Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Well, yeah, Leica cameras have _always_ been much more costly than cheaper cameras. Many years ago I had a 1940 Bass Camera catalogue, filled with hundreds of cameras. As I recall, a Leica IIIb with a 50mm f/2 Summar was around $395 US dollars. A Contax II with a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar was even more expensive, at $425 US dollars. Remember, these were the "Nikon D3x" and "Canon 1Ds Mark III" of their era, and there was a tremendous amount of precision casting, milling,engraving,and hand-fitting.
See Zeiss Contax II and III for an idea of mid-1936's technology's zenith.
As my grandfather told me, at that time you could buy a used Model A Ford car for around $75. At the time, 1940, there were a number of American-made 35mm cameras like the Kodak Retina that had high-quality adjustable lenses and variable aperture lenses, and the price was around $48.50 or so. "Cheap" or consumer-grade 35mm cameras in the Bass catalog were $7.50 to $15 or so as I recall
Around the same time, the Kodak Duo, a 620 film rollfilm folder with high-quality adjustable lens and shutter was retailing for around $57.50, which according to one article is equated as being worth $793 US dollars in 2006 dollars. kodak classics - mischa koning
So yeah, in many ways, Leica and their contemporary cameras, the Zeiss-Ikon Contax 35mm rangefinders were VERY expensive. As one poster here writes, "In my BJP Almanac of 1939, a IIIb with 50 f/2 is listed at 43 GBP (a Contax II with 50 f/2 is 50.5 GBP). This was at a time when you could pick up a decent quality folding camera with a Zeiss lens for well under 10 GBP, a farm worker might be earning less than 2 GBP per week, and a skilled industrial worker perhaps double that. According to this page:
Measuring Worth - Purchasing Power of British Pound
43 GBP in 1939 is worth about 1,910 GBP (going by the retail price index) or as much as 7,305 GBP (going by average earnings) in 2007 currency. "
have leica always been expensive? - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum
See Zeiss Contax II and III for an idea of mid-1936's technology's zenith.
As my grandfather told me, at that time you could buy a used Model A Ford car for around $75. At the time, 1940, there were a number of American-made 35mm cameras like the Kodak Retina that had high-quality adjustable lenses and variable aperture lenses, and the price was around $48.50 or so. "Cheap" or consumer-grade 35mm cameras in the Bass catalog were $7.50 to $15 or so as I recall
Around the same time, the Kodak Duo, a 620 film rollfilm folder with high-quality adjustable lens and shutter was retailing for around $57.50, which according to one article is equated as being worth $793 US dollars in 2006 dollars. kodak classics - mischa koning
So yeah, in many ways, Leica and their contemporary cameras, the Zeiss-Ikon Contax 35mm rangefinders were VERY expensive. As one poster here writes, "In my BJP Almanac of 1939, a IIIb with 50 f/2 is listed at 43 GBP (a Contax II with 50 f/2 is 50.5 GBP). This was at a time when you could pick up a decent quality folding camera with a Zeiss lens for well under 10 GBP, a farm worker might be earning less than 2 GBP per week, and a skilled industrial worker perhaps double that. According to this page:
Measuring Worth - Purchasing Power of British Pound
43 GBP in 1939 is worth about 1,910 GBP (going by the retail price index) or as much as 7,305 GBP (going by average earnings) in 2007 currency. "
have leica always been expensive? - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32166-ddd2797e76a9226d289c2158c3cf7b67.jpg?1619735234)
