Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So in effect Leicas now cost twice as much as what we'd have been used to if we were 20 in 1958. Yet the answer remains who had now got seven grand to pay for a camera body? Just like in Hollywood the real geniuses in the whole deal are the accountants. How am I and a lot of people going to swing that many thousands of dollars? Start crunching numbers people! I'm not much for praying but I'm willing to dabble in black magic on a new moon when no one is looking. By the way in the way back machine I had only a couple of very well healed rich photographer friends who shot with monster flagship Canon and Nikons which a couple of thousand dollar back then and twice that now. They all got the more compact lighter weight half price versions which came out 6 months later with all the features. Perhaps they were "pro sumer." bodies which means "used by pros in the summer?" While "pro" cameras were used by people who drove Jaguars in the winter. Not by all that many pros. On 9/22/14 2:58 AM, "George Lottermoser" <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Ted Grant wrote: > >> It's just today every time we , that's we all of us on the lug can't just >> walk in to a camera store and say... "hey I'll take the new LEICA B&W >> camera." Why? Hell man how many have $22,000 in yer back pocket to pay for >> it ? The M cameras? Heck they're also at the top end of cost. AND AT THE >> MOMENT BEYOND MY REACH! :-( > > I understand all too well some of the points that are so often made re: > Leica > Costs. > > Though let's get real. > I paid $6K for a Leica M (240) - 2014 dollars > I can use every M lens I own on the body. > I can use every R lens I own on the body. > It delivers superb image quality > which will hold its own with virtually any other 24x36 sensor. > > that $6K translates to $803.26 in 1965 dollars. > or $687 in 1955 dollars. > Which is about twice what an M3 actually cost in 1955. > And you had to feed that camera continuous film and processing costs. > > And you were buying them in sets of twos and threes. > As was every other news and magazine photographer on the planet. > > Today: > Canon EOS-1D C Camera (Body Only) $10K > Nikon D3X (Body Only) $7K > A Nikon D4 (Body only) $5K > > Nobody's denouncing Nikon and Canon > for making cameras that are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE. > > The fact that we can buy so-called Pro-Sumer models for $3K > which deliver wonderful files; > and ConSumer models for a fraction of that > is the only difference. > And the fact that they make hundreds of millions of the things. > > This shit ain't cheap no matter whose making it > > Top End Medium Format Backs (no camera body at all) $40K > > A lot of this Leica IS ONLY for dilettantes and collectors > qualifies as its own mythology > kept alive by Leica naysayers. > > We have serious, prolific, talented photographers on this list > who find the ways and means to photography with M8s, M9s, Ms, and MMs. > And there's many more lists out there with many more serious Leica > shooters. > > Used M8s sell every day for $1300 - $1800 > Used M9s continue to hold at or a bit over $3K > with M9-Ps going $500 to $1,000 more than that. > I saw an M Monochrom sell a couple weeks ago for $4,500. > > The same vintage Nikons and Canons do not do nearly as well by comparison. > > I'd be lucky to get $400 or $500 for my Canon 5D. > > Apples and apples > Oranges and oranges > > Everyone's mileage, needs, wants and desires will vary > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/