M8 - Long Term Investment?

Oh Two said:
I've always been of the opinion that the new DSLRs are disposable and designed with a predictable depreciation; although I did find a page that shows that they can indeed be repaired, but with compromises:
http://www.abo.fi/~jskata/300Drepair/

However, I'm willing to bet the M8 is a tad bit better designed for the ages. It would be interesting to see if they have modular construction. It appears to me that the Canon is a throw away design, in the same fashion as computers. From my net searches Canon DSLR owners are claiming 12,000 shots before the camera is junk. That's 333 rolls of film. Even the orphan and much disparaged M5 ended up being a very good investment. My M4 which I purchased new has easily kept up with, or surpassed, original value despite inflation.

If the M8 with its moducum of teething problems are in the Leica mechanical tradition I would guess that they will be a good investment. I can't imgaine that they are as cheap looking as the Canon is inside. It appears to me that once R&D investment has been met to the manufacturer, Canon appears to be the camera which overpriced, not the M8.

One must remember that any Leica M is in the unique position of competing with not only other manufactures, but with most every M still in use as well.

The marks that succeed at this have a strong niche and dedicated followers who believe in the product and keep it's value high.
Click to expand...


Let's see, the 300D was about $600 for the body if I remember correctly. Might have been $700 when it came out. Now let's see, the M8 is $4,750 isn't it. The 300D was never billed as a pro camera either. Now lets talk pro cameras, the 1D, 1Ds, 1DsII, 1DII andN model are pro level cameras. On each of my 1D, 1Ds, 1DsII bodies I guess I put 70,000 + frames on each and have lost count on my 1DsII body. It might be close to 100,000+. Also the shotter is rated at 200,000 minimum frames. Neither I nor any of my other pro friends have ever had to replace a shutter. This isn'nt to say it has'nt happened but it's not common. Lets talk price, you can buy 2 1DIIN bodies for the price of 1 M8. The canon pro cameras are all magnesium bodies and as tough as nails. Weather seals, LONG lasting batteries, auto everything if you want it and true CPS pro service if you need it. Oh yes, No banding, magenta or any other of the M8 problems. The canon 1DIIN shoots 8.5 fps and has a 40 frame buffer that you almost cant fill because it writes so fast. The canon has a much bigger selection of optics and all but a very few L lenses are the finest money can buy. Oh and another thing, the L lenses are weather sealed too. Don't forget the ultra fast glass like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 f1 (out of production) and new 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8 (out of production and what a shame, love mine and probably the best lens in 35 that I've ever used). Let's not forget the canons and Nikons are combat tested too (pro level not the 300D).

When will you guys quit running down other cameras? Is this to make yourselves feel better about your M8's?
 
There is no arguing with the merits of the Canon line. X-Ray has put things in just the right perspective.
The question, to get back to the point of the thread, is whether the M8 is a good investment?
For me, this comes down to whether the digital files it produces will hold up over time versus the competition.
Putting aside form factor preferences and prior investment in lenses, which are other reasons one might opt right now for the M8, right now IMHO the 5D is the only Canon that produces files that bear comparison with the new Leica.
Will this remain the case indefinitely? Very unlikely.
 
X-Ray, you said it right about Canon! 🙂 I would like to see what would happen to Leica M8 being used inside of a Hummer 12 hours a day in Al-Asad, Iraq!! 🙄 I am sorry to say to M8 lovers, but it ain't no investment! Just yesterday afternoon, I met a photogragher who with his Nikon D200, had it tip over while on a tripod, 75cm above the ground, needless to say the display on top of the camera and the right hand side of the camera had a crack, and the screen bled. Thus non functioning = repair = god knows what the charges will be to repair. If you want archival, then shoot Kodachrome 64 or Ektachrome EPN 100, and then send to the deep freezer! Too me a M8 is only something to have in a cabinet and to be dusted with a feather! 🙄 and sign saying do not touch! 🙂

Cheers

MArk
Quito, EC
 
Why only the 5D and not include the 1DsII ND 1dS? It's been years since selling through a stock agency but it seems as if I read that the agencies want no less then 12MP files uninterpolated. This holds true of clients for certain.

As to being a good investment with any digital camera, no it's a terrible investment unless you earn your living with it. Consider every digicam will be worth only a fraction of it's new cost after the next generation comes out. When the second generation comes out it will drop like a rock in value, Leica or not. It's all about technology and what's hot at the moment. I've gone over this before but Leica isn't exactly on the cutting edge with the M8. Don't try to justify your purchase by investment value because no digital camera is a good investment for a non working pro. I have clients that paid $20,000+ for their first MAC system and now you can't give them away. The same is true for the first few generations of DSLR's from Kodak that were priced at $30,000. What are they worth now only 4 or 5 years later, $100 if that. The first digital camera I shot was a DYCOMED scanning back with a quadra 650 computer. 14 minutes exposure at the highest ISO with 10K of halogen light just to get to f13. It took ten minutes to open the 130 meg file and 10 minutes to rotate it. One hour per shot if everything was going well. The files were stunning even by todays standards. The package was $68,000 and worth $300 when it was sold 3 years ago and it was only 4 years old. Leica is no different because it's all about technology and the M8 will be no different. This is one of the reasons I don't see the reasoning behind building the M* like a traditional M film body. No one will even be using the M8 in 5 or 6 years because it will be so outdated.

If you think the M8 is a good investment let me see if I can find some Beenie Babies to sell you. Seems like the blue bear hit nearly $7,000 at one point. What are they bringing today?
 
Last edited:
Quote from X-Ray "No one will even be using the M8 in 5 or 6 years because it will be so outdated." I am laughing so hard on this one 😀 Better off to take your M6 and some cool glass, book a trip to Ciudad de Mexico and shoot 50 rolls of chrome, then invite your friends over for a cocktails and show some of your best shots on a slideproject. That is better value! 😀
 
I guess i should define investment from a professional point of view. Let's use my Rollei SL66 system that I used for 25 years. I probably invested $20,000 in 3 bodies and a set of lenses from 30mm to 250 plus 7 backs and 2 polaroid backs plus a couple of duplicat lenses. On an average i would estimate these cameras produced $200,000 in income per year. My 35mm system including my Nikons and leicas probably brought in $25,000 per year over forty years on average. Now my 4x5, 8x10 and 11x14 cameras probably earned an average of $125,000 per year over forty years. When I purchased any camera I knew it would earn major money and when I was finished with it it really didn't matter if I thred it in the trash or sold it for $1 because the investment paid off in what it made in income not the resale value.
 
My fear is 5 or 6 years from now there won't be a whole lot of film around to shoot, what is left will be worth an arm and a leg and have to be processed who knows where. Speaking of investments; it might be a good idea to stock-up on film supplies starting about now. Not sure what that (hard to get film) will do to the value of our favorite M2,3.4,5,6,7,MPs but the way things go it just might increase their value. 🙂

Best To All. Terry.
 
Hey, while on the topic of things being "disposable," how about mentioning all of the images I've had ruined by IR, banding and streaking over the last two months? Makes you think, doesn't it. 5K doesn't go far in this day and age.
 
my 20D has lasted till 34000 so far, its been having its problems which is a combination of many things but I think that a digital camera no mater what it is (yes even medium format backs) are not a good investment
 
Pherdinand said:
Philipp, what's the subject of your Ph.D.?
Click to expand...
I'm doing a comparative study on colonial society in various regions of the Islamic world. Specifically I'm looking at the relationship between patterns of colonial career-building and forms of individual and institutionalised charity among members of the native upper class in (Russian-colonised) Central Asia, (British-colonised) North India and (Ottoman) Lebanon. I guess after that I'll have earned myself a Leica 😉

Philipp
 
x-ray said:
Let's see, the 300D was about $600 for the body if I remember correctly. Might have been $700 when it came out. Now let's see, the M8 is $4,750 isn't it. The 300D was never billed as a pro camera either. Now lets talk pro cameras, the 1D, 1Ds, 1DsII, 1DII andN model are pro level cameras. On each of my 1D, 1Ds, 1DsII bodies I guess I put 70,000 + frames on each and have lost count on my 1DsII body. It might be close to 100,000+. Also the shotter is rated at 200,000 minimum frames. Neither I nor any of my other pro friends have ever had to replace a shutter. This isn'nt to say it has'nt happened but it's not common. Lets talk price, you can buy 2 1DIIN bodies for the price of 1 M8. The canon pro cameras are all magnesium bodies and as tough as nails. Weather seals, LONG lasting batteries, auto everything if you want it and true CPS pro service if you need it. Oh yes, No banding, magenta or any other of the M8 problems. The canon 1DIIN shoots 8.5 fps and has a 40 frame buffer that you almost cant fill because it writes so fast. The canon has a much bigger selection of optics and all but a very few L lenses are the finest money can buy. Oh and another thing, the L lenses are weather sealed too. Don't forget the ultra fast glass like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 f1 (out of production) and new 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8 (out of production and what a shame, love mine and probably the best lens in 35 that I've ever used). Let's not forget the canons and Nikons are combat tested too (pro level not the 300D).

When will you guys quit running down other cameras? Is this to make yourselves feel better about your M8's?
Click to expand...


Amen.





🙂
 
I think it's a safe bet that every current digital camera will be obsolete five years from now in ways we can't even think of. Functioning examples will still do all the things they do today, but I think very few people will be satisfied with those things, even those who today imagine they are set for life with their M8s. I suspect that in ten years or so we will look back at the current era of digital photography and shake our heads about what it seemed normal to put up with--I don't just mean capture-technology limitations like crop factors and narrow dynamic range, but also most of the post-processing time-sinks many now justify in the name of asserting full control over the end product. Carbon paper was a necessary evil at one time too.

My guess is that the "best/biggest file I will ever want" people seriously underestimate not just what will happen to the technology of digital capture, but how increases in processing power and storage--inside digital cameras themselves and on the desktop--will revolutionize digital photography. And they underestimate how much they will care about these advances, which is slightly ironic because anyone with an M8 right now is an early adopter by description if not natural inclination. Many surely must have that early-adopter restlessness about them.

Here's an interesting tidbit I just found. I see a few parallels. Others may not.

TI Calculator Draws Raves From Retailers

from Electronics, July 3, 1972.

Texas Instruments has stuck a first cautious foot in the door of the consumer marketplace by introducing its hand-held calculator into home-based test markets.

But response from the retailers - Foley's of Houston and Sanger-Harris in Dallas - was little short of ecstatic. Says one" "They seem more organized than most outfits in the business. They presented us with very detailed spec sheets and a better-looking machine - it's more streamlined and more tasteful than the Canadian and Japanese-made jobbies we've been selling." Adds the other: "At that price -- $149.99 - it should sell up a really big storm."

The Datamath, as its dubbed, is being sold under TI's trademark. The symbol is virtually unknown to consumers, and the retailers are taking pains to introduce it to the world.

"Texas Instruments, the people that make electronic calculators work, now make an electronic calculator" was the headline on Foley's ad, followed by a description of the firm's MOS LSI one-chip calculator work.

The 12-ounce, battery-operated device, guaranteed for one year, features an eight-digit light-emitting-diode readout that displays numerals, overflow indication, and low-battery warning. Except for the character in the first-digit position, the display turns off after about 15 seconds. It can be recalled via a dual-function button.​
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech.html

According to this http://www.minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/, that price is about $725 in 2006 dollars.
 
Matthew Runkel said:
I think it's a safe bet that every current digital camera will be obsolete five years from now in ways we can't even think of. Functioning examples will still do all the things they do today, but I think very few people will be satisfied with those things, even those who today imagine they are set for life with their M8s. I suspect that in ten years or so we will look back at the current era of digital photography and shake our heads about what it seemed normal to put up with--I don't just mean capture-technology limitations like crop factors and narrow dynamic range, but also most of the post-processing time-sinks many now justify in the name of asserting full control over the end product. Carbon paper was a necessary evil at one time too.

My guess is that the "best/biggest file I will ever want" people seriously underestimate not just what will happen to the technology of digital capture, but how increases in processing power and storage--inside digital cameras themselves and on the desktop--will revolutionize digital photography. And they underestimate how much they will care about these advances, which is slightly ironic because anyone with an M8 right now is an early adopter by description if not natural inclination. Many surely must have that early-adopter restlessness about them.
Click to expand...


Though your technical argument is almost certainly correct, you miss the limiting factor: the human body. Photographic technology is very close to the limit of our optical perception. Audio technology is a more apt comparison. Despite all the advances in electronics, a top-end audio system of twenty years old is still very good -or more than that- today.
There is a second limiting factor as well. Current sensors are faithfully recording what optics transmit. That is a far more mature technology than electronics, which is very close to the unbreakable boundaries of the laws of physics. Any advances here can only be marginal. So camera's ma become more user-friendly, smaller, what have you, recording systems for files faster, easier etc, the ultimate quality will not be much better, except when we find a way to hook directly into the human brain without the eye in between.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree with Jaap more.
An M8 file is still going to look wonderful in 5, 10 or 20 years, unless human sensory perception evolves dramatically over that span (don't hold your breath).
To relate this to the question at hand again, that of investment, it's worth thinking about the 5D.
Today, a 5D kitted out with the best Canon lenses that it needs in order to compete against an M8 in terms of image and file quality (compete, and some might even say win), doesn't cost so dramatically much less than the Leica itself.
In the next five years, it is reasonable to expect a plethora of camera that will approach, equal or perhaps even surpass the M8's file/image quality -- and here's the kicker, at a significantly lower price.
By entering the digital arena, Leica will inevitably face brutal price/quality competition, and if Jaap's assessment proves correct, will be forced to come down off its lofty price point, or load up with lots of new non-Leica-like features to justify them.
Eventually, one can imagine a day when all that will be left as a justification for the investment in Leica digital kit are issues like prior investment in lenses, form factor preferences, style and image, and engineering lust.
In any event, the day when Japanese manufacturers can produce affordable products that match Leica's image quality would not seem far off.
 
True- and it will be a matter of taste, or if you will -look- of the results. I suspect Leica will continue to hold the edge. And building minimalstic camera's in a gimmicky age, they heve been doing that for decades.
 
There is still plenty of room for improvement in the M8 within the linits of human visual perception. MP could increase to the 16-20MP density and still be in the range of Leica lenses, Noise levels at high ISO's could be reduced, Dynamic Range could increase, Sensor size could increase to 24 x 36, improvements could be made in ergonomics (EV and ISO analogue controls) and the price could come down. Enough room for improvement to keep justifying new Digital M's for a decade.
 
Agreed (except for pixel density vs Airy disk size, but that is another subject), but it will not negate the qualities of the M8 as it stands. Would you rather drive a 1990-ies Rolls Royce or a current one? I might well prefer the "obsolete" one
 
jaapv said:
Though your technical argument is almost certainly correct, you miss the limiting factor: the human body. Photographic technology is very close to the limit of our optical perception. Audio technology is a more apt comparison. Despite all the advances in electronics, a top-end audio system of twenty years old is still very good -or more than that- today.
There is a second limiting factor as well. Current sensors are faithfully recording what optics transmit. That is a far more mature technology than electronics, which is very close to the unbreakable boundaries of the laws of physics. Any advances here can only be marginal. So camera's ma become more user-friendly, smaller, what have you, recording systems for files faster, easier etc, the ultimate quality will not be much better, except when we find a way to hook directly into the human brain without the eye in between.
Click to expand...
Good points. Today's cameras will still do in five years what they do today. I think the reason that won't satisfy users has less to do with how the end product hanging on the wall looks to our senses than it does with what else tomorrow's equipment will be able to do. If we are already near the physical limits of sensors, that limits some possibilities. But it would surprise me if sensor technology is closer to fundamental physical limits than is microprocessor chip technology, which has been around a lot longer.

I think there will be paradigm shifts that, almost by definition, we aren't equipped to imagine now. Mathematical "lenses", perhaps, to refigure your focus point after the fact, or show how the image would have looked at 5 p.m. instead of noon? Perfect in-camera combining and stitching of images? Blink-avoidance? Expression-finder? Ways to connect and interrelate images that we can't begin to imagine?

The audio analogy is interesting. The pictures on the wall, always subject to our sensory limitations, viewed serially, are analogous to songs. You can only view one picture or listen to one song at a time, and vintage equipment does them magnificent justice. But that hardly makes it irrelevant for me to note that I'm listening to my iPod right now and there are 5000-odd songs on there. It's as true today as ever that you'll never need more than a CD player, or a phonograph, to enjoy your favorite song. But someone who made such an observation ten years ago did so with zero concept that a little white box could replace an entire wall or more of CDs or LPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom