"Digital Rot" - Rapid depreciation

Depreciation is a fact of life. i come from a background of jewellery. Gold, diamonds are never an investment. They can become treasured items of a family, handed down. So don't keep insuring for more and more. The insurers will do well on your payments but pay out more real prices, much lower.Enjoy wearing them! Using them, same a cameras.
My cameras are used forever. A good camera can last a lifetime.Mine nearly outlived me, during a heart excitement.
Many pros do "write-off" equipment. However many pros keep working to buy MORE equipment. i have toyed with idea of a DSLR for so long, the entry level is now under $5oo when a few years ago, it was 5x more.
If the camera works, does what it did, keep using it! An obsolete camera unlike your PC Apple or Windows does not (yet) require constant up-dates.
Finally becoming unusable as the system cannot be advanced..Windows XP soon.. So shove in a card, push in the battery and go use it! Lots!
 
I wouldn't worry too much about it then. The important thing is that you enjoy and use it. I agree with the poster who mentioned a more rapid rate of depreciation (albeit less in actual amount) with Japanese cameras, since newer and better models are coming to market every year, or in some cases, even in less time than that. This is more true in the formats that are more rapidly evolving, such as m4/3. For a FF rangefinder, there really is no other choice. And it seems that with its new models, Leica is going off in a different direction, with the monochrome for traditionalists and the M10 exploring video and evf compatibility. IMO, Leica retaining the M9's basic setup with the M-E hopefully will translate to longer availability of parts, batteries and service for the M9.

lencap said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
An obvious application that begs questioning as to why the manufacturers won't adopt it (mainly because it won't fit into Leica's business strategy), is why don't they make a modular system akin to the Ricoh GXR?

Great Leica body, replacable sensor/battery module.

Unfortunately, with the digital age, marketing departments have really perfected their ability to keep people buying things based on planned obsolescence, just look at Apple and their 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S, 5 strategy. That's the best way to make money -- why bother investing in quality and longevity when that's only shooting yourself in the foot with regards to lost potential sales 12 months down the line.

That seems a reasonable approach (albeit slightly absurd) when it comes to something that is predominantly tech-based. Obviously, phones as computers means that their operation depends largely on applications, and thus processing power. Photography is interesting because at its base is something that likely isn't really going to change much -- optical properties and physics. Leica's marketing strategy WAS buy one body for life as an investment, and pass it on to your children and them to their children. With digital bodies as they are currently, such a strategy in the context of processing power doubling every 2 years, is laughable.

Still, there's no reason why a modular system wouldn't work, especially given Leica's hardcore userbase. Remember the tumult the M5 caused because it was better but a different shape? Utilizing what was learned from this lesson (Leica users don't like physical change), it should be obvious that changing the basic shape is a no-no (or at least was), only serving to make a static mechanical-optical RF integrated bodyshell all the easier to make.

Split the lines, introduce the real M (a gutted M body, that is, not the current stupid/bloated/fat garbage), and reallocate R&D resources into optics and sensor development. Most Leica fans would be content with manual stuff (as they have been for years) as long as that's the path to better sensors/photos.

Unfortunately, Leica has become more a status symbol, as evidenced by their Leica as Lifestyle marketing strategy. Basically, they are the same as Harley Davidson and Ducati -- the product is the brand image, not the actual equipment (which has stagnated and become a mere shadow of its former self).

Quite pathetic, really...
 
Spicy said:
An obvious application that begs questioning as to why the manufacturers won't adopt it (mainly because it won't fit into Leica's business strategy), is why don't they make a modular system akin to the Ricoh GXR?

Great Leica body, replacable sensor/battery module.

Unfortunately, with the digital age, marketing departments have really perfected their ability to keep people buying things based on planned obsolescence, just look at Apple and their 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S, 5 strategy. That's the best way to make money -- why bother investing in quality and longevity when that's only shooting yourself in the foot with regards to lost potential sales 12 months down the line.
Click to expand...
In descending order of importance (Leica did actually consider it), the objections are bulk and technical difficulty; limiting their options by having to make future modules compatible with increasingly obsolete older ones; the significantly increased expense of making a modular system (Leicas cost enough already); and the fact that yes, they'd rather sell new cameras. I had the clear impression when discussing it with them that the fourth consideration was far from negligible, it was easily the least important.

Cheers,

R.
 
mfogiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The way I justify buying a M9M is to use it as much as I can and for as long as I can. I shoot 50-60 rolls of B&W film a month on average, and now processing all this every month exceeds two full days. I'm sure some of the costs of a M9M will be recovered and offset by lower film costs, and perhaps I will shoot even more frames. (Know that I shoot lots of medium format where 8,10 or 12 shots per roll is the norm.)

IMHO there is only digital rot if the camera is not used extensively. Also know that eventually I expect that the M9M will actually pay for itself in savings. It may take a while, but eventually I believe for me the purchase of a brand new M9M will be a good investment.

Bonus is the enjoyment and the education (new to digital). Also know that over Veteran's Day weekend I will be attempting to process 146 rolls of film over a three day period (about 2 1/2 months worth of film).

Cal
 
tom.w.bn said:
Investment: you put money into something with the expectation to gain more. Is this your expectation when you buy a camera?

Thinking about resale value takes away half of the fun.
Click to expand...

I think the same, something you buy and actually USE and thus depreciate can't be considered as an investment.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125592

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125592

i used to print all my B/W. Make big prints. A few years ago i stopped doing darkroom. i was having problems..prints fading rapidly, emulsion on film with defects. i assumed it was ME. Reading Ctein/Online Photographer made things jump in perspective. i have about 200 negative sheets of film without contacts. i hope to do a "rough" positive using a DSLR. i scan but it is slow and basically for me not the ideal usage of film. A part remedy, not a cure.
Using small P/S digital i've become used to their stunning performance. Sure, it's not film quality as i KNEW it. Hey i filter water, chemicals, keep place as dust free as possible.
So in your case, close to mine, get the digital camera. Big prints are easy with digital and you don't need your own printer. I use Staples.
I am pleased how much i enjoy my M6. It cost $850 after trading my Pentax 6x7 Rig at Samys L.A. Its 12 years ago, meaning it cost about $70. a year..That's 2 rolls of cheap 24 exposure color neg. film.
i use depreciation my own way..
The amount of images you will do with digital after the constraint of film, will be stunning. It is not simply shooting lots but ability to try out many viewpoints and techniques.
Go for it!
 
FrankS said:
Stop worrying about this and enjoy the amazing gear you just got! As for becoming obsolete, in 5 years it will still be capable of producing the results that it is capable of today.
Click to expand...

Yep, just use it and enjoy the amazing results. If you're always looking at the latest new thing, chances are you're unlikely to be happy with any camera at any point in the future.
 
leicapixie said:
i used to print all my B/W. Make big prints. A few years ago i stopped doing darkroom. i was having problems..prints fading rapidly, emulsion on film with defects. i assumed it was ME. Reading Ctein/Online Photographer made things jump in perspective. i have about 200 negative sheets of film without contacts. i hope to do a "rough" positive using a DSLR. i scan but it is slow and basically for me not the ideal usage of film. A part remedy, not a cure.
Using small P/S digital i've become used to their stunning performance. Sure, it's not film quality as i KNEW it. Hey i filter water, chemicals, keep place as dust free as possible.
So in your case, close to mine, get the digital camera. Big prints are easy with digital and you don't need your own printer. I use Staples.
I am pleased how much i enjoy my M6. It cost $850 after trading my Pentax 6x7 Rig at Samys L.A. Its 12 years ago, meaning it cost about $70. a year..That's 2 rolls of cheap 24 exposure color neg. film.
i use depreciation my own way..
The amount of images you will do with digital after the constraint of film, will be stunning. It is not simply shooting lots but ability to try out many viewpoints and techniques.
Go for it!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support. Already a friend gave me his HP9180, inks and a huge supply of paper. Although I love film I will fully embrace digital and exploit it passionately.

I will likely keep all my film gear and I'm sure that analog photography will remain important in my life.

Cal
 
Spicy said:
Still, there's no reason why a modular system wouldn't work, especially given Leica's hardcore userbase. Remember the tumult the M5 caused because it was better but a different shape? Utilizing what was learned from this lesson (Leica users don't like physical change), it should be obvious that changing the basic shape is a no-no (or at least was), only serving to make a static mechanical-optical RF integrated bodyshell all the easier to make.

Split the lines, introduce the real M (a gutted M body, that is, not the current stupid/bloated/fat garbage), and reallocate R&D resources into optics and sensor development. Most Leica fans would be content with manual stuff (as they have been for years) as long as that's the path to better sensors/photos.

Unfortunately, Leica has become more a status symbol, as evidenced by their Leica as Lifestyle marketing strategy. Basically, they are the same as Harley Davidson and Ducati -- the product is the brand image, not the actual equipment (which has stagnated and become a mere shadow of its former self).

Quite pathetic, really...
Click to expand...

Well said. For Leica M, a modular system (i.e., a digital M back) will be the way to go, technically. Also to the greater benefit of all M users.
 
Like the ill-fated DMR? Hmmm. Once bitten twice shy. For now Leica is selling all digital Ms they can make. They sold 3500 DMRs. And 35000 M8s alone...

Anyway, it is utterly impossible. M1 through M6 and MP have no electronic shutter, none have an electrical interface, the digital back adds about 6 mm to the back of the camera so your eye would not be able to reach the viewfinder, etc. Have you ever seen a DMR digital back? There are two electrical interfaces and a dozen contacts and it is quite a lump. A no/go for any M camera.
 
jaapv said:
Like the ill-fated DMR? Hmmm. Once bitten twice shy. For now Leica is selling all digital Ms they can make. They sold 3500 DMRs. And 35000 M8s alone...

Anyway, it is utterly impossible. M1 through M6 and MP have no electronic shutter, none have an electrical interface, the digital back adds about 6 mm to the back of the camera so your eye would not be able to reach the viewfinder, etc. Have you ever seen a DMR digital back? There are two electrical interfaces and a dozen contacts and it is quite a lump. A no/go for any M camera.
Click to expand...

For electronics, never say impossible. :)

Technology is one thing and marketing is another. :)
 
lencap said:
Recently, on another website, the point was made that any digital camera is really a computer, and as such it is subject to becoming obsolete as rapidly as any computer system.
Click to expand...

No. It's perhaps a little related but not the same.
From a certain level of development on, a digital camera was good enough to satisfy my needs.
The 2006/2007 generation of digital cams came to that point.
I still don't see any reason to upgrade my EOS 5D or my Leica M8.
Even the Pentax K100D can still produce amazing images.

With computers the software changes, making a new computer necessary.
If we were satisfied with the features of an old software version, we could perfectly use the old computers. Probably file size would restrict that, though.
It's the operating systems (and the lack of support for older ones) that force us to upgrade our hardware.
(BTW, I still have a Commodore C128 and an Amstrad Laptop 286 which both work without problems!)

That is not really the case with cameras.

And digital cams do not rot at such a pace that some say.
I do own a Nikon D1 (1999) which still works fine. If the "digital rot prophets" were right, that would be some kind of miracle.

There is a difference between electronic and fully manual cams, yes. But that also refers to electronic film cams (such as a Canon EOS 50e) and not only to digital cams.
 
I wish there was some kind of digital film available that could be loaded into any film camera and that would be the only part that people would need to replace , lets keep dreaming...
 
The digital camera is not like a computer. Computers go out of date so quickly because newer software is constantly challenging the speed and memory. This doesn't happen with cameras.

A digital camera will however take as good a photograph five years down the road as it did on the day it was bought. And it can take advantage of newer software to improve its performance as time goes on. For instance the latest noise reduction software in Photoshop adds more than an extra stop of noise free imaging than it did two or three years ago. But an M9 is not an investment, and a Leica M3 was not an investment, or at least they are not something you can predict in advance that they will go up in price while being used at the same time.

So to the OP, don't worry about it, you have your M9, the bugs are worked out, and you can have a self satisfied chortle at the first 'my M doesn't work....' post when it comes along.
 
V-12 said:
The digital camera is not like a computer. Computers go out of date so quickly because newer software is constantly challenging the speed and memory. This doesn't happen with cameras.

A digital camera will however take as good a photograph five years down the road as it did on the day it was bought. And it can take advantage of newer software to improve its performance as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Well, exactly what I wrote four posts above. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom