Why all the Leica bashing lately?

[semilog]

Thank you for the corrections, gentlemen. It is nice to learn that Father L is not out of the old business entirely, at least not on paper.

I suspect that Leica is pretty much making M9's as fast as they can, and not M7's.

I do doubt that Leica will stop making film cameras altogether any time soon, but my suspicion is that they will make smaller and smaller runs targeted more and more at collectors rather than photographers. In my view a camera not made for the purpose of taking photographs (that is, for looking at rather than looking with) is not quite a camera — just as a Faberge egg is not quite an omelette.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thank you for the corrections, gentlemen. It is nice to learn that Father L is not out of the old business entirely, at least not on paper.

I suspect that Leica is pretty much making M9's as fast as they can, and not M7's.

I do doubt that Leica will stop making film cameras altogether any time soon, but my suspicion is that they will make smaller and smaller runs targeted more and more at collectors rather than photographers. In my view a camera not made for the purpose of taking photographs (that is, for looking at rather than looking with) is not quite a camera — just as a Faberge egg is not quite an omelette.

Smaller and smaller runs, as compared with the M9, quite possibly, if (as seems likely) that's where demand is. But they'll target them at anyone who'll buy them. Why restrict themselves to collectors?

Also, the perennial sniping at collectors puzzles me -- especially from people who are often collectors themselves. Few of us can resist buying a interesting camera at the right price, even if we know it will receive little or no use: I never put a film through my 127 Gallus, for example. In other words, most of us 'collect' to some extent. It's just that few of us can afford to collect new, limited edition Leicas. But why should we denigrate those who do?

Cheers,

R.

 

[antiquark]

It's just that few of us can afford to collect new, limited edition Leicas. But why should we denigrate those who do?

But it's so much fun to pick on the rich. 😀

 

[Olsen]

Sorry, Olsen, no it doesn't. Putting 20% on the VAT-free price gives the VAT-inclusive price (with VAT at 20%).

Cheers,

R.

Sorry, but no.

Say a product costs € 100 incl. VAT and the VAT is 20% of the sales price. Then the net price excl. VAT is € 80. Agree? Note that € 20 is 25% of the Net price of € 80. Agree?

 

[Roger Hicks]

OK, depends on how you define 'price' -- but you're still wrong. VAT is NOT defined as 20% of the sales price. In fact, you're more wrong. An 80€ camera, plus 20% VAT, is 96€.

At this point, a 100€ sales price is 100 x 100/120 = 83.3€, so a bit under 17% of the sales price is VAT.

As I'm VAT registered, and have had a couple of VAT inspections, I can assure you that it works this way in the UK and France

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

Make no mistake: Leica still makes great lenses, but Leica is taking itself out of the business of producing the best tools to make art and culture and history.

But so what? They're obviously making decisions that they see as in their best interest. And who are we to tell them what they should be doing? They're just another company, doing what every company does- trying to make money along the path they see as best.

I've bought new Leica equipment, but the vast majority of my kit is used. Since most every Leica user buys the majority of their kit used (or so I expect) the biggest users are not the ones paying the paychecks.

 

[Olsen]

OK, depends on how you define 'price' -- but you're still wrong. VAT is NOT defined as 20% of the sales price. In fact, you're more wrong. An 80€ camera, plus 20% VAT, is 96€.

At this point, a 100€ sales price is 100 x 100/120 = 83.3€, so a bit under 17% of the sales price is VAT.

As I'm VAT registered, and have had a couple of VAT inspections, I can assure you that it works this way in the UK and France

Cheers,

R.

No, I am not wrong. Here in Norway (Sweden, Denmark and Finland etc.) the VAT is 20% of the 'sales price'. That means that the seller must add 25% to the net price.

If you add 'only' 20% on the net price you will get a VAT of 'only' 16,7%. Do any European nation have so low VAT, righ now?

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, I am not wrong. Here in Norway (Sweden, Denmark and Finland etc.) the VAT is 20% of the 'sales price'. That means that the seller must add 25% to the net price.

If you add 'only' 20% on the net price you will get a VAT of 'only' 16,7%. Do any European nation have so low VAT, righ now?

Dear Olsen,

Are you actually VAT registered? Because the way I describe it is exactly how it works in the UK and France, the only countries in which I am or have been VAT registered.

Yes, the percentage of the purchase price, with 20% VAT, is, as both you and I calculated, 16.7% (actually, because of the recurring decimal place, it's a fraction different). I am surprised that anyone would consider doing it any other way. After all, suppose I charge someone £1000 for something. If I am not VAT registered, I send them an invoice for £1000. If I am VAT registered, in the UK, I send an invoice £1175 (UK VAT currently 17.5%, going up to 20 next year). Likewise, a 1000€ invoice would attract VAT at 19.6% in France, implying 1196€.

Indeed, a quick Google reveals that the standard rate of VAT in Norway (and Sweden and Sweden) is 25%, not 20%, and in Finland, 23%. All sources agree that VAT in all these countries is calculated in exactly the way I have described.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JayGannon]

No, I am not wrong. Here in Norway (Sweden, Denmark and Finland etc.) the VAT is 20% of the 'sales price'. That means that the seller must add 25% to the net price.

If you add 'only' 20% on the net price you will get a VAT of 'only' 16,7%. Do any European nation have so low VAT, righ now?

The sales price is the price before VAT. That is standard VAT calculation as the VAT has nothing to do with the sales price, it is a tax that is merely collected by the retailer and passed onto the government.

 

[Olsen]

The sales price is the price before VAT. That is standard VAT calculation as the VAT has nothing to do with the sales price, it is a tax that is merely collected by the retailer and passed onto the government.

No. I define 'sales price' as the price with VAT included. That is the price at which camera gear is price-tagged at in Norwegian (etc.) shops.

Roger,

VAT differs a little more complicated than that here in Scandinavia. In both Sweden and Norway VAT on food is only 12,5% (off the tagged sales price in the shops). Finland has just decided to increase their VAT to that of Norway, Sweden and Denmark; 20% 'off the tagged sales price/25% on top of the net sales price.

I am taxed as a employee in Norway, run a business in Sweden and Singapore is taxed as such in Sweden and Singapore (puh!). I look forward to my retire date (12 months, and 20 days!). Then I will try to simplify things!

 

[JayGannon]

No. I define 'sales price' as the price with VAT included. That is the price at which camera gear is price-tagged at in Norwegian (etc.) shops.

Well the Norwegian government differs in their opinion.

Output tax is calculated on payments for supplies of goods and services which are liable to VAT. The VAT itself is not included in the calculation basis.

Source:
http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Bibli...e-to-Value-Added-Tax-in-Norway/?chapter=74743

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Olsen,

I was sticking with the single figure for the sake of clarity, rather than getting into the quagmire of variable rates (incuding zero rating, which is of course different from VAT-exemption). This does not however affect the way in which VAT is calculated, which from an accounting point of view is ALWAYS as a percentage added to the VAT-free price.

It is perfectly open to me to sell something for £50 and to back out the VAT to get a VAT-free price of £50 x 100/117.5 = £42.56, and this is the norm in consumer retail pricing. Between businesses, however, the norm is to quote a price and then add VAT to it. If a page rate is (say) £200 a page, then the non-VAT-registered contributor is paid £200 and the VAT-registered contributor is paid £235 (with UK VAT currently at 17.5%). How could it be otherwise?

The fact that with a 25% VAT rate, this corresponds to 20% of the VAT-inc sales price, is irrelevant: VAT in Norway is 25%, not 20%. Check any source you like. And in Finland it was raised to 23% in July 2010 (from 22%).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Olsen]

Well the Norwegian government differs in their opinion.



Source:
http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Bibli...e-to-Value-Added-Tax-in-Norway/?chapter=74743

No. They don't! A 'sales price' of all consumer goods is VAT included.

 

[Olsen]

Dear Olsen,

I was sticking with the single figure for the sake of clarity, rather than getting into the quagmire of variable rates (including zero rating, which is of course different from VAT-exemption). This does not however affect the way in which VAT is calculated, which from an accounting point of view is ALWAYS as a percentage added to the VAT-free price.

It is perfectly open to me to sell something for £50 and to back out the VAT to get a VAT-free price of £50 x 100/117.5 = £42.56, and this is the norm in consumer retail pricing. Between businesses, however, the norm is to quote a price and then add VAT to it. If a page rate is (say) £200 a page, then the non-VAT-registered contributor is paid £200 and the VAT-registered contributor is paid £235 (with UK VAT currently at 17.5%). How could it be otherwise?

The fact that with a 25% VAT rate, this corresponds to 20% of the VAT-inc sales price, is irrelevant: VAT in Norway is 25%, not 20%. Check any source you like. And in Finland it was raised to 23% in July 2010 (from 22%).

Cheers,

R.

Again: Norwegian VAT is 20% off the sales price. If you are obliged to buy something 'tax free' (if you run a photography business, or are a tourist from outside EU) you simply deduct 20%. So, VAT in Norway is 20%! VAT in Finland is 'only' 18,4% and so on - so far. It will be increased to correspond with that of Sweden and Norway. Just wait and see.

My point was indeed that to get to a 20% VAT you have to add 25% on 'the net price'.

 

[Olsen]

Reading the posts over again I see that we don't disagree, as such. It is only a matter of 'what you call it'. Here we call it '20% VAT' (which is 25% added).

 

[semilog]

Few of us can resist buying a interesting camera at the right price, even if we know it will receive little or no use: I never put a film through my 127 Gallus, for example.

Few?

I buy cameras to use them. So do most of my friends who like photography.

Certainly there are plenty of people who collect to a lesser or greater extent, but there are also many who don't collect.

 

[semilog]

But it's so much fun to pick on the rich. 😀

I don't pick on people who collect good cameras, or cameras with cool histories (a NASA Hasselblad; one of Jim Marshall's Leicas; one of Imogen Cunningham's Rolleis, etc).

I pick on people who have poor enough taste to collect ugly cameras that were designed and manufactured to be collected, rather than used. They will not produce art. They will not document history. They do not advance technology. The M9Ti and many or most of the other Leica special editions are not, to my eyes, even attractive as objects-in-themselves.

In other words, we're not talking about serious collecting of artefacts having cultural, literary, historical, technical, or aesthetic importance. This is in my opinion something rather more vulgar, perhaps ultimately describable as financial masturbation.

I'm not objecting to wealth; I'm objecting to the empty exercise of wealth for its own sake, rather than in the service of something – anything – more meaningful.

(And please don't anyone trot out the tired bit about people having the right to spend their money as they like, or selling what they please. You can buy as many old Journey albums, or new Lady Gaga albums, as you like (minty! vinyl! first pressings!), and I can point and laugh when you do so. I'm talking about taste, not about economic policy, and if you can't tell the difference, you probably haven't thought very carefully about either one.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Few?

I buy cameras to use them. So do most of my friends who like photography.

Certainly there are plenty of people who collect to a lesser or greater extent, but there are also many who don't collect.

The most recent camera I bought with no intention of using it was a Gallus, a 127 cast-alloy doppel-klapp camera ('concertina', like a Plabel Makina) with no leather covering. The lens cap had a wonderful engraved, paint-filled Gaul on it, who looked like Asterix's brother. It was 20€.

The one before that was another French camera, a Pontiac, regarded by many as the prettiest 6x9 folder of all time. That was 15€.

That's two in a couple of years. I'd say that 90% of the photographers I know, amateur and professional, would have bought either, unless they were feeling particularly poor that day, simply because they're pretty and interesting.

Buying new cameras to use not something that most of the serious photographers I know will do very often. Once they have a camera they like, they stick with it. In a time of rapid technical progress and clear advantage with the new camera, more frequent purchases may make sense (M8-8.2-9) but with film cameras, most of the people I know/knew (I know fewer professionals than I used to) bought a new camera maybe once or twice a decade.

In other words, people who really buy cameras to use don't usually do it very often. People who buy cameras 'to use' (in the sense that they put a few rolls through them to persuade themselves they're not serial collectors) are, well, serial collectors.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I am a serial collector of cameras and lenses. Have been since I was 6, will be until I die.

Just bought another pre-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 in Contax mount. It will not be in Contax mount for long.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am a serial collector of cameras and lenses. Have been since I was 6, will be until I die.

Just bought another pre-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 in Contax mount. It will not be in Contax mount for long.

Dear Brian,

So am I, though I started later and no longer buy anything like as many cameras as I used to.

The thing is, some people have such an aversion to the C-word that they'll perform mental gymnastics to try persuade themselves they're not collectors. They may persuade themselves, but others can be harder to fool.

Also, it's perfectly possible, if you have the time, to be both a collector and a photographer.

Cheers,

R.