M10 has destroyed the used market

I started with a K1000 (my wife's). And they were exceedingly cheap back in the day. I got an MX and 50 1.7 for $50 and considered that a major upgrade. Still in use...
 
Another reason could be Leica could not find a manufacturer who would make a 24 x 36 mm CCD sensor at a practical price. Why would no one be interested in supplying a 24 X36 mm CCD photodiode chip?
Click to expand...

Leica's volumes aren't high enough.

Regarding depreciation: I sold a Phase back for a friend of mine, it cost $45k new, she took 800 shots with it and it sold for a net of $22k a year later. It seems the 'higher priced they are, the bigger the fall.'
 
Is anyone even developing the CCD image sensor anymore? I would imagine no. That ship has sailed.

I'm not sure who is supplying Leica with the M9 replacement sensors, one of which was installed on my M9-P last May, but it pretty much duplicates what the M9 was capable of when it was new 7 years ago, which isn't all that great above about ISO 800, but beautiful, even gorgeous if you can keep it between ISO 160-400. It's a perfect backup body, backup being something you only resort to when your main body isn't available.
 
Gregm61 said:
Is anyone even developing the CCD image sensor anymore? I would imagine no. That ship has sailed.

I'm not sure who is supplying Leica with the M9 replacement sensors, one of which was installed on my M9-P last May, but it pretty much duplicates what the M9 was capable of when it was new 7 years ago, which isn't all that great above about ISO 800, but beautiful, even gorgeous if you can keep it between ISO 160-400. It's a perfect backup body, backup being something you only resort to when your main body isn't available.
Click to expand...



Even though I love and respect my M240 the colour from the M9 and it's CCD sensor have huge appeal.
 
splitimageview said:
Leica's volumes aren't high enough.

Regarding depreciation: I sold a Phase back for a friend of mine, it cost $45k new, she took 800 shots with it and it sold for a net of $22k a year later. It seems the 'higher priced they are, the bigger the fall.'
Click to expand...

This depreciation is not due to the high initial cost. It's due to the relative niche nature of the product, much like the OPs M-D. If there are only 1000 willing to buy one new, then the people wanting one used is like quite small. Then you have many of them used for business, and most tax incentives disappear when buying a used item. So you have a niche item, with a small pool of buyers who effectively get a tax break for buying new. Add it all up and the thing just ain't worth that much used - but still a lot of $ in raw terms...
 
fireblade said:
If we step out of the Leica forest, the Foveon sensor surpasses all in the digital world.
Click to expand...

Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?

I made quite a few prints from my Sigma Merrill. Sold it.
 
benlees said:
Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?
I made quite a few prints from my Sigma Merrill. Sold it.
Click to expand...

CCD's had their issues. Foveon are not CCD and Sigma hasn't fallen by the wayside.
Battery life?....carry 5 of them, fixed.
Low light can be like the Lochness Monster on internet forums.
Learn to use the tool, and for what it was made for...(especially digital).
This one @ ISO1250.
 
benlees said:
Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?
Click to expand...

Besides increased power consumption, CCDs increase manufacturing costs. CCDs have inferior quantum efficiency. CCDs are more susceptible to blooming artifacts (sensor site artifacts caused by excessive charge, i.e. over exposure). Perhaps more relevant to the M10 vs M240 vs M9 vs M8 discussion is CCD requires more physical space. (link-scroll to last summary slide)

There is no doubt the M8 offers a pleasing, and perhaps even superior, rendering aesthetic. This reputation is authentic and could be a significant factor in used M8 supply and demand.

It is likely the M8's image rendering reputation has more to do with its color-filter array and micro-lens assembly engineering than any fundamental advantage of CCD vs CMOS photo-diode physics.

Just say the M8 sensor assembly is preferable and unique in normal light levels. Invoking CCD alone as a superior photo-diode array technology for still-photographt is not credible.
 
michaelwj said:
This depreciation is not due to the high initial cost. It's due to the relative niche nature of the product, much like the OPs M-D. If there are only 1000 willing to buy one new, then the people wanting one used is like quite small. Then you have many of them used for business, and most tax incentives disappear when buying a used item. So you have a niche item, with a small pool of buyers who effectively get a tax break for buying new. Add it all up and the thing just ain't worth that much used - but still a lot of $ in raw terms...
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that the depreciation was due to the high cost, it's just that the higher the cost, the more the possibilities for depreciation. :) As far as taxes go, buying used doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a tax break. But you're right, the pool of buyers is small, although the pool of gear is also small. In the case of a Phase back, many people shy away from used due to warranty concerns. It also depresses used Leica prices, as Leica has a poor reputation when it comes to service turnaround not to mention service charges.

$29 per actuation...would have been far better off shooting film. :)
 
One thing that I really really didn't like about the CCD sensor in my M-E is that often if I had the sun in the image it would create solid thick vertical or horizontal lines from the point of light source which is some sort of sensor artifact. Something that I never got with the CMOS M240 sensor, or of course never got on film.
Base ISO, f11 or f16

Sensor remapping didn't help, and it was not a corroded sensor (that happened later)
 
Low M240 family prices look like a huge bargain to me

its not like everyone did not know the M10 was about to be released
 
Huss said:
One thing that I really really didn't like about the CCD sensor in my M-E is that often if I had the sun in the image it would create solid thick vertical or horizontal lines from the point of light source which is some sort of sensor artifact. Something that I never got with the CMOS M240 sensor, or of course never got on film.
Base ISO, f11 or f16

Sensor remapping didn't help, and it was not a corroded sensor (that happened later)
Click to expand...

Strange as I've taken a few sunsets and sunrises and never had problems.

http://www.johnwhitfieldphoto.com/album/thailand_jan_2016#ps-img-1222357
 
splitimageview said:
Depreciation only matters if one sells.

Why not just use your M-D?
Click to expand...

The people who are losing their shirts selling or trading M-Ds and M240s for M10s are doing it to themselves. To each his/her own, though.

The M-P is still a fantastic camera; the printed image quality it produces is still outstanding. It didn't suddenly get worse when the M10 was released. My plan is to keep my M-P 240 and get an M10 when I can pay cash for it.

When it comes to used M240s, it's a buyer's market. I am happy for those first time digital M buyers who can finally get a good used M240 at fire sale prices. I may get one myself as a backup to my M-P.
 
I recently bought an M9-P in great shape for 3,000 USD and am very happy. I don't buy camera gear as a financial investment. Only as an investment in myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom