Re: [Leica] Leica prices

["steve lehuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

As somebody who has historically lost money on everything I have EVER bought
(I am probably the only guy in the world who lost money on a rare classic
Porsche). I have probably come out ahead on the Black M2 that i bought about
15 years ago with 3 chrome lenses for $400.
Steve
Annapolis

- ----------
>From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica prices
>Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2000, 10:52 AM
>

> One of my many regrets in life is passing up the opportunity to buy a brand
> spanking new M4 with 50 Summilux, for about $600 Canadian.  Of course this
> was back in 1969, and 600 bucks was worth a lot back then, but I DID end up
> buying a Minolta SRT-101 with 58/1.2 for about $300.  If I had just been
> able to get my father to lend me the extra $300......
>
> By the way, the problems start when you already have 2 M6s, and then some
> wise guy on the LUG starts talking about a new black paint LHSA for only
> $2795...  ;-)))
>
> Dan C.
>
> At 09:20 AM 02-03-00 +0000, Mike Johnston wrote:
> [smip]
>
>>
>>I could have bought an M3 when I was in Photography School for
>>$400-$600. Its value would have even kept up with inflation since then.
>>
>>If you look at it that way, the "cost" of using Leica M gear is really
>>pretty absurdly low. It would be very cheap right now for newcomers to
>>try an M6, for instance. You can get users for $1300-$1500 and they're
>>just not going to lose very much value--they may even gain value. A
>>$1400 used M6 bought today is certainly not going to be worth $450 in
>>three or four years, which might be the case with a new Wunderplastik AF
>>35mm. "Try an M6 for a year for free"--sounds like an ad campaign.
>>
>>The only way it costs a lot is if you keep it, but by that time it's
>>painless, because you've already parted with the money--and you've
>>already decided it's worth it to you to keep.
>>
>>--Mike
>>
>>
>>
>