Are Leicas really too expensive? And what about Nikons? History tells the tale!

Sonnar Brian said:
I just buy this stuff because I like it. I like using it, I like working on it. I like publishing how-to guides and giving advice on fixing something. Turn back a small part of the entropy of the universe that ultimately states that everything breaks. That includes writing custom software to fix a bad line on my M Monochrome or my friend's M8.
Is Leica too expensive? Compared to what? There are a lot of hobbies that are much more costly, even more than Leicas.

Collecting lenses and cameras- most of the ones I've bought needed some work, or were attained at a good price. Compared to many mutual funds over the last two years- did much better. As my wife tells me, "You'll never sell them" and she is right. Also tells me "If you like it keep it. If you use it, keep it. If you do not like it, and do not use it- sell it". So my investment advisor has the card of a reputable camera dealer that sells on consignment, for when I am gone.
Click to expand...

Well said, Brian.

All the best,
Mike
 
Rayt said:
I was told by a Leica repairman the vintage lens elements are not interchangeable between lenses and are matched during assembly. Parts were not standardized until much later not sure when.
Click to expand...
It is true that at Leitz the lenses were matched during assembly, but it can be that they made an exception for the Summar, because the front lens was so vulnerable. All the front lenses of the Summars can be equal. I have six Summars and can exchange the frontlenses all against each other without causing focusing issues. However, the scratched ones cause a clear loss of contrast and sharpness. The front lens can be unscrewed as easy as a filter, after removing a tiny set screw in the front ring. A good Summar is an impressive performer. It is in my opinion a much better lens than the Summitar.

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Amsterdam, 2023

Erik.

1689416232288.png
 
Last edited:
@Erik van Straten - My appreciation of your photography skills along with your "great eye" has only increased in the six years that I've spent hanging around this forum. Perhaps if more people were to respond as you do, sharing images they've produced using the gear that they are so passionate about, threads like this one might not get nearly as contentious.
 
I don't know the history except my Summar optics are beautiful while the lens barrel looks like it went through a few wars. Here is one of my first test shots on FPP Sun ISO 1 film at f/2.2. I used the slow film to test focus and depth of field. Next I'll be loading faster film to complete my testing at smaller f/stops.

Zone of Focus at f/2.2 and ISO 1 by Neal Wellons, on Flickr
 
neal3k said:
I don't know the history except my Summar optics are beautiful while the lens barrel looks like it went through a few wars. Here is one of my first test shots on FPP Sun ISO 1 film at f/2.2. I used the slow film to test focus and depth of field. Next I'll be loading faster film to complete my testing at smaller f/stops.

Zone of Focus at f/2.2 and ISO 1 by Neal Wellons, on Flickr
Click to expand...
ISO 1? 😮😎
 
The Dow Jones Average and S&P 500 are up by a factor of Three since 2000.

dow jones average at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com duckduckgo.com

s&p 500 average at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com duckduckgo.com

My $70 Summicron, Leica M3 with Rigid Summicron, $400 Canon 85/1.5 are all up by a factor of 10. $50 Jupiter-3s are up by a factor of 5. Sonnars converted to Leica mount, factor of 10. My investment counselor tracks my collection as a major asset. It did not cost me very much- as my time is free for me, and I invested a lot of time into them. Collecting can be financially lucrative.
You have to know what you are doing. I can thank Jason Schneider and 50 years of reading him for that.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps like most people here, I buy what I enjoy without any regard to the camera or lens as an investment; the equipment is for enjoyment. It is interesting that some cameras and lenses I own have increased in value, but the point is moot because I won’t sell what I have - thus any monetary gain is unrealized and only theoretical.

I suppose I could’ve stocked up on M6’s or whatever, but in the 1990’s it appeared that anything film-related was selling for pennies on the dollar; a film resurgence was not expected.
 
I've leaned that some people just either have unadvertised disposable income or just have to have the newest thing. The M11 is a great example of utterly expensive overkill for what every non-pro uses it for. And the constant internet discussions about whether one should exchange a five year old $3,000 lens for the newest $5,000 lens makes no sense from the outside. Maybe I just don't get the rat race which dominates digital rangefinder photography discussion. Or maybe i don't want to get it.
 
das said:
I've leaned that some people just either have unadvertised disposable income or just have to have the newest thing. The M11 is a great example of utterly expensive overkill for what every non-pro uses it for. And the constant internet discussions about whether one should exchange a five year old $3,000 lens for the newest $5,000 lens makes no sense from the outside. Maybe I just don't get the rat race which dominates digital rangefinder photography discussion. Or maybe i don't want to get it.
Click to expand...
I'm all onboard for that argument. As few, if any, are working pro's our camera purchases are self indulgent. It is "want" not "need." What we spend is a factor of want and disposable income. I spent large on the Hasselblad. I shopped very carefully for the Leicas, all used. I have two M240's as I bought one for myself and another one for a friend later. He sent it back. He just did not like it and he has been fussing with cameras as long as I have know him, since '67. He's a Nikon guy. So the cameras were not cheap. OTOH I have a bunch of Jupiters that I also shopped for very carefully, guided by the advice and wisdom of our resident lens guru, Brian. The result is that I have some nice Jupiters which were gotten at a good price, all ~$100, 35mm to 135mm. I am told by Brian that the '51 KMZ 50mm f/2.0 is CZJ guts and glass, one of the early trial runs with war prize parts from CZJ itself. The same with the 35, also a '51 KMZ. And recently I was lucky with the CZJ 272 5cm f/1.5 and the Bertele. That said, I need no more lenses or cameras. I really don't need any at all but am happy and grateful for what I have.

I started with my first camera, the tiny Baby Brownie, probably in 1950. Later my logo, the Voigtländer Vito II. This began my slide into photography. I had already learned darkroom work and did all the 35mm work, starting with loading my own cassettes from 200' rolls of Plus-X. And I have just about all the cameras I have bought, going back to a Pentax K1000 bought in '81. And rather than sell them to strangers I have made arrangements for them to be given to a friend when I no longer can use them. The best possible outcome for all concerned.
 
I am really glad there are wealthy people to buy up all these high end products. This means someone in a much lower economic sphere like me can save up and buy one lens, one watch, one fountain pen one class A power amp, etc. from these companies because they haven’t all gone bankrupt yet.
 
My newest Leica cameras are the M9 and M Monochrom, both bought new. I stocked up on batteries. I could replace the cells in a pack if I had to. I'll use them until they cannot be repaired, or replaced. I like them, they deliver the Look that I like. There is no need to upgrade, a hobby- do not get paid to use them. I sold a few lenses to pay for them when they were bought new, so the outlay of cash was minimal, about 1/4th the price of the cameras. The digital age means rapid advancement of everything. Many people get caught up in having the latest and greatest. At work- Bleeding Edge of Technology for years. For a hobby- no need, use what you like. Status Symbol? Leica? I'd be out walking with my M9 and bump into someone that knows me, "Still using those funny old cameras, I see". Would not have made any difference if I had the M3, M9, or had been carrying an M11 monochrome. Most people see them as funny, old cameras.
 
My bills are paid, I am debt-free, I have no one to impress or best. So I please myself. Perhaps it is the luxury of retirement. Whatever it is I am enjoying it. And I, too. have a bunch of M8/M9 batteries, a dozen at least. I charge them every month or so just to keep them honest. I am a lucky guy. I worked 45 years to be that way. I went from living in my car to graduating with a Masters from one of the finest schools in North America all on my own, and a modest career in DP. I have had a ton of fun along the way, especially since 2000 when I was put out to pasture. I have been lucky but much of that luck is the result of hard work and lots of it. TINSTAAFL
 
The original question: “Are Leicas too expensive?”🙂 Great thread.

At the end of the day, for me, the answer is “yes”. Of course… some are very expensive!

There is more to the answer, of course. We all live our lives the best we can. Some have more material things and some do not. We choose each day, generally, what we will do and how we do it, whether it be working at a job or how we enjoy our personal time.

Our personalities are very different. And our pursuits and dreams are all different.

What one would call a responsible purchase, another may call it foolish. 🙂

Vintage Leica cameras! Funny looking old cameras indeed… but they are cool! And we enjoy them. And some of us are more creative with them than other tools. And yes, some have magnificent collections stored in climate controlled safes and the cameras are seldom used. That is all ok. Really!

Leicas are “expensive” (in general terms).

My other camera is not.😇
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top