MCTuomey
Veteran
I hear you, I feel the same way re my cameras. But I'm going to consider the M240 option because there's no better platform for M lenses than an M body and because it has no apparent legacy issues, especially if the solution proposed by Leica for the M9 series isn't long-term.
I'm not sure whether it's a good deal, but the way I break it down is:
1. Out-of-pocket in your example is $8925.
2. Cost of ownership of your M-E for the time you used it without issue is $8925 less the $7000 cost of the new M240, or $5500 less $3575, or $1925, typical depreciation I'd say.
Leica's giving you a credit for the remaining life of your M-E, hoping you find $7000 of value in an M240. If you don't want an M240 at all, it's probably not a good deal at any price. If you have some interest in an M240, Leica hopes that taking your M-E as trade-in and taking "only" $3425 out of your pocket will entice you. Yes, it would clearly be a better offer if the M240 were priced for this purpose at less than $7000. Or, if the M-E poses the risk of further repairs, lower useability, lack of resale value - leading to a lower effective value than $3425 - it may in fact be a reasonable deal.
Not fun, these kinds of decisions. Or negotiations, if what's what it has to come down to.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
I think those issues may have occurred with prior versions of LR (LR 4.x maybe?) I know that any "watercolor" effect was minor when I owned the X-Pro1 and I was pretty much an early adopter. It was Fuji and Adobe's lack of "playing nice together" in the sandbox that created that big kerfuffle. In the end, I nary saw an X-Pro1 image that I had shot from 2012 that I didn't like..
That's what I figured too (older versions of ACR/LR). I didn't get in until this past summer, so most of the brouhaha was over.
Adobe's even got their own version of Classic Chrome in the latest versions, ahead of Fuji (well, besides the X-T1 Graphite users anyway). Life's good.
Huss
Veteran
You make a valid point for those concerned about depreciation i.e. those who intend to sell eventually and trade up.
But I do not, I keep my photography equipment (I shoot with M3s, M5, Rolleiflex 2.8E, lots of old Nikons etc). So the total out of pocket cost to me is real and final. For the M-E it was $5500, but if this solution is one that is officially offered by Leica (we do not know yet), then it would be $8925.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Huss, I appreciate your dismay, when your expectation was for years of relatively trouble-free use from your M-E at a cost of $5500 not $7000, and especially not $8900. Let's hope for an equitable and comprehensive solution from Leica.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
If this issue wasn't in the mainstream before - it is now...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Me neither. Which is why the solution to this situation (beyond the wholly unacceptable "trade-up" terms offered by Leica) really has to include a new, truly "entry-level" addition to the M line.
I don't want to be pushed up to the price/feature level of the M240. The photography hobby is a form of continual fixed payments, but who wants to think of it that way? When calculation impinges too much on the pleasure factor, what's the point? High time to give those who want a native M platform a chance to play, fair and square.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I think one should also consider what is the ME and why it was released at this price. Once you know/admit the answer, then you will see things differently.
Looks like a sensor swap to the A7S is the best move.
Huss
Veteran
Why try to be so cryptic? To try to pass the blame onto the consumer?
The answer is a product known by Leica to be defective but still sold to trusting customers.
That IS the answer. And I see things just the same.
Archiver
Veteran
The last thing I'd want to see is a topless LaVida. Ugh.
Archiver
Veteran
My M9 was in the second batch that came to Australia, and for now (fingers crossed, touch wood) seems to be fine. But it bothers me that a non-pro personal camera for which I paid a small fortune, relatively speaking, can have such an issue that would affect its usable lifespan.
At times like this, my thoughts turn to film! A new sensor with every exposure, less electronics or even no electronics to go haywire, and potentially greater longevity. Then I look at the other parts of the imaging chain, like development and scanning, and think again...
At times like this, my thoughts turn to film! A new sensor with every exposure, less electronics or even no electronics to go haywire, and potentially greater longevity. Then I look at the other parts of the imaging chain, like development and scanning, and think again...
burancap
Veteran
Did you read the referenced post?
burancap
Veteran
As a consumer who is considering a dip back into the digital M world, this thread is not very heartening!
Huss
Veteran
Check out this thread, where Ron actually performs real tests with Leica glass
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1334933
A7s is no different than the other A7 cameras with Leica glass, apart from maybe less colour issues on the edges.
This is the opposite result to well known bloggers who gush over the A7s claiming it works great with Leica glass, but not actually showing any real tests.
YYV_146
Well-known
Yes, but would one really need corner performance at extremely wide apertures? I need f4 and below to scale focus, and never shoot at infinity with the lens wide open. At f4 plenty of very wide lenses have respectable corner performance on the A7 cameras. Actually quite a few show little to no depreciation wide open. Leica's three best superwides - the WATE, 21lux and 24lux can all be used on the A7 wide open with okay corners.
It is also to be noted that Reid did his tests at infinity. usable corner sharpness can often be achieved by focusing to closer than infinity, which reduces the incident of light rays to the corners. With this technique even very digital-hostile lenses like the 21mm biogon can be used at f4 or 5.6.
Anyways, I bought my 21mm Summilux at a cheaper price than what the M240 was going for back then...Throw in the Leica EVF, a diopter and grip, and a new M240's price is only a bit cheaper than what I paid for the 21lux and 15mm Distagon added together...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Whatever happens this is going to cost Leica a lot of money and they will lose many customers for sure! They appear to be financially sound at the moment which is good ... because they'll need to be to survive this debacle.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I hope the customer loss will depend on the solution they will offer.
burancap
Veteran
Keith, that may well be my issue more than any specific problem, in this case the 9 sensors. That is: if it was any other manufacturer, with or without the strong core clientele that Leica has, one would think that they would already be on the ropes! Thank your god that they are able to market AND sell the pricey collector level kit -it may be what ultimately keeps them afloat.
Again, being on that precipice of returning to digital M, I am not very enthusiastic at present!
Michael Markey
Veteran
IMO
Time will take care of this.
If the newer cameras do not continue to exhibit the issue, then the final result will be that M9 cameras will simply have little resale value, and slow attrition will take them out of circulation as they are not repaired.
This might be however, the final death blow to those who cannot really afford the system, but were just buying the body anyway, despite the financial hardship. They may be out of the market.
Leica will survive, many of "us" just won't own one.
I think that analysis is correct .... and the cheapest option for the company.
burancap
Veteran
IMO
Time will take care of this.
But...
That is what I thought. I got out of the product and sat on the sidelines for a few years. Now that I have dusted the shop window off and I am peering back in -well, the story does not seem to have changed. Reading about Monochroms with the same failures as bodies produced years before is not very supportive of the "piece of Earth" quality that sold thousands and thousands of cameras for the first 90 plus years of Leica's existence.