Godfrey
somewhat colored
Most of the cars I've owned, over the many years and many cars, have been second hand. Cars depreciate quite a lot faster than cameras, and most good cars are often traded in long before they're even a tenth of the way to worn out...
G
pgk
Well-known
If you do the same listing for top Canon, Nikon, etc. cameras, and then add in a 'current value' column you will quickly find that Leica M's hold surprisingly high resale values, even the M8/9s. Obviously buying any camera new results in a loss of its value as soon as it has been bought. But that is not the whole story by far. I'm still using my 2 x M9s and in real terms, over the years that I have owned them (14 and 10), they have been relatively cheap cameras to own and could still be sold for a good price having had the sensors replaced by Leica when years out of warranty. Both still work fine and deliver just as good images as they did when new. When they fail I will replace them but not until then.
35photo
Well-known
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Unlike many, I never really liked the M9 very much and found it a somewhat difficult camera to rely on for various reasons not having to do with the sensor corrosion issue that surfaced with it. So when the sensor on mine went belly up, and Leica expediently made their offer, I was quite happy with that. The M-P 240 was a much better camera, for me, than the M9.
As I said, I'm retired now and my recent (within the past year and a half) acquisition of the M10-M and M10-R suits me very nicely. These bodies operate at a spec I am very comfortable with, I have all the lenses and accessories for them to do all the things I want/need to do, and they've already helped me create a very high number of "keepers" well beyond the usual percentage I see with many other cameras—all of which supports the fact that they just work well for me, better than many other cameras I have/have had. I suspect I'll have them for a long while to come.
As to the original "why doesn't Leica make AE M lenses" ... well, the dynamic range and noise characteristics of the Leica M10-M in particular are so broad that I can set the camera to my favorite shutter time and lens opening with any given lens, set it to Auto ISO, and just go out and make photographs just concentrating on focus and timing, allowing it to adjust sensitivity to match scene illumination rather than having to adjust speed or aperture at all. Who needs more exposure 'modes' than that?
G
The first time using the M8 I took the Weston Master with me, as I always do with the M3 and Nikon SP. I could not figure out what the Red Arrows at the bottom of the viewfinder were. Then it occurred to me that Leica would probably put a Meter into a Digital camera. Certainly not a necessity, and would improve the M11 if you could just turn the thing off.
The M8, M9, and M Monochrom use little Endian format for DNG. That is a huge plus for me.
The M8, M9, and M Monochrom use little Endian format for DNG. That is a huge plus for me.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I figure that I got about 60% of my money back when I sold my M8 and about the same when I sold my M9. Both were still current models at the time, though not the latest. In that 3-5 year time span, I was not particularly impressed by resale value, but agree that if a person chooses better times for buying and selling their cameras (or buys secondhand!), it's possible to get what amounts to a series of heavily subsidized upgrades.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Well Godfrey if you're a working pro I don't think calculation matter much. You buy the best tools to do the job. Then they're tools and they pay for themselves.I don't have a wife ... I'm gay, and my partner and I keep separate financial accounts. He doesn't give a darn what I spend my money on.
I pay cash for everything. If I don't have the cash, I don't buy. I haven't paid for anything with financing in thirty years or more.
I spent a grand or two every time I've changed cameras, but I made 10-20x that in photo license sales with each camera I've owned. I think that's a pretty good return on my expediture.
Discounting the film Ms, I've had Leica M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, M10 Monochrom*, and M10-R*. * == "I have at present." Of course, I've had other cameras as well, both Leica and others, in parallel with the Ms.
My M9 was diagnosed with sensor corrosion, and Leica offered the full market value of the camera as trade in on the M-P 240. I'd been using the M9 for two-three years by then, and made a good bit of money with it; much more than the difference to buy the M-P 240. No problem for me at all.
I'm not buying as much now since I'm retired, and I'm no longer actively promoting licensing and picture sales. I use everything I buy quite a lot, regardless, for my personal satisfaction.
Oh yes: I don't know what others' experience with Leica service has been, but they've never had one of my cameras or lenses for more than four weeks. And they've always fixed anything I thought was a problem correctly. Very few of my Leica cameras (not just the Ms) have ever needed much service anyway. Just lucky I guess.
I've never stopped shooting with film either. I have four times as many film cameras as I have digital cameras... And I like using them. There's nothing particularly special or amazing about shooting with film as opposed to working with digital capture ... I've been doing film work for 60 years, and digital work for about 40.
What is special and amazing are great photographs, however you make them. (BTW: An AI generated image is NOT a photograph.)
G
pgk
Well-known
Its an interesting point, but in my experience needs clarifying. As a working pro for over 30 years I, and the other working pros I know, as you say usually buy tools for the job. But best is a matter of opinion and rarely means most expensive. Generally it means adequate for the required output and cost is a factor because it affects profitability. Which is why, as a low ISO shooter, I still find the M9s perfectly adequate. They deliver the results I need and so are neither overkill, nor the latest and greatest. I have a Sony system for when it is the solution when the M system won't work (I have specialised in underwater work too and Ms are useless here) but whilst I have a high MPixel Sony, it is probably the least used of all my cameras, oddly enough because it doesn't deliver substantially more useful images and clogs up hard drives.
The main problem with Leicas for working pros, is service/support. If I were making money with my Q I would have had to buy two of them to cover the 8 months the first one was out of commission. In the case of the M11 that means $18,000...
And this is another reason why electronics in M lenses isn't worth the effort. Who wants to buy two of every lens in the event one craps out?
And this is another reason why electronics in M lenses isn't worth the effort. Who wants to buy two of every lens in the event one craps out?
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
they do seem to work for people like Eddy Van Wessel and Peter Turnley...The main problem with Leicas for working pros, is service/support. If I were making money with my Q I would have had to buy two of them to cover the 8 months the first one was out of commission. In the case of the M11 that means $18,000...
And this is another reason why electronics in M lenses isn't worth the effort. Who wants to buy two of every lens in the event one craps out?
But i'm with you as for sky high prices. When I was a university student, my first used Leica cost me a months wages. As a graduate student my new M4 in the mid-70s cost a week's wages at my part time job. Circa 1990 a new M6 cost about 2 weeks after tax wages. What's a new M-11....a month's after tax wages for someone with a reasonable job.....
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I suspect Eddy Van Wessel and Peter Turnley have more than one Leica body, and should one of their bodies require service, they will be moved to the front of the line.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
You are wise. That’s the way it was in my family: values from the old country. On TimeZone once, when there was a discussion similar to this one, everyone who had high-end mechanical watches with complications (e.g. perpetuals), US$20k+, all of them bought with cash. Financing was the path to doom.
You were/are fortunate to be a successful pro that can easily justify the cameras (and write them off as a business expense, if need be).
I have been fortunate enough to buy M and R Leicas thanks to the big switch to digital.
I just have a very hard time following all their designations - M-A, MP, M-D, 240, M-E, 262 … (isn’t that a Messerschmitt?)
Out to Lunch
Ventor
It must be a most reasonable job. The median income in Canada is $68,400 after taxes. According to Statistics Canada, only around 11% of Canadians make more than $100,000 a year. A Leica M11 goes for $13,876 -including taxes in Ontario. Cheers, OtL
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Ah yes, i did forget the account for the 30+% exchange rate as well as the taxes (some $600 saving for the "Alberta advantage"w no provincial sales tax).... Either way, you've help underline my point that new Leicas are definitely luxury goods. BTW if i recall correctly in 1975 the Canadian dollar was pegged 10% higher than the USD....& Nikons were dirt cheap with the Japanese yen at 300 yen to the Canadian $.
Last edited by a moderator:
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I'm buying a ticket right now. On a beside, do they speak English in Alberta?
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Bien sûr....I'm buying a ticket right now. On a beside, do they speak English in Alberta?
Out to Lunch
Ventor
C'est fait. Je serai là demain. Have a good evening. Cheers, OtL
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My photographic work was as a fine art, exhibition photographer, and I took assignments (editorial photography, illustration, some event work). Most of the money I made in photography was from licensing photographs that I had in my stock list.
And remember: photography as a job was always a sideline, except for a couple of specific times over the past forty years. I am (or was, since I'm retired now) a mathematician by training, an engineer by title in various jobs, and a technical writer documenting development systems in my last career stint. These are positions that garner a good living: I could afford the camera equipment I wanted to use for my work and my assignments without having to juggle my 'cost of doing business' accounting very much.
Leica Ms were a part of what I used from about 1973 onwards, but I had many many other cameras to do different things with.
The main problem with Leicas for working pros, is service/support. If I were making money with my Q I would have had to buy two of them to cover the 8 months the first one was out of commission. In the case of the M11 that means $18,000...
And this is another reason why electronics in M lenses isn't worth the effort. Who wants to buy two of every lens in the event one craps out?
You had a particularly bad experience ... It is not the norm. As I said earlier, I've never had any problem with Leica Service and Support, and I've actually needed it only very very infrequently over the past 50+ years.
Leica prices today are pretty high. But since the equipment holds its value well and returns a great deal of the initial outlay on resale, it's not as difficult to justify as all that. However, like getting into the Ferrari club, you have to come up with the initial lump of cash to play, which many find pretty difficult.
My first Leica(s) were a pair of Barnak II series bodies (IIf and IIc) along with an Elmar 5.0cm and 3.5cm. Altogether $99 (the guy at the dealership wanted to be sure I had $6 to pay for the train home... LOL!)
Thank you! I just did what my father always did... he didn't trust lending institutions and paid for everything in cash.
I was fortunate enough to find a particular niche in photography that I could pursue as a sideline that turned out to be reasonably lucrative, in addition to my regular career work. Frankly, due to the propensity of the US Treasury Department to do tax audits on people who do photography as a second job—and the massive time sink and PITA that that entails—I never even attempted to write off any of my photo gear as a business expense. I just declared the income I made on my photo jobs and licensing sales, and paid my taxes on it. The additional tax expense was pretty trivial compared to my career income tax ... I've never understood the thinking of those that have good jobs and good income, and who like cameras and photography, to desperately try to write off all their toys as business expenses. It just seems foolish to do so unless you make 80% or more of your income from doing photography.
It's no mis-statement that the naming of Leica M cameras really got to be too darn complicated for a while, particularly in the post-M9 time with the "M typ 240", "M-P typ 240", "M typ 246", M-E, "M-D typ 262" and all that stuff. I think the M10 was a return to more regular naming (M10, M10-P, M10-R, M10 Monochrom) and the M11 seems to be following the same more simplified scheme now. I wonder what marketing star child dreamed up the whole "typ xxx" thing as a public naming schema... LOL!
G