robklurfield
eclipse
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Why wait when you can use what is available. Things progress so rapidly now that the day you unbox your new Leica M, it will be on the decline.
LTN
Member
I've heard it said, "my greatest fear is that after I die my wife will sell my stuff for what I told her I paid for it!"
Ben Z
Veteran
All my experience with Leicas has taught me I don't want to ever be an early-adopter. I may very well get an M, but not till its been out at least a year.
LTN
Member
Indeed! I also have the M3, M6 and same lenses. Just purchased an M8 that was recently gone through by Leica. Looking forward to using the 28 2.8 on that M8! Of course I will carry a film camera as well. But I also have the Canon 5D MkII so if I REALLY need image quality - landscapes, etc. I will bring the DSLR along. But my day-to-day shooting really matches well with rangefinders, so that is what will be in my bag.
And, like many of you, I will be very interested to see what happens with prices but I will be surprised if they drop significantly. I think we will find the ME a bit of a compromise keeping the M9 prices up. I had a chance to handle/shoot a MONOCHROM this past weekend, and that is the camera I will be saving for!
Nicolai
Established
I agree. Some M9s have already sold for $4000 on ebay.
raid
Dad Photographer
No matter how good a digital camera is, its price will drop significantly year after yeat. When we pay $4000 for a camera, plan on a $500 depreciation per year, or even more. Think of it as the cost of leasing a camera, and we pay $500-1000 to use the camera for one year. We better use the cameta a lot.
I think of it as the same price as film and developing would be if I was using it during that time raid.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I calculate the same way. Each frame about 1/3 $, that's what I pay here in Bangkok for Provia+processing. After a few thousand frames, the camera is free. Any price I get for it is pure profit
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
My friend Dave said, "Don't wait, it's later than you think."
Although I will still continue to shoot mucho film, I will also use and utilize fully a new Monochrome. The earlier I get it the more usage I figure. Also know that some of the advantages of this digital camera (resolution and high ISO performance) offers and opens a new photographic potential.
Also know that I shoot about 60 rolls a month (135 and 120) on average, which requires a two day marathon of developing every month. I'm hoping a new digital M will tame some of my film use. Basically I see how a new expensive camera can really pay for itself, even though I only shoot B&W.
Cal
nanthor
Well-known
I was calculating a ~$500 decrease in the M9(p) value per year until the prices of the new M and M-E were just announced. Seems I've just been handed a sudden $1500 decrease in a matter of weeks. I've had my M9p for almost a year now and got a pretty good deal on it but I have to feel for the people who bought an M9 just a few weeks ago before the price drops were announced. I think the retail price on them was $7000.00. So, could they now have bought the same camera (M-E) for $5400.00? or am I missing something? Bob.
Kent
Finally at home...
Nope.
Unless I win an insane amount of money in the lottery, I will not buy the "M".
Unless I win an insane amount of money in the lottery, I will not buy the "M".
f16sunshine
Moderator
Kent
Finally at home...
"$4100" and "low" in one sentence together doesn't sound right if you talk about cameras.
"$4100" and "low" in one sentence together doesn't sound right if you talk about cameras.
Low in comparison to $7000-8000 they were new.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I could have saved money by buying a used M8, but I bought the M9 and am very happy with it. I wanted the same format camera as my M4-2 to use with the same lenses and get the same DoF and FoV behavior.
I'm reading all these disparagements of the new M based on people disliking the EVF, the looks of the EVF, the usability of the EVF, etc etc. Why is it so difficult to understand that the M is a rangefinder camera and the EVF is a new feature designed to expand its versatility when that is appropriate?
I have a nice kit of Micro-Nikkors (55, 105, 200 mm) that I use occasionally, same for a gorgeous 1969 Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8. I've kept an Olympus SLR around almost specifically for use with these lenses, or used them on my Ricoh GXR-M. It will be nice to have a FF body with Live View that I can use them with as I find Live View MUCH more useful when doing macro work and for many static subject work than any optical viewfinder. If I need to shoot with long telephoto lenses at action events, of course it is only sensible to have an SLR for that: it's the best tool for the job. But my need for that is so small that it's easy to rent what I need when apropos.
At which point I have to say that the other improvements to the new M over the M9 are much more important than the fact that it supports use of my SLR lenses too. The largest factors to me are the improved shutter responsiveness and re-cock action, the quieter shutter, the improved noise characteristics and better LCD. The availability of video capture and EVF are nice to haves, the details of their implementation on the grips, use with flash, etc are all plusses.
I'll buy one. I might keep the M9 too, or sell it to raise money for a Monochrom too. With that ... two digital FF M bodies, capable of being used with all of my lenses and do all of my needs ... I can let go of my APS-C and FourThirds equipment without feeling any lack. That achieves the reduction in gear and simplification I've been looking for.
I'm reading all these disparagements of the new M based on people disliking the EVF, the looks of the EVF, the usability of the EVF, etc etc. Why is it so difficult to understand that the M is a rangefinder camera and the EVF is a new feature designed to expand its versatility when that is appropriate?
I have a nice kit of Micro-Nikkors (55, 105, 200 mm) that I use occasionally, same for a gorgeous 1969 Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8. I've kept an Olympus SLR around almost specifically for use with these lenses, or used them on my Ricoh GXR-M. It will be nice to have a FF body with Live View that I can use them with as I find Live View MUCH more useful when doing macro work and for many static subject work than any optical viewfinder. If I need to shoot with long telephoto lenses at action events, of course it is only sensible to have an SLR for that: it's the best tool for the job. But my need for that is so small that it's easy to rent what I need when apropos.
At which point I have to say that the other improvements to the new M over the M9 are much more important than the fact that it supports use of my SLR lenses too. The largest factors to me are the improved shutter responsiveness and re-cock action, the quieter shutter, the improved noise characteristics and better LCD. The availability of video capture and EVF are nice to haves, the details of their implementation on the grips, use with flash, etc are all plusses.
I'll buy one. I might keep the M9 too, or sell it to raise money for a Monochrom too. With that ... two digital FF M bodies, capable of being used with all of my lenses and do all of my needs ... I can let go of my APS-C and FourThirds equipment without feeling any lack. That achieves the reduction in gear and simplification I've been looking for.
Lss
Well-known
The next Photokina is in 2014.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Somehow, buying a less expensive system so that you can buy more gear, now and into the future, seems at odds with the notion of "reduction of gear". ;-)
But if that's what the Xpro1 does for you and you like the idea, run with it.
What I mean by the "simplification" is to get equipment that is conceptually simple, all works pretty much the same, and gets out of my way in making photographs. Keeping track of which controls do what when you are working with three completely different kinds of cameras (GXR, M9, E-1) means having to think more carefully about the camera you're using at the moment so as not to make mistakes.
What I mean by "reduction of gear" is having one set of desireable lenses. Right now I have Nikkor lenses I can use on the GXR and E-1, FourThirds lenses that can only be used on the E-1, and M-bayonet lenses that I can use on the GXR and M9. Moving to an M + MM or M9, I'll have just the set of M-bayonet lenses that get used on both and a couple of Nikkors that get used on the M occasionally. That's a lot less gear (I'll drop six FourThirds lenses, two bodies) and have four Nikkors, ten M-bayonet lenses to manage between two M-mount film bodies and two M-mount digital bodies. (I do still have a Nikon F for use with the Nikkors as well, which is why I keep one extra lens, a Nikkor 50/1.2, around in addition to the macros and the 85.)
BTW, the most expensive M-bayonet lens I have at present is my Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.5 (LTM). A superb lens, cost me $800 new. The rest of my M-bayonet lenses are less expensive Voigtländers or used Leitz and Minolta lenses that I really like but which cost far less than the current, new Leica models.
Standardizing on one system format will also allow me to 'rationalize' my lens choices: Right now I have a lot of M-bayonet lenses because I not only have multiple bodies but multiple formats that I need different lenses for to achieve the FoV choices that I want to use. For instance, with the GXR, I use 21/40/90 most of the time, with 28mm optional, and with the M9 I use 35/40/50/135 most of the time. If I sell the GXR, I'll be tempted to sell the 21 and two 28s in exchange for a Zeiss 25mm. That will become my most expensive lens at about $1200.
Reduction in gear and simplification really means, to me, reducing the number of decisions to make when picking equipment and*when shooting. Becoming absolutely "one with the tools" means being able to make settings without thinking about it, being confident in not having to think about the camera and its capabilities so that I can focus on working with the subject entirely. It also means not having to stand in front of the equipment cabinet and ponder, "Which stuff do I want to work with today?"
Creativity expands in an environment of constraint and limited choices. I figure out how to use the equipment I have to achieve goals, rather than just addressing a difficult shooting situation by assuming I can point another, better piece of gear at it.
Damn, that soapbox grew up under me as I typed. ]'-)
Peter Klein
Well-known
I got an M8 in 2007, after all the issues became clear. No regrets, I've loved it. I put IR filters on my lenses and left them on, forgot about them, and the IR debacle was a non-issue. The crop factor never bothered me. It helped that I picked up a 35/1.4 Lux a couple of years before the M8 came out, figuring it would be a great "normal" if the predicted first digital M had a crop sensor.
Somehow the M9 seemed to be a pretty small incremental upgrade. FF was nice, but not worth the cost to me, so I never bit.
The new M seems like a worthwhile upgrade, *IF* the new sensor proves to be what we hope re. general IQ and high-ISO, and if there are no major gotchas that require long trips back to the factory. I agree with Godfrey, the add-ons are just there to make the camera more versatile, and don't affect you if choose not to use them. I must say that the MM is tempting, too. But as it's a B&W-only camera, the price may be too much for my income bracket.
If I get the new M, I'll be happy to use my collection of 50mm lenses as 50s again. If not, I'll live, and continue to use them as 67mm-equivalent lenses on the M8.
OTOH, I must say that the new Olympus OM-D EM-5 checks a lot of boxes for me. With the Panny 20/1.7 and the new Oly 45/1.8, IQ seems comparable to the M8 up to ISO 320/400, and increasingly better at 800-3200. And at a much more palatable price. It's not an RF. But with face detection and maybe an external bright-line viewfinder, could be used very much like an RF. We'll see. And I still have my M6 for B&W film if I ever have time...
Somehow the M9 seemed to be a pretty small incremental upgrade. FF was nice, but not worth the cost to me, so I never bit.
The new M seems like a worthwhile upgrade, *IF* the new sensor proves to be what we hope re. general IQ and high-ISO, and if there are no major gotchas that require long trips back to the factory. I agree with Godfrey, the add-ons are just there to make the camera more versatile, and don't affect you if choose not to use them. I must say that the MM is tempting, too. But as it's a B&W-only camera, the price may be too much for my income bracket.
If I get the new M, I'll be happy to use my collection of 50mm lenses as 50s again. If not, I'll live, and continue to use them as 67mm-equivalent lenses on the M8.
OTOH, I must say that the new Olympus OM-D EM-5 checks a lot of boxes for me. With the Panny 20/1.7 and the new Oly 45/1.8, IQ seems comparable to the M8 up to ISO 320/400, and increasingly better at 800-3200. And at a much more palatable price. It's not an RF. But with face detection and maybe an external bright-line viewfinder, could be used very much like an RF. We'll see. And I still have my M6 for B&W film if I ever have time...