M10 has destroyed the used market

Godfrey said:
What you're calculating makes little sense to me.

The old standard of a 35mm slide or negative that was well exposed and well focused was the ability to make a clean 16x20 inch print, viewed at normal viewing distances of about 3-4 feet. The standard for making such a print from an inkjet printer is 300 ppi output density.

A 16x20 is a 4:5 ratio image where 35mm format is 2:3 ratio, so we can only approximate the size, full frame. If the long dimension of a 35mm frame is fitted to the long dimension of a 16x20 sheet of paper at 300ppi, that means 20" @ 300ppi = 6000 pixels. The short dimension of the frame at that resolution will come out to 13.3 inches, at 4000 pixels. 6000 x 4000 pixels is 24 MegaPixels.


G
Click to expand...
That is consistent with what I calculated myself. at 300dpi, and using the whole sensor, 24MP would only make a 13.3" by 20." A 4:5 aspect ratio would use 20MP of the 24MP available. To cover 16" x 20" with 20MP would result in 250dpi. That's a bit lower than the standard; it's fudging a little; but for me, I couldn't see any difference between 300dpi vs. 250 with the Canon 9000 printer I had. So I was just thinking in approximate real-world terms when I wrote that. I don't see any disagreement, I think we are on the same page. (If we must have 300dpi from 20MP at 4:5 ratio, we are limited to 13.33 x 16.66 inches.)

Rob
 
raid said:
I have been using a loaner M 240 since I sent out my M9 for repair, and I am getting used to this camera. It is not just about an increase in MP. The ISO capabilities are known, but there is also the capability to take several photos quickly one after another without the camera to freeze up, as it happens with my M9. The battery is larger in size, and I don't have to worry much about the camera dying due to battery being dead. The LiveView allows me to focus better, when needed, and I could use SLR lenses with the appropriate adapters if I wanted to do so. The screen on the back of the M240 is much better than the screen on the M9.
Click to expand...

One thing I fuss over is frameline sizes. I like the frames in, say, my M2 and M5 more than the M6/M7/MP because the latter are too small. I liked the framelines in My M8.2 quite a bit. They were the right size for my customary shooting distances (I seldom shoot at minimum focus). I have no serious quarrel with the M9 framelines, although I felt the M8.2's were better.

So. Raid, and others who care to comment: how do the ones in the M-P typ 240 compare with those of the M8.2 or M9?
 
I never thought of the framelines, Rob! They are projected very brightly in the VF. You can pick between red and blue (I think). When using the LiveView, focusing results in either a 5X or 10X magnification for focus assist. Cool.
 
Rob-F said:
That is consistent with what I calculated myself. at 300dpi, and using the whole sensor, 24MP would only make a 13.3" by 20." A 4:5 aspect ratio would use 20MP of the 24MP available. To cover 16" x 20" with 20MP would result in 250dpi. That's a bit lower than the standard; it's fudging a little; but for me, I couldn't see any difference between 300dpi vs. 250 with the Canon 9000 printer I had. So I was just thinking in approximate real-world terms when I wrote that. I don't see any disagreement, I think we are on the same page. (If we must have 300dpi from 20MP at 4:5 ratio, we are limited to 13.33 x 16.66 inches.)

Rob
Click to expand...

So you've just deduced why you need a sensor with only 20 Mpixel. You just changed the resolution standard downwards based on your personal ability with your printer to see a difference between one resolution and another. From that you can deduce further that you can make up any arbitrary reason to 'need' anything, larger or smaller doesn't matter.

Where does that leave you? I don't know. All I can tell you is that if you want a state of the art, 35mm format Leica digital camera today, you'll buy a 24 MPixel camera.

24 MPixels was the standard I defined as my desire in a digital camera in 2001, before I even bought my first digital camera, because I wanted that level of capability based on my calculations of a good 16x20 photo as I defined above. Since then, I've owned .7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, and now 24 mpixel cameras. I've produced probably 12,000 photographic prints in sizes from 1x1.5 inch to 30x45 inch with them. None of the lower resolution cameras dissuaded me of the need for 24Mpixel resolution: It's obviously easier to do the larger sizes in that range with more pixels than with less. I've now got two current Leica cameras ... M-D and SL ... and their 24 mpixel sensors make photographs that finally satisfy me, much as I expected they would.

So ... I don't know what to recommend to you. There's little downside to this resolution class nowadays: storage is cheap, processing power is cheap, etc. You either go for it, or you stay out of it. What else can be said?

G
 
Having a 24MP camera cannot hurt you in any way. It is a dream come true for many photographers.
 
Relax, Godfrey. Take a stress pill and take the rest of the day off.

Thanks for the response, Raid. I'm feeling encouraged.
 
I paid ~2750 for a minty M240. Did I get a good deal or not so?

The thing is, I love the rendering of my M8, and although I love it and won't sell it, it's not practical camera with its crop factor and quirks.
 
I defined above.
Godfrey said:
Since then, I've owned .7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, and now 24 mpixel cameras. I've produced probably 12,000 photographic prints in sizes from 1x1.5 inch to 30x45 inch with them. G
Click to expand...

Wow 12'000 prints, that must have cost a small fortune in ink cartridges, and then where do you store them all?
 
splitimageview said:
No, as more M10s are delivered there will be more older models on the market and prices will go lower

I learned my lesson with Leica digital depreciation with the M8. The drops are so vast it easily pays for fine Fuji gear in full. :)
Click to expand...


I had an M8 for three years and sold it for 15% less than what I paid for it. That wasn't bad at all.
 
bobbyrab said:
I defined above.

Wow 12'000 prints, that must have cost a small fortune in ink cartridges, and then where do you store them all?
Click to expand...

Since he vast majority of my printing output is photos printed to fulfill customer orders, the cost of ink and storage for the prints isn’t relevant. The cost is incorporated into the sale price, with a profit margin. The prints are produced and shipped immediately. :)

I’ve got maybe 500-600 prints in stock for use as portfolio and archive inventory. Takes up a shelf or three in my closet.

G
 
I couldn't give a fig about the value of my 240 because I have no intention of ever selling it. It's been the best camera I've ever owned and if it keeps doing what it does for another five or six years I'll be a happy camper.
 
M10 has a nice quiet shutter like a film camera.

Anything with live view can be handy at times. Framing accuracy is superb!

Nice to get away from filters on M8 and rotting sensor of M9.
 
I had the same feeling when I had my First M ( M8) and never want to sell it to upgrade to the other M came alone. I just upgraded m8 to M8.2 U and it is still with me. For me it is good and I can get an M240 and if I wait more time I can get an M10 for the same amount of money. All Digital cameras, including Leica, are disposable and I did not know this before
 
Cyriljay said:
I had the same feeling when I had my First M ( M8) and never want to sell it to upgrade to the other M came alone. I just upgraded m8 to M8.2 U and it is still with me. For me it is good and I can get an M240 and if I wait more time I can get an M10 for the same amount of money. All Digital cameras, including Leica, are disposable and I did not know this before
Click to expand...

It's sad they really are, I had a M8 and I know people love the camera
but it's getting long in the tooth and I sold it. The M10 looks like the
Leica M camera now.
 
I bought my second M240 at $3000 a year ago and just sold it last week for $2900 so the minor hit wasn't too bad all things considered. I definitely took more of a hit when I sold my first M240 because I had bought it much earlier in its lifecycle so it was closer to its new price.

I decided that the M10 was to be my camera and for the first time I wanted to experience buying a camera brand new as I fully intend to use it for a number of years (now that essentially any minor quibbles I had with previous digital leicas have been addressed). So I paid the full price for a new one this week (thanks to the awesome Ken Hansen for giving me the original MSRP and overnighting the camera to me!) and yes it will depreciate but I will be getting many years of service out of it so I'm ok with it in the long run.
 
agoglanian said:
I bought my second M240 at $3000 a year ago and just sold it last week for $2900 so the minor hit wasn't too bad all things considered. I definitely took more of a hit when I sold my first M240 because I had bought it much earlier in its lifecycle so it was closer to its new price.

I decided that the M10 was to be my camera and for the first time I wanted to experience buying a camera brand new as I fully intend to use it for a number of years (now that essentially any minor quibbles I had with previous digital leicas have been addressed). So I paid the full price for a new one this week (thanks to the awesome Ken Hansen for giving me the original MSRP and overnighting the camera to me!) and yes it will depreciate but I will be getting many years of service out of it so I'm ok with it in the long run.
Click to expand...

That's a good outlook IMHO. The thing with trading/selling is this: You only lose money if you trade/sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom