Emile de Leon
Well-known
Leica M is for serious artists..but who don't have the cash...or ..don't want to spend it...
And for hobbyists..who probably don't have the cash either..
And rich dilettantes..
Bring down the price...even if you have to eliminate all your dealers and their markups.....and just sell direct...thru a few Leica shops..
Get your 20 to 40 year old set back..because the old farts like me..don't want to buy the M anymore...and have to deal w/QC issues too..and the price tag..whew..for what is essentially..a fun cam..
And for hobbyists..who probably don't have the cash either..
And rich dilettantes..
Bring down the price...even if you have to eliminate all your dealers and their markups.....and just sell direct...thru a few Leica shops..
Get your 20 to 40 year old set back..because the old farts like me..don't want to buy the M anymore...and have to deal w/QC issues too..and the price tag..whew..for what is essentially..a fun cam..
NazgulKing
Established
Digital sensors get exponentially more expensive as they increase in size. There are scientific cameras that run in the order of tens of thousands.
c.poulton
Well-known
Lukitas, although I do agree with you, the thing to remember is that the Leica has always been an expensive camera for its time, and would have represented a significant investment for any purchaser.
However, with the release of the digital RF models I believe that Leica have surpassed their previous pricing policy for one more akin to the luxury shoe and handbag companies whereby you pay more for the brand name than for the actual product. This is a real pity in my mind.
(There is no way that I could ever afford a new Leica in the past and now this goal seems even more unobtainable for me. But, I am the proud owner of a IIIf (1952) and an M2 (1962) which I can just about afford along with a few same era lenses.)
Sparrow
Veteran
Well you did such a good job before ... now you have the job permanently
... once it became clear to the major shareholders this MD would have to report to Raid I feared this would happen
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes, too subtle for me I expect
willie_901
Veteran
Very interesting idea... everyone who's rich is a dilettante. I had no idea one's financial resources determined their creativity, work ethic and desire to make art.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Willie_901 +1 most modern artists come either from upper middle class or rich families very few come from a lower class background.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I think they are all to expensive but thats they way it is and with Leica M being the same price as the top of the line from the big two when years ago Leica M was more than twice as much as top of the line big two looks like Leica M is the bargain here.
I'm far from rich but I have priorities. A Leica MM was a priority for me. I am lucky that photography pays for everything but still if you don't buy it all you would be surprised at what you can afford.
nightfly
Well-known
Not sure if people realize but you can buy pre-depreciated Leica items affordably. See the classified section for details...
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
The inescapable reality of the situation is this: One way or another photography is going to cost money, whether you shoot with a film M or a digital M (or a Nikon, or a Canon, or a Pentax K1000, or a Zorki, or a Holga).
The best way to minimize the cost of photography is to buy 100 foot cans of B&W, load your own film cartridges, buy chems, develop your own film and make your own B&W prints in a wet darkroom. Used enlargers can be had for pocket change days and if you look around, you can probably get one for free (I did). Not as convenient or quick as digital photography & processing, but if money is tight and you want to do photography as economically as possible - it can be done. If all that is just too much trouble, the guy who says it's too much trouble just does not want to do photography badly enough.
Photography is like everything else in life - slow is cheap (as in an Amish guy with his horse and buggy), fast and easy is expensive (as in a modern guy with his car that has a $500/month payment, insurance, plates, registration, fuel and maintenance costs).
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
Photography is expensive... Unless you make money doing it.
YYV_146
Well-known
I haven't exactly done the math, but I suspect in this day and age digital is still the cheaper option. Digital is only expensive if you insist on being on the treadmill and must have the latest and greatest.
Being 1-2 years behind the curve lowers costs tremendously. 3-4 years and you're almost free from depreciation, unless something breaks. To illustrate my point - try putting together a 3-body digital kit using only cameras before 2009 at eBay prices, then repeat the experiment with cameras before 2005. The price difference is there, but not huge. If you buy 2009 stuff today, chances are you can still get back something in 4-5 years.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
He didn't say that....he just mentioned the rich dilettante, there are poor ones as well, and there are rich who are not dilettantes.
willie_901
Veteran
He certainly did say that. There were no modifying adverbs like "mostly, usually, often nor did he include qualifiers such as "in my experience".
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Jeeze Willie...having a bad day are we...hahah!
leicapixie
Well-known
I am one of the many Baby Boomers.
Our huge numbers made the highest sales of records, Hi-Fi, TV's, Autos and of course cameras.
The 60's saw the introduction of the SLR.
Nikon came up with a real pro 35mm camera.
It destroyed the German Photographic industry.,
Leica learned nothing from it's dwindling sales.
The M3 may be the best 35mm camera ever built and sold but..
Everybody, amateur, freelancer, newspaper or magazine pros all voted with their wallet on SLR.
I did.
My Leica became my "special" camera for those 5' to 25' shots.
Seldom flash because it was "serious" photography.
The Pentax and Nikon made the money.
The Leica needed services.
A modern digital Leica is indeed a pro camera.
A RF or CRF is not a "Jack of all trades".
There are QC and battery plus SD card embarrassments.
If, big IF, I could afford a new Leica Digital, would I?
I am too careful now in retirement to risk such an amount.
The fear of theft, damage would make it a storage item.
Selling one expensive camera is better than making many for same profit at end..
The rich can always afford such items.
I have worked in some very high end stores..
Where folks bought airlines not an economy ticket.
The gamble is the New building in Wetzlar, the multitude of competing products, the shrinking desire of ownership, by enthusiasts.
I hope they succeed.
Here at RFF, we are fans, lovers of the Leica, but sadly being dumped.
Our huge numbers made the highest sales of records, Hi-Fi, TV's, Autos and of course cameras.
The 60's saw the introduction of the SLR.
Nikon came up with a real pro 35mm camera.
It destroyed the German Photographic industry.,
Leica learned nothing from it's dwindling sales.
The M3 may be the best 35mm camera ever built and sold but..
Everybody, amateur, freelancer, newspaper or magazine pros all voted with their wallet on SLR.
I did.
My Leica became my "special" camera for those 5' to 25' shots.
Seldom flash because it was "serious" photography.
The Pentax and Nikon made the money.
The Leica needed services.
A modern digital Leica is indeed a pro camera.
A RF or CRF is not a "Jack of all trades".
There are QC and battery plus SD card embarrassments.
If, big IF, I could afford a new Leica Digital, would I?
I am too careful now in retirement to risk such an amount.
The fear of theft, damage would make it a storage item.
Selling one expensive camera is better than making many for same profit at end..
The rich can always afford such items.
I have worked in some very high end stores..
Where folks bought airlines not an economy ticket.
The gamble is the New building in Wetzlar, the multitude of competing products, the shrinking desire of ownership, by enthusiasts.
I hope they succeed.
Here at RFF, we are fans, lovers of the Leica, but sadly being dumped.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The Hasselblad is an entirely different beast in a different market. You really can't compare the two.
willie_901
Veteran
Yesterday was a wonderful day. But I appreciate your concern.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
As far as depreciation goes here are a few thoughts
At roughly $8000 up front getting in to the 240 is a pretty big hurdle for most people to clear in the first place. If the camera depreciates 50% in 3 years because of the upgrade cycle, you will need about $4000 to get in to the newest model. Once the new model is out the value of the older camera will fall at a considerably faster rate, so if you delay to upgrade your expense of doing so eventually increases.
Now, if you are dedicated to shooting with the M and shoot enough, that's something you[re probably willing to accept.
But here's where is gets dicey.
I have six M film bodies, three R and one LTM.
If I'm just out and about I'll take one body and 1-2 lenses. But if you are going to do some serious work like covering an event or doc / PJ type of work you will need at least 2 bodies (35/50) and quite often I would take three (28/35/50).
M240 x 2 = $15,000
M240 x 3 = $23,000
Now add multiple batteries at $200 a pop plus chargers, so you may end up with another $800-2000.
Anyone want to calculate the depreciation on that kit over 3-4 years, let alone getting in to it? You better be making money off your camera or be a millionaire if we are talking about that kind of expense.
My film M and R bodies weren't cheap and I did purchase several of them new. But the M6ttl I purchased new 20 years ago is still running and will outlast me. I doubt that 240 will still be going 20 years from now. Leicas have never been cheap, but when I started the M6ttl was $2800. That was $800 more than a Canon 1-v or F5 and was jokingly referred to as the 'Leica Tax'. But if you really wanted one it was manageable. By the time the M7 came around I think it was $3500 and I paid about $3000 for the R6.2. $10,000 got you a multi camera system that would keep running as long as you were willing to maintain them. Yes, there is the added expense of film, but that is a slow trickle. You're putting out anywhere from a few dollars a roll to buying a few bricks at a time.
If you are going to hold on to the 240 for 10 years there are a few questions.
Can I get spare batteries 5 years from now? How about 8-10 years from now? You can't just stockpile them for future use, because depending on the chemistry they may have a certain shelf life of their own.
How long will Leica have spare parts? Anyone want to talk about M8/M9 sensor replacement?
It's not like it was with the analog bodies, where mechanical parts don't have a shelf life.
If you think depreciation of digital camera is a problem in still photography you should see what goes on in the world of digital cinema production.
Anyhow, if you can clear the $8000 hurdle of getting in to the M system and can live with a lifespan of 5 years then you're probably fine. It's a very nice camera and the first digital M that really feels like an M. The two worst things about it are the 'dumb' metering system, which will occasionally screw you if you are moving fast and the light becomes 'complicated' and the green tint in the blacks. You'll have to live with the occasional clipped whites, but you can fix the green shadows in post. But don't be fooled. The IQ out of the M is not in the same class as a Nikon D750 or 600. But you are trading that off for the M shooting experience and ergonomics.
I still think Leica has painted themselves in to a corner by not really having a tiered product line for the M-mount. They are in desperate need of a lower cost model and it could be anything from a lower pixel count full frame to a APS-C model in a lower cost body. But right now it's $8000 or you don't play at all, which limits their sales to a relatively small share of the market. If Leica made a lower spec $4000 CL they would be in a lot better shape, simply because they would be tapping in to a much larger pool of potential customers.
www.felidigiorgio.com
At roughly $8000 up front getting in to the 240 is a pretty big hurdle for most people to clear in the first place. If the camera depreciates 50% in 3 years because of the upgrade cycle, you will need about $4000 to get in to the newest model. Once the new model is out the value of the older camera will fall at a considerably faster rate, so if you delay to upgrade your expense of doing so eventually increases.
Now, if you are dedicated to shooting with the M and shoot enough, that's something you[re probably willing to accept.
But here's where is gets dicey.
I have six M film bodies, three R and one LTM.
If I'm just out and about I'll take one body and 1-2 lenses. But if you are going to do some serious work like covering an event or doc / PJ type of work you will need at least 2 bodies (35/50) and quite often I would take three (28/35/50).
M240 x 2 = $15,000
M240 x 3 = $23,000
Now add multiple batteries at $200 a pop plus chargers, so you may end up with another $800-2000.
Anyone want to calculate the depreciation on that kit over 3-4 years, let alone getting in to it? You better be making money off your camera or be a millionaire if we are talking about that kind of expense.
My film M and R bodies weren't cheap and I did purchase several of them new. But the M6ttl I purchased new 20 years ago is still running and will outlast me. I doubt that 240 will still be going 20 years from now. Leicas have never been cheap, but when I started the M6ttl was $2800. That was $800 more than a Canon 1-v or F5 and was jokingly referred to as the 'Leica Tax'. But if you really wanted one it was manageable. By the time the M7 came around I think it was $3500 and I paid about $3000 for the R6.2. $10,000 got you a multi camera system that would keep running as long as you were willing to maintain them. Yes, there is the added expense of film, but that is a slow trickle. You're putting out anywhere from a few dollars a roll to buying a few bricks at a time.
If you are going to hold on to the 240 for 10 years there are a few questions.
Can I get spare batteries 5 years from now? How about 8-10 years from now? You can't just stockpile them for future use, because depending on the chemistry they may have a certain shelf life of their own.
How long will Leica have spare parts? Anyone want to talk about M8/M9 sensor replacement?
It's not like it was with the analog bodies, where mechanical parts don't have a shelf life.
If you think depreciation of digital camera is a problem in still photography you should see what goes on in the world of digital cinema production.
Anyhow, if you can clear the $8000 hurdle of getting in to the M system and can live with a lifespan of 5 years then you're probably fine. It's a very nice camera and the first digital M that really feels like an M. The two worst things about it are the 'dumb' metering system, which will occasionally screw you if you are moving fast and the light becomes 'complicated' and the green tint in the blacks. You'll have to live with the occasional clipped whites, but you can fix the green shadows in post. But don't be fooled. The IQ out of the M is not in the same class as a Nikon D750 or 600. But you are trading that off for the M shooting experience and ergonomics.
I still think Leica has painted themselves in to a corner by not really having a tiered product line for the M-mount. They are in desperate need of a lower cost model and it could be anything from a lower pixel count full frame to a APS-C model in a lower cost body. But right now it's $8000 or you don't play at all, which limits their sales to a relatively small share of the market. If Leica made a lower spec $4000 CL they would be in a lot better shape, simply because they would be tapping in to a much larger pool of potential customers.
www.felidigiorgio.com