The Price of Leica Products and Services

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have to realize the price is not the cost.

 

I don't know why so many are reluctant to borrow. You're not going to use it up in a day; you're going to use it over a long time, so why not spread payment over time?

 

If and when you decide to sell, you often can get your whole investment back. I bought a 50mm Summilux-R (used) about 10 years ago for $750. I could probably sell it now for $1100, based on e-bay completed listings.

[bill]

Borrowing has a cost. Effectively it makes the item you purchase more expensive. You pay for your impatience. That's why people don't borrow, but instead choose to liquidate existing items or simply save up. It's not hard to understand.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Peter H]

You have to realize the price is not the cost.

 

I don't know why so many are reluctant to borrow. You're not going to use it up in a day; you're going to use it over a long time, so why not spread payment over time?

 

If and when you decide to sell, you often can get your whole investment back. I bought a 50mm Summilux-R (used) about 10 years ago for $750. I could probably sell it now for $1100, based on e-bay completed listings.

 

Are people reluctant to borrow?

 

I see very little evidence of that.

 

Neither do most banks and governments in the world who rather wish that domestic borrowing had not got quite so out of control over the last twenty years or so.

[zlatkob]

The very good news with Leica is low depreciation ...

I have no argument with the new pricing, but my impression is that depreciation is only low if one babies the gear and keeps it pristine minty, which is apparently what a lot of owners do. However, with tiny signs of wear from normal usage, depreciation can be sizable. So the expectation of low depreciation can be a false one for a working photographer. It all depends on the time period and the amount of wear, of course.

[Peter H]

I have no argument with the new pricing, but my impression is that depreciation is only low if one babies the gear and keeps it pristine minty, which is apparently what a lot of owners do. However, with tiny signs of wear from normal usage, depreciation can be sizable. So the expectation of low depreciation can be a false one for a working photographer. It all depends on the time period and the amount of wear, of course.

 

Also, depreciation is irrelevant unless/until you sell the thing.

 

Or use it as collateral for another loan that you'll need to repay. With interest.

 

But for taking photos, the cost is what you pay for it.

[Guest Ornello]

Also, depreciation is irrelevant unless/until you sell the thing.

 

Or use it as collateral for another loan that you'll need to repay. With interest.

 

But for taking photos, the cost is what you pay for it.

 

When trading up, etc. the retention of value is very significant. Whenever Leica introduces a newer lens, previous versions surprisingly go up in value. When the new 19mm Elmarit-R and 50mm Summilux-R came out they were a lot more expensive than the older designs. The older 19 has gone up quite a bit as a result; the 50mm Summilux-R has also increased, but since so many more of that lens were made the effect is somewhat muted. Because some people are reluctant to pay to price for the latest versions, they pursue older ones; that demand drives the prices up. Also, some people are even buying the old one-cam lenses and putting them on Canon digital cameras. I have recently seen people asking $600-700 for the old 180mm Elmarit-R (the big heavy one) and sometimes getting it! I sold mine for $225 in an eyeblink on e-bay two years ago.

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no argument with the new pricing, but my impression is that depreciation is only low if one babies the gear and keeps it pristine minty, which is apparently what a lot of owners do. However, with tiny signs of wear from normal usage, depreciation can be sizable. So the expectation of low depreciation can be a false one for a working photographer. It all depends on the time period and the amount of wear, of course.

 

 

A small amount of wear is not that significant in my experience, looking at lots of e-bay sales. The vast majority of lenses show at least some wear. Mint copies go for a premium, but not a huge one usually. It depends on the scarcity of that item to some extent. The premium seems to be 10-20% in the vast majority of cases.

[Lindolfi]

In my perception, this is a very onesided and materialist discussion. When you have worked with photographic equipment, the true value for you has been built up by using it, develop your talent, spend hours of fun and creativity. The monetary value becomes less and less important. The representations in various parts of your brain have become more and more important.

 

That is why I never sell a camera or lens that I've loved and learned to work with: the value for me has increased far beyond the monetary value.

[IWC Doppel]

I have no argument with the new pricing, but my impression is that depreciation is only low if one babies the gear and keeps it pristine minty, which is apparently what a lot of owners do. However, with tiny signs of wear from normal usage, depreciation can be sizable. So the expectation of low depreciation can be a false one for a working photographer. It all depends on the time period and the amount of wear, of course.

 

True, but some don't take the time to clean before sale. Any small wear marks can be effectively sorted with black anodising touch up chemicals. Give me half an hour and most lenses will look very close to mint after a 'valet'.

 

I wouldn't buy a very highly marked and 'tatty' lens, only because it may cost me more to have service than buying a better condition. But I certainly would buy one that looks used. It's no difference to cars except with lenses you don't have a speedo.

[biglouis]

Thank goodness for someone talking about the elephant in the room.

 

I have several times posted about the ridiculous new and secondhand prices of Leica equipment. I'm not complaining - I've never owned camera equipment which I've sold for more than I've bought and that after several years of use.

 

I do think Leica are living on borrowed time. They can't maintain these prices in a changed world economy and expect this to go on forever. Apart from anything a competitor will come into the market to gobble up some of the premium they are enjoying.

 

Who knows, maybe Fuji will finally get it right and develop an M9 killer (I don't think they have it with the X-Pro 1)?

 

That said a couple of weeks ago I bought a Fuji GSW690 (aka the 'Texas' Leica) for £395 off eBay which so far has produced far better results than any Leica camera lens combination I have ever owned and that is from scanned negs. Of course with this or any other non-Leica rangefinder camera you don't enjoy the ethereal bonding between man and camera which we all experience when shooting with a Leica (you do experience it don't you?).

 

LouisB

[Peter H]

When trading up, etc. the retention of value is very significant. ......

 

Of course. And you do make some valid points about the cost of ownership and so forth.

 

But not everyone has the available cash, (and as I've said before, that includes credit) to be able to take advantage of that. To them the cost of entry is often too high, and so the retention value becomes irrelevant to them. In fact, it can represent a further barrier to entry and ownership.

 

That's why there's no absolute right and wrong in this discussion about price and cost and value: it depends on many variable circumstances, priorities and preferences.

[Guest Ornello]

Of course. And you do make some valid points about the cost of ownership and so forth.

 

But not everyone has the available cash, (and as I've said before, that includes credit) to be able to take advantage of that. To them the cost of entry is often too high, and so the retention value becomes irrelevant to them. In fact, it can represent a further barrier to entry and ownership.

 

I find it hard to believe that if you really want to, it is impossible. How much are you spending on coffee, cigarettes, beer? I set aside money to buy my stuff each week, and have bought 5 lenses and a new SL2 body (all used, admittedly) in the last 8 years:

 

560mm Telyt-R ($850)

350mm Telyt-R ($1000)

21mm SA-R ($1000)

180mm Elmarit-R-2 ($700) (sold old model for $225)

250mm Telyt-R ($800)

SL2 Chrome body ($600)

 

Now I know some of the faster Leica lenses are several thousand each, but Summarits are not. You don't really need a 21mm Summilux-M, do you?

 

[stunsworth]

Now I know some of the faster Leica lenses are several thousand each, but Summarits are not. You don't really need a 21mm Summilux-M, do you?

 

It's easier to get a 21mm Summilux than a 21mm Summarit.

[Guest Ornello]

It's easier to get a 21mm Summilux than a 21mm Summarit.

 

Production issues? I don't follow you.

 

I was not aware there was a 21mm Summarit. I thought it was an Elmarit.

 

Correct:

 

Summarits are 35, 50, 75, 90.

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/summarit_lenses/1/

 

Looks like the Elmarit has been replaced with an Elmar:

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

Edited March 17, 2012 by Ornello

[adan]

I do think Leica are living on borrowed time. They can't maintain these prices in a changed world economy and expect this to go on forever.

 

Ahh, but which part of the "changed world economy"? The suffering West (Europe and U.S.) or the booming East? If buyers in Somerset or San Francisco can't afford the gear, Leica just ships to Shanghai or Singapore. (I might have added "or Sao Paulo", except: UPDATE 2-Brazil job creation plummets on abrupt slowdown | Reuters )

 

Apart from anything a competitor will come into the market to gobble up some of the premium they are enjoying. Who knows, maybe Fuji will finally get it right and develop an M9 killer (I don't think they have it with the X-Pro 1)?

 

Competitors like:

Contax G? (gone)

Konica RF? (gone)

Epson R-D1 (gone, except maybe in Japan?)

 

I'll grant that Zeiss and Cosina are likely doing well with lenses - but if they were really gobbling up any important part of Leica's market, why are most Leica lenses sold out for months ahead?

 

Over the past 20 years, the surest result of trying to compete with Leica head-to-head in RFs has been - going out of business. Leica may be only an 80-pound chimpanzee and not an 800-pound gorilla - but rangefinder cameras are a very small room. We'll see if Fuji can break the streak.

Edited March 17, 2012 by adan

[stunsworth]

I was not aware there was a 21mm Summarit. I thought it was an Elmarit.

 

There isn't one. You advised people to buy Summarits and then gave an example or a focal length where no such lens exists.

 

People buy fast lenses for all sorts of reasons, and I wouldn't presume to tell them not to.

[Guest Ornello]

There isn't one. You advised people to buy Summarits and then gave an example or a focal length where no such lens exists.

 

People buy fast lenses for all sorts of reasons, and I wouldn't presume to tell them not to.

 

But there are cheaper alternatives, that's what I meant. Just because they make a 21mm Summilux that doesn't mean that such an expensive lens is right for you. The cost is directly related to the speed. Slower lenses are available, and they are less expensive. There are used Elmarits around in abundance, and there is an Elmar.

 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=elmarit+21mm&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Edited March 17, 2012 by Ornello

[pico]

Overpriced camera? Holga.

And look at the quality of the image!

(That's my life-long partner Molly and Bigdog.)

 

Definitely too good for an all plastic camera. They absolutely must get a handle on anti-quality control.

[stunsworth]

The digital bodies are of course a depreciating asset and a new M9 today unfortunately won't be worth very much in five years time.

 

The DMR was discontinued 5 years ago. Dealers sell them for around £2-2.5 thousand, so perhaps the outlook isn't as bleak as you fear.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[cocker]

Of course with this or any other non-Leica rangefinder camera you don't enjoy the ethereal bonding between man and camera which we all experience when shooting with a Leica (you do experience it don't you?).

 

LouisB

 

Of course! That's why my shutter release is soooooo "sticky".