How do you justify the Leica prices (for yourself) ?

[zuiko85]

Got into Leica backwards. Always wanted one but they were too expensive. Then a neighbor loaned me an M4-2 and CV 35mm f2.5 PII for a couple of weeks. He made me a really good deal on the CV 35 and a 21 too so I had to get a body, right? But that was in early 2010 before prices went wacko.

[Viktor Sebastian]

I can't and buying second hand is a gamble I won't be repeating.

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Sky

i am also wondering selling my leica gear, while it is a wonderful machine it is way too expensive. the money from the sale will go on a travel.

It is exactly what I did. I do not regret it.

[mugent]

I think others have summed it up well, but my experience is that after owning a Leica, I sold it, the extra cash wasn't worth it to me, the money can be put to better use.
If the owning of a Summilux (or whatever), makes you happy, then keep it, if it makes you feel uneasy, like it did for me, then get rid of it.

I get slightly uneasy feelings when eating at expensive restaurants, so I choose not to now.

[OddE]

To the extent that I need any justification to spend as much on my photo gear as I do, I simply pause to think for a moment; just about all of my gear is bought second hand, so someone else took the depreciation hit. Also, I'm not in a hurry when I scout out some new (to me) lens or body, so I can wait around a while for a good deal.

Most of what I've got (Two DSLRs and a 70-200 f/2.8 VRI aside) I could sell today for what I gave for it or more. So - yes, while it is a lot of money (to me, anyway) tied up in gear, I can convert it back to cash without taking a significant financial hit should need arise.

Besides, having a couple of great bodies and some terrific glass to go along with them is a lot more fun than having the same kind of $$$ in a savings account.

[edftwin]

Life is too short to worry about the little money, you can earn it back as time goes.
Go out and shoot more with it, don't keep thinking about the money spent worth or not, you will end up as a sad old man.

[Roger Hicks]

Part of earning a living. It suits what I do, better than any other camera.

But as others have said, why try to 'justify' it? How do you 'justify' not giving all your money to the poor? I used Leicas before I earned a living with them, too.

Cheers,

R.

[Athos6]

My thinking: If your going to end up there anyway, don't waste money on anything else in the meantime hoping you'll think its good enough. Just spend the money, find out that Leica is not magic, then resell it while its still mint. That way you don't spend money, sell, spend money, sell, spend money. You just spend money, sell, spend money.

[Niko]

Seems like i wasn´t the only one ever thought about it... Anyway, I guess using the word struggle was a bit much. I´m not really struggling with the issue, it´s just a thought that came up.

I guess already the first response to my message by hans voralberg summed up pretty well what was the deciding factor for me.

1. Speed + closer focussing opens up lots more opportunity and i can do it the way i do it with the Mamiya-> use any aperture at any distance without having to think other aspects about it.

And yes, i´m not just sitting inside wondering if to use the lens or not. Since day 1 i´ve been carrying it with me on my M3.

Even my wife says: if it´s good, just use it.

Niko

[Robert Lai]

Niko:
Your wife is a gem!
Mine would probably kill me for spending so much money on one lens.

[haempe]

I don't buy Leica lenses. Too expensive, if I think how many lenses I've wrecked during the last 20 years.
But I can justify my M-bodys: they are so expensive, a repair is always worthwhile.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Reminds me of the fact that I - still - have a lot of Leica stuff, but didn't make my best pictures with any of it....

[Ezzie]

Originally Posted by SimonSawSunlight

I don't.

Originally Posted by back alley

i don't....

.

+1

"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

[kokoshawnuff]

I have no shame in saying how much I enjoy my Leica equipment, even when I'm not using it...for me the happiness factor is very important.

[Sparrow]

[taskoni]

You get what you pay for

[Richard G]

1. All my Leica stuff is second hand and the first Leica was given to me.
2. No need to justify it.
3. With my Zeiss C Sonnar I am not hankering for a 50 Lux ASPH, but if I was I'd buy it.
4. I don't play golf and don't pay annual fees for the golf club membership.
5. I don't have orthopedic problems and spend almost nothing seeing doctors or any other professional - compare with a D3 toting man of same age.
4. Look up letter to George on The Online Photographer. $1000s of dollars of second rate purchases get shelved or trashed before eventually getting what was always the best thing in the first place.

[digitalintrigue]

Actually, one of the very reasons to justify a Leica, or especially a Porsche (specifically a 911) is because the depreciation is minimal.

You're just parking money in the gear for a time, and if you need to get it back out, it's easy. If you buy right, you'll get most, or all, or even more back.

This is one of the major reasons I drive a Porsche. I could drive something generic but the depreciation would be brutal. This means I can enjoy a fun car and actually spend less over time. People in their $50k+ Escalades will have a $25k Escalade next year, yet I'd have to put another 150k miles on my '98 before it'll lose half its value.

Take care of your gear and it won't depreciate at all...

[NickTrop]

I guess I view it too much like an academic. Thinking of Leica in the luxury class of items, trying to differentiate itself to be a "price maker" as a small boutique product competing in an oligopoly. How much of the Leica price differential over Nikon and Canon has to due with the superiority of their market offering? How much is their ability to be a "price maker" as a luxury item, in an economic sense charging "economic rent" for that red dot. I think a good valuation of this is the difference in price between the Leica-branded Panasonic cameras and those sold as Panasonics. So transparent as to be almost brazen, the Leica charges substantially more the the identical product.

So, my answer is most of the price differential has to due with economic rent and marketing than product value.

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Actually, one of the very reasons to justify a Leica, or especially a Porsche (specifically a 911) is because the depreciation is minimal.

If at all. Nearly everything Leica I've sold I've come out ahead on even after shooting it for a while. Thanks for reminding me!

[thegman]

I like and buy Leica gear, but I don't attempt to justify other than that I like it, and to me it is worth the money. I know very well that I could buy a cheaper camera, get the same results, and donate the change to a worthy charity. But like most people, I'd rather have the pretty possessions.

[DanOnRoute66]

Originally Posted by OddE

Most of what I've got (Two DSLRs and a 70-200 f/2.8 VRI aside) I could sell today for what I gave for it or more. So - yes, while it is a lot of money (to me, anyway) tied up in gear, I can convert it back to cash without taking a significant financial hit should need arise.

DSLRs that are worth as much now as they were when you bought them? I'd like to know what those are!

[JMQ]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Actually, one of the very reasons to justify a Leica, or especially a Porsche (specifically a 911) is because the depreciation is minimal.

Take care of your gear and it won't depreciate at all...

LOL ; Dear Robert, you are give me GAS for a Porsche 911 or an S4 !!!

[dogberryjr]

It's not me who needs the justifying; I just hope and pray the Missus never gets too curious.

[Phil_F_NM]

With a lot of booze

Phil Forrest