How much are you willing to pay for a M8?

[NIKON KIU]

I don't have ANY Leica glass, Sooooo, I'll wait untill it goes down under a grand. I think sooner or later it will.

Kiu

 

[JNewell]

Leica has no long history of producing lenses specifically for a sub FF sensor

Unless I'm missing something, Leica has no history at all of producing lenses for anything other than 24x36 use. Did I miss something?

 

[nikon_sam]

IF, I were ever to buy a Leica it would be a film camera...something very basic, wouldn't even need a meter...

 

[adamduckworth]

BobFrance, I'm surprised you've been offered £1500 trade in for an M8 against an M9. I've been offered just £1050 at a very, very northern UK Leica dealer.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Unless I'm missing something, Leica has no history at all of producing lenses for anything other than 24x36 use. Did I miss something?

No, you did not miss anything, that was my point. They have no vested interest in keeping a sub FF sensored camera in the line up. As opposed to other makers who have been in the sub FF sensor camera business for years and developed lenses specifically for those smaller sensored cameras. These other makers may be obliged to continue to produce smaller sensored cameras ,for the time being, as they have a built up customer base for these and don't wish to abruptly alienate that base by dropping these cameras from the line immediately. I still look at a DX sensored DSLR as a stop gap measure until they could produce a FF sensor at reasonable cost levels. That is here now.

 

[JNewell]

I must be missing something. Leica never made sub-FX lenses - so the fact that they're never going to make sub-FX lenses can't have any effect on the M8's future value or utility. No???

No, you did not miss anything, that was my point. They have no vested interest in keeping a sub FF sensored camera in the line up. As opposed to other makers who have been in the sub FF sensor camera business for years and developed lenses specifically for those smaller sensored cameras. These other makers may be obliged to continue to produce smaller sensored cameras ,for the time being, as they have a built up customer base for these and don't wish to abruptly alienate that base by dropping these cameras from the line immediately. I still look at a DX sensored DSLR as a stop gap measure until they could produce a FF sensor at reasonable cost levels. That is here now.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Where's the "I already have an M8 because I know what I like" option?

 

[Nikon Bob]

I must be missing something. Leica never made sub-FX lenses - so the fact that they're never going to make sub-FX lenses can't have any effect on the M8's future value or utility. No???

OK, I give up.

Bob

 

[willie_901]

Let's see... $500 for the out of warranty M8/8.2 and $3,000 in the bank for the eventual repairs. That would be $3,500 for a M8/8.2.

 

[faris]

I have 2 M8s. Will not sell below us$ 2000. Will keep them till they are
not effectively servicable. Then throw them in the dustbin.

 

[Nikon Bob]

the M8/8.2 utility is hamstung for the way many people like to use a RF camera, for wide angle, indoors/pub etc or close work. the lenses field of view different because of the crop factor, this limits the camera utility/usefulness to a smaller user base, if leica were committed to the M8/8.2 then 'maybe' (theoretically) they would produce lenses to make it more usefull..

in different words thats more or less what i think Bob was indicating, and that Leica are obviously not going to make any lens specifically for the M8 which makes its utility limited and its value much diminished, considering there is now a FF which can be used as a RF camera is often enjoyed, given the currently available lenses

OK, I'll go along with that.

Bob

 

[rxmd]

if leica were committed to the M8/8.2 then 'maybe' (theoretically) they would produce lenses to make it more usefull.

But they did! With 35mm-equivalent focal lengths in brackets: a 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar [21-24-28], an 18/3.8 [24], the 21/1.4 [28] which is quite unique IMHO (the only lens that interests me in the Leica lineup), and in 24 [32] a 24/1.4 and an affordable 24/3.8. All of these are new and enormously useful for wideangle photographers. Just because they also cover full frame, do they become somehow useless on the M8?

You argument seems to boil down to "if I buy a 16mm lens, I want a 16's field of view". OK, use film then, or save for an M9. How many pictures did you take last year that had wider than 20mm-equivalent field of view?
If Leica were to make a crop factor 10/5.6 for the ultrawideangle crowd, you'd be complaining, too. Of course, you'd go unnoticed amidst collective groans from all the film crowd who'd complain that Leica is abandoning them.

 

[Bobfrance]

BobFrance, I'm surprised you've been offered £1500 trade in for an M8 against an M9. I've been offered just £1050 at a very, very northern UK Leica dealer.

It's true, though how long the offer will hold for I've no idea.
I was also told that there may well be another cash-back offer in the pipeline too.

 

[Michael Markey]

It's true, though how long the offer will hold for I've no idea.
I was also told that there may well be another cash-back offer in the pipeline too.

I can see where we are all going to end up this Saturday. Am I right Bob ?
Best that they shut down Barton Arcade for the day and we can all save some money.

 

[Bobfrance]

I can see where we are all going to end up this Saturday. Am I right Bob ?
Best that they shut down Barton Arcade for the day and we can all save some money.

That's up to you guys Mike.
My wallet survived it's encounter with the M9 - but will yours?

Maybe we should pay Jem a visit and pick up some bargains instead.

 

[Ben Z]

the M8/8.2 utility is hamstung for the way many people like to use a RF camera, for wide angle, indoors/pub etc or close work. the lenses field of view different because of the crop factor, this limits the camera utility/usefulness to a smaller user base, if leica were committed to the M8/8.2 then 'maybe' (theoretically) they would produce lenses to make it more usefull..

Fortunately we have Cosina who already did that. My 12mm Voitlander gives me the effective full-frame angle of an 18mm on the M8, for a whopping $500. I never even used that lens on film. Looking back over the history of published Leica photography, the vast majority were shot with 35mm or longer lenses. During the film years, Leica was in no rush to make anything wider than 21mm. I wonder, if the M8 had been full-frame, if we'd even have the WATE, the 18mm, and the new 21 and 24's?

 

[Olsen]

To me it is all about the warranty. I wouldn't touch an M8 with a ten feet pole, if it's out of warranty. But I'd pay up for one that had at least six months of *transferrable* warranty left. Where it was bought matters also: In certain countries (at least here in Europe), there may be a longer protection against camera that stops working (manufacturing faults). This is what I'd be looking for. Cameras bought from the US or Asia, with little or no warranty left are simply not interesting.

A 2.hand camera will always be without warranty. That's one of the reasons you get them cheaper. After having a M8 for close to 4 years now I see no reason to fear any warranty trouble than with other cameras. Still, if things should go wrong with it, Leica is still doing their own service and repair work. It is not 'outsourced' as Nikon and Canon are doing. Then repair is pure business. My impression is that Leica is very decent folks that charge minimal sums for repair. The cameras are expensive, but the repair is cheap. Quite opposite to Canon and Nikon. A 2.hand M8 is first of all for those who already have a few M-lenses in their cupboard and know the workings of a rangefinder camera.

 

[Olsen]

Fortunately we have Cosina who already did that. My 12mm Voitlander gives me the effective full-frame angle of an 18mm on the M8, for a whopping $500. I never even used that lens on film. Looking back over the history of published Leica photography, the vast majority were shot with 35mm or longer lenses. During the film years, Leica was in no rush to make anything wider than 21mm. I wonder, if the M8 had been full-frame, if we'd even have the WATE, the 18mm, and the new 21 and 24's?

Hear, hear! I agree with this.

I use my M8 most of the time with my WATE. Worlds flawlessly and exceeds , expectation of field of view - and quality. It is possibly the best Digital Wide Angle Combination on the market. So does my Voigtländer 15 mm Super Wide.

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

A 2.hand camera will always be without warranty. That's one of the reasons you get them cheaper. After having a M8 for close to 4 years now I see no reason to fear any warranty trouble than with other cameras. Still, if things should go wrong with it, Leica is still doing their own service and repair work. It is not 'outsourced' as Nikon and Canon are doing. Then repair is pure business. My impression is that Leica is very decent folks that charge minimal sums for repair. The cameras are expensive, but the repair is cheap. Quite opposite to Canon and Nikon. A 2.hand M8 is first of all for those who already have a few M-lenses in their cupboard and know the workings of a rangefinder camera.

I've had 2nd hand gear from both Zeiss and Leica repaired under warranty.

And as to Leica repair costs being "cheap", I have an 850 Euro slip somewhere that tells me they're not.

Like I said, I ain't complaining about an M8 costing well above $2000. The thing I don't understand is why there is so little difference in the pricing. I paid $2700 for a demo M8 that came with a one year warranty and the filters. Paying $2000 or more for a used one, without any filters, with no warranty and has changed hands an unknown number of times makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[JohnTF]

I have 2 M8s. Will not sell below us$ 2000. Will keep them till they are
not effectively servicable. Then throw them in the dustbin.

I have been told never to toss any thing Leica out, always a parts market, can be surprising I am told. ;-)

I agree though, use them until you cannot.

Regards, John