A lot of $$$

[Bill Pierce]

Does it make sense to spend a lot of money on a digital camera? We’re still early in the development of these cameras, and, unlike film cameras, the passage of just a few years can bring major advances to the field that provide good reasons to buy new cameras and replace the old ones. A friend who owns a camera store that works with a lot of the country’s top photographers says this is exactly what is happening. In some ways he says he is in the camera swapping business.

Look at the improvement in the Leica digitals from the Digilux, M8/9 days. It would be foolish to denigrate the quality of the newer Leicas including the just released Q. Yet, among my friends, many of whom owned multiple Leica film bodies, no one currently uses digital Leicas. Admittedly, that is a rather extreme example, but many, including those few who never used a rangefinder, have switched from brands they spent decades with since moving to digital, an evolving, changing field. Does it make sense to spend a lot of money on a digital camera if it is not the lifetime investment that many film cameras were?

Can you spend a lot of money on a short term investment if you are a young person just starting out or are a person responsible for a family? Actually, this concerns me a lot more than what I choose to do. And there is another thing that concerns me. I don’t like the camera brand I grew up with, Leica, becoming a conspicuous consumption item worn like jewelry instead of a camera just because it’s expensive.

Your thoughts??

 

[Greyscale]

Neither does fancy old gear.

 

[nongfuspring]

Actually I don't think we're that early in the development of digital cameras. We're starting to see image quality start to plateau more and there's a much slower turnover of sensors. Even cameras from a few years ago are often still very good for most applications. There's better AF, stabilisation, handling, etc., new novelty features - useful things often, but nothing that makes older cameras obsolete for the vast majority of camera buyers no doubt.

 

[uhoh7]

Time or money, take your pick. When you factor in all the fiddling to develop and scan from film, you might have been earning some money for a digital M.

Also in real dollars, are today's Leicas more expensive than say, a Contax in 1955?

Today a used M9 is still worth over 3k, the highest resale of any FF camera. And it is capable of incredible quality images. The M8 can be found as low as 1200, and makes gorgeous images.

In terms of "sense" of course the digital Leicas make it. Other factors at play, not least the film cult and digital curmudgeoness LOL

i.e. if you hate digital, then no it does not make sense

 

[Godfrey]

Does it make sense to spend a lot of money on a digital camera? We’re still early in the development of these cameras, and, unlike film cameras, the passage of just a few years can bring major advances to the field that provide good reasons to buy new cameras and replace the old ones.
...
Your thoughts??

I feel that was true in the period from 2001 to 2010. But development had reached a good plateau through most brands by 2007 already, and certainly by 2012 most makes had produced cameras that are sufficient for a ten year use life, despite that newer models have superceded them. Most of what I see in subsequent models has been more convenience features, more (unnecessary) pixel resolution, and minor improvements in responsiveness. I still sometimes use a superb 2003 Olympus E-1 that I purchased in 2008—despite being long outmoded by newer, zipper models, it still produces superb photos that fit many needs.

The Leica M lens family has been a more difficult proposition for a digital body due to the lens mount register and the diversity of design in RF lenses, so it's taken Leica a couple more years to complete the development to an acceptable level; Leica works on development slowly, incrementally, most of the time anyway. I feel they have gotten it right with the typ 240 (including 246) model where the M8 and M9 models were development steps along the way.

With the M-P typ 240 and M Monchrom typ 246 (now on order), Leica has hit the stride they were at with the MP film camera. I feel quite comfortable that I'll have a good decade's worth of use out of these before I feel I need to update to a newer M body, which is about what I felt with my prior M film cameras and Nikon SLRs.

(Of course, I got twenty years out of my Nikon FM/FE2 bodies, and still use a 1960 F, and I still use my CL and M4-2 bodies as well. They're all outmoded but still good enough to produce the goods. So I suspect the M-P/MM246 will likely last longer than just a decade if I can keep from wanting more stuff....

G

 

[Fraser]

I think digital is now at a level and has been for the last five-ish years maybe that any camera from any of the major manufacturers is good enough for 99% of photographers. I don't think film cameras have ever been a good investment maybe some rare leica or nikon. But when you work back the cost of film cameras to todays digital models they are about the same price. In the mid 80s in the UK a Nikon F4 cost £1800 that was a lot of money know you are lucky to get £100 for one.

 

[KM-25]

Today a used M9 is still worth over 3k, the highest resale of any FF camera.

I have been looking at M9's lately because it is easy to find one is great shape for less than 3K. But I don't agree with the highest retail thing given it was 7K when it first came out and often sees far less action / frame counts than say, a Nikon D800.

In every single case of when I upgraded cameras, my Nikon bodies had anywhere from 70-120K frames on them and sold for around 60% of what I bought them for new which was usually the highest price since I get them when they first come out.

I'd say Leica digital bodies lose value just like any other camera.

On another note, the mint late serial M6TTL ( Avatar ) I just got for $1,200 was $1,350 when new.

 

[thart2009]

Well, I just bought a used Leica M240. Cost a pretty penny. To help finance it I sold my Fuji X-T1 with kit lens, 55-200 zoom and 35mm zoom. Also my Bessa R4A. Still have my M4 with a nice assortment of M lenses (Zeiss and Voigtlander). I still get a thrill shooting a new camera. Worst case is I sell the M240 for not too much less than I paid for it.

Only time and practice can make me a better photog, but the gear can keep me interested. If I hadn't accumulated some decent gear over time, I would not have been able to pull the trigger on an M240 purchase though.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Lots of young ones buying exotic two real, no rear seats cars, $15K bikes, $30K bass boats and else for $$$. All aren't suitable for families, nor are "investments".
With expensive Leica they at least are able to take family pictures. Which is valuable asset.

 

[mlu19]

From google search: Leica M4 new at retail price was ~$305 which is the equivalent of $2,017 after inflation today. That's certainly a lot of $$$ back in the day.

 

[jsrockit]

You can upgrade your digital camera like you do a computer... every 4-6 years...at this point.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd say Leica digital bodies lose value just like any other camera.

Kind of, sort of... but the M9 is 6 years old. The D700 was $3000 originally. Now, $600-800. Close to what you say. Many others don't do as well... especially mirrorless.

 

[Corran]

Higher-end digital cameras are often bought for use in paid work.

The product I deliver with my D800 is demonstrably and objectively better than the same images taken with a D3000. Of course we can argue semantics here about "it's not the gear it's the photographer" but I'm talking about me, or any photographer, using one or the other camera. The better camera will create better technical results.

Whether or not Joe Plumber, weekend photo hobbyist who shoots flowers in his garden, needs a Leica M240 is a different story. Whether he wants it, vs. needing it, is also a very different thing.

When I was 24 I bought my first FF digital camera, a D700. Still use it a lot. I paid almost $2,000 for it, but I made that money back + a lot more in paid work. As it should be. If I were 100% hobbyist I would only shoot film. But even plenty of exotic or cult items are very expensive.

 

[mfogiel]

Let's see, I am an amateur, I shot about 200 rolls last year, that's 1.000 EUR, plus about 100 EUR for chemicals, negative sheets, etc. I usually spend 2-3 hours scanning a film, so that makes about 500 hours of work, and down here the minimum hourly wage equivalent is around 12 EUR, which would make it about 6.000 EUR, which I luckily save because I scan while doing other work ( I have skipped the cost of buying a decent scanner and it's depreciation). So how does it add up? 7.100 EUR in a year - well, the old Leica Monochrom ( I only shoot B&W) cost 6.550 new with a couple of years of warranty, so if I bought one every second year, I would be practically halving my photographic costs.
I think the comparison would be even worse for someone shooting colour, so here is the hidden answer to your question.

 

[mdg137]

Before buying an M240, I sat down and really crunched the numbers-- not accounting for time, there would be more expense over a three year period involved in buying and processing film, than depreciation on the M body, at least for my rate and style of shooting.

When you factor in time scanning, and time processing, the balance for me tips heavily toward digital, despite the upfront expense.

 

[MCTuomey]

Let's see, I am an amateur, I shot about 200 rolls last year, that's 1.000 EUR, plus about 100 EUR for chemicals, negative sheets, etc. I usually spend 2-3 hours scanning a film, so that makes about 500 hours of work, and down here the minimum hourly wage equivalent is around 12 EUR, which would make it about 6.000 EUR, which I luckily save because I scan while doing other work ( I have skipped the cost of buying a decent scanner and it's depreciation). So how does it add up? 7.100 EUR in a year - well, the old Leica Monochrom ( I only shoot B&W) cost 6.550 new with a couple of years of warranty, so if I bought one every second year, I would be practically halving my photographic costs.
I think the comparison would be even worse for someone shooting colour, so here is the hidden answer to your question.

Before buying an M240, I sat down and really crunched the numbers-- not accounting for time, there would be more expense over a three year period involved in buying and processing film, than depreciation on the M body, at least for my rate and style of shooting.

When you factor in time scanning, and time processing, the balance for me tips heavily toward digital, despite the upfront expense.

Exactly right by my reckoning, excluding aesthetic values, of course. Digital depreciation corresponds to film-related expenses.

But there is another point to emphasize, which uhoh mentions. One need not buy new. Digital gear has advanced so far in the last few years that one can buy a fairly well depreciated but very capable digital body at a more manageable price and produce excellent work.

 

[pluton]

Leicas were always used as jewelry by the super-rich and the super-rich wannabes. The difference now is the larger media visibility of celebrity(plutography), and that Leica has a a modern[sleazy]marketing department now.

 

[pluton]

Before buying an M240, I sat down and really crunched the numbers-- not accounting for time, there would be more expense over a three year period involved in buying and processing film, than depreciation on the M body, at least for my rate and style of shooting.

When you factor in time scanning, and time processing, the balance for me tips heavily toward digital, despite the upfront expense.

I bought two $5000 Nikon D3 bodies in 2008; If every frame I shot with the D3's was done and paid for using transparency film and processing(no prints), both cameras paid for themselves in a year and a half.

 

[mfunnell]

I expect I'll be using my M240 in 10 years time. The Canon 5D (original) is coming up to 10 years old, and I still use mine (I've had it for about 6-7 years; bought 2nd-hand from someone upgrading to the then-new 5DmkII). It's still a good camera, though I now use it somewhat less than I used to, simply because the M240 is better at a lot of the tasks I used the 5D for. (But for some things the 5D is still a better choice.) I was fortunate to find myself, quite unpredictably, in a position to buy the Leica, otherwise I'd still be using my 5D for those tasks. (Well, perhaps I might have bought something else, but I well might not: I can't really know for sure.) I used my Canon 50D (bought new, when it first came out) for almost as long as my 5D, for sports and wildlife type shots, and only recently upgraded from that (with a very specific objective in mind, otherwise I'd probably still be happily using it).

So, no, I don't think digital cameras are necessarily things that are disposed of when the 'next big thing' comes along. Though I guess they can be if you want to treat them that way. I don't.

...Mike

 

[mfogiel]

"I expect I'll be using my M240 in 10 years time."
Personally, I think that digital cameras are expected to last as long as the warranty. My only serious digital camera died "in sleep" when it was 5 years old, and it was almost unused.