer block,
R.

Roger

what's an optical fiber transfer block.

If I guess right from the name, it transfers the image from the focal plane to the sensor. How come you can't simply put a sensor in the place of film?

 

[Scheelings]

You want tell us that enough women in China are attracted to men because they have a Leica as a status sign? 😱
How many do you think even know what a Leica is?

There are enough people in China now with lots of money to seriously impact any market. It is now the world's largest car market...think of it from that perspective.

Another problem is inflation - Leica is a store of value! Chinese are also buying lots of gold - as the government is starting to put caps on housing (so how do you 'save').

Leica is not just an excellent method to store value - it is a luxury brand - thats what people want.

Even if people don't know what Leica is - how many looks do u get from people that see something which is beautiful and classic - something that is elegant rather than some huge clunky piece of plastic that shouts 'look at me!! look at me!'

A leica makes people look refined and sets them apart...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger

what's an optical fiber transfer block.

If I guess right from the name, it transfers the image from the focal plane to the sensor. How come you can't simply put a sensor in the place of film?

Not enough room. You can make a block that is parallel sided and sits within the film rails: it just transfers a 24x36mm image backwards by whatever distance is needed to put a Polaroid back behind it. It's the only really expensive bit in a Forscher-patent Polaroid back. It doesn't need to be all that accurately located, because 99% of Polaroids are going to be looked at and thrown away: if they're reproduced, it's unlikely to be more than 2x.

A sensor is bigger than the actual light-sensitive area, and also needs to be located with extreme accuracy if any significant degree of enlargement is to be possible. Getting it in the right place in relation to the focal plane (i.e. closer to or further from the lens) is at least as difficult as getting it into the restricted area that was previously designed for a strip of film 35mm wide and a fraction of a millimetre thick.

Finally, 'dead' fibres are all but impossible to rule out completely: certainly, economically impossible. A 'dead' fibre won't show on a Polaroid (see above) but it will on film or on a sensor where significant enlargement is required as an option.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sanmich]

Not enough room. You can make a block that is parallel sided and sits within the film rails: it just transfers a 24x36mm image backwards by whatever distance is needed to put a Polaroid back behind it. It's the only really expensive bit in a Forscher-patent Polaroid back. It doesn't need to be all that accurately located, because 99% of Polaroids are going to be looked at and thrown away: if they're reproduced, it's unlikely to be more than 2x.

A sensor is bigger than the actual light-sensitive area, and also needs to be located with extreme accuracy if any significant degree of enlargement is to be possible. Getting it in the right place in relation to the focal plane (i.e. closer to or further from the lens) is at least as difficult as getting it into the restricted area that was previously designed for a strip of film 35mm wide and a fraction of a millimetre thick.

Finally, 'dead' fibres are all but impossible to rule out completely: certainly, economically impossible. A 'dead' fibre won't show on a Polaroid (see above) but it will on film or on a sensor where significant enlargement is required as an option.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks...........

 

[Robin Harrison]

Not enough room. You can make a block that is parallel sided and sits within the film rails: it just transfers a 24x36mm image backwards by whatever distance is needed to put a Polaroid back behind it. It's the only really expensive bit in a Forscher-patent Polaroid back. It doesn't need to be all that accurately located, because 99% of Polaroids are going to be looked at and thrown away: if they're reproduced, it's unlikely to be more than 2x.

A sensor is bigger than the actual light-sensitive area, and also needs to be located with extreme accuracy if any significant degree of enlargement is to be possible. Getting it in the right place in relation to the focal plane (i.e. closer to or further from the lens) is at least as difficult as getting it into the restricted area that was previously designed for a strip of film 35mm wide and a fraction of a millimetre thick.

Finally, 'dead' fibres are all but impossible to rule out completely: certainly, economically impossible. A 'dead' fibre won't show on a Polaroid (see above) but it will on film or on a sensor where significant enlargement is required as an option.

Cheers,

R.

That trasfer block...did it look something like the Nikon in this pic:
http://tokyocamerastyle.com/post/2922240764/shinjuku-mijonjus-hilariously-heavy-nikon

Does the 35mm frame get enlarged to cover the whole polaroid (presumably with a large loss in Exposure Index for the film)?