"Digital Rot" - Rapid depreciation

[lencap]

I realize I wasn't very clear on my initial post. I'm not shocked/disappointed that my nearly new M9 is/will depreciate. I was questioning whether the fact that there are many new digital camera formats/designs available and the rate of innovation combined with changes/improvements in technology suggested by the comments leading to digital rot may suggest that owners will view digital cameras differently in the future versus the way film cameras were viewed before the arrival of digital alternatives.

I thought long and hard about buying a Fuji X-E1 instead of the Leica combo, realizing that it was less expensive, had more "features/flexibility" and that the total cost of the camera with kit zoom lens is less than the price of the Summicron lens I just bought. Regardless of the "math" I regret selling my M7 years ago and wanted another chance to experience the Leica "magic". I'm glad I made the decision I did, realizing full well that the Leica will drop in value. You can say that I bought into the Leica "mystique" and that other cameras would/can produce more technically robust images with higher ISO capability, but at this time in my life I was able to financially afford the camera combo and despite my lack of skill with the rangefinder format in general, and digital processing/work flow in particular, I'm getting lots of "pride of ownership" satisfaction.

Will I miss fill flash when shooting my grandson - maybe. Will I find the single 50mm perspective limiting - again maybe. Will I move back to a DSLR or even the Fuji at some point - don't know, again maybe, but there is NO DOUBT that the feel of the Leica in my hand invites/compels me to explore the camera's unique character in depth. And that is something I never felt from a plastic Nikon regardless of the technical specs of the camera.

I get it that the advertising is designed to attract buyers and play on the Leica mystique, and that other cameras may provide a more flexible platform, but I don't mind at all that I "fell" for the advertising appeal of owning a "high end" camera. I can easily see that if I truly learn how to hold/frame/compose and "see" an image I'll become a more skilled photographer - and that is the reason I bought the Leica in the first place. Having a "work of art" in my hand is a bonus, not the driving force for owning the Leica. It's still the desire to learn the photography craft - and at my age I don't have the luxury of time to gain that skill. With the Leica I cut my learning time/curve - and that alone is worth the added cost versus "other" camera brands.

Thanks again to all for the replies - I appreciate the perspective from long time Leica owners. This is a great forum and I very much appreciate the knowledge/friendliness/help that is offered on this site. All of you should be very proud of this site - I'm a member of many forums, this is one of the best. Kudos.

 

[peterm1]

This is of course the alternative method. Choose something that has already depreciated. 🙂 I've been tempted to pick up one of these, they are real bargains!

I usually buy second hand (last generation) For example I have just purchased a D700. This strategy helps as some of the steepest depreciation occurs when a new model arrives on the shores and the wonderful new camera suddenly becomes a has been. But it does not wholly overcome the issue - apart from anything else I have to sell my old camera which by now is two geenrations out of date at least. Of course there is no point waiting too long as new technology is always coming along so if you wnat a camera at some point you jsut have to jump in the pool and accept the consequences.

 

[tomnrides]

I wonder when Leica comes out with image stabilizer and sensor cleaner built-in body.

 

[splitimageview]

I was questioning whether the fact that there are many new digital camera formats/designs available and the rate of innovation combined with changes/improvements in technology suggested by the comments leading to digital rot may suggest that owners will view digital cameras differently in the future versus the way film cameras were viewed before the arrival of digital alternatives.

Well, we are already there...

IMHO, APS-C sensors have caught up. There really is no significant advantage to a full frame sensor CMOS anymore, in terms of image quality, and the manufacturing cost of full frame vs APS sensors is huge (at least 10x higher). Add into the equation that the only full frame RF cameras are from Leica, which are already high-market cameras -- the result is a huge price gap, but not really all that much of a performance gap (if any.)

Leica M at $7k without a lens vs X-E1 at $1000 without a lens. Both of these cameras are capable of superb imagery...but the depreciation of the X-E1 maxes out at $1k...which is what the Leica will depreciate every few months...

So, unless the Leica offers something to the user that is simply unavailable in any other gear (which of course is at the discretion of each buyer, assuming the finances are not an issue) then from a depreciation/financial standpoint the lower priced cameras are a far better buy.

Of course, as outlined above, financial and depreciation considerations are not a factor to every buyer.

 

[ray_g]

And that website also regards the 28-200mm zoom as the best thing since sliced bread...

Will your brand new M9 lose half it's value in a year? Unfortunately, this is most likely true. Not because of "digital rot" or whatever catch phrase he is trying to promote, but rather due to poor timing on your part, so close to Photokina and the introduction of new models. The M9 retail price has already decreased to $6450 and used to around 4k. Will probably decrease further when the M starts shipping, if it is as good as expected.

I am surprised by some of your comments about probably missing flash, being limited by the focal length, and regarding focusing and framing with an RF, coming from an M7 owner. Why did you sell the M7? I don't think the M9 would be any different in terms of usage. And why do you think the Leica would cut your learning curve as opposed to other camera brands?

 

[flip]

Being in the computer industry most of my career, this depreciation has been a part of doing business. Sell the old before the bottom drops out, and move to the new. This protects as much of initial investment as possible. However if the camera is working well for you, then just use it. Don't sell it unless you desire some of the new capabilities of later models.

Similar background and view here. Digital bodies are just interchangeable backs (assuming you don't AF). Buying the right lenses is a better investment of time and money than worrying about the electronics.

In some ways, this is a golden time for digital: if you buy a crop frame and then later a used full frame, you can carry half the lenses (the good ones you were able to save for by not trying to get the latest and greatest back). Just use multiple bodies to get the effective FL you need AND have a backup on hand. 😎

 

[sleepyhead]

If the piece of equipment fits your needs then the true value resides with what you do with it.

Use the M9 as if it's stolen, expose yourself to the world and just maybe you'll see the whole point of any of this… a priceless image.

Yes! Thank you for these words of wisdom, they've inspired me today to go out and use my Hasselblad SWC more, and stop babying it.

 

[bugmenot]

12 years ago, if you bought a Apple Mac Pro for $10,000, you used it for what it was intended to be used for, and today, you wouldn't be able to sell it for even $200. It is completely obsolete.

Had you invested that money in Apple stocks, you would have been a millionaire today.

Now ... 12 years ago, you needed that computer for work, personal use, or whatever else. Did you make a wrong choice in buying it instead of Apple stocks?

No! Of course not! You bought with your hard earned cash what you considered to be a need or want. What if during the last 12 years, you were to die ... would you have cared if your Mac Pro depreciated when you wandered in the underworld? Probably not.

So buy what you think you will need today and enjoy it today and tomorrow ... don't buy equipment as investments ... because you are usually far better off investing that money in stocks, mutual funds, or any other form of money multiplier, given you will live long and have an enormous patience, if you are thinking purely about retaining the value of your money.

On a side note, what we refer to as "investments" here are known as "savings" and "assets" in the science of economy 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

The problem, in my opinion,is only with servicing after your warranty expires. Otherwise, I can say with confidence, that if you compare your camera's depreciation rate to what I pay on average for film ( I do not even count the cost of processing and scanning, as I do it myself, but it would be at least twice as much), the break even is in favour of digital. I am probably an average film shooter, making about 200 rolls a year (about 1000USD). The conclusion could be, that it would make a lot of sense to buy extra warranty time.

 

[Godfrey]

The best way around all this stuff is simply to not think about it.

I mean, honestly, if I'm nervous about the depreciation of some camera or other equipment I buy, that usually means I really can't afford it in the first place. What I'm worried is that if I need the money, I might not be able to sell the item and get the money back.

Depreciation and price of equipment like a camera is only significant when you want to buy or want to sell. At no other time should you think about it. Stay within what you can afford, buy what you like/want to use, and just use it.

The real value of a camera is in the photos you make with it. Let that be a positive thing to supplant all the worry about depreciation and money. Use that lovely M9 a lot. 🙂

(BTW, my Olympus E-1, manufactured in October 2003, is still going strong and still makes lovely photos. I couldn't afford an E-1 in 2003 at $2000+, but when I bought this one in 2008 it was already down to $400 or so. I bet I could hardly get $250 for it now. Doesn't matter, it works fine and I like it. It will only be worthless when it stops working...)

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I mean, honestly, if I'm nervous about the depreciation of some camera or other equipment I buy, that usually means I really can't afford it in the first place. What I'm worried is that if I need the money, I might not be able to sell the item and get the money back.

Depreciation and price of equipment like a camera is only significant when you want to buy or want to sell. At no other time should you think about it. Stay within what you can afford, buy what you like/want to use, and just use it.

The real value of a camera is in the photos you make with it. Let that be a positive thing to supplant all the worry about depreciation and money. Use that lovely M9 a lot. 🙂
. . .

Dear Godfrey,

Couldn't agree more. 'Rot' is an old term in English for 'nonsense' -- "The man is talking rot" -- and 'digital rot' is what a lot of digital 'experts' spout. Including the ones who say "An M9 is just a computer", or who have trade-in strategies that they apply when a computer reaches a certain age, whether it continues to do its job or not.

Yes, I rely on computers as a part of earning my living, both writing and photography. But both are pretty undemanding applications, and certainly don't demand new computers on a regular basis. Preserving the data matters most of all (which is basic backing-up) and more processing speed is nice when dealing with multiple big image files, but my current computer (maybe 2 years old) is fast enough that I don't foresee replacing it until it breaks. Same with the M9.

The only reason I sell stuff nowadays is because I never use it any more. Even if I use it occasionally, I'll usually keep it. When I was younger I used to buy and sell vintage cameras (never new ones) as a paying hobby -- I'd play with them, and then sell at a profit -- but that was only tangentially related to serious photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[IEDEI]

I realize I wasn't very clear on my initial post. I'm not shocked/disappointed that my nearly new M9 is/will depreciate. I was questioning whether the fact that there are many new digital camera formats/designs available and the rate of innovation combined with changes/improvements in technology suggested by the comments leading to digital rot may suggest that owners will view digital cameras differently in the future versus the way film cameras were viewed before the arrival of digital alternatives.

I thought long and hard about buying a Fuji X-E1 instead of the Leica combo, realizing that it was less expensive, had more "features/flexibility" and that the total cost of the camera with kit zoom lens is less than the price of the Summicron lens I just bought. Regardless of the "math" I regret selling my M7 years ago and wanted another chance to experience the Leica "magic". I'm glad I made the decision I did, realizing full well that the Leica will drop in value. You can say that I bought into the Leica "mystique" and that other cameras would/can produce more technically robust images with higher ISO capability, but at this time in my life I was able to financially afford the camera combo and despite my lack of skill with the rangefinder format in general, and digital processing/work flow in particular, I'm getting lots of "pride of ownership" satisfaction.

Will I miss fill flash when shooting my grandson - maybe. Will I find the single 50mm perspective limiting - again maybe. Will I move back to a DSLR or even the Fuji at some point - don't know, again maybe, but there is NO DOUBT that the feel of the Leica in my hand invites/compels me to explore the camera's unique character in depth. And that is something I never felt from a plastic Nikon regardless of the technical specs of the camera.

I get it that the advertising is designed to attract buyers and play on the Leica mystique, and that other cameras may provide a more flexible platform, but I don't mind at all that I "fell" for the advertising appeal of owning a "high end" camera. I can easily see that if I truly learn how to hold/frame/compose and "see" an image I'll become a more skilled photographer - and that is the reason I bought the Leica in the first place. Having a "work of art" in my hand is a bonus, not the driving force for owning the Leica. It's still the desire to learn the photography craft - and at my age I don't have the luxury of time to gain that skill. With the Leica I cut my learning time/curve - and that alone is worth the added cost versus "other" camera brands.

Thanks again to all for the replies - I appreciate the perspective from long time Leica owners. This is a great forum and I very much appreciate the knowledge/friendliness/help that is offered on this site. All of you should be very proud of this site - I'm a member of many forums, this is one of the best. Kudos.

lenscap: I understand what you're saying....but for example the M8 was $4500 when new in 2006. they are still selling for $2000+ (and steady) almost 6 years later. that's pretty damn good for 'modern technology' I say!

much good advice has been given here to not worry about resale....it is a normal part of any technological device....not just digital cameras. just enjoy your great machine and don't bother with worrying about it's value. IF it consumes you....then sell it and get something more easy to afford.

 

[flyalf]

If your a pro then you need to consider return of investments in monetary terms. If you're a amateur you can take the return in pure pleasure. Its up to each to decide on how to maximize this. And thanks to gods or other non-existing deities for that 🙂

 

[lencap]

Again, thanks to all for the comments, much appreciated. Ray, I made the usability comments about the Leica rangefinder format versus DSLR cameras since over the last few years my shooting has been exclusively with DSLR cameras. Getting back into that format from the M7 I did appreciate that for some types of shooting (rapidly moving grandchildren, capturing distance items with critical focus, etc.) the DSLR format does have some advantages over the rangefinder format. That doesn't mean that I don't like the Leica "approach", but rather that I realize that having the right tool for the job can make the job easier. Just like having the right tool in my toolbox makes it easier to tuneup my car.

On the other hand, there are clearly times when the right tool is a rangefinder format camera, and for that the Leica has the added advantage of being built to a high quality standard.

My M7 was sold partly because I didn't spend enough time getting to learn the format. In retrospect using film instead of digital images, at least for me, made it a bit harder to learn the rangefinder format largely related to the delay between taking the shot and seeing the result. And to be frank I didn't use a journal to capture the details of my shooting. So when it came time to analyze why my shot didn't work I couldn't easily relate my thought process to the image capture. That's one reason why I think the M9 will improve my shooting a bit - largely because my technique has improved by owning the M7, I've grown more disciplined in cataloging my critical shots, and with almost instant feedback between taking the shot and seeing the result I can more easily adjust technique to correct unintended errors. I can also get better feedback about critical focus more easily. These results would be even better with a higher resolution screen, but clearly having any screen with immediate feedback, at least for me, is a welcome addition to my learning curve.

In addition, having shot with a Nikon DSLR for many years I've learned a bit about digital imaging and processing although my technique still needs lots of work. And while the Nikon format was helpful it used a cropped sensor so my lens selection was more challenging, especially if I wanted to shoot wide. The result was that I used a zoom lens with varying light sensitivity instead of a prime lens with a fixed aperture. This limitation also slowed my learning curve since I was dealing with many variables when composing/shooting and processing my images. Again, with the Leica and prime lenses I expect to be able to reduce the variables and expect that my skills will improve by being able to focus on specific changes I'm making one at a time instead of clustered by having many factors change (aperture shift as I select different focal lengths on the zoom, etc.).

Finally, I realize full well that buying prior to a new camera release isn't a financially wise move, and for that I take responsibility. And as someone else has mentioned in this thread the Fuji X-E1 is limited to $1,000 in depreciation. As such it may be a supplemental addition to my Leica for times when I do need fill flash, or want to shoot with critical focus and would appreciate the EVF capability in a particular situation. That doesn't mean I don't like/appreciate the Leica, but it does mean that as the poster noted that for my toolbox Leica ins't the only option if the goal is to capture the image that I see in my mind's eye.

The new M sounds like quite a capable tool, but if the $1,000 Fuji serves the purpose my point in the original post is that technology advances increase my options, not limit them, and the only added cost is more rapid depreciation. That's a tradeoff I can live with, and I bet many others can as well.

Again, thanks to all for the comments - it helps me clarify where I should place my attention as I learn how to use my M9.

 

[splitimageview]

Btw, Fill flash works on an M9, or any camera...might not be as automated as some. 🙂

Pretty sure the original retail was $5495 for the M8. So about 36% value after six years.

 

[Borge H]

When I bought my M9 it was primary for the purpose of speeding up my process. I like my film M:s, but it is great to get images quick in the computer. Scanning is time-consuming and the results is worse than the the digital files from M9, to my surprise.

I am not planning to sell my M9, in fact I have never sold any of my M:s. Why should I? I still use my M2 which I bought back in the sixties when I was in school. I plan to use it, the M9 and my other M:s as long as I can. I plan, however, to upgrade the M9 to a M9-P if that upgrade-program is still available.

It don´t think my M9 will have a "digital rot". What could change and become worse? My worst concern is the lithium battery and the memory card and perhaps the card reader in the computer. I think that in 20 years other components will be used to store images. But SD-cards can be stock-piled, a card reader with interface should be possible to get (or build!) and a battery could easily be fixed with a soldering iron and some other batteries.

I think a Leica M9 is the last candidate on the market in a "digital rot" competition. The Japanese cameras are more likely to be obsolete and forgotten.

Selling an buying cameras often is not for us who are not business-men. I am not interested in business. I think it is like selling and buying cars, in every deal I loose something to the better trained sales-person. So my tactics is to buy something and use it until it breaks beyond repair. I try to minimize the trading.

 

[thegman]

Microprocessors have a lifespan, so sooner or later an M9 will stop working. At that point the microprocessor that ceased to work will be out of production, and it will be cost-prohibitive to start making them again. This will of course render the M9 useless except as a decor, and some people will still buy them for that reason.

Of course, in that time, you've not been buying film/processing, so even if you've only shot the equivalent of a few rolls a month, the M9 will likely have paid for itself.

Digital cameras are a great investment if you buy it and then use it a lot for a decent period of time. Very poor investments if you like to buy/sell a lot.

Hobbies do tend to cost money though, so don't worry about it.

 

[vitaly66]

It seems like digital rot is a fact you implicitly accepted when you bought into your gizmocam.

And least of all in your gear: the grandchildren of today's new parents will never know your images.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Depreciation is one of the great inventions of mankind. I've bought all sorts of stuff secondhand that I wouldn't even consider buying new. 😀

The only expensive things I buy new are cars and computers, the former because I spent too many years fixing cheap old bangers when I wanted to do other things and the latter because my work requires cutting edge kit and it's tax deductible.

So, the more people who buy new M9s, the sooner I'll pick one up for the £400 I paid for my M3!

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

My question is - should I have considered "digital rot" more fully before taking the plunge into the M9

Of course. And, you probably did consider the potential loss of value.

I've got a theory that the rapid progress in photography has been in the sensor, less so on the mechanics. From the 30's to 2000, it was better film every five years. Now it's better digital sensors every two years. I think there's progress in the camera, the mechanism that puts the proper light onto the sensor, but that progress is much slower than the film/sensor progress.

Thing is, now the sensor is built into the camera body. This has big impacts. We no longer pay for film and processing. But, our cameras feel "old" when there are newer and better sensors available.

In the old days, you over-bought the camera, got the best you could, expecting to grow into it. In the digital era, only buy something that will benefit you now.

One more comment: I save a lot of money by staying one step behind the bleeding edge. I buy last year's model used once this year's model has all the attention.