M8 - Long Term Investment?

bunkawen14 said:
In any event, the day when Japanese manufacturers can produce affordable products that match Leica's image quality would not seem far off.
Click to expand...

I hope not! My canon equipment has no magenta, banding and virtually no noise and hope it never does.

You state there's little difference in the price of the M8 and 5D, $2,900 vs $4750. Seems a bit more than a little difference.

Jaapv:

It's true that leica has been a no frills camera from the beginning but they also have been sliding down the hill in sales to the point they might no survive. The Japanese makers seem to be in touch with what photographers and consumers really want, not just a small group on a forum. Leica was on the cutting edge in the beginning up till the late 60's when slr's came in. Now Leica lives in the past and is going to fail for the lat time if they don't pull their act together.

There's plenty of room for sensor improvement as HAnkg states. No the leica M8 images will be no less in 5 years but the other manufacturers continue to move forward and improve image quality and where will the M8 stand. When the 1Ds came out I switched from Nikon to Canon digital. It was one of the best moves I ever made. The image quality was so much better in the 1Ds vs my D1x cameras that I could'nt believe the difference ( raw files not jpg). When the 1DsII came out I thought there sould'nt be that much difference in images untill I tried the MKII. Wow what a difference and now that's what I've used for the past 2 and 1/2 years. I expect the next generation of the MKIII to be equally better. I don't think any of us will live long enough to see the peak of sensor technology.
 
Last edited:
bunkawen14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Eventually imagine? I'm inclined to think that day is upon us.
bunkawen14 said:
In any event, the day when Japanese manufacturers can produce affordable products that match Leica's image quality would not seem far off.
Click to expand...
This statement begs the question.
 
Good photography that was made with "obsolete" softer lenses and "obsolete" grainy film from up to 100 years ago is still displayed and admired today. Like good photography made with today's digital cameras will be 100 years from now. For most of us the equipment isn't the limiting factor in the merit of our photos--now or in the future ;)


That said, until the MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) of the M8 is measurable in years rather than days or weeks, owners shouldn't be too anxious to turn the conversation toward long-term durability by way of casting aspersions on other brands :D
 
Matthew Runkel said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes- but does the I-pod reproduce better than 20-year old high-end hifi equipment? Somehow I doubt that (never having even listened to an I-pod, even though I have one in its unopened box somewhere)
 
jaap - the ipod is portable.
I would like to see you traveling/biking with your 20 y old sound system AND a music collection corresponding to ten-ish gigabytes:D:D

just liek with cameras, the best tool for the job.
 
Besides collector's items, bodies have never been an investment so far, even Leica's. Those comparing current to old prices should take inflation into account in their calculation.
Now lenses are an investment indeed. Try to retrieve the glow of an early Elmar with a current one, it is not possible any more.
Anyway the M8 could well be the only Leica body needing filters to work and become a collector's item then, who knows. ;)
 
LCT said:
Substandard ideas IMO.
So little as i like the M8 so far i must say that you don't seem to have a clue of what you're talking about in HiFi as well as photography.
Click to expand...

absurd threads call for absurd replies.. your's included
 
in 5 years, the m9 or m10 will be enough to make nearly every current m8 owner upgrade, except for a few sourpusses.
 
aizan said:
in 5 years, the m9 or m10 will be enough to make nearly every current m8 owner upgrade, except for a few sourpusses.
Click to expand...
And that's good news for all of us who would only buy a used M8. Hooray for progress, and another hooray for repetitive M8 discussions.
 
rxmd said:
And that's good news for all of us who would only buy a used M8. Hooray for progress, and another hooray for repetitive M8 discussions.
Click to expand...

With regards to the M8, the only thing you can depend on is the on-going internet discussion about it..
 
Whats all this talk about canon SLRs dying so quickly? Quite possibly the cheap ones. I put at least 1,000 shots a month on my 20D, this and other canon SLRs in more professional use routinely get 4,000 frames a week fired off.

I wouldnt under estimate the better stuff- its not composed of generic parts. Canon likes to signify when they release new shutter assembly model, mirror boxs, focusing sensors, digital processors, etc... Instead of simply slipping in new, 'no name' mystery parts when a new camera is released.
 
aizan said:
in 5 years, the m9 or m10 will be enough to make nearly every current m8 owner upgrade, except for a few sourpusses.
Click to expand...

I don't think a sourpuss could possibly stomach an M8 that long :D
 
Last edited:
I think that if a new upgrade is released so soon, making the M8 then 'obsolete', then leica is falling to the digial culture and loosing the essence of the rangefinder. The rangefinder was where it needs to be the day they put a light meter on an M, and for many others the day the M3 was released.

Rangefinders are no SLRs, its a very specific tool. Why start strapping on gizmos with higher framerates, bigger LCDs, etc, when you could just get a dSLR if you need all that, since its been developed, field tested, and done years ago?
 
jaapv said:
Yes- but does the I-pod reproduce better than 20-year old high-end hifi equipment? Somehow I doubt that (never having even listened to an I-pod, even though I have one in its unopened box somewhere)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the iPod is not the 8x10 view camera of the audio world.

My understanding is that when the standards for CD audio were put in place, the sampling rate chosen was just a bit lower than it should have been, with the consequence that some people can tell the difference between a CD and the corresponding LP record, even with the best output devices. But the perceptible difference in quality between digital and analog audio is a legacy of the bad sampling rate choice. It's not inherent problem of digital audio, and it will presumably go away over time as higher sampling rates become the norm.

One of the knowledgeable audiophiles here should feel free to correct or qualify the understanding I've expressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom