Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A little blow-dry on the curtains and it's just fine <g>. I've even shot in a-la-mode with that camera (when a frozen yogurt collapses on the top plate and lens). >From period ads I've seen (and from the Montgomery Ward photography catalogs), the M3/collapsible Summicron combination was about $425-450, or roughly $3800 in current money--which means the M9/50mm Summicron combo of 2014 is about four times as expensive as the '50s counterpart. If the person wanted a new Leica, but couldn't swing the M3's price, there was always the IIIf/DA or IIIg, at about 60% of the M3's price. Also consider that in those days it was four DM to the dollar, which made a lot of high quality German products attractive buys in the US. Back to negative scanning. Jim PS. Personally, if I only shot with a 50mm lens I'd have purchased a new Kodak Retina IIIc, with combined fv/rf, f2 Schneider lens, lever advance, built-in meter and folding front for about $150-175 brand new. I've owned a number of these since the 1970s, and they are great performers that are built like tanks. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Ken Carney Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:02 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] The Real Cost of Leicas That is one tough M3. OK, an M today costs about $7,000. The M3 was introduced in 1954. $7,000 today equals $807 in 1954, based on the CPI. I think the M3 with a 50 Summicron sold new for about $500 in 1954. What does it mean? I don't know. As Doug pointed out comparing film to digital is like comparing watermelons to adverbs. Ken On 1/11/2014 6:02 PM, Jim Shulman wrote: > Why not just grab an affordable Leica and shoot pictures? I did > today--shot a roll of Neopan 400 with my M3/Summilux 50, which is drying > now in the shower stall. If we had as many picture posts as we do > discussions on Leica prices and market behavior, the LUG gallery would > overload a server. > > Jim Shulman > Wynnewood, PA > Whose subjects show more spherical aberrations than his lenses. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Mark Rabiner > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:30 PM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] The Real Cost of Leicas > > Exactly how I feel about it. As it happens to be true as the nose on your > face. > > > On 1/11/14 12:56 PM, "Paul Roark" <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote: > >> For business, it's really >> a question of return on investment. In that respect, digital has >> increased the cost of my "hobby," but it has lowered my "cost of >> business" (due to huge productivity gains). >> >> Paul >> www.PaulRoark.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information