M8 Depreciation

[sf]

I just got finished playing with a Nikon D200 kit today. A place near my home let me take one till Friday and play with it so long as I return it in "unused condition".

No problem.


I took it home, plugged it in to charge, and an hour later it was ready to play.

It produces images that are on par with top-quality 35mm film scans, but without any grain at all. It's very very fast, responsive, and built like a tank. Built 90% as well as the Bronica. Zero shutter lag, 5fps, crips AF like the F100. This thing will keep value.

For the DSLR market :

Now, where am I going with this. . .there are two points to make here that really apply across the board on this generation of digital products. Companies are building hgher quality products now that the technology evolution is slowing down. Nikon has decided they are not making larger sensors in the foreseeable future (just more sensors packed onto the same sized chip). The camera is built to last. It feels more than twice as durable as the D70, handles like an F6 (75% as well). It will not depreciate as fast as the D70 for durability, the fact that the image is very close to 35mm quality, and people know the DX form factor is stable.

Depreciation will become a less and less affecting factor in decision making over the next couple years, and I see it becoming a non-issue after then. The boom is largely over. I mean, we went from .3 MP to 16MP in a handful of years. Now, I see a future of bodies and performance upgrades, but alot less in the way of MP count increases. This will mean that digital bodies will maintain value more strongly. Firmware, software, and hardware will limit how far they can go and still sell to a large market. The pros will continue to chase the full frame 6x6cm sensors, but the DSLR market is reaching its apex in terms of MP performance.

Too many words so far.
For the Leica market :

Point is, DSLR market is stabilizing because they have a strong lens selection for hte DX format and they don't intend to create larger sensors. Leica will enter with a crop factored M8 to fit a thousand classic lenses. No cropped lenses in the future. Big deal. Very big deal. Unlike the DSLR with its zoom glass, croped primes are troublesome. You can't zoom to the proper focal length. Your lenses become what they are not. When the M9 comes out (hopefully full frame), M8 value will crash hard. THere will be almost no use in a cropped camera to all those with the cash to spend on a full frame camera.

They, Leica, are forgetting that Leica users have a thing for gear and they love their lenses. Cropping the lens is just not fair. It defeats some of the fun and value of buying neat glass. It makes it artificial - which is very much against RF grain. Leica is simply scared if they don't hold their market off for a year or two till the M9 comes out, they are going to lose the whole thing to another maker.

 

[Mark Norton]

Agree with your comments about the D200 and the D2X delivers even more. But, it's big and heavy and noisy.

If a full frame sensor were both technically feasible for use with M lenses and cost effective, I am sure Leica would have run with it. Sadly, it is neither so a sensor with a smaller crop than the Nikon you've got excited about will have to suffice. Leica are not doing this to be "unfair", they are pushing the limits of what can be done at the moment, and users will need to recalibrate how they use their lenses. If you used a 35, you'll now need to use a 28. Sure it will take some getting used to, but so too will the ability to download your pictures after a days shooting to review them instead of hoping they'll be OK.

If you don't like the rules of the game, don't come to the party!

I agree the M8 will hold value until the M9 comes out but I think that is many years away. If rangefinder photography floats your boat, it's the best game in town given we don't know where Epson are going and ZI aren't saying.

 

[DaveSee]

Unfortunately all these points, which are decisive for the technical quality, are very, very seldom discussed when it comes to comparisons of film and chip.
[snip]
Back on topic, NO digital camera can escape from this pressure of evolution,
Leitz is now out in the real world, it does not decide anymore independently about their own innovation speed.

fitzi

Hmmm... well, nearly correct. In 1960--to pick a random date--there was film, film produced by Agfa, Kodak and others. One may say that today there are CCDs/CMOS produced by Kodak, Sony and others. Difference is a "chip" is not "film"(emulsion).The film produced today is not subject to the camera produced in 1950. The chip produced in 1998 is the camera which uses it.

That Leica chooses *a* chip--and the interfaces provided therein--does imply that a given camera has "chip-specific" capability. But that does not include *how* Leica will or *must* use this resource.

Take CD music discs. Similarly encoded discs played in one "player" will not necessarily /sound like/ that same disc in another. So too, light recieved on one CMOS/CCD as evaluted in "playback"/recording will differ between devices(cameras, RAW files,etc.).

Quite simply, the digital imaging industry has proffered a RAW format, yet what is truely RAW, as in naked, has yet to be seen(sic).

Leica could claim a "more true RAW"... and as for MPL, that's left to the bits resolved and not pixels, necessarily! Pixels are so course to true mathematics! Why are recent digicams shielded/filtered of IR and UV when the "chip" can "see" them? The camera cannot cope/resolve this information *and* produce an image....

...Leica--and others--can work this out: there's lots of room for innovation... even within 8 megapixels.

Bottom Line... megapixels hold more in less than we've just recently been exposed. Yet film emulsion, as currently used, still offers much more PURE DATA.

rgds,
Dave

 

[Mark Norton]

Has *anyone* ever told *you* that using ******** to show *emphasis* is *intensely* *irritating* ?

 

[Traut]

Lets go to the videotape

Lets go to the videotape

I was shooting 16mm stock in around 1964. When Ampex realeased their portable videotape unit for $20K or so. How could technology ever pass that milestone. Better color, sound and instant playback with stop action. No darkroom, reusale stock, etc.

Then VHS - BETA wars 20 years later.

Then DVD recording, etc, etc. I can do more with my cellphone than
with my old Arri.

So plesae don't look to 12mp 35mm size sensors and think this is the summit - its only the most recently attained plateau. We can't imagine - By the way my Leicas from 1964 are worth more than I paid for them.

 

[jlw]

The guys on "Imaging Resource" had an interesting take on this several months ago, when they first discussed the digital M.

They pointed out that a big part of the reason Leicas have held their value so well is purely functional: In terms of overall picture-taking performance, a 1954 Leica M3 isn't really much different from a 2006 MP, for example. Yes, the newer camera has a few added features such as a built-in meter... but in terms of the qualities that Leica buyers care about, a Leica is very little affected by the passage of time, so it's natural that its value also isn't affected much by the passage of time.

The M8 is going to be a different matter. There are bound to continue to be rapid advances in sensor technology, image-processing capability, etc., that mean an M8 even a few years old will be a significantly less capable camera than whatever comes later; that means its value is bound to depreciate more.

 

[ezio gallino]

I can do more with my cellphone than with my old Arri.

Sorry but I don't think so; Sure movie filming cost are reaching the stars... but 1964 B&W films (maybe with a digital step for cleaning) are still enjoyable.

Question is complex: If we consider mechanics maybe things were made better 50 years ago than now. It's a matter of costs; so certain works linked to human creativity as acting, scripting, and creating a plot were set by Aristotele. Nothing has changed below the sun; really.
Leitz optics has always been on top of the world never treur than now: mechanics was lightly simplified but recently has restored to original project. A leica M can work in north pole or in the desert without problems; not many others can.
Digital queston is complex because is a mix of sensors, software, filming and why not optical limits. Leica knows it very well and leaved part of work to kodak and imacon to very experts. Results : this real piece of art named DMR who made Kodachrome in digital (at terrible cost) noone else (Canon & Nikon at first) has been able to do it. Sure it's for professonists people who need it and earn bread on it, but the waiting list is very long.
I don't think that M8 will be different stuff: sure it will be lighter: but the actual limits are OPTICAL no PIXELS: until someone will invent a sensor who accepts even very angulated rays as film (it can be done in six months or in 30 years) LEICA M8 will be state of the art. Sure sooner or later LEICA M9 will come but even Nostradamus has known when. and under my point of view cellar phones are just toys. Last but not least looking to my Leica gives me peace of mind. God only knows what I need it.

Big greetings.

Ezio

 

[harmsr]

Personally, I'm very excited about the M8 and don't think that it will become obsolete for a long time.

Leica cameras are built to last. The files from the similiar sensor in the DMR are fantastic. My D200 at 10 MP is also fantastic. The files from my D200 are better than the Nikon 5000 ED scans of my film.

So in my opinion, the M8 will simplify my shooting (no scanning) and deliver image quality at least on par with film (maybe better and with no grain). I was happy with film and have experience on how nice good 10MP files can be printed. Therefore, I think the M8 will fulfill the needs of most for many years to come. It should not become one of those electronic items that you change every 6-18 months.

Just my $.02.

Ray

 

[John Camp]

If there's a sharp round of depreciation, I believe it's as likely to be in the film Leicas as with the digital. Within ten years or so, film users will be such up small and specific enclave that Leicas will be sold only into a small circle of enthusiasts: it'll resemble a market for people who like and use typewriters. The photos will be good, for sure, but processing and handling will be so much more trouble that the market will simply drift away. Your Leicas will only be worth what somebody is willing to pay for them, and there will be fewer and fewer somebodies willing to pay a big price. If you have a routine M3 (as opposed to a collector model) I suspect its value has already peaked.

As to the M8, I believe its chip will produce photos that are "good enough" that it will essentially be very usable until the chip wears out. It'll make excellent 16x20 photos, and when you move to an M9, it'll be because you want to make excellent 30x24 photos; but at 16 by 20, you won't see any difference between the M8 and M9.

Another aspect of this whole thing that isn't being considered is that while newer cameras will have more and more processing power, it's also true that more and more processing power will be available as free-standing software. Sean Reid has posted on his forum a comparison between the Nikon D200 and the Canon 5D. At ISO 1600, the 5D is notably better; but if you run both through Noise Ninja or other available software packages, the change is remarkable. Maybe Sean should do that, just to demonstrate the out-of-camera processing possibilities.

To sum up, you have to consider that there WILL be improvements to the M8 as it matures -- the improvements (aside from firmware upgrades) will be in out-of-camera processing. This out-of-camera software has already been thoroughly demonstrated with MF software packages, and I'm sure it'll show up with Leica, as well. Overall, I think the M8 value will hold up about as well as Leica values always have. Besides, when I get mine, I'll consider it a tool, not an investment -- for investments, mutual funds are a much surer deal.

JC

 

[PaulN]

The boom is largely over. I mean, we went from .3 MP to 16MP in a handful of years. Now, I see a future of bodies and performance upgrades, but alot less in the way of MP count increases. This will mean that digital bodies will maintain value more strongly. Firmware, software, and hardware will limit how far they can go and still sell to a large market. The pros will continue to chase the full frame 6x6cm sensors, but the DSLR market is reaching its apex in terms of MP performance.

I'm not sure if I agree 100%. Canon has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their semiconductor plants so that they can produce CMOS sensors for their cameras. I don't think that they are going to stop pushing the bar higher and higher just because we hit a minor plateau at the moment. When Intel hit 1ghz, they didn't rest on their laurels, they kept making the chips faster. I think Canon is going to do the same thing. This is going to drive the megapixels up and the costs down. Every time Canon sells a camera, they are making it cheaper to bring the higher megapixel sensors into lower end models. I have no doubts that they are going to pull a "D60" with the 5D and introduce a 6D that is a full-frame CMOS sensor (14mp?) in a DSLR body for $1600. I bet this will be the case by next summer.

Canon is in a unique position because they make their own sensors. Everyone else purchases them. With that kind of investment, I don't think they are going to slow the car down and keep producing the same chip over and over. If they do though, the prices are going to plummet. Either that or they start selling sensors to their competitors.

If you had your own CMOS plant and your stellar sales were paying for the research to make bigger and better sensors, what would you do? I think that P&S cameras are going to become like cellphones. People will upgrade every 2-3 years. Something with a higher number is always more appealing. If the P&S cameras keep progressing with higher MP counts, the DSLRs always have to be out there in front, with 25% more pixels to justify the price.

With higher pixel count comes the greater need for storage though. The storage companies don't mind. They'd love to sell you a 750gb SATA drive for you to fill up with pictures and digital video. The computer companies want you to shoot raw, so that you upgrade to a faster processor, too 🙂


-Paul

 

[ezio gallino]

I'm not talking about investments but let's say mechanics; do you know how for example Mercedes Benz were made in '50 and part of '60 in last century compared to how they're made now; sure they're modern, lighter , more silent and why not safer , performing and less polluting now than ever, but certain solutions adopted in that period are simply impossible to consider under any point of view; noone now even Rolls Royce but example are infinite can think to work as they used to do in the fifties: true for tuners (marantz 10b) amplifiers (tube macintosh) turntables (EMT) and too many other things houses for sure; original way of working survives on some swiss watch (surely Patek Philippe but look at they cost) and Leicas MP: let's add Western digital tubes ($500 each!); in many cases to mantain original technology it's a small miracle. Today we think that everything can be ruled by computers : surely true but not always; a movie in VistaVision is simply impossible to do; that's the truth; many times you're lucky if you just find a spare part. The moral of the story is that before you throw away something that ruled for more than fifty years think over it; new doesn't mean necessarilly better. If it was so rangefinder does not interest to anyone: period . Told that I don't want to go back to horses: I only want thet people reflect what their doing.

Bye as always.

 

[humanized_form]

regarding dslr's and consumers upgrading. i'm not so sure the vast majority will.

look at the life span the standard dslr 6mp sensor has had. why would the average user upgrade? unless they are interested in making bigger prints they don't need more megapixels. they will see no difference in their images.

of course i'm excluding the camera enthusiast from the above. we will upgrade more often. however, it's clear to me that the manufacturers are more interested in serving the needs of the mass market, than they are in serving the segment we represent. i mean if it wasn't for epson, which has no real history in cameras, there wouldn't even be a digital rangefinder available.

 

[Tom Diaz]

The one thing that Leitz could do different than other digital manufacturers
would be to offer an upgrade program. Much of the manufacturing costs of
the M8 will surely be in the mechanical system. If it was built such that
electronics could be replaced, let's say 25-30% of original price for an
upgrade to 16 MPixel when they become available, the entire system would
get a new face, IMHO.

Roland.

Yes, I agree very strongly. If Leica offers an upgrade program many more would be enticed to buy one. I also think the M8 will hold its value fairly well for a while, like the Digilux 2 has, but an upgrade program would be a great idea.