How soon will you buy a M9 ?

[ulrikft]

I think I'll buy one as soon as I can get a beat up copy used for 3000 USD and have the cash for that and a CV 20, 35, 50 and a leica 75 2.0... I wonder how much such a kit would weigh.. CV 20/4, 35/1.2, 50/1.1 and 75/2 + m9?

 

[rxmd]

My current kit, as described earlier, will be 995g (body) + 524g (85 1.4) + 505g (50 1.4) + 300g (24 2.0) + 385g (35 1.4), that is almost 3kgs, plus memory cards, batteries and the bag itself, close to 3.3kg.

Leica kit: 136g (24 4.0, lose a lot of light here, but I shoot f/8 wide most of the time) + 490g or 200g (35 1.2 or 1.4) + 428g (50 1.1) + 345g (75 2.5) + m9 (585g), about 1.6kg if I choose the light solution and about 1.9kg if I choose the heaviest solution. with batteries and bag, 2-2.2kg.

Another way to look at it would be to ask why you're running around with four fast primes on a DSLR. Moreover since your DSLR is the model with the best low-light performance on the market and you say that you shoot f/8 most of the time. So I'd think of replacing them with a very good zoom (such as a 24-70/f2.8 at 890 grams) and maybe taking one fast prime for low-light shots. We're not in the 70s anymore where zoom == bad image quality.

Ultimately the question is which style of camera operation you prefer. It's more important to think about whether you actually prefer a rangefinder and how much that is worth for you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We have gotten used to outrageous prices for Leica because of the small economics of scale and needed high margins. There is nothing that Leica seems to sell in volume to pad the low volume products. Zeiss is a much larger company and could do with far more standard markups.

Not if they can't sell enough cameras. You are confusing the size of the market with the size of the company.

Also, 'outrageous' is a meaningless statement. Do you really believe that Leica would refuse to sell more cameras at lower prices if by doing so they could make a higher profit?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you think the M9 will hold its value better than any other digital camera, I think you're going to be disappointed.

And if you think it WON'T hold it's value better than any other digital camera, I think you're deluding yourself.

What extra features do most people want? Higher ISO/lower noise is about the only defensible argument.

Which cameras will hold their value better? And do you deny that there are plenty that will depreciate a lot faster?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

There are folks who can afford $7,000 cameras and those who can't. Both buy $7,000 cameras. But if you are going to show your photos primarily on the web, there are other options.

AS Roger points out, there is no such thing as an outrageous price. If there were not buyers of new Leica cameras and lenses at the price they ask, Leica would not be in the camera business.

 

[ulrikft]

Another way to look at it would be to ask why you're running around with four fast primes on a DSLR. Moreover since your DSLR is the model with the best low-light performance on the market and you say that you shoot f/8 most of the time. So I'd think of replacing them with a very good zoom (such as a 24-70/f2.8 at 890 grams) and maybe taking one fast prime for low-light shots. We're not in the 70s anymore where zoom == bad image quality.

Ultimately the question is which style of camera operation you prefer. It's more important to think about whether you actually prefer a rangefinder and how much that is worth for you.

I shoot wide at f/8, other than with my 24mm, 90% of my shots are 1.2-2.0. I like fast primes, they suit my style, and I would run around with fast primes on a rangefinder as well as a slr.

 

[rxmd]

I shoot wide at f/8, other than with my 24mm, 90% of my shots are 1.2-2.0. I like fast primes, they suit my style, and I would run around with fast primes on a rangefinder as well as a slr.

OK, I misunderstood your statement and thought you were shooting at f/8 generally. If that is how you work, weightwise a rangefinder makes much more sense; then it's really just a question of whether you can afford it and which style of focusing you prefer.

 

[ulrikft]

The price is the main issue.. I do a lot of split prism focusing already, and i do rf-focusing with my yashica, and I like it... but the price! ach, I have to see... when it comes to what I like to do, shameless plug: http://thyve.net

 

[mfogiel]

When it will take better B&W pictures, than M7 with Tri-X

 

[Pavel+]

Roger; no I think that Leica would like to get to the money in any way they can but are in a transitional period which right now makes it unlikely that they can compete in volume and cheap prices. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can.

As for confusing the size of the market ... I don't know but it seems that the market for $8000 dollar cameras is very different from the market for $2000 cameras, don't you agree? The price Leica is stuck in defines the market for the most part, I'd say. I personally think that Leica is stuck right now between a rock and hard place. They need to appeal to their old base which expects the ultimate in craftsmanship, but the craftsmanship of the old days is now a very unafordable luxury. Good plastic is todays great quality. Can you imagine the old leica guard if Leica became a regular company dealing in regular high volume products. That would eat at the branding and I wonder if many would not abandon Leica - while at the same time Leica is not ready to play the commodity game?

Outrageous prices? Yes they are. 1100 percent premiums for that last 2 percent in quality.
The last thing that I'd like to say is that I believe that Leica's traditional strength in high quality (IQ wise) lenses is a strength which film makes thrive but in the digital world is not very important. Past a certain threshold of quality of the glass ... software makes the differences of that last ounce mute. Contrast and apparent sharpness seems now, with software tweaks, to be available at unbelievably low prices out of seemingly third grade lenses. Just look at the panasonic files of the G1. A one hundred dollar lens, tweaked to minimize flaws in software, does a shockingly good job.
Leica-philes (of which I'm one) are stuck in old ways in more ways than one.
The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger; no I think that Leica would like to get to the money in any way they can but are in a transitional period which right now makes it unlikely that they can compete in volume and cheap prices. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can.

As for confusing the size of the market ... I don't know but it seems that the market for $8000 dollar cameras is very different from the market for $2000 cameras, don't you agree? The price Leica is stuck in defines the market for the most part, I'd say. I personally think that Leica is stuck right now between a rock and hard place. They need to appeal to their old base which expects the ultimate in craftsmanship, but the craftsmanship of the old days is now a very unafordable luxury. Good plastic is todays great quality. Can you imagine the old leica guard if Leica became a regular company dealing in regular high volume products. That would eat at the branding and I wonder if many would not abandon Leica - while at the same time Leica is not ready to play the commodity game?

Outrageous prices? Yes they are. 1100 percent premiums for that last 2 percent in quality.
The last thing that I'd like to say is that I believe that Leica's traditional strength in high quality (IQ wise) lenses is a strength which film makes thrive but in the digital world is not very important. Past a certain threshold of quality of the glass ... software makes the differences of that last ounce mute. Contrast and apparent sharpness seems now, with software tweaks, to be available at unbelievably low prices out of seemingly third grade lenses. Just look at the panasonic files of the G1. A one hundred dollar lens, tweaked to minimize flaws in software, does a shockingly good job.
Leica-philes (of which I'm one) are stuck in old ways in more ways than one.
The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.

Dear Pavel,

For the highlighted portion: elsewhere I quote Lobb boots at about $5000 a pair. In cars there are Ferraris or Bristols: the $500,000 car is almost commonplace. A Savile Row suit is maybe 50x the price of a cheap off-the-peg.

Leicas are quite affordable by these standards -- less than 10x the price of a very ordinary camera -- but people don't want to apply these standards. It's precisely because they are so much more affordable than Lobb, Bristol or Gieves that more people are aware of them and hanker after them.

Turn it around, though, and it looks to me very much as if there really were a market for $2000 M9, and the possibility of making them at this price, someone would have jumped in and made one. The fact that no-one does make them suggests to me that Leica meets the demand very well, at a price which allows them to stay in business.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Pavel+]

Dang ... then the problems is ... that I don't make enough money!

I hate how I still want one though.
So ... you feel fully confident that the prices are not desperation prices ... and that Leica is healthy as can be and here for a long while?

 

[narsuitus]

I will buy an M9 when I am convinced that Leica has finally produced a digital rangefinder that is worthy of the high price.

 

[Pavel+]

No ... never mind. I'm simply going to buy a Panasonic GF1. That way I don't feel ripped off and part of a snob cult going down to a slow grave, screwing its silly customer base of Lawyers and Dentists.

You just provided a moment of clarity for me. If a Zeiss Digital comes out ... great. The Pani GF1 is fantastic and what I need. The Leica dreams are/were ... a bad LSD trip.

And now I'm over it until they make the $2000 Leica. Ciao!

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Pavel,

For the highlighted portion: elsewhere I quote Lobb boots at about $5000 a pair. In cars there are Ferraris or Bristols: the $500,000 car is almost commonplace. A Savile Row suit is maybe 50x the price of a cheap off-the-peg.

Leicas are quite affordable by these standards -- less than 10x the price of a very ordinary camera -- but people don't want to apply these standards. It's precisely because they are so much more affordable than Lobb, Bristol or Gieves that more people are aware of them and hanker after them.

Turn it around, though, and it looks to me very much as if there really were a market for $2000 M9, and the possibility of making them at this price, someone would have jumped in and made one. The fact that no-one does make them suggests to me that Leica meets the demand very well, at a price which allows them to stay in business.

Cheers,

Roger

But Roger

The comarisons that you are making are essentially luxury and fashion accessories. I think it is the worst possible stereotype for leica. Those guys refered to as "strokers" who never take pictures.

The M3 in its day might have been expesnive but professionals would pay because there was not a comparable alternative. Hasselblad again had little competition for many years so pros would find the cash. The question regarding the current M9 essentially in terms of its value is "Is this the only way I can get those shots? If so it is worth it. We shall soon see. What interests me at the moment is that people are finally admitting the flaws in the M8 when a few months ago they would have defended it to their last breath!

I swapped my M8 for a D700 after 3 wonderul years (still have my film M). I will probably have a look at an M9 at some stage, but quite honestly a change is as good as a rest. I had a D1x soon after it was launched and it had lots of anoying issues. It is intersting to look at the D700 a few years on and see how refined it has become. In some ways this makes me in no great hurry to rush into another digital rangefinder. Things can onyl get better.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[DougFord]

The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.

[FONT=&quot]Leica has this niche market by the short hairs and for them not to exploit it doesn’t make sense.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As far as Leica being an adaptive dinosaur, what of the HYBRID X1? Leica has DESIGNED a digital hybrid APS-C camera WITHOUT a mechanical rangefinder assembly. Not a re-badged Panasonic model, but a ground up design by Leica sans mechanical rangefinder. Is it too much of a jump to believe that the ground work is now in place for a future X2 to include a FF sensor and perhaps an m-mount? The future design paths are now clearly delineated within Leica; hybrid digital cameras for the future with a mechanical rangefinder equipped model for the short term exploitation of a still vital but ever dwindling market. [/FONT]

 

[zeitz]

Look very closely at the X1. It could be a real world trial of autofocus for the M10.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But Roger

The comarisons that you are making are essentially luxury and fashion accessories. I think it is the worst possible stereotype for leica. Those guys refered to as "strokers" who never take pictures.

The M3 in its day might have been expesnive but professionals would pay because there was not a comparable alternative. Hasselblad again had little competition for many years so pros would find the cash. The question regarding the current M9 essentially in terms of its value is "Is this the only way I can get those shots? If so it is worth it. We shall soon see. What interests me at the moment is that people are finally admitting the flaws in the M8 when a few months ago they would have defended it to their last breath!

I swapped my M8 for a D700 after 3 wonderul years (still have my film M). I will probably have a look at an M9 at some stage, but quite honestly a change is as good as a rest. I had a D1x soon after it was launched and it had lots of anoying issues. It is interesting to look at the D700 a few years on and see how refined it has become. In some ways this makes me in no great hurry to rush into another digital rangefinder. Things can onyl get better.

Best wishes

Richard

Dear Richard,

Lobb boots, Gieves suits and Bristol cars are about as far from fashionable as you can get. Most people have never even heard of them. They are indeed expensive luxuries, but they are as close to timeless as you can reasonably expect. They are also, in the eyes of those who buy them, the best you can get.

The same is true, I suggest, of an M-series Leica, even an M9 -- though because Leicas are far more affordable to far more people, they are better known that Lobb, Gieves and Bristol. The belief that if someone can afford the best, they are somewhow morally or in some other way inferior to those who cannot is as meaningless (and as reprehensible) as the reverse assumption, that the poor are morally or in some other way inferior to the rich.

In all four cases -- Lobb, Gieves, Bristol, Leica -- the simple truth is that this is what the best costs. If someone does not think they are the best, they are not obliged to buy them, even if they can afford them; and if they cannot afford them, Lobb, Gieves, Bristol and Leica are not obliged to lower their prices (and, necessarily, their quality) to make them accessible to more people.

As I said to Pavel, if there were a real demand for cheaper digital RF, and if it were possible to build them profitably for a lower price (the latter is the important bit), someone would make them. That's how capitalism works. The fact that no-one else does make a digital RF suggests to me that it is not economically possible to build such cameras for a tiny market.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ulrikft]

Tiny market being the main point in that line of reasoning though, a m8 is not harder to build than a d700, nor is it better "quality" buildwise or image quality wise than a d700 objectively (I'm sure people can prefer either camera, but when it comes to things like resolusion, color accurancy, high iso performance and other measurable things, the m8 is not better). So how is it better? The main issue here is that dslr manufactorers can spew out thousands and thousands of each copy, making it very cheap, while leica have to split the R&D-cost on far fewer units.. That is the life of a niche system. Are Lobb boots better than high end Ecco boots that cost half? or even my handmade italian hiking shoes that cost a fraction of the lobb boots? I would say no, but they cater to a niche market and have a costly production cycle. Just as Leica. I think a) "handmade" and b) small quantities, is the main problem here, no superior quality per se.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just as Leica. I think a) "handmade" and b) small quantities, is the main problem here, no superior quality per se.

Obviously it's both quality and 'handmade'/small quantity. Reducing the quality wouldn't significantly reduce the price, but reducing the price would significantly reduce the quality.

Are Lobb boots better than hiking boots? Well, are bananas better than hacksaws? Lobb Wellingtons at $5000 a pair are what it costs for Lobb Wellingtons, probably about 5-10x the cost of other good-quality Wellingtons that are not made to measure. Good-quality Wellington boots are alarmingly expensive: I stopped buying ready-made Gieves Wellingtons over 30 years ago, when the price went over £125 a pair, and haven't worn Wellingtons since. For those who confuse Wellington boots and gumboots (I'm sure you won't), Wellingtons are of course made of leather.

The clinching argument, of course, is that yes, Leicas are indeed the best digital RF cameras on the market. They're also the worst, by dint of being the only RF cameras on the market. And they cost what they cost.

Cheers,

R.