M60 value is plummetting..

[willie_901]

I think this price drop just is evidence that at some point a niche (no AF) of a niche (no LCD and requires a case when carried) of a niche (tenacious brand loyalty) translates to low demand.

I reject the price has anything to do with digital camera depreciation since: the sensor technology has not ben superseded and the camera is not old enough to depreciate to the current level. I have sold three-year old Nikon DSLRs with less depreciation. And everyone knows how pedestrian digital Nikons are compare to digital Leicas.

 

[Huss]

[/url]m60 by

I think that photo illustrated the issue. The M60 and that lens are designed for each other. Breaking up the kit hammers the value of the body. Not sure how it would look with a 'pedestrian' lens on it.
FYI this Dutch dealer is asking $12,500 for the lens only! Other people are selling the lens and the camera for that!!!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Leitz-35mm-f1-4-Summilux-M-M-Edition-Leica-60-Lens-Only-/151892263965?hash=item235d7c041d:g:X6kAAOSw-vlVgbSg

 

[Huss]

Was looking on popflash for something else, and I saw he had one for $9400 WITH the 35mm lens. Gone now.

You sure that wasn't the M-P Safari kit? It has a 35mm lens and that is the going rate.

 

[f16sunshine]

The M60 would not be my digital camera choice at any price. Sort of like a computer without a monitor yeah?

The used price reflects the limited number of people who would like to own such a camera.
It's not a bad thing. It's just missing something 😱

 

[mfogiel]

A digital camera with a 5 year's estimated life span costs only 7k ? I am seriously worried.
And what if my 100 years estimated lifespan Rolleiflex F suddenly "plummets" to 20k???

 

[rodizzle]

This camera is definitely something different. It may not be for everyone, it's a concept that I think people will enjoy more than they think. I agree with most that the original price point was pretty absurd. But since I lowered it to 6.5K, I think it's a bit more realistic for people to pick one up since it cost less than a new M-P.

I have plenty of digital cameras from nikon to the 645z and by far this is really fun to shoot with. Just have priorities, I can't have them all!

Here's a photo of it with a 50mm summilux asph black chrome.

12439515_10101560467577566_7861079839206253895_n-1 by Rodizzle, on Flickr

 

[literiter]

Leicas are beautiful cameras, whether they be digital or film but aesthetically I prefer older film Leicas like IIIf, M2, M3, M4, M4-P etc.

Older Leicas are simple, rugged, basic things like using a typewriter or a fountain pen to record an idea.

 

[rodizzle]

Leicas are beautiful cameras, whether they be digital or film but aesthetically I prefer older film Leicas like IIIf, M2, M3, M4, M4-P etc.

Older Leicas are simple, rugged, basic things like using a typewriter or a fountain pen to record an idea.

I totally agree. The M3 is my favorite. Simplicity is everything.

 

[Ruhayat]

Wow. 6.5k at my old exchange rate would be seriously tempting. Alas, the currency is not what it used to be and our economic outlook looks even more glum this year.

I hope the bit about the M60 value going down so fast is not true. If it is, it might discourage Leica from giving me the digital M that I want: in a body the dimensions and weight of an M7 (to go even lower would probably be too much wishful thinking), with no LCD, no frameline lever and no ports. The ultimate minimalist Leica. Mm.

 

[rodizzle]

I just sold the body! I am sure the new owner will enjoy the body. I applaud Leica for putting out something so different. It really is a digital version of an M7. It's a lot lighter than people think, as for thickness I don't think it's any thicker than an M240!

 

[Roger Hicks]

A digital camera with a 5 year's estimated life span costs only 7k ? I am seriously worried.
And what if my 100 years estimated lifespan Rolleiflex F suddenly "plummets" to 20k???

Whose estimate?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Colin Corneau]

It's a digital camera, it does nothing but depreciate. It's not like film cameras back in the day, where you could get a decade or more out of a Nikon F, or F2, F3, F4, F5 before they were obsolete. Now these digital cameras are obsolete in a year or two. Don't find it surprising at all.

This is it, exactly. As highly engineered and precise as any Leica product is, a digital camera simply has to be looked at as much as a computer as it is a camera...meaning it's technically behind in about a year and obsolete within 4 (assuming there's no flaw like the M9 sensor issue).

Other than being a hedge fund manager who gets bonuses greater than most peoples' annual salary, it's just a bit looney to spend so much on a digital camera.

 

[Ruhayat]

A digital camera becomes obsolete only when parts no longer become available to repair it when something goes wrong. Like my Leica CL's meter. Which is not digital. And proves that it's not just digital cameras that can go obsolete. But even then I could still shoot a roll on it. Unlike my Olympus E1 -- the sensor died and now it really is obsolete, though a working E1 wouldn't be obsolete because you can still make pictures with it.

On the other hand I still use my Fuji S5 Pro, and it continues to take beautiful skin tones as it has been doing when I first got it.

 

[jsrockit]

It's not plummeting anymore than any other digital camera...

 

[Lss]

meaning it's technically behind in about a year and obsolete within 4

Any digital camera would almost certainly be technically behind within a year in at least one area, although many are behind already at release. Anyone who wants the latest will need to keep shopping.

The whole obsolete thing I have never truly figured out. I understand out of production, or last year's model, or not supported. But obsolete that tries to cover all that and go beyond it does not really say too much.

 

[btgc]

The whole obsolete thing I have never truly figured out.

Obsolete is as simple as something, which isn't replaced by same thing when damaged, lost or broken - because newer and/or better thing costs same or less. Or if parts/labor to repair it costs same or more to buy newer/better thing.

This is how I interpret obsolescence.

 

[Lss]

Obsolete is as simple as something, which isn't replaced by same thing when damaged, lost or broken - because newer and/or better thing costs same or less. Or if parts/labor to repair it costs same or more to buy newer/better thing.

This sounds like a good definition, but it is very subjective.

For example, I still use the Leica M8 from 2006. If I had to get a replacement tomorrow for any of the above reasons, I would at least consider getting another M8. I think I have passed from the "sure, I would get an M8" to the "hmm, I might get an M8 but let's see" category within the last year. It's not completely obsolete for me when looking at its replacement value. I certainly cannot get anything better for the same price, but I may be able to get something better for a higher price that might work out.

 

[jsrockit]

I certainly cannot get anything better for the same price, but I may be able to get something better for a higher price that might work out.

You mean better for you...right? 🙂

 

[Lss]

You mean better for you...right? 🙂

Well, yes, better for what I intend to use it for.

 

[jamesbf]

A digital camera with a 5 year's estimated life span costs only 7k ? I am seriously worried.
And what if my 100 years estimated lifespan Rolleiflex F suddenly "plummets" to 20k???

Wait a minute, so you mean all of the M240's are going to shut down next year?