Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I was told by a photographically interested economist that the cost of a > Leica camera in the '30s was two weeks salary for the average working man. > That is if he still had a job. The price stayed at approximately two weeks > salary until the early '60s. It started to rise after that time until it is > six weeks salary today. That is if the would be purchaser still has a job. > > One of the attractions of the Leica in the early days was the high price. A > Leica dangling from your wrist was a sign of affluence. I guess the > marketing strategy hasn't changed in 80 years. > > Larry Z > I read that when the Rolleiflex came out in the 20;s it was a German Postman's salary for several months; like six. And that was the 20's within a few years of the Leica. Of course the question is : what were the comparable costs between a Rolleiflex and a Leica? I'd assume the Rolleiflex might cost more than a Leica I with lens but don't know for sure. [Rabs] Mark William Rabiner