JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
IIRC (and I may not be; I'm open to factual correction), US law requires a 10 year period of parts support after a product is discontinued.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think that is now five years (except in California where it is now seven years).
DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]In a word? YES
Does anyone here believe that Leica, 19 years after EOL of the M9, will have new replacement circuit boards and sensors?[/FONT]
[FONT="]See, this is where that pesky ‘engineering spec’ comes in. The ‘service life’ is SPECIFIED in years and directs the company to have inventory of parts and circuit boards and test/calibration equipment so that the product can be serviced for the SPECIFIED period of time. [/FONT]
[FONT="]20 years? Show me the spec. Save me your marketing prattle.
[/FONT]
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Richard Marks
Rexel
Now that we have linked picture taking to digital technology I believe that it is very naive to think that we would want to use a digital camera that is 20 years old. There will be such huge advances that it will seem very dated. I remember how sharp a D1X seemed at the time but if i open the files now they do not look quite so clever. All the reviews said this was as good as things were going to get and this camera would do the job for many years.
Certainly the available information on M9 image noise suggests that at best the M9 it is close to the 4 year old Eos 5D. The next round of DSLR's in a year or so will already make the M9 seem a long way behind. Also with improvements in image noise there will also be higher resolution. Can you imagine what 20 years will do?
The only way I can see a long future for a digital camera is if it could be designed in such as way that it did have a removable sensor unit. This is where the medium format / large format cameras do have a bit more credibility. It is such a shame that the DMR was unsucessful (largely due to initial unreasonable cost) as this was actually a very good compromise.
From a commercial viewpoint leica have already stated that it is not finacially viable to offer further m8 software updates. I can not imagine them making much money if every ragefinder user buys an M9 and keeps it for the next 20 years. Surely they would have to cull it or would not be able to sell anything new to us!
It may well be that Leica can keep the M9 running, although the "Timeless classic M8" already seems to be in injury time. I would gladly buy an M9 if I believed it would last 20 years but something tells me Id be ditching it for something better in 3.
Richard
Certainly the available information on M9 image noise suggests that at best the M9 it is close to the 4 year old Eos 5D. The next round of DSLR's in a year or so will already make the M9 seem a long way behind. Also with improvements in image noise there will also be higher resolution. Can you imagine what 20 years will do?
The only way I can see a long future for a digital camera is if it could be designed in such as way that it did have a removable sensor unit. This is where the medium format / large format cameras do have a bit more credibility. It is such a shame that the DMR was unsucessful (largely due to initial unreasonable cost) as this was actually a very good compromise.
From a commercial viewpoint leica have already stated that it is not finacially viable to offer further m8 software updates. I can not imagine them making much money if every ragefinder user buys an M9 and keeps it for the next 20 years. Surely they would have to cull it or would not be able to sell anything new to us!
It may well be that Leica can keep the M9 running, although the "Timeless classic M8" already seems to be in injury time. I would gladly buy an M9 if I believed it would last 20 years but something tells me Id be ditching it for something better in 3.
Richard
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes,it does
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
About those twenty years. It seems a bit optimistic to me as well. Otoh, both the M8 and the M9 are built out of generic components, not specific to the camera. So it is eminently thinkable that if any specific part becomes unobtainable, replacement parts or equivalent parts may be sourced.
craygc
Well-known
There exists an equivalence of being stationary within a gravitational field and accelerating in the absence of one, such that one can not distinguish in which environment one actually exists....
AutumnJazz
Member
I understand what you're trying to say, philosophically...but doesn't that only happen as you get infinitely closer to the speed of light?
craygc
Well-known
Should be velocity independent ...in fact for us it would be most indistinguishable when the acceleration was at 9.8 m/sec^2
Actually, I dropped in a completely irrelevant statement as it just seemed to make more sense in this thread given what I had just read it from the top :bang:
Last edited:
mikemyers
Established
This discussion touched on so many points, it's difficult to know how to respond.
I don't think of the M9 as being a "legend", but rather as an evolution from the M8 - take several steps forwards, and a couple of steps backwards.
We're talking about what things will be like twenty years from now. Well, the film Leicas won't be of much use, should 35mm film no longer be available. The digital Leicas will probably seem as crude twenty years from now, as what we currently think of digital cameras from twenty years ago (I think that's when $40,000 bought a re-worked Nikon with a giant pack underneath, and I think a connection to a computer).
I'm tired of the digital game. When the first "affordable" (to me) digital professional Nikons came out, I bought the D2h. By the time the D2x came out, the 4-meg images from the D2h seemed tiny. Then the D3 came out, with features light-years beyond the previous cameras. I've got a D3 now (not the "x"), and don't plan to upgrade.... but that's what I thought before too. The "old" Nikons drop in value to next to nothing, and that's more than I want to deal with. With the Leica, older digital cameras don't drop in value nearly as quickly as Nikons, probably because the newer models are just "a little" better than the previous cameras. Actually, in my case (I want to shoot IR photos) the M8.2 is probably better for me than the newer M9. I expect an M10 in two or three years with an improved sensor. However, I would rather not spend a lot of time dealing with all this, and thinking "what if...", and instead would rather just go out and use what I've got right now.
There were earlier comments in this discussion about automationn. I disagree with what people said about always using Manual settings. The D3 is so well thought out, and the electronics works so well, that regardless of whether you're shooting in available light or using flash, you're almost guaranteed to get a technically good image. I certainly agree that it's good for a photographer to know and understand what's going on, and know how (and when) to over-ride what the automation is trying to do, but these are special cases. Most of the time, for most pictures, the D3 does a great job of auto focus, auto-light-balance, and auto-expsure. If Nikon ever thought of combining this capability with the basic design of the Nikon SP, they'd have a winner, but the market share probably isn't great enough to interest them.
In the meantime, I think Leica did a great publicity job of how they introduced the M9. It's too bad the price has to be so high, but I know they've got a lot of people interested. Whether this will result in sales remains to be seen.
(I also think it's silly for people to discuss what the M9 can or can't do, until there's enough of them out in the world for people to be using, and providing feedback. I'd rather read about what the camera actually does, than what people expect it to do...)
I don't think of the M9 as being a "legend", but rather as an evolution from the M8 - take several steps forwards, and a couple of steps backwards.
We're talking about what things will be like twenty years from now. Well, the film Leicas won't be of much use, should 35mm film no longer be available. The digital Leicas will probably seem as crude twenty years from now, as what we currently think of digital cameras from twenty years ago (I think that's when $40,000 bought a re-worked Nikon with a giant pack underneath, and I think a connection to a computer).
I'm tired of the digital game. When the first "affordable" (to me) digital professional Nikons came out, I bought the D2h. By the time the D2x came out, the 4-meg images from the D2h seemed tiny. Then the D3 came out, with features light-years beyond the previous cameras. I've got a D3 now (not the "x"), and don't plan to upgrade.... but that's what I thought before too. The "old" Nikons drop in value to next to nothing, and that's more than I want to deal with. With the Leica, older digital cameras don't drop in value nearly as quickly as Nikons, probably because the newer models are just "a little" better than the previous cameras. Actually, in my case (I want to shoot IR photos) the M8.2 is probably better for me than the newer M9. I expect an M10 in two or three years with an improved sensor. However, I would rather not spend a lot of time dealing with all this, and thinking "what if...", and instead would rather just go out and use what I've got right now.
There were earlier comments in this discussion about automationn. I disagree with what people said about always using Manual settings. The D3 is so well thought out, and the electronics works so well, that regardless of whether you're shooting in available light or using flash, you're almost guaranteed to get a technically good image. I certainly agree that it's good for a photographer to know and understand what's going on, and know how (and when) to over-ride what the automation is trying to do, but these are special cases. Most of the time, for most pictures, the D3 does a great job of auto focus, auto-light-balance, and auto-expsure. If Nikon ever thought of combining this capability with the basic design of the Nikon SP, they'd have a winner, but the market share probably isn't great enough to interest them.
In the meantime, I think Leica did a great publicity job of how they introduced the M9. It's too bad the price has to be so high, but I know they've got a lot of people interested. Whether this will result in sales remains to be seen.
(I also think it's silly for people to discuss what the M9 can or can't do, until there's enough of them out in the world for people to be using, and providing feedback. I'd rather read about what the camera actually does, than what people expect it to do...)
HenningW
Well-known
Strange that. I guess I have to trash all the pictures I've taken with my M8's. My impression that some of them are great pictures must be mistaken.
I'll have to let the other people who've sold pictures and had them published that they'd better recall them and return the money that they got for them, and the people who've given prints from M8 files to friends and family had better get them back and throw them away.
Get real, people! A Leica just like any other camera is in first line a tool to make pictures. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, get another camera. If a better M comes along and you can afford it, get that.
If you want something that lasts a long time with no change, get a rock.
Ben Z
Veteran
Henning that's a great line.
johne
Well-known
Just a reminder
Just a reminder
For what it's worth, please note.
"It's" is NOT possessive. It means "it is."
JELR
Just a reminder
For what it's worth, please note.
"It's" is NOT possessive. It means "it is."
JELR
hiorgos
Established
Well, the price is totally out of reach for me. I don't really know what makes the M9 that expensive. Is the sensor worth 3.000$?
For a third of the price I would get a M7 that would last forever!
For a third of the price I would get a M7 that would last forever!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Most of the attacks on M8/M8.2 come from people who have never used them, or who cannot handle the idea that ALL cameras have limitations. When the very first M8 came out, the first time I was aware of the IR problem -- after I'd been using it for a week -- was when I saw a picture that someone had taken of some black plastic suitcases in his wardrobe... As I said in my original review, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/m8.html, no camera is perfect.
And as I said earlier, mine certainly hasn't been babied. It's been treated exactly the same as every other Leica I've owned in the last 40 years or so (except perhaps the mint IIIg with box, etc., which paid for my M4-P 30 years ago): as a tool for taking pictures. It's a rather expensive tool, so I take all the care I can, but as a fellow journalist said of one of my Leicas, with horror, "That is an ABUSED camera!"
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Which is funny, because the Leica system is all about limitation, and all the things it does not have (no auto everything, no zoom, no direct focus control etc) and M enthusiasts tend to emphasize how this actually makes it easier to concentrate on the essence of taking a good picture.
Up comes a camera with a slightly different set of limitations than they're used to, and people are all up in arms.
Ben Z
Veteran
First of all, a new M7 is $4400, so more like 2/3 the price of an M9. Then, at roughly $10 per every 36 exposures for film and developing (no printing) if you shoot just 5 rolls a month, in a bit over 4 years you would be even with the M9 money-wise. And the M7 would then be worth $2000. That's $2400 in depreciation and $2600 in film/processing, or a total cost of $4800. In four years if the M9 is only worth $2200 it would've cost you exactly the same, even before considering all the time you took scanning.
OTOH, buy a used M8 now for $2400 and in 4 years if it's only worth $400, your cost was $2000. Much cheaper than buying a new M7 or a new M9. Cheaper even than if you'd bought a used M7 to begin with.
Staying one generation behind in digital is really the most economical route these days.
downstairs
downstairs
The M8 (and the M9) breaks ground like the M5. A bit awkward, but a big step in a new direction. The M5 was the first Leica I ditched within a year. I preferred my M4 and a light meter. I'm looking forward to a digital equivalent of the MP.
Richard Marks
Rexel
The M8 was not the ground breaking camera, surely it was the Epsom RD1. Admitadely not as good, but it did come first. Would the M8 have happened without the RD1. Probably eventually, but surely not quite as quickly.
Richard