Originally posted by mikemike Photography, especially with a Leica, can be an expensive habit for "poor" people.
To be quite honest, it was 'bourgeois' opportunism that sold the brand name 'Leica' in ways that meant even a Canonet with the good fourty was a rich kid's 'poor man's Leica.' See, when people were practically or actually throwing them away, all I would have had to do to make a couple grand on them would have been to...Not trashpick and restore some dozen of those and Yahsicas too, then give them to poor kids looking to learn photography. If only I'd hoarded them all, right? Thanks to Ebay and hype, they cost a few hundred now, even if speculators have been pronouncing 'the doom of film' ....and *my* G-III has damage from some kind of worm living in there on the coatings.
Many will say these are 'Cult favorites' among 'Pseudo-poor people' but the reality was, almost everyone thought 'This is the most popular point and shoot ever, but the automation is lousy compared to a Sure Shot.'
There wasn't *money* there.
Frankly, I wouldn't even have my K20d if a pawnbroker had believed me about how much some Nikkors were worth.
You always hear about 'the big deal' ....That was mine. I have a digital SLR because I had 150 bucks, some of it borrowed in person, when I found that glass.
There wasn't a back in the day where Canonets were a living, though, I promise you. And if some kid has a Leica, well. Probably similar.
And maybe that's your hangup, Mikemike and others, you think someone's somehow getting one over on you somehow... It's not just poor people, it's *poor people with *Leicas.*