The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica price bubble finally bursting?

Godfrey

Well-known member
Quite right - I have quite a lot of leica lenses, I bought them to take pictures with (okay Godfrey) . . . but I couldn't possibly have excused the expense without some idea that they would hold their value pretty well. ...
I'll respectfully disagree with that strategy. I have never looked at the expense of buying a high end lens with any notion of whether it was going to be worth something in the future—I look at the expense of buying a high end lens in the context of what it is that I think the lens will do for my photography.

I only consider what the residual value of a lens might be after I'm done with it, find it in the way, and figure out what I can get for it when I off it on the market. Banking on the value to persist is foolish from an investment point of view, but by and large good equipment holds its value well as others value its functionality and quality.
 

Gary Clennan

New member
I can not be more serious. There was no need to be joking as it is a fact. If you deny it, perhaps you are living in Utopia.

Photography itself isn't for the poor. Leica certainly isn't for the lower income groups, even in the most affluent societies.
Not sure exactly which source provided you with his supposed "factual" information. Send me a link as I need a good laugh today. You are one of the few spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich. I'm not wealthy nor rich but yet I own some Leica gear. How on earth could this happen? Once again - if you think only the wealthy buy Leica, you have a lot to learn... Having said this - I know what you are about Vivek and you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I don't know about anybody else, but I don't buy camera equipment to be an "investment." I buy it to use in making photographs. If I'm a professional, I'm not 'investing' in camera equipment either, I'm purchasing capital goods (tools) for use in my business (and I depreciate them as such).

Does anyone on this photography forum 'invest' in camera equipment? Seems a very risky venture.
My first Leica purchase was in 1986...have been through and around the camera bodies and lenses too many times to count...

However, I have thousands of pictures that bring to mind moments of magic, pathos and angst which would have been forgotten without the medium...that is a worthwhile investment.

Do not ask me about the Windfarm I 'invested' in about 1986...serious tax writeoffs that I still a attempting to forget.

Bob
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Residual value is an important factor in the cost of ownership . Sure its a cost but when an item holds value ..it makes getting on to the uber utopian lens require less cash. Look at the Nikon bodies for example . I bought a D700 for about $2500.. used it for two years and sold it for $2000. Or a D3s I paid $5200 and sold it for $4100 after 18 months . Those were late life cycle purchases and I made no attempt to sell when the going was good. I now have 2 D800E bodies at $3300 each ....my guess is these will still be well above $2000 in three years . It doesn t drive my decisions but I know a lot of photographers can only justify upgrades if the invested cost of the equipment is partially recouped . Add in the possible tax advantages to a professional (that makes money ) and the cost might even smaller .

Most of my Leica M glass will sell for more than I paid for it . So I don t mind having a few extra lenses...no so with my Leica bodies where we take a bath every time a new model is released .
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich.....you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.
Gary,

I believe that you may be on to something...stirring.....

However the quote itself is not inaccurate:

Photography itself isn't for the poor. Leica certainly isn't for the lower income groups, even in the most affluent societies

This does not assume in my mind it is only for the rich...as I am far from that but I have over the years put much of my discretionary funds into Leica/Hasselblad/Contax equipment. The returns have been outstanding...perhaps not in the mind of my accountant...but my vision and outlook have matured over the last 30 years.

The POOR are ever with us...not something that is addressed adequately in this discussion....as I have spent the past 20 years doing relief work in a number of very destitute places I can agree that photography is not for the poor...although even they have benefited from it..consider the efforts of Sebastião Salgado.

In my mind the Leica bubble is imaginary...over my 30 years experience the prices have remained very stable...bodies only a vehicle to display the produce...glass.

Bob
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Residual value is an important factor in the cost of ownership . ...
Cost of ownership is something my accountant becomes concerned about, but more particularly when it comes to owning things that commit you to consumables and periodic expenditures (fuel, film, insurance, etc). ;-)

Most of my Leica M glass will sell for more than I paid for it . So I don t mind having a few extra lenses...no so with my Leica bodies where we take a bath every time a new model is released .
In all the years I worked with film Ms, the only real reasons to upgrade the body were caprice and whimsy. I mean, really, how big a difference is there between an M4-2 and an MP other than the obvious built-in meter and AE metering? And the fact that it's a couple of decades newer?

Lenses - well, I never "upgraded" any of my lenses. I simply bought what I thought would work well, and bought something else when I found I needed or wanted it.

I feel the same way about the M8, M9 and upcoming models. I almost bought the M8, decided on the M9 for the larger format and a few other details ... I'll likely be using it still when the M11 comes out, if I live that long, presuming that I don't immediately have some desperate need for a new feature that it finally has. I can't see that happening.

So why take a bath, financially speaking, every time a new model is released? And if there is some advantageous reason for upgrading to a new model, well, IMO it should pay you for that upgrade in improved sales, better jobs, etc.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'll respectfully disagree with that strategy. I have never looked at the expense of buying a high end lens with any notion of whether it was going to be worth something in the future—I look at the expense of buying a high end lens in the context of what it is that I think the lens will do for my photography.
Well, Godfrey - that's you - I do that as well . . . it's just that I don't ONLY do that!
I only consider what the residual value of a lens might be after I'm done with it, find it in the way, and figure out what I can get for it when I off it on the market. Banking on the value to persist is foolish from an investment point of view, but by and large good equipment holds its value well as others value its functionality and quality.
I never said I was 'banking on it' - I just think that amongst the risks available today it's a decent one. Of course, if they do lose value then there are tax benefits as well.
In my experience (surely not a statistically valid sample) I have never lost money on a Leica lens - Nothing to be proud of, just a fact. On the other hand, I can honestly say I've never made money buying and selling shares (possibly something to be ashamed of). As Bob points out, I also have thousands of photos, which certainly have a value to me.

Back to my original point - the idea of buying a Leica 50 0.95 simply as a disposable is not really tenable for me(which, presumably, is why you haven't bought one). On the other hand, if I sold mine now for a reasonably low price, I'd have made about 15% per annum since I bought it. I'm not planning to sell it (I love using it, and use it a lot), and I don't need to sell it - but I do consider it part of my 'assets', and as such it's an investment of a kind. . . . just like my house . . . the Nocti is actually a bad example - my WATE is currently worth about 2.1/2 times what I paid for it. I bought it to take pictures with - and I keep it to take pictures with, I hope I never need to sell it, but if I do, then I'll probably make a decent return.

There are lots of things I also spend money on which I definitely consider as disposables - cars are a perfect example (yellow ones and sports cars especially so! - we're both guilty).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Not sure exactly which source provided you with his supposed "factual" information. Send me a link as I need a good laugh today. You are one of the few spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich. I'm not wealthy nor rich but yet I own some Leica gear. How on earth could this happen? Once again - if you think only the wealthy buy Leica, you have a lot to learn... Having said this - I know what you are about Vivek and you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.
Well, if you want make some characterization because you "know" something, you certainly are in that bubble.
 

Brian S

New member
Bottom line- $250 off of a $5,000 lens is not a bubble burst.

Pick it up for $1500, that's a bubble burst.

Residual value? If the job is paying 20x what the equipment cost, residual value of the equipment is not a big concern. If the cost of the lens is a large portion of your checking account at the end of the month, you think twice.
 

Hosermage

Active member
Rich or not, I'm just glad that I'm fortunate enough to have at least experienced the M9. And finally, I get to be perceived as rich for once in my life. I think different people have different priorities, that's all. I'm perfectly willing to eat off the $0.99 value meal lunch menu for the foreseeable future for the chance of getting my hands on some legendary gears. I once characterized this as being my mid-life crisis :D
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Exactly there are too basic paths to follow . One is to stay current with the upgrades that represent a material differences m8 to m9 . To make this work you need to buy as early as possible in the model life cycle . But also avoid intermediate upgrades like the m8 to m8.2 .

The other is to pick a product you are really happy with and only trade up when it either burns out or you feel compelled . To make this work you need to hang in there like starting with an M8 in 2006 and using it until 2012 . Film cameras of course had deferent life cycles . I road the R4 until digital as I could see no really advantage in trading up .

The largest part of cost of ownership in a digital camera is generally depreciation . The biggest financial mistake is trading too frequently or at the wrong time in the life cycle ...but its not really about money is it. :D

FYI I was a pretty good accountant .
 

Andrew Gough

Active member
I think there are some facts that are being ignored in this conversation. Pre M8 and pre M9, used Leica glass had fallen in value significantly, and represented a very good buy - I am PO that I missed that one... Anyway, the advent of the M8 stopped the decline and reversed it somewhat.

Enter mirrorless with its high pixel counts, and a Leica lens was an absolute bargain. Used prices were driven partially by this market. Along comes the M9, and it was a game changer for Leica. It singularly drove lens sales at an unprecedented rate, and it continues to attract new photographers to the Leica fold - myself included. Like me, these newbys have been frustrated at the unavailability of new glass, so we bought used and learned about Mandler, karbe etc...

The m10 will sell in droves, I fully expect 2 years worth of production to be essentially sold out. More pixels, means newer glass and live view will breath more life into older glass. The M10 will allow other new Leica shooters to enter the brand via a used M9 at a lower price point. These buyers will also look for used glass and increase sales in the lower priced lens segment. The M10 will bring more newbys, more sales, and a further tightening of the lens supply chain, I expect used prices will firm up then.
 

4season

Well-known member
My links to the aforementioned Leica MP and 0-series cameras notwithstanding, I think it's healthy to be skeptical about some of the hefty prices for today's Leica gear and to question how sustainable they are: Buy into the Leica M mythos if if amuses you to do so. But also listen to that inner voice which questions whether paying $8K for a 17 MP camera body might, just might, be a little dotty. Because like gold, "Paul Newman" Rolex Daytona wristwatches and diamonds, the intrinsic value of these things is limited, and current prices may have little to do with actual scarcity and a lot more to do with a shared belief in their worth.

Admittedly, my own attitudes towards the the Stuff in my life has been changing: I used to subscribe to the notion of "Own less but own the very best". But more recently I've been questioning what "The Best" actually means.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
Back to my original point - the idea of buying a Leica 50 0.95 simply as a disposable is not really tenable for me(which, presumably, is why you haven't bought one). ...
I've not purchased a Noctilux because a) I can't afford it, and b) I don't know really why I'd want one. I barely even use my Nokton 50/1.5 wide open. To carry a larger, heavier, far more expensive lens with no clear reason to ... na, not for me.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
People who save their money and/or make sacrifices in other area's to buy the goods. Not sure if you were joking or not but it is not only the rich who use Leica.... Although it still tends to be a strong (and untrue) stereotype.
1. 'Saving money' is not an option for the low income groups. They have none.

2. 'Make sacrifices in other area's ( sic..areas )' !! I make sacrifices only to provide for the most critical necessities of life. Else, for me, it boils own to allocating available resources amongst various non-essentials.

3. Using credit to purchase something non-essential, to me is an alien concept ( my bank hates me for this ). Besides, I do not intend to pay more than the MRSP; which is what one does when using plastic to defer payments over a length of time.

Lower income groups, do not usually have this facility avaiable to them.

Having traveled extensively during the last 30 or more years, lived amongst the most affluent of societies...I know that Leica gear is not made nor marketed for the low income groups.

I do not earn any part of my living through photography. My current Leica gear was bought in cash by the money I made buying and then selling Leica gear. A big thanks to the Leica lovers.

In the markets that operate today, there is no such thing as a high or low price. It is up to the buyer to decide. To me, If I can, I shall buy high only if I can sell higher. And, as in the case of my Leicas, make images that for me shall last for very long..the price paid for the equipment is irrelevant.

Lower income groups do not have that option. My views here relate only to
non-essential items in life.
 

wattsy

Well-known member
The m10 will sell in droves, I fully expect 2 years worth of production to be essentially sold out...

...The M10 will bring more newbys, more sales, and a further tightening of the lens supply chain, I expect used prices will firm up then.
It's difficult to predict these things but I have a feeling that the M10 will be nothing like the M9 in terms of sales – I think there will be significantly fewer upgraders and fewer new entrants into the M system. Leica no longer seems quite the flavour of the month that it seemed last year and I'm not sure the M10, whatever the specs, will be the sales 'game changer' that the M9 undoubtedly proved.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
It's difficult to predict these things but I have a feeling that the M10 will be nothing like the M9 in terms of sales – I think there will be significantly fewer upgraders and fewer new entrants into the M system. Leica no longer seems quite the flavour of the month that it seemed last year and I'm not sure the M10, whatever the specs, will be the sales 'game changer' that the M9 undoubtedly proved.
The real impact of the Nikon D800/E maybe that (1) it sucks both money and desire for the latest out of the advanced amateur segment and (2) it established a very high hurdle for the value proposition of an entire system .

In January its was the Sony Nex 7 ....in February it was the Fuji XPro 1 ..in March it was the D800 . Money aside ...it takes a heck of a lot of work to learn the different systems and make them second nature . Mix in that post processing is typically months behind and there is a big effort to absorb a new system .

I am as big a Leica M fan boy as you will find and I am having a hard time getting excited . If the ISO performance isn t great at 1600-3200 ..my transition maybe slow . Especially if they get up around $10K with pricing .

Agree completely that its unlikely that the M10 will be game changer that the M9 was.
 

Brian S

New member
A few years ago many people predicted that Leica would not be around for much longer. The M9 has been the most successful Leica cameras since the M4. Leica just set up a new factory to increase production. In this day, with this economy, it's nice to see a company creating jobs.

My prediction- if the M10 goes CMOS, the price point will be the same or lower than the M9 is now.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The real impact of the Nikon D800/E maybe that (1) it sucks both money and desire for the latest out of the advanced amateur segment and (2) it established a very high hurdle for the value proposition of an entire system .

In January its was the Sony Nex 7 ....in February it was the Fuji XPro 1 ..in March it was the D800 . Money aside ...it takes a heck of a lot of work to learn the different systems and make them second nature . Mix in that post processing is typically months behind and there is a big effort to absorb a new system .

I am as big a Leica M fan boy as you will find and I am having a hard time getting excited . If the ISO performance isn t great at 1600-3200 ..my transition maybe slow . Especially if they get up around $10K with pricing .

Agree completely that its unlikely that the M10 will be game changer that the M9 was.
This is only partially true!

I made my new D800E sing within 2 days, as I have shot several other Nikon DSLRs in the past - D1, D100, D200, D3, D700 and now D800E. So that learning curve was zero.

In the moment I do not shoot any M digital, but also shot an M8 for 3 years, so I am sure I can be back pretty soon in this system as well.

In parallel to the D800E I am shooting an OMD with several M43 lenses and also no issue.

And sometimes I even take my H3D39 of special requests and also here it is just turning on and go shooting.

And I am really looking forward to the new M10 with hopefully CMOS, that one will be a fix starter for me!
 
Top