Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I effectively went from the M8 to my 240 with a hiatus in between cameras. The 240 fulfills all my requirements and then some ... no M10 for me. 🙂
M10 has destroyed the used market
- Thread starter AusDLK
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 247
- Views 25K
I effectively went from the M8 to my 240 with a hiatus in between cameras. The 240 fulfills all my requirements and then some ... no M10 for me. 🙂
raid
Dad Photographer
I cannot afford an M10 at this time.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Until Leica comes out with a new M w/video function..the m240 prices should stabilize for now..in the mid 3's give or take..and go lower for someone who just cant live w/o an M10..and wants to dump fast..
airfrogusmc
Veteran
My work pays for it all and to me they are tools. Not just for the pro work but even for my personal work. I didn't buy the 262 for just the cheaper price tag. I bought it for a lot of the things it didn't have. It's simple. My original MM and M-E are real simple. The M 10 is also really simple. Only 3 buttons on the back and only 2 pages in the menu. You can just look down at the top of the camera and see the ISO, shutter speed and aperture. The M 10 high ISO performance is really good. The camera is so responsive. I think that this is the best digital M to date.
My color bodies are mostly used for assignments and my MM is mostly used for my personal work. The MM is at Leica now for a sensor replacement so I have been doing some color personal work which i am really enjoying. You get used to how quiet both the M 262 and M 10 are. The shutters have that nice click.
I think digital Leica's, as a whole, hold their value better than most other digital cameras. But I buy cameras to use. And I use them hard. Resale isn't really much of an issue for me.
BTW I'm not rich and I am not a dentist. I use Leica M because they really fit the way I see and work. I am fortunate that my work pays for it all. Photography is my livelihood and my hobby. If it were just a hobby it might be a stretch financially to own what I do. If it were the hobby it would probably just be the MM and a 35 LUX FLE.
My color bodies are mostly used for assignments and my MM is mostly used for my personal work. The MM is at Leica now for a sensor replacement so I have been doing some color personal work which i am really enjoying. You get used to how quiet both the M 262 and M 10 are. The shutters have that nice click.
I think digital Leica's, as a whole, hold their value better than most other digital cameras. But I buy cameras to use. And I use them hard. Resale isn't really much of an issue for me.
BTW I'm not rich and I am not a dentist. I use Leica M because they really fit the way I see and work. I am fortunate that my work pays for it all. Photography is my livelihood and my hobby. If it were just a hobby it might be a stretch financially to own what I do. If it were the hobby it would probably just be the MM and a 35 LUX FLE.
Contarama
Well-known
I'm content with the cameras I own but a film and/or a digital M would be nice to have and for me would likely be the only sort of cameras I would consider buying from here on out. I have been watching M9s for quite a while now but cannot afford one right now. Maybe some day.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm completely delighted with my M-D, still. No plans to sell it or buy an M10 at all. A spare M-D would make more sense to me since I could share batteries between bodies, and I also still prefer the M-D body.
G
G
unixrevolution
Well-known
If you want the stuff you buy to be sellable for the same money you paid for it, digital cameras are not for you.
In fact, cameras in general are probably not for you.
In fact, cameras in general are probably not for you.
jsrockit
Moderator
The M10 isn't even really in stock yet, so I would imagine it hasn't affected prices too much yet.
sanmich
Veteran
Most ideas about camera value depreciation are as obsolete as the film cameras they were built upon.
In terms of value depreciation digital cameras should be compared to computers
In terms of value depreciation digital cameras should be compared to computers
cz23
Well-known
The MM1 was my first used digital M purchase, and I doubt I'll every by a new one again. The original owner paid $8K and sold it to me for $3.5K. That's quite a hit over a few years. And even after several years since I bought it, it's still worth only slightly less than what I paid.
I've never considered cameras investments, but that type of loss crosses the line for me. If you've got the dough or keep your cameras for a long time, I could see it. But for a fickle owner like me, it doesn't make sense.
John
I've never considered cameras investments, but that type of loss crosses the line for me. If you've got the dough or keep your cameras for a long time, I could see it. But for a fickle owner like me, it doesn't make sense.
John
raid
Dad Photographer
This is not 100% accurate.
Computers lose their values over time as new software require faster computers with more memory and more ... etc. With digital cameras, as long as you can use the camera and you can use the images from it and you like what you get, the camera is not obsolete.
Take the M9 as an example. Many photographers swear by its uniqueness and usefulness. It is not obsolete. Its faulty sensor is being replaced by Leica by a non-faulty sensor. The same as what you get in newer Leica models.
I bought my M8 and M9 both as used cameras. I am not seeing a significant drop in market value for either camera, relative to what I have paid and taking into account the use.
Thank you to all the people who are buying new Leica cameras. Someone has to do it.
cz23
Well-known
I remember how common that was in the early years of computers. Seems like we were upgrading every year or two as processor, hard drive, and RAM capacity kept leaping forward. But now I can't even remember the last time I was forced to upgrade to meet a processing need.
I think the digital camera industry has about reached the same plateau. It's hard for me to see where they can go from here. Plus, I think it meas we'll be keeping our cameras longer, just as we do our computers.
John
raid
Dad Photographer
I almost always set my M8 and M9 to ISO 160 or 200. I live in Florida, and we get more than 300 sunny days each year. I don't go to bars to take photos, and I don't go to concerts with the goal to take photos there. I am an amateur too. I choose what I want to take photos of. I really don't need another digital camera as long as my M8 and M9 function properly.
It may be as John as said above. We are at the "plateau" ...
It may be as John as said above. We are at the "plateau" ...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is actually an incentive to buy an M240. You know, I could sell a couple things and buy one, and not worry about how long it will take to get the M9 fixed.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes. My main computer system is mid-2012 ... I still see no reason to replace it. At some point, on OS change or a part failure or an app requirement will push me to an update, but not for a while yet I don't think.
Far as I can see, I'll never run out of what I can do with the M-D and SL. As long as they keep working, they're what I'll have. The same could be said for my evergreen Olympus E-1 ... It's fourteen years old now and still produces the same superb quality 5Mpixel images it did all those years ago. Actually better quality, because raw converter technology over the decade and a half since has improved what I can get out of the camera's raw files.
People seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the depreciation and longevity of digital cameras. In my opinion, anything past about 2007-2008 level technology produces good enough photographs that it could basically be used until it broke. And I haven't yet had a quality (non-point and shoot grade) digital camera actually fail. I've spent way more money and time fixing broken film cameras than anything digital.
G
cz23
Well-known
All true, Godfrey. But there's something inexplicable about the NEXT BIG THING that makes us think we gotta have it. It seems to be wired into us, especially us guys.
John
John
Huss
Veteran
I have that feeling when I read about the next big thing. But after a few days I ask myself to be honest. Would my photos be better? The answer is no as the camera does not come up with an idea or a composition.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't think it's wired into us except by cultural conditioning. I always resisted it, with motorcycles, bicycles, and film cameras. The era from 2001 to 2013, particularly in regard to digital cameras, was unusual for me and driven by the incredibly rapid development from the first barely usable digital cameras of 2000-2001 to what became available by 2013.
Mostly, I've bought a lot of things simply because there was no other way to try them out and see if I liked them. I can't form a useful opinion of a camera, a lens, a motorcycle, whatever, unless I have a few months to use it and get to know it well. That which has worked well for me has usually stuck with me for a long time.
G
forceusr
Member
I just bought a like new 240 2 weeks ago and paid $3300 for it. I'm sure I could have maybe found one a bit cheaper but couldn't complain about the condition.
jsrockit
Moderator
I'm not sure what your point is... my post was from 03-03-2017, so are you trying to say that I was wrong about going prices then?
Similar threads
- Poll
