The M9 and "block busting"

[mani]

Total sense but it was David Farkas' blog where I read it couldn't be done: "Apparently, retrofitting the M8 firmware with this option wasn't a practical possibility."

http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/2009/09/leica-m9-review-shooting-in-wetzlar.html

Stefan Daniels explains (very openly and honestly, I thought) that this is a purely financial decision: this update would be too complicated to implement on a camera that's no longer creating revenue. Simple as that.

Fair enough, imho.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Stefan Daniels explains (very openly and honestly, I thought) that this is a purely financial decision: this update would be too complicated to implement on a camera that's no longer creating revenue. Simple as that.

Fair enough, imho.

Well, perhaps we can hope for a hack.

 

[splitimageview]

Rebuilding an M8 into an M9 most likely costs more than just building an M9. It's about twice the labor at least, plus the new parts costs.

And their production line is going to be pretty busy anyway...

 

[Al Kaplan]

I'm waiting for the new replacement back panel for M bodies. It contains a full frame sensor, and the battery and additional electronics fit into the film feed and take-up chambers. It should be available by April first at your local Walmart with an MSRP of "less than $89".

 

[iridium7777]

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."

......tourneau?

 

[Particular]

I'm waiting for the new replacement back panel for M bodies. It contains a full frame sensor, and the battery and additional electronics fit into the film feed and take-up chambers. It should be available by April first at your local Walmart with an MSRP of "less than $89".

I've been introduced to an advancing full frame technology. It uses a single use ultra-thin flexible sensor and doesn't need any batteries to operate. It comes in a compact, self contained cassette unit, and doesn't need memory cards either. The cassettes are relatively inexpensive, and are easily interchangeable. Downloading is via a non-proprietary chemical process, as opposed to usb. The quality is said to rival or even supersede many conventional camera sensors.
It will not convert an M8 to full frame, but it is compatible with all previous M models.

 

[payasam]

...and the solid state lenses are really small.

 

[Richard Marks]

I've been introduced to an advancing full frame technology. It uses a single use ultra-thin flexible sensor and doesn't need any batteries to operate. It comes in a compact, self contained cassette unit, and doesn't need memory cards either. The cassettes are relatively inexpensive, and are easily interchangeable. Downloading is via a non-proprietary chemical process, as opposed to usb. The quality is said to rival or even supersede many conventional camera sensors.
It will not convert an M8 to full frame, but it is compatible with all previous M models.

And the laboratories that process the colour film don't give a dam. But that's ok you can use the monochrome one and do it yourself. But getting any varieties of the canesters is tough. A lot of shops have never heard of them. So you can mail order but supplies for anything other than ilford and tri x are unreliable. You have to print the pics onto paper using light. You have to use some stuff called Ilford dull grey because all the other makes are not in stock.

Richard

 

[rxmd]

"I buy my full frame sensors bulk at $4."

 

[Olsen]

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....

Good point. I agree. The only thing stopping me from buying a M9 now is that I have to sell, - and know the value of, my M8. Selling or exchanging my M8 is a vital part of the M9 financing.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Isn't the bigger part of the problem not having a digital M body in the meantime - when the M9's availability could be spotty for several months?

Good point. I agree. The only thing stopping me from buying a M9 now is that I have to sell, - and know the value of, my M8. Selling or exchanging my M8 is a vital part of the M9 financing.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Emperors and clothing

Emperors and clothing

On a related topic, you have to love the "my film camera [usually Leica M] will never be obsolete" crowd that has dogged digital camera owners for the better part of a decade. They're kind of quiet right now that an 18mp 24x36 Leica M is out.

If RFF ads (or Ebay listings) are any indication, panic selling is in full force for film cameras. Go into the classifieds here and take a look at what is going on - to me, it looks like massive dumping of film Ms, Canon RFs, Minolta CLEs, Zeiss-Ikons, Bessas, and Hexars. Most of the new ads today (across all categories) seemed to be M or LTM camera bodies.

I think someone must have been good at planting the seeds of fear with film camera owners- but probably not an unfounded fear given an ever-shrinking market and ever-escalating price of film.

 

[splitimageview]

I am not seeing an inordinate amount of dumping of film gear, there are pages and pages of Leica and other film bodies on ebay and have been for years. RF film bodies have been relatively stable price-wise over the past few years.

In terms of RFF ads, the majority of members have M or LTM bodies so it's not surprising that those represent the majority of items for sale.

LTM bodies, Canon RFs, CLEs, Ikons, Bessas and the like don't generate nearly enough money to buy an M9, either. If I'm buying an M9, I'm selling my D700 or 5D Mk II or 1ds Mk III to raise a decent amount of cash, along with some L lenses. A Barnack body won't even pay the sales tax of an M9. 🙂

 

[Ken Ford]

If RFF ads (or Ebay listings) are any indication, panic selling is in full force for film cameras. Go into the classifieds here and take a look at what is going on - to me, it looks like massive dumping of film Ms, Canon RFs, Minolta CLEs, Zeiss-Ikons, Bessas, and Hexars. Most of the new ads today (across all categories) seemed to be M or LTM camera bodies.

I think someone must have been good at planting the seeds of fear with film camera owners- but probably not an unfounded fear given an ever-shrinking market and ever-escalating price of film.

I don't see it that way, Dante - sure, some people are selling to go digital, but more are selling to pay the mortgage or for food. The economy sucks, and toys sometimes have to go to pay for the essentials.

 

[Mackinaw]

On a related topic, you have to love the "my film camera [usually Leica M] will never be obsolete" crowd that has dogged digital camera owners for the better part of a decade. They're kind of quiet right now that an 18mp 24x36 Leica M is out.

I'm not quite sure why my MP is now obsolete because of the M9. Digital and film are just different animals, one not better than the other. I love shooting B&W film and will do so with my MP as long as I can. That being said, no doubt the M9 has got my attention. Someday I'll probably own one, but not now.

Jim B.

 

[Dante_Stella]

I am not seeing an inordinate amount of dumping of film gear, there are pages and pages of Leica and other film bodies on ebay and have been for years. RF film bodies have been relatively stable price-wise over the past few years.

I could be wrong about ad counts, but it's kind of weird (if not vaguely alarming) to pull up the classifieds and see nothing but chrome bodies, with some people selling multiples. More-than-average selling of bodies also seems to have been going on in the Leica Users Group. Maybe it's sunspots. The economy is supposed to be picking up.

I have (casually, out of morbid curiosity) observed that the actual sale prices for high-end 35mm equipment are down a bit from four or five years ago. M2s, M3s, and M4s (the 1960s version) seem to be selling for about half of their peak prices (unadjusted for inflation). I saw a beautiful Nikon F with a working Photomic finder go for $75 on Ebay a couple of weeks ago. And I just picked up a gorgeous F3 for $125 (consider that three years ago, these went for $350 and up, and when last available new in 2003, cost $2,300).

The moral of the story, I think, is that although those of use who use film equipment (I have nine film cameras in use, and do 80% of my photography with them... 🙂) like to think there's nothing such as "obsolescence," for the reason that the cameras keep putting pictures on film, the quest for the latest and greatest exerts a consistent downward pressure on pricing. My surmise is that people actually like in-camera metering, and the huge quantities of M6s and M7s produced are causing some of it.

 

[Dante_Stella]

BA

I'm not quite sure why my MP is now obsolete because of the M9.

I'm not sure either (and don't sympathize with a claim like that), since it's hard to say what obsolescence is. Both film and digital fans bandy that term around (usually in disparaging references to the other group), but it's pretty amorphous. As I see my own equipment, the 120 cameras are definitely technologically obsolete but are far more useful than the digital equipment.

But to the point - one reviewer [who will remain nameless] uses this definition: "replaced by another model." By that logic, the M8 and 8.2 are obsolete - and so are the M2, M3, M4, M5, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M6TTL, M6J, and M7. Note that prior to the D3, though, this particular reviewer disparaged the long-desired 24x36 sensors as following the size of "obsolete" 35mm film - and did a 180 upon discovering film scanning. When the M9 came out, the reviewer then said the M8 was obsolete because the M9's sensor was full size. So I guess things can be obsolete (24x36mm framing) and then be posthumously rehabilitated?!

Ok, enough anecdotal stuff. Since I don't know how to precisely define obsolescence, I looked in a dictionary. These were the choices:

"No longer in use or fashion."

Film cameras are definitely out of fashion but still in use. So this one is inconclusive.

"No longer used or useful."

Film cameras are both used - and to some people - useful. So not obsolete by this standard. My four Fuji medium format cameras, my Autocord, and my Noblex thank the American Heritage Dictionary.

"(Biology) Increasingly vestigial or disappearing in each succeeding generation."

Guess it's a good thing we're talking about cameras and not living things!
​

At the end of the day, I think you can boil the concept down to one or more of three things:

1. Does it utilize the most current technology?

2. Is it useful for its intended purpose?

3. Does the market value it?
​

So when you see these discussions, different people are probably talking about different things. I think it's a losing argument for film zealots to talk about "obsolescence" (writ large) because film cameras fail the first and third definitions. By the same token, digital bigots should not throw stones because digital products are always falling behind in the same two definitions. That leaves the "is it useful for its intended purpose" criterion - and frankly, no one should be lecturing anyone else about such a personal preference.