[Leica] Leica prices

[passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)]

Larry I don't know if you saw the quote from Raymond Chandler I posted the
other day, from The Little Sister, published in 1949, but in it a young
woman explains to Philip Marlow that her brother has one of those "terribly
expensive" little German cameras that can take a "snap" in any kind of light
- "a Leica."

However I'd love to chat with economist because if as Jim reported the Leica
M3 w/ Summicron was $460 in 1955. that represented more than four weeks'
salary. Oh but the camera alone was $280 I believe -- which is a little less
than three weeks' salary based on median incomes from that time. Between two
and three and closer to three. In any case the M3 which was introduced after
his date range begins was a considerably more expensive camera than the IIIf
which preceded it, I believe.

Median income now for one person (male) is about 40K, which is (rounded up a
smidgen) $800 a week. And the M7 is -- yeah -- about six times that. And the
M9 almost nine weeks.

Makes the d700 or A850 look better all the time.... except they don't look
better, they're big and ugly looking things that make a racket.



On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at 
gmail.com>wrote:

> I was told by a photographically interested economist that the cost of a
> Leica camera in the '30s was two weeks salary for the average working man.
> That is if he still had a job. The price stayed at approximately two weeks
> salary until the early '60s. It started to rise after that time until it is
> six weeks salary today. That is if the would be purchaser still has a job.
>
> One of the attractions of the Leica in the early days was the high price. A
> Leica dangling from your wrist was a sign of affluence. I guess the
> marketing strategy hasn't changed in 80 years.
>
> Larry Z
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>