Re: [Leica] Were Leicas always so expensive?

[Ken Iisaka <kiisaka@ms.com>]

Eric Welch wrote:

> It's been said that early on, Leica's were about two month's salary (of
> course, that's a relative term), but that it's stayed right about at that
> relative figure. Considering the price of a lens and body. I remember that
> in the early 70s, a Leica wasn't THAT much more than other cameras and
> lenses. I do remember an R4 in '83 was $1,200 with Passport. An F3 was
> about $700 if I remember correctly, and a Pentax LX was $800.

Two month's salary, huh?  Isn't DeBeers telling you to spend that much on a
diamond ring?  Gee, I'd rather give a Leica.  (I did give a diamond ring to my
then fiancee.  It did not cost two month's salary.  It cost me two month's
disposable income.)

Oh, yesI congratulated myself with a DS M3 + DR Summicron after the birth of
my first son, Ansel.  No, I didn't buy an 8x10.

Leicas aren't THAT much more expensive than other cameras today, either.  A
Nikon F5 body costs about $1600 in Japan, and an R8 costs a just a little
less.  Compared to what many spend on fancy wheels and car accessories, a
$10,000 Leica system seems like a bargain.