The M9 and "block busting"

Dante_Stella

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
7:41 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,865
View My Gallery
In the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a real estate practice called "block busting," by which real estate agents would drum up massive commissions by causing panic sales of housing. The usual claim was that "such-and-such (usually African Americans) are coming into a (usually white) neighborhood and that you had better sell, even low, while you still can." The agents would of course do quite well when they got a commission both from selling the old house and the purchase of the new one.

When you see that people running around saying that you had better sell your M8 "while it is still worth something," always consider the source.

And consider that there is no reasoned economic analysis that would support a panic sale. Every high-end system suffers $20-a-week depreciation (reduction in price from new to used) starting the day it comes out. To put it succinctly, what high-end camera can you rent for $20 a week?

Dante
 
Last edited:
True, but what high end camera would you rent for 150 weeks? Additionally, you aren't denying depreciation, but trying to justify it.

I'm not sure the realtors are a suitable simile, either. They had a more complex motive than the crowd that doesn't fear consuming the facts; all electronics unfailingly lose value, as they are costs in life, and not investments.


Sorry to poke, but is this indication you have an M8 that's tough to sell? I'm looking for one with a sensible price tag 🙂
 
Well, anyone that intends to sell the m8 that they have should watch median prices and sell just before they're uncomfortable with them. People who intend to use their m8 should use their camera until they're no longer satisfied with it and can stand to replace it.

This isn't difficult... and these aren't investments.
 
Depreciation of exchange value is an established fact and needs no justification. The simile is not perfect, but I think it describes the general nature of the phenomenon.
 
Prices on the M8 and M8.2 will settle out. The M8.2 will NOT settle out to 75% of the cost of an M9. Anyone looking at a $5500 M8.2 is likely to buy an M9. A $4000 M8.2 vs an M9 will make someone think about it.

One thing that would help retain value on the M8 and M8.2: upgrade the firmware to allow manual selection of lenses as does the M9. That is a big advantage in using older lenses without 6-bit code.
 
Hypothetically speeking of course, could the the M8 be upgraded to full frame?
The M9 body is so similar in dimensions, the shutter and viewfinder are unchanged (from the M8.2) that I really wonder. Clearly Mr Lee fell on is sword after suggesting this, but looking at the M9 I just have to ask. Id really love some one to see if they can put the M9 bits in an M8 shell. Obviously one might predict faster processor in the M9 but for the sake of argument I do not think M8 owners would worry abou that too much.

Now that would make an M8 a very good buy at the moment.

Richard
 
It depends on the Upgrade cost. Certainly the ramgefinder mechanism, shutter, and body could be repacked with a new CCD and circuit board. If that upgrade was more than 50% of the cost of an M9, you might be better to keep the M8 as a backup or to sell it intact and buy an M9. Time will tell.
 
No, Richard, that is utterly impossible. The throat of the camera is too narrow and would vignette. Actually Mark Norton rigged up this experiment and showed that beyond doubt.

Richard Marks said:
Hypothetically speeking of course, could the the M8 be upgraded to full frame?
The M9 body is so similar in dimensions, the shutter and viewfinder are unchanged (from the M8.2) that I really wonder. Clearly Mr Lee fell on is sword after suggesting this, but looking at the M9 I just have to ask. Id really love some one to see if they can put the M9 bits in an M8 shell. Obviously one might predict faster processor in the M9 but for the sake of argument I do not think M8 owners would worry abou that too much.

Now that would make an M8 a very good buy at the moment.

Richard
Click to expand...
 
upgrading?

upgrading?

It's all about economics versus ergonomics. Behind the facade of the M9 there is a magnesium cast shell which houses the CCD and all the electronics of the camera including the LCD screen. This is the M9, and this new FF setup cost Leica about $1000 to put there. How much are they expected to make from this? The M9 is not "expensive" for what it is, it is just a plain bother to already possess an M8. I can live with my M8 and its firmware upgrade as it is for the time being... say, a year.
 
Why on earth would Leica want to upgrade M8's to full frame? It would hurt sales of the M9. Possible or not (and likely not), Leica would be stupid to do it. Longevity in their digital cameras is simply something Leica can no longer afford.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Why on earth would Leica want to upgrade M8's to full frame? It would hurt sales of the M9. Possible or not (and likely not), Leica would be stupid to do it. Longevity in their digital cameras is simply something Leica can no longer afford.
Click to expand...

I am sure Leica would not want to upgrade provided they can sell M9's at £5,000.

Had the thing been set up for upgrades from the outset there might be reasonable trade in refurbishment of the "timeless classic".

I just hate to think of all the lovelly Leica engineering hooked up to something with such a short sell by date.

Richard
 
jaapv said:
No, Richard, that is utterly impossible. The throat of the camera is too narrow and would vignette. Actually Mark Norton rigged up this experiment and showed that beyond doubt.
Click to expand...

I didn't see Mark's teardown - is it an issue of the casting, or baffles added during assembly?
 
Leica should consider a trade-in program for M8's and then resell the traded-in cameras with a one year guarantee as "certified pre-owned." They could do minimal refurbishment on the used cameras. That would actually help M9 sales while maintaining a stable secondary market value for used M8s. If done right, they could make money on reselling the used ones AND M9s.

Sounds crazy, right? In the 90's I ran a division at one of the world's largest watch dealers that specialized in taking trade-ins and reselling them as "vintage" and "certified pre-owned." It was the second-biggest selling "brand" in dollars and the biggest profit maker. People who can't or won't pay $6995 for a new M9 might consider paying Leica or its authorized dealer network $2995 or some such figure for a reconditioned and warranteed M8, especially if they knew they could trade it in later for an M9... M10... MP, etc. at a decent price. Back in the 1990's that company I worked for did $16million+/year in sales of refurbished trade-ins. I imagine they're doing about twice that amount or more today, as they've expanded and prices on new goods have nearly doubled in the same time period.

If you don't think that this analogy works, consider for a moment that many of the watches in our program had quartz movements. The difference between a quartz watch and a mechanical watch in terms of energy and longevity if very much akin that between digital cameras and film cameras. Also, because of the company's reputation, we were able to charge a significant premium over what others in the secondary market could command precisely because people trusted our warranty protection... similar to what Leica and/or its authorized dealer network could expect.

Just a thought....
 
Last edited:
I just hope the madness continues until I save up enough money to buy an M8. Personally, I think there are advantages to the crop sensor, the main one being 50mm as a portrait length. If you like photographing friends at a bar or around the dinner table, or shooting at parties and art galleries and the like, it's great to have a compact, fast "65" or "75" in your bag.
 
black_box said:
True, but what high end camera would you rent for 150 weeks? Additionally, you aren't denying depreciation, but trying to justify it.

I'm not sure the realtors are a suitable simile, either. They had a more complex motive than the crowd that doesn't fear consuming the facts; all electronics unfailingly lose value, as they are costs in life, and not investments.


Sorry to poke, but is this indication you have an M8 that's tough to sell? I'm looking for one with a sensible price tag 🙂
Click to expand...

You indicate you're from Detroit and age 22. I watched (from just below the Ohio border) "block busting" there in the 60's and Dante's analogy is unfortunately smack dab on. In those days most people were happy to get their money out of a house upon sale--unadjusted for inflation, and did not yet think of their home as a moneymaking investment. (That was a late 70's/early 80's advent, fostered by runaway inflation.)

Buying a digital camera today, I don't think any of us are so naive we don't expect it to lose much of its value in a few years, or that we don't recognize that replacement by a new model typically accelerates the depreciation at least in the short term. The threads along the lines of "You better rush right out and off your M8 now" is exactly the same psychology as block busting. The fact is, if you bought a new M8 it has already suffered most of its depreciation. It could lose 75% of its current value and the dollar drop would not be as much as it's already dropped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom