Wisdom of Buying a Leica M3

[eli griggs]

Exactly.

But that's what stand alone viewfinders are for!

 

[RezaLoghme]

The cost of film it exposed is many, many times the cost of the camera.

That is a very true statement that I often tried to use when people complain about some cameras being "too expensive".

 

[Don_ih]

I bought my M4 in maybe 1970 and retired it in favor of digital gear about 10 years ago. It has never been repaired or even serviced in all that time, and still appears to be in good working condition. The cost of film it exposed is many, many times the cost of the camera.

Even more than that, your camera could probably be sold for over $1000 with next to no effort. Not that you'd bother.

Used Leica's are, at least currently, holding their value.

 

[Radost]

Even more than that, your camera could probably be sold for over $1000 with next to no effort. Not that you'd bother.

Used Leica's are, at least currently, holding their value.

I think this is not really true. m3 was selling for $300-400 in 1954.
$300 in 1954 is equivalent to about $3,496.82 today, an increase of $3,196.82 over 70 years.
Ebay is full of $1000 m3
That is a giant loss of value.

 

[Don_ih]

m3 was selling for $300-400 in 1954.

I said used Leicas are holding their value. That is, if you buy a used one today, you can probably get your money back in a year. So, one year use of a camera for next to nothing?

 

[RezaLoghme]

I think this is not really true. m3 was selling for $300-400 in 1954.
$300 in 1954 is equivalent to about $3,496.82 today, an increase of $3,196.82 over 70 years.
Ebay is full of $1000 m3
That is a giant loss of value.

$300 in 1954 bought you the state-of-the-art Leica, new
What does $3496 buy you today, in terms of new Leica RF film cameras?

You are comparing the then-new price of a consumer good with its used-market price 70(!) years later.

 

[chuckroast]

I said used Leicas are holding their value. That is, if you buy a used one today, you can probably get your money back in a year. So, one year use of a camera for next to nothing?

Also, prices are currently falling as compared to, say, late 2023. This probably isn't a terrible time to buy used Leica film equipment before a true economic recovery occurs.

 

[chuckroast]

I think this is not really true. m3 was selling for $300-400 in 1954.
$300 in 1954 is equivalent to about $3,496.82 today, an increase of $3,196.82 over 70 years.
Ebay is full of $1000 m3
That is a giant loss of value.

Yeah, but we're talking about used pricing here.


In any case, it's unreasonable to expect anything to "hold it's value" across 70 years unless it is very rare or generally collectable because of provenance.

But relatively speaking, these cameras have held their values amazingly well. Can you think of anything else that that sold (in today's dollars) for $3500 70 years ago, that's still has a residual value of $1500?

Leica did one thing, especially, with these cameras that makes them noteworthy - they resisted the urge to make radical changes in them over the years. The one time they did - the M5 - it cost them dearly (even though I think it is a magnificent camera). But today's M6s, M-As, M-P and even M11, are not dramatically different in ergonomics or use than an M2 or M3 made back in the day. That kind of design continuity is very rare, and I think buyers honor that.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yes, in terms of 35mm RF, they have built the 911 or Levis 501 or Submariner. Timeless.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes, in terms of 35mm RF, they have built the 911 or Levis 501 or Submariner. Timeless.

That's a great comparison. It does bring to mind the question as to who the RUF tuner for Leica might be

(Also, I will never forgive Porsche for no longer offering at least one air cooled 911 variant. I realize the newer power plants are far more performant, but putting water cooling on the 911 flat six is like putting autofocus on an M6.)

 

[Axelwik]

That's a great comparison. It does bring to mind the question as to who the RUF tuner for Leica might be

(Also, I will never forgive Porsche for no longer offering at least one air cooled 911 variant. I realize the newer power plants are far more performant, but putting water cooling on the 911 flat six is like putting autofocus on an M6.)

I don't think an air cooled engine can pass current emissions requirements.

 

[Radost]

$300 in 1954 bought you the state-of-the-art Leica, new
What does $3496 buy you today, in terms of new Leica RF film cameras?

You are comparing the then-new price of a consumer good with its used-market price 70(!) years later.

3 leica M3s. or 1 Leica M/A all used. I am not opposed to buying a new leica and paying new leica prices if they made a better camera. From m3 to now th quality has been falling.

 

[Radost]

Yeah, but we're talking about used pricing here.


In any case, it's unreasonable to expect anything to "hold it's value" across 70 years unless it is very rare or generally collectable because of provenance.

But relatively speaking, these cameras have held their values amazingly well. Can you think of anything else that that sold (in today's dollars) for $3500 70 years ago, that's still has a residual value of $1500?

Leica did one thing, especially, with these cameras that makes them noteworthy - they resisted the urge to make radical changes in them over the years. The one time they did - the M5 - it cost them dearly (even though I think it is a magnificent camera). But today's M6s, M-As, M-P and even M11, are not dramatically different in ergonomics or use than an M2 or M3 made back in the day. That kind of design continuity is very rare, and I think buyers honor that.

The only reason I use the cameras is becuase of the lenses. Also hard to focus on manual SLR “for me”
I wish I had a higher speed electronics shutter even if it is noisier. Like a Konica RF. 1000 speed only is wack!

 

[eli griggs]

That's a great comparison. It does bring to mind the question as to who the RUF tuner for Leica might be

(Also, I will never forgive Porsche for no longer offering at least one air cooled 911 variant. I realize the newer power plants are far more performant, but putting water cooling on the 911 flat six is like putting autofocus on an M6.)

Amen.

 

[cliveh]

But that's what stand alone viewfinders are for!

But with an M2 you don't need a stand alone viewfinder.

 

[eli griggs]

The biggest question is if you're looking at camera cost and the consumables, films, even at todays cost, is whether or not you'll actually use the volume of film equal to the cost of a 'new' or NEW camera.

These cameras are meant to be used, ruggedly durable and supposedly rendering, with Leica lenses, superior images of whatever you photograph, correctly, in F-Stop, and speed, filter, or light type.

It seems that many Leica M camera owners do not use their cameras nearly as often as owners of other, lesser superior cameras, Canon, Nikon, etc and they end up putting them on a shelf for the convenience of SLR, Digital, Large format, etc. cameras.

These cameras are shooters, especially with good glass, so shoot the things to get the best of owning them, and forget the "finical aspects" of using them and the tandem expenses of owning such prized cameras that can give so much pleasure in their quality and usage; that's the real value of Leica Cameras, the pleasure they bring, not bragging rights.

IMO

 

[logan2z]

I don't think an air cooled engine can pass current emissions requirements.

My 1995 911 has never failed to pass emissions here in California.

 

[chuckroast]

It seems that many Leica M camera owners do not use their cameras nearly as often as owners of other, lesser superior cameras, Canon, Nikon, etc and they end up putting them on a shelf for the convenience of SLR, Digital, Large format, etc. cameras.

First, I'd argue that neither Canon or Nikon are inherent "lesser", they're just different "paintbrushes" that allow you to work differently.

I am die hard big negative fan. A Hassy neg is small format from my POV. When I can, I shoot 4x5. I long to own an 8x10. But ...

I'd always been a Nikon shooter with many bodies and lenses at my disposal. But I also had a IIIf and always wanted into venture into the M family. The clock ticks, so I said, "what the heck, I'll dive in". And so I did. And for the past 6 months or so, 90% of what I've been shooting has been on Leica bodies and glass. What I learned it that going to a small format rangefinder causes me to work more in the moment. To see things I'd never see with an SLR of any size and never capture with a 4x5. I do miss the better resolving power of the bigger negatives, but I love that I'm not seeing more things to shoot ... instinctively.

More Brushes = Better Paintings

 

[Kodachromeguy]

From m3 to now th quality has been falling.

What does this mean? How do you define "quality?" How has the functionality diminished? How has the user experience deteriorated? How has the film result changed?

 

[chuckroast]

What does this mean? How do you define "quality?" How has the functionality diminished? How has the user experience deteriorated? How has the film result changed?

My understanding is that every body made up to- and including the M5 had all metal parts in the transport and shutter, and these were hand fit when built. From the M4-P forward, through today, it's been explained to me that there were more stock parts used and some level of plastics introduced in the mechanical workings of the cameras.

I rather doubt it was a huge decline in camera quality, though, as witnessed by the many M4-P, M4-2, M6, M-P, and M-A cameras in use today.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Well "metal" can be cheap tin or alloy, and "plastic" can be carbon or some NASA stuff.

And "hand fit" does not mean "better".

 

[RezaLoghme]

3 leica M3s. or 1 Leica M/A all used. I am not opposed to buying a new leica and paying new leica prices if they made a better camera. From m3 to now th quality has been falling.

I am sorry but you are backpedalling and moving your goalposts.

First you say that a consumer product that has a residual value of 1/3 70(!) years after it was built is "a giant loss of value."

Then you compare the price of a new camera with that of an used one, 70 years later.

lastly, you say "Ebay is full of $1000 m3" which is probably the bottom end of the market, heavily used, lacking CLA, likely needing repairs, while a near-mint, recently serviced M3 is probably rather $2000 or more, putting the alleged "giant loss of value" into perspective.

Then you make very general - negative - statement about Leica's quality standards.

i dont know why are you posting such things. yes, everyone can have their own opinion, but in this case it does not come across well...

 

[RezaLoghme]

It seems that many Leica M camera owners do not use their cameras nearly as often as owners of other, lesser superior cameras, Canon, Nikon, etc and they end up putting them on a shelf for the convenience of SLR, Digital, Large format, etc. cameras.

Which is a big mistake. The more often you are using your M, the more "mileage" you are getting from it, and the more cheaper the theoretical cost-per-use becomes.

It is probably owed to the trend of recent years (see Rolex sports watches, 911s etc) that "toys" have become objects of financial gambling - buying them, holding them without using them, selling them at a profit. For a couple of years, that paid off. But then again - you own that wonderful new Leica M, not using it??

 

[Axelwik]

My 1995 911 has never failed to pass emissions here in California.

That's not how it works.

They can't fail it for meeting emissions requirements for the year that it was built. It certainly would not meet current Euro 5 or Euro 6 emissions requirements, which is now the standard for new production. And it's not so much about meeting the local requirements (local emissions requirements vary from none to very strict depending on where in the world you register it). It's about making cars that are can be sold and meet requirements anywhere in the world.

 

[anthonym3]

I looked at eBay and found 339 results for a M3 camera. The majority of these are in Japan with less than accurate condition ratings.

I’m in my last years of shooting and enlarging B&W film. I have the itch to try a M3 largely for the finder and classic design. I’ve owned several Ms

If I make a purchase I’m concern there will not be any demand when I end wet photography in 3 or 4 years.

Assuming demand will be weak what type of M3 would make sense to buy that retains value?

1. Average condition….90% of M3s fall into this category with a price range of $1200-1500 USD.
2. Excellent ++ to Mint -. Clean top plate, no finder issues, needs minor covering repair.
a. Within the #2 category a body with a CLA
b. An overhauled well executed matt black repaint body…..advantage is its overhauled. Cost goes up to $2,900.
c. A 1956-1957 DS transition (lower numbers and interesting story) or a SS.

My gut tells me the cleanest body with a fresh overhaul will have the highest demand. Who knows on the price.

My experience with EBAY JAPANESE descriptions is that nearly all will state near mint however the further descriptions contain differences, minor wear small scratches, rangefinder a little dim, etc. It appears that there are many variations of near mint over there.