Debating on getting a Leica-T

[juanm]

The Leica T, while not really overpriced -at least compared to what Leica has done in the past- is really for people who don't know much, so they buy Leica, as a feel-good guarantee. They've heard of the name and the -great- logo for a long time, and it's associated with premium cameras and legendary photographers, so for them it's a way to try to project that image onto other people.

 

[Razeus]

How much did the M3 and M6 cost when they launched? I'd like to adjust for inflation present day and figure out the overpriced. Bresson, Winogrand, Eggleston must have spent a fortune on their setups.

 

[Edge100]

How much did the M3 and M6 cost when they launched? I'd like to adjust for inflation present day and figure out the overpriced. Bresson, Winogrand, Eggleston must have spent a fortune on their setups.

The M3 cost $447 with a 50 Summicron or $288 body only (as per the 1955 catalogue).

That's about $3800 and $2400, respectively, with inflation.

 

[Attonine]

Bresson, Winogrand, Eggleston must have spent a fortune on their setups.

Not really. Bresson was very middle class. When he started out his camera would have been comparatively expensive, not really for the working man, but that was the status of photography back then Winogrand's camera can still be seen and it's very beat up. They kept their equipment for a very long time. I'm sure Bresson even ended up using something like a Minox or some kind of point and shoot in his later days. You can see clips of Eggleston working on Youtube. He's still active. I seem to recall him using something like an old R4 and even one of the Leica digi point and shoots.

 

[Razeus]

The M3 cost $447 with a 50 Summicron or $288 body only (as per the 1955 catalogue).

That's about $3800 and $2400, respectively, with inflation.

So today, you're paying an extreme premium for the Leica logo.

 

[someoldguy]

If you're getting a digital M , yup......film not so much .

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332583-USA/Leica_10546_M7_TTL_72_with.html

Bit steep for a 'starter kit' to me , but pretty close to the 'inflation adjusted prices"

 

[Edge100]

A digital M costs no more than a top end DSLR. If you're using your M to make money, AND your photography is best served by an M, then a digital M is good value.

So today, you're paying an extreme premium for the Leica logo.

----------

If by close, you mean nearly 2x higher...

If you're getting a digital M , yup......film not so much .

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332583-USA/Leica_10546_M7_TTL_72_with.html

Bit steep for a 'starter kit' to me , but pretty close to the 'inflation adjusted prices"

 

[kallisti]

All of the other mirrorless systems can use Leica M glass using relatively inexpensive adapters. Oh, and in the case of the Sony A7/A7R, those lenses can be used with a full frame sensor, as originally intended.

Interesting. Not something I'd ever researched. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[juanm]

Not really. Bresson was very middle class. When he started out his camera would have been comparatively expensive, not really for the working man, but that was the status of photography back then Winogrand's camera can still be seen and it's very beat up. They kept their equipment for a very long time. I'm sure Bresson even ended up using something like a Minox or some kind of point and shoot in his later days. You can see clips of Eggleston working on Youtube. He's still active. I seem to recall him using something like an old R4 and even one of the Leica digi point and shoots.

Nope, Cartier-Bresson was born in a wealthy family. Like Lartigue and many other French photographers at the time. It was an expensive hobby.