3 ms·

Not to mention Leicas were far more accessible in their heyday than they are now - there is a widespread misbelief that Leica has always been crazy-expensive, a

Not to mention Leicas were far more accessible in their heyday than they are now - there is a widespread misbelief that Leica has always been crazy-expensive, as a justification for their current prices. The Leica M3 was $288 USD in 1955. That's $2560 in today's dollars. New Leica bodies are $7000. The original pricing of the Leica, before they became a piece of jewelry, is in line with modern prosumer cameras, not the $7000 neurosurgeon wrist-decorations they are today. Oh, and the 50mm f/2 Summicron was $159 in 1955 ($1400 today). They are now between $2400 and $8200. I shoot a M6 also and have some pretty great, old glass. But modern Leicas are status items that are vastly overpriced for what they are.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
Thanks for digging up those numbers. I was going to make a point about that, but couldn't find the original prices and didn't want to make any hand-wavy statements about how it used to be back in the 'old days' ;)
kirian 12y ago
Reminds me of this article on the price of Rolex watches and how they have increased as Rolex watches have evolved from a professional tool to a luxury item. http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revealing-analysis/ http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revea...
lips 12y ago
^All of this. As a stalwart Leica shooter of 10 years, it's not bitterness or jealousy I feel, but sadness at their having moved on from making tools to what amounts to more or less "just another camera," albeit of a rarified form. The key moment for me was the M7, when they reversed the direction the shutter speed dial rotates. Though it seems rather innocuous, but as a daily "lugger" with 2 other older bodies, it basically said "Goodbye, we don't care about your type any longer." That they couldn't really keep up with the immense digital R&D budgets of more mainstream camera companies was not entirely surprising, and I accepted long ago that a Leica purchase would consist of high cost, and performance (though not necessarily image quality) that equals a generation or two back as compared to Canon/Nikon. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this camera was immensely successful for them. The avant-garde design (as compared to the current retro-schtick) has cachet, <2K is a more reasonable price-point than the M models, it apparently performs adequately, and a new lens mount gives it plenty of "retail therapy" potential. This really is a page out of the Apple playbook. Leica has been, for many years, not a single monolithic philosophy as manifested in equipment, but a company navigating a rapidly changing market. For a time they found a sizable market that echoed my wants, but no longer. Such is life, and Leica is not alone. Plaubel-Makina and numerous other companies were less fortunate or capable. My "cred": 15+ years shooting/Leica CL/M3/M6/M7/M9:Canon/AE-1/D30/D60:Nikon/FM-3/F100/D90/D700/D3/D800:Fuji/X100S
- lips 12y ago
  After reading the reviews linked below, I take back any positive prediction for this thing. Looks like Leica missed an opportunity to make a camera that's competitive with other current models in respect to usability and speed. C'est la vie.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

Thanks for digging up those numbers. I was going to make a point about that, but couldn't find the original prices and didn't want to make any hand-wavy statements about how it used to be back in the 'old days' ;)

kirian 12y ago

Reminds me of this article on the price of Rolex watches and how they have increased as Rolex watches have evolved from a professional tool to a luxury item. http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revealing-analysis/ http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-prices-past-60-years-revea...

lips 12y ago

^All of this. As a stalwart Leica shooter of 10 years, it's not bitterness or jealousy I feel, but sadness at their having moved on from making tools to what amounts to more or less "just another camera," albeit of a rarified form. The key moment for me was the M7, when they reversed the direction the shutter speed dial rotates. Though it seems rather innocuous, but as a daily "lugger" with 2 other older bodies, it basically said "Goodbye, we don't care about your type any longer." That they couldn't really keep up with the immense digital R&D budgets of more mainstream camera companies was not entirely surprising, and I accepted long ago that a Leica purchase would consist of high cost, and performance (though not necessarily image quality) that equals a generation or two back as compared to Canon/Nikon. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this camera was immensely successful for them. The avant-garde design (as compared to the current retro-schtick) has cachet, <2K is a more reasonable price-point than the M models, it apparently performs adequately, and a new lens mount gives it plenty of "retail therapy" potential. This really is a page out of the Apple playbook. Leica has been, for many years, not a single monolithic philosophy as manifested in equipment, but a company navigating a rapidly changing market. For a time they found a sizable market that echoed my wants, but no longer. Such is life, and Leica is not alone. Plaubel-Makina and numerous other companies were less fortunate or capable. My "cred": 15+ years shooting/Leica CL/M3/M6/M7/M9:Canon/AE-1/D30/D60:Nikon/FM-3/F100/D90/D700/D3/D800:Fuji/X100S

lips 12y ago
After reading the reviews linked below, I take back any positive prediction for this thing. Looks like Leica missed an opportunity to make a camera that's competitive with other current models in respect to usability and speed. C'est la vie.