Why Leica Matters

[Roger Hicks]

Leicas used to matter, back when journalists, artists and the pioneers of modern photography used them. Now they're luxury items that have priced themselves out of the hands of the creative class. For a camera to become significant, it can't just be "the best", it also has to be accessible to the people who take risks and actively make the future of photography. It isn't anything personal, I would love to have an M9, but Leica does not matter.

Nonsense. What you mean is, "I can't afford one or am not willing to make the sacrifices needed to buy one." For some it may actually mean "I don't want one" but you've already indicated that you do.

Using the retail price calculator at http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/ a new £25 IIIa in 1936 would cost about £1500 today and a new £142 M3 from 1966 would be £2300.

Today, an MP is £3420 (up less than 50% from the M3); an ME £3990; an M, £5100. In other words, yes, they've gone up, but you can hardly compare an ME (under 3x the 1936 IIIa, under 2x the 1967 M3) with the earlier cameras. Or an M3 with a IIIa (£25 in 1936 was the equivalent of £94 in 1966). For that matter an M is only a bit over 3x the IIIa and about 2.5x an M3.

Look at other manufacturers, too. Nikon D4, £4150 today; Nikon F 1967 about £109, or £1700 today (well under half the price of the D4S).

For further comparison, when the F was £109, the M3 was £143, about 30% more expensive. And now, an M is less than 25% more than a D4.

In other words, any complaint that Leica has "priced themselves out of the market", or that there was some sort of golden age when they were much cheaper, is pure drivel. Yes, they made simpler cameras that cost less; but then, so did everyone else. Incidentally, a Zeiss Contaflex with f/2 lens in 1967 £284:16:3d, call it £4600 today.

If you want to see MUCH bigger price increases than Leicas, look at the price of beer (more than double the price in 1966) or houses (don't ask).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That I'm not so much in agreement with. I think a large number of people get miffed at what they see as an arrogant attitude held by Leica users towards others and this forum is, I think, sometimes host to examples of that. Perhaps we should all take the view that what we like may not be liked by others and that everyones' opinions are equally valid on this subject?

:angel:

Yes, but people don't snipe (wholly inaccurately) at Nikon "pricing themselves out of the market" with their high-end cameras(see post above). Or Alpa. Or Linhofs. There seems to be a special kind of bile reserved for those who think that Leicas are worth the money and make sacrifices elsewhere in order to buy them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[raid]

In my case, I view this as an issue that is mostly related to expendable income. If I cannot afford such cameras, then I will use some other camera. The simplicity of a Standard Leica with a lens is special for me.

I love my Leica cameras, and I feel that I am fortunate to be able to experience a lot of joy when using such exquisite cameras and lenses. I don't dwell on other issues. I used to extensively use "cameras without batteries", followed by cameras with batteries. I skipped the AF years somehow. Then I discovered Leica and other RF cameras for real. Eventually, I tried out the M8 and the M9. For the type of photography that I do most of the time, these two cameras allw me to continue enjoy photography.

One day, I will return to my Standard Leica.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I view this as an issue that is mostly related to expendable income. I love my Leica cameras, and I feel thatvI am fortunate to be able to experience a lot of joy when using such exquisite cameras and lenses. I don't dwell on other isses. I used to extensively use "cameras without batteries", followed by cameras with batteries. I skipped the AF years somehow. Then I discovered Leica and other RF cameras for real. Eventually, I tried out the M8 and the M9. For the type of photography that I do most of the time, these two cameras allw me to continue enjoy photography.

One day, I will return to my Standard Leica.

Mostly, yes. But they are used professionally too. Just like any other small, expensive camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nongfuspring]

Nonsense. What you mean is, "I can't afford one or am not willing to make the sacrifices needed to buy one." For some it may actually mean "I don't want one" but you've already indicated that you do.

Using the retail price calculator at http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/ a new £25 IIIa in 1936 would cost about £1500 today and a new £142 M3 from 1966 would be £2300.

Today, an MP is £3420 (up less than 50% from the M3); an ME £3990; an M, £5100. In other words, yes, they've gone up, but you can hardly compare an ME (under 3x the 1936 IIIa, under 2x the 1967 M3) with the earlier cameras. Or an M3 with a IIIa (£25 in 1936 was the equivalent of £94 in 1966). For that matter an M is only a bit over 3x the IIIa and about 2.5x an M3.

Look at other manufacturers, too. Nikon D4, £4150 today; Nikon F 1967 about £109, or £1700 today (well under half the price of the D4S)..

For further comparison, when the F was £109, the M3 was £143, about 30% more expensive. And now, an M is less than 25% more than a D4.

In other words, any complaint that Leica has "priced themselves out of the market", or that there was some sort of golden age when they were much cheaper, is pure drivel. Yes, they made simpler cameras that cost less; but then, so did everyone else.

If you want to see MUCH bigger price increases than Leicas, look at the price of beer (more than double the price in 1966) or houses (don't ask).

Cheers,

R.

You're right, I do want one, and I'm not willing to make the sacrifice because for what I want to get out of a camera I can get for a fraction of the price.

You may be at least partially true that Leicas were always expensive, but that depends on when, where, and to what portion of society. Generally speaking, if we consider the "western" world, wages were more level across society than they are now, and if we take the U.S. for example some economists (e.g. Stiglitz) are saying the relative purchasing power of the middle class has declined steadily since the 60's. That means even if the camera prices stayed the same (and as you mention it has gone up - 2300 for an M3 to 3990 for an ME is significant) they would still be more expensive than in 1960. Compound that with an aggressively priced consumer market and I do think that Leica has priced themselves away from photogs. I don't actually mean that as a criticism, I think the Leica business model is sound and they'd be unwise to compete with the main corporations, instead focussing on niche, bespoke cameras with high profit margins to an upper class.

I can't say I have ever met, or know of, any significant photographers under middle age who use a digital M. That's not to say they'd say no to one, or they don't like them, but the colossal cost of buying a modern Leica and a single lens is far out of practical consideration for anyone I know that actually makes a living from their work.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I said this earlier and I'll say it again now that I remember when Leica was over twice as much as the top of the line Canons (F-1) and Nikons (F) and now Leica M is about the same as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. So looks like the big two have caught up but I don't hear the same crying that they are to expensive. And as far as Leica M glass goes, you probably won't loose a dime on that. In fact in most cases you will only see the value go up. See how that works with Nikon or Canon.

I have several friends that are like me full time working professionals that have Leica M digital. I am one also. I don't have all the stuff. Only the stuff that works with the way I work and see. If you don't try and acquire it all just to settle you might be surprised at what you can afford. I'm far from rich as are the others I have mentioned but we do prioritize.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're right, I do want one, and I'm not willing to make the sacrifice because for what I want to get out of a camera I can get for a fraction of the price.

You may be at least partially true that Leicas were always expensive, but that depends on when, where, and to what portion of society. Generally speaking, if we consider the "western" world, wages were more level across society than they are now, and if we take the U.S. for example some economists (e.g. Stiglitz) are saying the relative purchasing power of the middle class has declined steadily since the 60's. That means even if the camera prices stayed the same (and as you mention it has gone up - 2300 for an M3 to 3990 for an ME is significant) they would still be more expensive than in 1960. Compound that with an aggressively priced consumer market and I do think that Leica has priced themselves away from photogs. I don't actually mean that as a criticism, I think the Leica business model is sound and they'd be unwise to compete with the main corporations, instead focussing on niche, bespoke cameras with high profit margins to an upper class.

I can't say I have ever met, or know of, any significant photographers under middle age who use a digital M. That's not to say they'd say no to one, or they don't like them, but the colossal cost of buying a modern Leica and a single lens is far out of practical consideration for anyone I know that actually makes a living from their work.

Fair enough, but first, even though differentials have increased over the last 30-50 years (only extreme right wing economists deny this), absolute purchasing power has probably risen except for the poorest. Again, you can define "poorest" how you like: 10%, 30%, even 50%. But I can think back to the 1960s, and many people still didn't have one car per family, let alone two. Second televisions were rare. So were dishwashers. Or even central heating. Telephones were not taken for granted.

Also, there were far fewer things to buy (computers, mobile 'phones, iRubbish). This is the fundamental flaw in "inflation adjusted" prices, and it works as much against me as against you: you can't compare like with like. Quite apart from the examples above, my first house cost me £5995 in 1974. Today the same house goes for £150-200,000. What does that do to "purchasing power"?

From what I saw in the 1960s, when I was a teenager, Leicas were every bit as unaffordable to "ordinary" people as they are now: only the very well-to-do bought new ones. This is of course only personal experience, but I've been pretty keen on photography (and therefore hung around a lot of camera stores, and known a lot of camera store owners) since 1966 or so.

As for middle-aged professional photographers with Leicas, I'd say that yes, by and large you could well be right, but (a) they buy them once they can afford them, having earned enough of a living with other cameras to buy an expensive new Leica and (b) there probably never were very many young professionals with new Leicas (or new anything). I'd even go so far as to guess that (c) there are still probably a few (a very few) young professionals with new Leicas today. How "young" do you want? I can think of one in his 30s.

And, once again, as airfrogusmc has done, I'll point to the price comparison between Leicas and top-of-the-range Nikons. The big difference is that Leica doesn't make any cheap and nasty M-series cameras, first, because Leicas are inherently expensive to make, and second, because they don't want to dilute the brand. Which is, as you say, a rational strategy.

Even so, I'd still argue that no, they haven't priced themselves out of the market. The market has changed, but they're not really much more expensive in inflation adjusted terms, given the changes in the product, than they have ever been. You refer to "an aggressively priced consumer market", and you're quite right. But the aggression ain't compulsory, even for the buyer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

If they had of priced themselves out of the market sales wouldn't be as strong as they have been. They were a company on the brink a few years back and now they are doing much better because of the M9, MM and M 240.

 

[raid]

Mostly, yes. But they are used professionally too. Just like any other small, expensive camera.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger,
I made sure to state in my posting that I was talking about my case. I am not a professional, as you know.

 

[pieter]

I have tried other digital camera's and I have always much preferred using a digital M. One can hardly deny that Leica occupies a different space compared to any other digital camera system. That alone means that Leica matters. Just like the foveon sensor matters. It has it's own spot in the market.

If asked to describe just why I prefer working with/using a Leica I would probably also at some point use the term simplicity to describe my feelings. One shouldn't then take that word without it's context. Basically the word simplicity without such context loses any meaning anyway.

As long as people like me who are not rich at all pay such ridiculous amounts of money for a Monochrom because nothing else quite feels and works the same, Leica and the digital rangefinder system will matter.
I only wish it didn't since that would probably help me spend less money.

 

[someonenameddavid]

A real car for a real man...lol

Quite Funny your analogy 'btgc'

...and not doing away with the kickstart is one of the things that destroyed the British motorcycle industry

David

 

[Nathan King]

Leica matters because their rangefinders are so simple that they don't distract me from actually seeing. I've noticed that I tend to catch more with the Leica, and what I do catch often looks more natural. Are there other cameras out there that can accomplish the same thing with less cost? Sure, but not all will mount the amazing M-system glass. Those that do are not equally designed and manufactured. Even a film Leica is relevant in the twenty-first century.

 

[Ansel]

Why does everything have to have mass market appeal or massive market share to be relevant? Seriously, who cares? What are we all sheep?

I shoot film because I love it. I use Leica's because they are small and portable and I like using them. The rest is just marketing. Dont believe the hype.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,
I made sure to state in my posting that I was talking about my case. I am not a professional, as you know.

Dear Raid,

Of course. I'm sorry: I had no intention of arguing with you, or of misinterpreting you. You are absolutely right: I just wanted to add an extra point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

Leicas used to matter, back when journalists, artists and the pioneers of modern photography used them. Now they're luxury items that have priced themselves out of the hands of the creative class. For a camera to become significant, it can't just be "the best", it also has to be accessible to the people who take risks and actively make the future of photography. It isn't anything personal, I would love to have an M9, but Leica does not matter.

You're right, I do want one, and I'm not willing to make the sacrifice because for what I want to get out of a camera I can get for a fraction of the price.

You may be at least partially true that Leicas were always expensive, but that depends on when, where, and to what portion of society...

I can't say I have ever met, or know of, any significant photographers under middle age who use a digital M. That's not to say they'd say no to one, or they don't like them, but the colossal cost of buying a modern Leica and a single lens is far out of practical consideration for anyone I know that actually makes a living from their work.

Hmmm... define "significant photographers" and "middle age." I have and make my living using an M9P and an M8. I am perhaps not "significant" though, and in my late '50s I suppose I AM middle-aged. Older perhaps?

And as far as your argument of elitist pricing, in 1974 I bought my first early '60s vintage M2 for the princely sum of $600 in really nice, but used condition. I used my Canon LTM lenses with M39-M adapters for many years with it. To give you some perspective on how much $600 was in 1974, I was making $476 a month as an E3 Navy Photographer's Mate. I bought a Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens new for a little over $200. I paid $1970 (tax and license included) for a brand new Dodge Colt two-door sedan that year, and by the time I moved out of the barracks in 1975, my roommate and I were splitting $150/mo rent utilities included for a 2 BR apartment.

$600 was a HUGE amount of money for me, and I never did have any Leitz lenses that I used on the M2. But it was a practical purchase, even then. I could do anything with that M2. It was, in some ways, even more versatile than the then-ubiquitous Nikon Ftn or Canon F. That was the first Leica I owned. I've used just about every system under the sun since then, but I've had and shot a number of Leicas both professionally and for pleasure since. And I'm back to them (almost) exclusively in small format digital. (I have a cheap Panasonic GX-1 p&s also)

 

[Michael Markey]

There seems to be a special kind of bile reserved for those who think that Leicas are worth the money and make sacrifices elsewhere in order to buy them.

Dear Roger.

Yes ...why IS this only applied to Leica.
I`ve been subjected to this sort of irrational response only recently .

On hearing that I used a Leica one of the old hands at the camera club berated me saying something to the effect that he`d not been a photography for fifty years without knowing that Leica users think they are better photographers than anyone else.
" ...and that chap in AP ...Leica mad he is " .

I can`t think who he meant .

He then went on to admit that he had two Leica R lenses which he considered to be his finest lenses.

It all seems very odd.

Michael

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Michael,

People need excuses for being rotten photographers, as well as for being mean-spirited, short-sighted, envious and (let's be honest) just plain stupid.

Good photographers (and decent people) rarely snipe at Leicas. They don't need to.

Bad (and inveterate whingers) photographers need any target they can get. Leicas? Clearly overpriced. Otherwise all Leica users would be great photographers. If there are rotten photographers using Leicas, then clearly, it's the Leicas' fault. Otherwise they'd be great photographers...

Yes, rotten photographers buy Leicas. And Canons. And Hasselblads. And Alpas.And Linhofs.

So do good photographers. But buyer of expensive cameras are if anything more willing to admit that they are not always the greatest photographers in the world -- because they know that if they were any good at using their cameras, it wouldn't be the cameras' fault.

We have here a clear example of transference: people projecting their own shortcomings on to others.

Of course there are plenty of excellent photographers who don't use Leicas. Some of them don't even like Leicas. But if they are any good at all, they are rarely so stupid as to assume that all expensive camera users are stupid or arrogant or incompetent.

It would, after all, be odd if there were a 100% correlation between deciding to buy an expensive camera, and being stupid or arrogant or incompetent.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sig]

Why so much angst over what other people think about your camera? Maybe your camera brand matters too much?

Remember it is just a tool 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why so much angst over what other people think about your camera? Maybe your camera brand matters too much?

Remember it is just a tool 🙂

Well, quite. This is why I get upset by people endlessly sniping at, and whining about, Leica and anyone who chooses Leicas. It is my preferred photographic tool, that's all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Good photographers (and decent people) rarely snipe at Leicas. They don't need to.

I don't think I've seen many people sniping at Leicas or any other make of camera, if I understand the use of the word "snipe" in this context. What I have seen is a clash over perceived values.

As to the causes of these clashes? I think that individuals on both sides make statements that are, in my opinion, intended to inflame people of the other group. From one side there's the "dentist" comment, which we recently saw nicely inverted in an amusing thread here, while from the other side we see comments along the lines of "when you learn to take real photos, you'll be able to understand why real photographers use this camera".

I think that there are hot-heads on both sides and perhaps the moderators might be more proactive in discouraging the comments that are inflamatory. It's one thing to say how pleased you are with a particular camera. It's quite another to claim that anyone, who uses a different type of camera, doesn't know what they're talking about.