cbretteville Posted June 12, 2012 Share #1 Posted June 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) One of my favourite websites just published a 1936 catalogue from Central Camera Co in Illinois. The full catalogue can be seen here: Central Camera Company catalog, 1936 | Retronaut Here is the Leica page Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Cheers, Carl Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Cheers, Carl ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/181601-leica-prices-from-1936/?do=findComment&comment=2038060'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Hi cbretteville, Take a look here Leica prices from 1936. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted June 12, 2012 Share #2 Posted June 12, 2012 Thnaks posting Carl its funny the term "Autofocal Camera" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 12, 2012 Share #3 Posted June 12, 2012 The US consumer price index increased 1,542% between 1936 and 2012, which means that the Leica G with Summar Lens, which cost $235 in 1936 would cost US$3,859 in 2012 dollars — in other words the Leica has never been an inexpensive camera —Mitch/Chiang Mai Scratching the Surface© Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted June 12, 2012 Share #4 Posted June 12, 2012 US$ 3,900.00 - including a proper lens - would make it 25 % or 33 % (can´t figure it out correctly just now) of today´s prices. With this BLACKWATER-thing LEICA seems to be moving into a VERY unfriendly direction ... best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 12, 2012 Share #5 Posted June 12, 2012 Thnaks posting Carl its funny the term "Autofocal Camera" Originally, when you 'erected' a folding camera, you first opened and secured the baseboard. Then you grabbed the camera's front standard (with the lens), fitted it to the baseboard rails, and slid it out to the infinity stop. Then, in the middle 1920's there were cameras that dispensed with all that fiddling. You just sprung the camera open, the baseboard locked and the front standard was at full infinity extension! Voila! And do you know what the marketing crowds called these cameras? Auto-focusing! You can read it in the ads and the catalogs. The old man from the Folder Age (oh for that smell of bellows leather ... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 12, 2012 Share #6 Posted June 12, 2012 Interesting to see that the two compeitors in the market - Contax and Leica - offered at EXACTLY the same price the f 3,5 and the f 2 versions of camera + lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 13, 2012 Share #7 Posted June 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reading with care... marketing isn't an invention of the '60s... , and Leica did it really smartly, considering they surely targeted with attention Zeiss moves and that they DID have some minuses versus the Contax : 1) They show to have much more choices... between which one can surely find the right Leica at the right price. 2) They find the way to offer a complete operating Leica (to say, WITH lens) for the magic "less than 100$" 3) And even quote a model that (without lens, indeed) costs LESS than a honest Nettel... a camera that does not pretend to be in the Leica/Contax class... 4) To have prices $ to $ against Contax, they give a little minus... the model with 1/500 top speed (Contax had 1/1250 !) , but the specification of top speed is NOT repeated in the models priced like Contaxes... it's only given in the description of the body only... a little trick... 5) They declare that anyway, Leica has so many models that they cannot describe them all in a simple ad... inviting to ask for docs, but imho suggesting quietly that for the customer is better to go and talk with a sales guy... talking about Leicas of course... a complex argument at the end of which one is in the mood "well, now I know everything about Leicas... I must have one"- Clearly, at that moment they hadn't yet the lens to attack the f 1,5 top aperture of Sonnar (Xenon entered just in 1936... but maybe in US they hadn't yet arranged the issue of the Taylor-Hobson patent, which led to the well known "overengraved" Xenons)... and Zeiss does its part, pricing the prestige 1,5 Contax a bit under the $300 tag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Thompson Posted June 14, 2012 Share #8 Posted June 14, 2012 Some further calculations: in 1960 a Leica IIIg with a collapsible Summicron went for $292.50. That's after WWII with the accompanying post-war inflation and 24 years, showing an increase of less than 25% from those 1936 prices. The 1960 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $2,274 in today's money, so that's a little more than a new X2 with its slower lens. Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 14, 2012 Share #9 Posted June 14, 2012 Some further calculations: in 1960 a Leica IIIg with a collapsible Summicron went for $292.50. That's after WWII with the accompanying post-war inflation and 24 years, showing an increase of less than 25% from those 1936 prices. The 1960 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $2,274 in today's money, so that's a little more than a new X2 with its slower lens. Interesting. Yes – I have argued elsewhere in this forum that Leica have gotten themselves into a market and pricing niche where they cannot survive in the long term. They have to produce a 'breakout camera' to regain their place as a serious player in the photographic market. Some M loyalists seem to be very sceptical of that argument, and some are plainly outraged. But reality is out there, and it's the only reality in town. This does not mean that Leica should drop the M line. But they must also bring out a bread and butter camera that does not target South-East Asian sultans, Chinese state capitalists, Saudis and dentists. The old man from the Age of the IIIf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 14, 2012 Share #10 Posted June 14, 2012 I agree entirely. Some more calculations using: DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator Leica Model G body that cost $126 in 1936 would cost $2,060 in 2012 US dollars. Body and a f/2 Summar that cost $235 in 1936 would cost $3,842 today. Yes, with digital you don't worry about film and processing costs. But the IIIa was also state of the art in its day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2012 Share #11 Posted June 14, 2012 This does not mean that Leica should drop the M line. But they must also bring out a bread and butter camera that does not target South-East Asian sultans, Chinese state capitalists, Saudis and dentists. The old man from the Age of the IIIf And retired proofreaders, I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 14, 2012 Share #12 Posted June 14, 2012 Jaap, if I had been just a retired proofreader, I would never have been able to afford a Leica. But I wasn't. Heard of a property ladder? There is a Leica Ladder too. Mine did really start with a M6TTL. Also, my dentist can stand a certain amout of friendly ribbing without reaching for the extraction pliers. I am sure you can, too. John Maynard Keynes in his day rated dentists just as useful as economists, which opinion was not received well by academic economists ... I don't know what the dentists thought. The old man from the Amalgam Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 14, 2012 Share #13 Posted June 14, 2012 Jaap, if I had been just a retired proofreader, I would never have been able to afford a Leica. But I wasn't. Heard of a property ladder? There is a Leica Ladder too. Mine did really start with a M6TTL. Also, my dentist can stand a certain amout of friendly ribbing without reaching for the extraction pliers. I am sure you can, too. John Maynard Keynes in his day rated dentists just as useful as economists, which opinion was not received well by academic economists ... I don't know what the dentists thought. The old man from the Amalgam Age With the due respect to Keynes... I disagree... a good dentist is , simply said, one that seldom or never fails, and patients are the proof of , so good ones are definitely "useful" , like it or not. An economist can make lot of errors and continue to be regarded as a good or even an excellent one, for the proof of his failures are oftne masked by the connatural (partial but significant) randomness of economical events : the percentage of uselfulness of the category, imho, is rather low... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 15, 2012 Share #14 Posted June 15, 2012 Luigi, Keynes was talking about a future when, hopefully, economy would be a useful profession just like dentistry, but without greater claims than they to posses the TRANSCENDENT TRUTH. I also think he hoped that in that future, economist would have a success rate somewhat equal to that of the dentists. Unfortunately, while dentistry has made great progress since the 1930's (thank goodness), the economists have tried their best to forget all they have learned since then. The old man from the Age of the Great Depression (and of Amalgam) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 15, 2012 Share #15 Posted June 15, 2012 .... the economists have tried their best to forget all they have learned since then.... The old man from the Age of the Great Depression (and of Amalgam) Well said.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.