[Leica] Leica prices

[lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

Let me say at the outset that if Leica had buyers like me to count on they
would have gone bankrupt years ago. I've only purchased four new items from
Leica in 50 years. In 1954 I bought a brand new M3 (first edition) with an
Elmar 50 mm lens. Because I wasn't sure how the new camera would perform, I
bought a IIIF with a 50mm Summicron at the same time figuring I would
dispose of one later. Both cameras were bought at a duty free airport store
for the princely sum of $154 each. I still have the receipts to prove it.
And incidentally, I still have both cameras. The M3 held up very nicely,
thank you.

In 1973 I bought a CL with its 40 mm Summicron. I believe I paid about $375
at a large NYC camera store. For years it was my favorite travel camera.
Finally in 1999 I bought my first really functional digital, a Leica Digilux
Zoom. It cost a bit more than $400 from B&H and came with a Photoshop disc.
This 1.3 MB Digilux camera was made by Panasonic and simply rebadged as a
Leica.

All my other Leica equipment, and I have a drawer full, was bought used at
camera stores or pawn shops. Fortunately my university office was in the
middle of NYCs Gramercy Park photo district, one block from Leica's USA
headquarters. Cheap Leicas were available as fashion photographers abandoned
their Leicas to move to Nikon and Canon SLRs and Hassleblads.

That being said, at one time Leica had very competitive prices. I have in my
hand a Leica catalog from 1966. That was the year that Leica stood atop the
heap of quality camera sales. A new M3 SS body, reputedly the best 35mm
camera ever made, sold for $288. With a 50 mm Summicron, the highest
resolution normal camera lens that Modern Photography ever tested, the price
was $438. A Leica M2 body was $249.

Lenses too were cheap. A rigid 50mm Summicron was $150. If you wanted the
lens in a a dual range mount with an optical viewing unit, you paid $189. A
35mm Summicron f2.0 was $163. The 35mm f1.4 Summilux was $198. Other Leica
equipment was similarly low priced. The 50mm optical bright line viewfinder
sold for $19.50 and no other viewfinder cost more than $54. For those of you
that have agonized over the price of Leica lens caps, be aware that in 1966,
a chrome cap for a 50mm Summicron cost $1.95.

But that was in 1966, 44 years ago. How do those prices compare with today's
prices. The cost of living in the US has increased at an average rate of 4.1
percent a year since WW2. In the 44 years since 1966, living costs have
increased 5.86 fold. I bought a Volkswagen in 1966 for about $1200, gasoline
was $.39 a gallon, and a Sunday issue of the New York Times cost $.50.
Assuming that Leica prices tracked the cost of living index, a Leica M3 with
Summicron, if available new, should cost about $2600. The body alone should
cost about $1700. The M2 about $1500. But I assume that by this time all the
machinery and development costs of the cameras would have been amortized
many times over and automatic production process employed so the cameras
should actually cost less to make.

So why is the M9 and its associate lenses so expensive. Don't give me any
bullshit about the relative ratio of the Euro to the dollar. Or the increase
in costs of optical glass. The material costs of a Leica are trivial
compared to the sales price. Electronics are supplied by various vendors and
there is a ready sully of silicon foundries. For most technical industries,
labor costs are 85% of manufacturing costs and labor cost track the consumer
price index quite well.

I'm sure that no one on the LUG will claim that the M8 and M9 are superior
mechanically to the M3, in fact just the opposite. Once a lens design is
established and the glass grinding techniques worked out, the manufacturing
process of a modern lens and older Summicrons are nearly identical.
Aspherics are generally molded, by the way, not ground. I'm sure that not
even Leica will claim that you get three times the picture quality from a
$3000 lens compared to a $1000 lens. In fact only marginal improvements, if
that, have been reliably demonstrated over the picture quality for far less
expensive Nikon lenses.

So we must conclude that Leica pricing is market driven and has
comparatively little to do with actual manufacturing costs. Just as DeBeers
diamonds would sell for a fraction of their price if the market was
uncontrolled, Leica prices are inflated because the company has decided to
market them as luxury goods. The professional market for Leicas, except
possibly for LUG members, is so small as to be inconsequential. But get
Leicas into the hands of rich and powerful, or celebrities, and you have a
viable "must have" ego boosting item.

Comparative picture quality be damned, "It costs more but I'm worth it."


Now I feel better. But I won't be buying any new Leicas.

Larry Z