Interesting Dollar New/Used Depreciation Comparisons -- M4 vs M6

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On a Jeff Mellody's blog (http://jeffmellody.com/blog)

 

He publishes a 1967 Leica price list and a 1991 price list.

 

In 1967 an M4 body cost $288 which is $2040 in 2014. A used M4 runs around $1300.

 

In 1991, an M6 body cost $3630 which is $6300 in 2014. A used M6 runs around $1500 today.

 

Far less depreciation for a much older camera. Could be the smaller number of M4s out there or that there is a base floor for a Leica camera regardless of the vintage.

 

Valuing all the use someone got out of an M4 since 1967 (let's just assume one camera used all these years), it was essentially a free ride if not even a positive payback. Harder to make the same claim for the M6. Interesting too that inflation adjusted, an M240 costs about the same as an M6, technology at work. I will stay away from the digital depreciation story, we all know that one -- it is why you are looking in the analog camera section.

 

Comments/discussion on this more than welcome.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

I think depreciation is the last thing on my camera buying criteria. A time served 'free' camera is hardly 'freeing' if it doesn't do what you want, it ties you down and locks you in and productivity may go out the window for the sake of getting your money's worth. So if having a meter and more framelines in an M6 lets you take better photo's that is the camera that repays its price more than an M4. Weighing up camera's based on depreciation is a question of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing. But then I have been known to make some appalling choices

 

Steve

[TomB_tx]

I don't consider depreciation either, as I just buy cameras to use. I still have the M4 I bought in 1968, and the M6 I bought in 1985. I've never sold any Leica gear so depreciation means nothing to me. I have used the M6 more than the M4 overall, but there is still something special in using the M4.

I do the same with cars, as I keep them at least 10 years.

When I invest, it's for that purpose, and in things more reliable than photo gear.

[sblitz]

I am not trying to assess value here, I just find the relative price changes interesting and was wondering how people viewed the market. Personally I have an m4 m6 and m9 and I own them to use. I just find numbers like these interesting

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

There are a number of different parameters which are being considered here which tend to operate more or less independently of each other. Such as:

 

The cost of living indicators shown here from 1967 to 1991 to 2014 are inaccurate. Certainly the REAL cost of living has gone up Worldwide more than those ammounts in US Dollars.

 

For example: A basic auto body alone without options is a good cost of living comparator to a basic film camera body without a lens or other add-ons because: Both get you into a system where you must, to a great extent, depend on proprietary interface for add-ons & the rest.

 

By the way, a basic car over time is often a good comparator of costs of living over time for many categories of items (ie: Washing machines, refrigerators & so on.) because, like a basic film camera body, basic car bodies are often sold for the smallest markup over cost of production. This is because it is a way to lock a purchaser into a proprietary system where the costs of other options (ie: radios & air conditioners) often have a higher markup.

 

If you look at the cost of a basic automobile in the USofA in 1967: Its contemporary equivalent there (Whether foreign or domestic) has probably gone up more than 10 times in US Dollars.

 

Also: Cost in the Secondary Market in many items is often driven by DEMAND. Not by intrinsic value or by quality of build.

 

Both the M4 & the M6 are often looked at as more or less always equally repairable film cameras that will probably last as long as each other after purchase today. Altho both the quality of build of & the quality of components/materials used in an M4 are better than in an M6.

 

The M6 is the inheritor of a numer of cost cutting features introduced with the M4-2 which was the sucessor (after the M5) to the M4.

 

To most buyers the basic difference between an M 4 & an M6 is that an M6 is an M4 with a built in meter. That 1 has a different range/viewfinder than the other is probably not that important. Some people prefer 1 of them. Some people prefer the other.

 

If quality of manufacture or cost of production/materials,etc were the determining factor in determing today's cost then either an M3 or an M5 would be the most expensive older film M which has been produced in large numbers. Whichever was first, the other would be second.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[semi-ambivalent]

Hello Everybody,

 

There are a number of different parameters which are being considered here which tend to operate more or less independently of each other. Such as:

 

The cost of living indicators shown here from 1967 to 1991 to 2014 are inaccurate. Certainly the REAL cost of living has gone up Worldwide more than those ammounts in US Dollars.

 

For example: A basic auto body alone without options is a good cost of living comparator to a basic film camera body without a lens or other add-ons because: Both get you into a system where you must, to a great extent, depend on proprietary interface for add-ons & the rest.

 

By the way, a basic car over time is often a good comparator of costs of living over time for many categories of items (ie: Washing machines, refrigerators & so on.) because, like a basic film camera body, basic car bodies are often sold for the smallest markup over cost of production. This is because it is a way to lock a purchaser into a proprietary system where the costs of other options (ie: radios & air conditioners) often have a higher markup.

 

If you look at the cost of a basic automobile in the USofA in 1967: Its contemporary equivalent there (Whether foreign or domestic) has probably gone up more than 10 times in US Dollars.

 

Also: Cost in the Secondary Market in many items is often driven by DEMAND. Not by intrinsic value or by quality of build.

 

Both the M4 & the M6 are often looked at as more or less always equally repairable film cameras that will probably last as long as each other after purchase today. Altho both the quality of build of & the quality of components/materials used in an M4 are better than in an M6.

 

The M6 is the inheritor of a numer of cost cutting features introduced with the M4-2 which was the sucessor (after the M5) to the M4.

 

To most buyers the basic difference between an M 4 & an M6 is that an M6 is an M4 with a built in meter. That 1 has a different range/viewfinder than the other is probably not that important. Some people prefer 1 of them. Some people prefer the other.

 

If quality of manufacture or cost of production/materials,etc were the determining factor in determing today's cost then either an M3 or an M5 would be the most expensive older film M which has been produced in large numbers. Whichever was first, the other would be second.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

The greatest expenses in owning a car: Fuel, oil, tires and insurance, are not at all proprietary. Only spare parts are (mostly), and you can often win there by buying from a junkyard. This is why car manufacturers spend millions pushing emotion and loyalty while, in at least one case, letting people die over a $0.59 part. Betting on the irrational is often the safest.

sblitz qualified his remarks; you can prove anything with disembodied statistics, and he probably knows that. This thread would be livelier if we discussed digital rot in M240 vs. Nikon D4s, or something like that. Otherwise, buy what you want and price/depreciation be damned.

 

s-a

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Semi-Ambivalent,

 

Gasoline, etc is undoubtedly the greatest expense in terms of owning most cars.

 

Analagous to the cost of film & processing, etc in film photographty with most brands of cameras.

 

I was referring to the part of a production process that a manufacturer in that field is directly involved in the production of.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[marknorton]

Gasoline, etc is undoubtedly the greatest expense in terms of owning most cars.

 

Depends on the car of course and how much you use it but one "prestige" German car I have has depreciated by 10 times the cost of the fuel I have put in it.

 

If you buy new cars, the biggest expense of ownership by a mile is the depreciation you suffer when you try to find a buyer for it...

[semi-ambivalent]

Hello Semi-Ambivalent,

 

Gasoline, etc is undoubtedly the greatest expense in terms of owning most cars.

 

Analagous to the cost of film & processing, etc in film photographty with most brands of cameras.

 

I was referring to the part of a production process that a manufacturer in that field is directly involved in the production of.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Michael,

 

'K. I was looking at it from the owner's perspective.

 

thanks,

s-a

[semi-ambivalent]

Depends on the car of course and how much you use it but one "prestige" German car I have has depreciated by 10 times the cost of the fuel I have put in it.

 

If you buy new cars, the biggest expense of ownership by a mile is the depreciation you suffer when you try to find a buyer for it...

 

This is true Mark. I have always bought new cars and kept them over ten years before replacing. Absolutely, the new car cost much more than it would to fix *all* issues in the current car but, I just wanted a new car, ya know? I've always written that check with a clear conscience. (btw, it's been VWs since 1974. German prestige? Well...)

 

Cameras, I don't sell. So their depreciation doesn't affect me except in benefit, like the mint 24mm f/2 Ais Nikkor I picked up for $100. I guess the owner thought that, with his move to digital back in the day all the "old stuff" would just stop working. On the other hand even 'depreciated' Leica gear has a pretty dear price for most people. I think that's the singular core issue facing Leica today. They have one foot in the boat and one on the dock: Economic forces vs. a legacy tied to a particular build history. Digital hammers both sides of that situation.

 

Regards,

s-a