Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Two months' salary
From: Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:36:01 +0100

Ken Iisaka wrote:
>Eric Welch wrote:
>> It's been said that early on, Leica's were about two month's salary (of
>> course, that's a relative term), but that it's stayed right about at that
>> relative figure. Considering the price of a lens and body. I remember that
>> in the early 70s, a Leica wasn't THAT much more than other cameras and
>> lenses. I do remember an R4 in '83 was $1,200 with Passport. An F3 was
>> about $700 if I remember correctly, and a Pentax LX was $800.

>Two month's salary, huh?  Isn't DeBeers telling you to spend that much on a
>diamond ring?  Gee, I'd rather give a Leica.  (I did give a diamond ring to my
>then fiancee.  It did not cost two month's salary.  It cost me two month's
>disposable income.)

My fiancee & I just made *exactly* this choice. A diamond (which she
pointedly did not want), or an M6 HM and a Ricoh GR1? We chose the 
cameras! [And, by the way, they cost more like THREE months' salary 
- - we're both grad students :-).]
..........................................................................
Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com
            | PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840