D800: Anyone have second thoughts on the MM/M9/M8 in terms of value?

[eleskin]

I go through this every few years, and ask myself is it worth holding on to my digital M (M8 in my case) and a large collection of M lenses (Noctilux included). The prices of the M digital are going up all the time to the point of really turning off many users that do not have lots of spare cash laying around. Meanwhile, Nikon introduces cameras like the D800 that run circles around ANY M digital in pure performance and image quality for a fraction of the price. I love the rangefinder experience, but hence, I am getting older (In wear bifocals now) and sometimes really crave autofocus. Sometimes I see myself with a D800 and some Nikon and Zeiss lenses for the price of my f1.0 Noctilux alone! Then I have second thoughts and fall in love with the beautiful quality of M lenses, etc,,, and the form factor of the Leica. What would make me forget about all this Nikon and Canon nonsense would be a camera that had great high ISO, and could achieve autofocus by a moving sensor like the Contax AX did with moving the film plane. Surly, those of us who have M lenses would want more flexibility in our options for how we use our lenses. Rangefinders are great, but sometimes I get tired and feel there should be something different to use with M lenses. My NEX 5n is the only option I have right now with the focus peaking, but really, what we need at least is nothing less than an APS H sensor or larger, some AX type autofocus solutiion with newer and more reliable technology, a Fuji Xpro viewfinder with the SONY focus peaking technology,and great high ISO. No higher than $4000 USD as well!

Anyone else have these feelings as well?

 

[jaapv]

No- because I do not see the circles alledgedly run...🙄

These cameras hold absolutely no interest for me. I will only use them if I need to.

 

[thegman]

I love Leica film cameras, but for whatever reason, the digital ones leave me cold. On pure tech specs, Leica represents very poor value, but that's true of the film gear too. Either the Leica look/feel is worth it to you, or it's not. A Leica M3 vs. Pentax K1000 to me is worth the extra, an M9 vs. Sony A900, is not.

Then you've got stuff like weather sealing in inexpensive Pentax DSLRs, not present in a Leica costing 10 times as much.

Leica is not the be-all-and-end-all, they make *very* nice cameras, but perfect they are not, and for many of us, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. offer something better.

 

[jippiejee]

Anyone else have these feelings as well?

Never actually. While I do love the rangefinder experience, dslr's leave me completely cold. Too automated, distant, like a game console. I can't imagine going into that territory ever. I want it simple, tactile, compact. Leica MX gives me that.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I had a play with a D800 this weekend. After my M9 and film rf's (MP, ZI and R4) it felt very odd. There are buttons all over it and it felt quite plastic in comparison to the rf's. I'm sure it's very capable, but it left me comfortable that selling the 1Ds3 remains the best decision for now. if I need a dslr at some time then I'll consider it, but at the moment it would just stay at home.

YMMV of course.

Mike

 

[Aristophanes]

For the price the M9 should have the D800's much superior sensor.

 

[coelacanth]

I'm sure they are very capable tools, and I do use full-frame DSLR when my gigs require it. Maybe D800 can be that, but they will be rented (I only do occasional paid gigs on request). I don't own any DSLRs myself currently, and I have no plan to do so.

I'm content with all RF + OM-D, and I'm even planning to be done with rented DSLR altogether and use M+OM combo for work as well.

 

[twopointeight]

I'm not going back to film. My Canon gear is for making a living. My M8.2 with 35mm Summilux is for personal work as it is almost like shooting with film M bodies as I did for 30 years. I wouldn't invest many thousands more in the M9 or new glass, but , IMO, the M8.2 with a couple of older lenses is worth it, financially and for keeping the continuity of form factor and operation.

 

[jaapv]

For much inferior images... That sensor is not suitable for a rangefinder.
If you are translating noise performance to superior, consider the following: When the M9 was introduced CCD sensors were still superior at base ISO to CMos, and CMos had insufficient acceptance angle for rangefinder use.
The M9 has the most advanced CCD there is.
Most of the noise performance of the Nikons is by very good firmware and not specifically sensor choice. Not too easy to incorporate such processing in a small body. If Leica implements Maestro technology they might pull it off, especially if the sensor is the newest type. But they will never cook the file to the extent that Nikon does.

For the price the M9 should have the D800's much superior sensor.

 

[seakayaker1]

For now the simplicity of the rangefinder and the fun taking photographs with the Leica M system is where I am happy. I understand their may be a future need to move to an autofocus system when aging and my eyes are not up to a manual focus system. For now film and digital M is a place I am happy to be along with my Rolleiflex and Mamiya 7 II.

When the time does come I will sell of a few pieces to buy an autofocus system and give the rest to my daughter/grandchildren since the film cameras and the lenses should continue to work for them for many years to come.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Never had that running in circles problem. Made my decision that the M9 and newer glass were not for me and have been using a D700 since it's intro. I did keep my film Ms and glass, just won't drop that kind of coin for the digital Leica RF experience. No regrets and not thinking of going to the D800 either. If you really want Leica just bite the bullet and get one, it's that simple.

Bob

 

[dogberryjr]

Anyone else have these feelings as well?

Sort of. If I didn't have to take such a hit in depreciation, I'd sell my M9 and substitute a Fuji X Pro 1 and D800, but I can't come to terms with the hit to the wallet. On the other hand, I really like the M9 and the images it produces, so I guess I'm in a fine position.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Sort of. If I didn't have to take such a hit in depreciation, I'd sell my M9 and substitute a Fuji X Pro 1 and D800, but I can't come to terms with the hit to the wallet. On the other hand, I really like the M9 and the images it produces, so I guess I'm in a fine position.

Actually the hit to the wallet is probably not that different. The M9 has started, but not ended depreciating. It's value now is not what you paid for it and if you sweap it for new cameras they will also depreciate. But, your M9 will continue depreciating so the difference is probably relatively small.

Still, I understand the emotional resistance to crystaliising the loss.

Mike

 

[JMQ]

Actually the hit to the wallet is probably not that different. The M9 has started, but not ended depreciating. It's value now is not what you paid for it and if you sweap it for new cameras they will also depreciate. But, your M9 will continue depreciating so the difference is probably relatively small

I don't think the M9 depreciation is small. Most of us bought ours new at close to $7k, and now the market price for a used M9 is about $5.2k, that's a
25% depreciation in 2-3 years. Now, I grant you that the rate of depreciation may slow down because there is no M10 on the market yet.

 

[sevo]

Exception (different form factor): The Red Camera's sensor is updateable.

This caters to the cine rental shops habit of upgrading cameras - many of their film cameras are 30-40 years old and have been permanently updated to current standard. But that was the film habit, digital will change matters - I am prepared to bet that they'll be switching entire camera blocks rather than upgrade the sensors rather sooner than later. A sensor upgrade is rather pointless until the rest of the hardware does not improve over several sensor generations any more - and we're still far from that point.

The Red One has already failed to be quite as eternally modular as originally claimed, by the way...

 

[BobYIL]

This caters to the cine rental shops habit of upgrading cameras - many of their film cameras are 30-40 years old and have been permanently updated to current standard. But that was the film habit, digital will change matters - I am prepared to bet that they'll be switching entire camera blocks rather than upgrade the sensors rather sooner than later. A sensor upgrade is rather pointless until the rest of the hardware does not improve over several sensor generations any more - and we're still far from that point.

A new trend is being developed in parallel to the existing ones: RAW output; taking the processing out of the camera. Arriraw comes to mind, some versions in the GigE series by Sony for industrial applications (we are using it). Probably sensors would be one interchangeable module and the processors be another.

 

[Aristophanes]

Digital cameras are like laptops, they quickly loose their value when the next, better, model is released. Sensor technology is in constant renewal. I don't see ANY digital camera holding it's value for more than 18 months - 2 years.

I thought the value was in the photos....

My D700 has depreciated about 35% over 4 years and 35k shots.

But who is counting.

 

[Pablito]

I thought the value was in the photos....

what, are you nuts?

 

[icebear]

I shot a couple of hundred pics at a parade in NYC on Saturday walking along the crowd of dancers and floats, happily snapping away with a 35 and 50. Others were schlepping huge SLR's with their red ring zoom lenses, most of them carrying two bodies, these folks didn't have half as much fun as I did. Most of the time the subjects were friendly smiling at my my little camera and were just annoyed at someone point that huge lens in their direction. I never felt I needed a second body. Later on at Washington Square Park a more senior kind of guy sneeked up to me "what kind of Leica is that" M9 .." Ever had any problems with it?" nope, just popped in the SD card formatted it right away and never had issues. He also was carrying some kind of Nikon SLR.
I'm intending to use this little gem and don't mind any used prices going down. I would actually buy one for SWMBO, too. The quality is so great in my book, I do not need anything better, I'm done. [If the picture is not good , you were not close enough] sorry can't remember from who this quote is ;-)).

 

[haempe]

Sorry , icebear, your enthusiasm is honorable, but photography is more than snapping around on the street. For photo-journalism or low light event photography a Leica M may be first choice, but there are thousands of tasks in photography I would not even think to use a RF-cam.

I would never ever spend all my money on a special purposes tool, if I have to manage much more universal (or otherwise special) tasks.
(I'm not sure, if the topic of this thread is professional use, my words are based on this assumption...)

If it works for you, it's fine, but (for example) I would go crazy if I had to use the M in the studio for product photography or something similar...