Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There is a school of thought that says an M8 seller will buy a new M9...thus putting money in Leica's pocket.
It is the same reason why BMW have a "certified pre-owned" program and a warranty longer than the model cycle...a trade-in begets a new model purchase...so long as the owner did not also look elsewhere, AND there is a market for the "certified pre-owned" trade-in's.
The problem is: Leica cannot convince the world, and certainly not me that their M8 will be forever young.
At least, Leica can take comforted that there are no RF alternative...yet.
What if Epson makes a simple APS 12Mp (D300) chip replacement version of their 6Mp (D100) R-D1; or Zeiss introduces a ZMd?
sleepyhead
Well-known
I'm with Nick on this issue - I wanted an M9 badly for about a week - but then I realized that the M9 just made me appreciate my film Leicas more.
I have no doubt that the results from the M9 are better than those from color 35mm film, but the newer color films are pretty darn good, certainly good enough for prints up to 11x14.
After that there is always medium format film...
So, no M9 for me - I think the price would have to be about half what it is currently for me to seriously consider buying one.
I have no doubt that the results from the M9 are better than those from color 35mm film, but the newer color films are pretty darn good, certainly good enough for prints up to 11x14.
After that there is always medium format film...
So, no M9 for me - I think the price would have to be about half what it is currently for me to seriously consider buying one.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Thanks.
But for $7000 - 8000 Nikon / Canon gives you the absolute cutting edge of what is currently possible. And if that is too much money you can always buy one of their cheaper models that offers 90% of the performance of the top model for a lot less money.
With the M9 you either cough up the $7000 for the body or you don't play at all.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Those 5000 to 8000 dollar flagship Nikons and Canons are a lot more versatile and a lot less fragile than the M9. They are weather sealed, and they have enough battery life to shoot for days and days without needing a recharge. Also, size and weight aren't really that big of a deal. If I want to go out shooting for the day, I can grab my DSLR and my 35-70 f2.8d macro, and that is it. No extra batteries, no other lenses, no bag. If I carry anything other than the camera and lens, I just carry a backup CF card in my pocket, which weighs next to nothing. With that simple setup, I can do pretty much anything. A comparable M9 kit would require three lenses, a bag to keep the other two lenses in, and an extra battery, and that doesn't even count what would be necessary to do any macro shooting, like a visoflex.
I am sure that the M9 is a lot of fun to shoot, and I might pick one up some time in the next decade when I can get one for about 500 bucks. At this point, it does a lot less for a lot more money than my Nikon though, and if I really get a jones for some leica lenses, I can just pick up some R mount lenses and have them converted to Nikon F mount. I don't think Leica will offer a lower priced digital CL, keep in mind that the CL was their best selling camera when they canceled it back in the seventies. They would rather just hold on to the prestige market, the collector market, and the celebrity market. They have been getting by nearly on prestige alone for decades now, and it has kept them afloat, so why screw with a formula that works for them?
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I hear you and while that works very well with cars (that how I bought my last one) I don't think it's the right model for a digital camera. They are too much like computers. No one will buy a computer that is a few years old, unless they are a collector and with the exception of Macs and some exotics none of the new ones are worth saving.
Exactly, although it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine Leica continuing down this road, even in the face of fierce competition.
I would buy one.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
Sigh. Don't give that old "SLR is more versatile" crap. That's not the point. The point is in five years a D3X will be just as out-of-date and just as, if not more, worthless than an M9.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Yeah, but in five years there will be even more sophisticated Nikons and Canons to replace that D3x at likely lower prices. But there will probably be only a Leica 9.2. Or a Leica M10 for $10,000 dollars.
newsgrunt
Well-known
Perhaps Leica should have looked at better priced M9's as a way to get people to buy the money makers...lenses. I believe this is why we can find low priced dslrs. Give them an affordable body and they'll end up buying more lenses.
Hypothetically, Leica probably could have priced the body around $5000 for example and buyers would most likely have gotten new lenses as well. At least this is how I see one scenario that could have been played out.
Also agree with Harry that producing something more attainable ( how I read tiered) would get people hooked and then follow the usual 'upgrade to better' step.
Lastly, you would definitely have seen a flood of M9's in the hands of photojournalists IF it had been priced a couple of K lower but alas it probably won't be producing very much documentary or photojournalistic work imo. Unfortunate really.
Hypothetically, Leica probably could have priced the body around $5000 for example and buyers would most likely have gotten new lenses as well. At least this is how I see one scenario that could have been played out.
Also agree with Harry that producing something more attainable ( how I read tiered) would get people hooked and then follow the usual 'upgrade to better' step.
Lastly, you would definitely have seen a flood of M9's in the hands of photojournalists IF it had been priced a couple of K lower but alas it probably won't be producing very much documentary or photojournalistic work imo. Unfortunate really.
newspaperguy
Well-known
I had to laugh when Bill said, "It’s a lot nicer than the old days when you shot night time protests on recording pans and souped in Kodak D-11."
I was thinking Dektol at the same time.
(Getting old is not for the faint of heart.)
I was thinking Dektol at the same time.
(Getting old is not for the faint of heart.)
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Just recently my dealer had one of those manufacturer days, where various companies display their wares etc . Leica was present with the M9 and X1. Unfortunately their sales guy took the cake for being one of the more arrogant people I've run in to in a good while.
A few highlights:
Q: Is the camera weathersealed?
A: (insert evasive answer here)
Q: Ok, to be clear. Is it sealed and certified like an S2 or Nikon or Canon?
A: No.
Q: So, you're saying that you built a $7000 digital camera intended for professional use that isn't weathersealed?
A: We haven't had any complaints.
Q: Whom did you ask? Seal?
A: no response
Q: The M9 is very expensive. Will there be a cheaper model?
A: It is as cheap as we could make it.
Q: Fair enough, how about a second APS-H model. A digital CL
A: Leica has no interest in producing such a camera.
Q: But aren't you running the risk that only very wealthy people can afford an M9? What about all of the photojournalists and artists who've shot Leica for years? Two bodies, plus lenses is not feasible for the vast majority of them.
Basically the answer to this question was: Tough sh*t. Our order book are full and that's all we care about.
I also played a little with the X1. I like the size, shape and ergonomics. It's very light.
The LCD stutters and lags like every other on the market, so it's useless for anything but static subjects. With focus pre-set, there seems to be some minute delay after you hit the shutter release. I think Reichmann explained that the shutter is always open for live view and then needs to be stopped down, closed and reopened, when you take the shot. Therefore you feel a tiny lag. It's tiny, but it's there. Using AF (center point) with the OVF works surprisingly well with objects that are reasonably large in frame.
For the most part the menu system is excellent and can be understood without opening the manual. But the scale focusing menu is primitive at best. When I asked the rep about this his answer to any question was: It's a 24mm lens. Basically he was implying that it's large DOF was the answer to any problem you may have. So, as far as Leica is concerned set your focus to 2m and don't worry your pretty little head, no matter what F-stop you are shooting at.
Overall it wasn't a pleasant encounter. The guy who was ahead of me and asked about the X1 and manual focusing didn't look all that thrilled either when he left.
For a company that just a short time ago had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, they have gotten awfully cocky. I hope it was only this guy, but when I left the store I sure wasn't in any mood to give Leica another red cent of my money.
A few highlights:
Q: Is the camera weathersealed?
A: (insert evasive answer here)
Q: Ok, to be clear. Is it sealed and certified like an S2 or Nikon or Canon?
A: No.
Q: So, you're saying that you built a $7000 digital camera intended for professional use that isn't weathersealed?
A: We haven't had any complaints.
Q: Whom did you ask? Seal?
A: no response
Q: The M9 is very expensive. Will there be a cheaper model?
A: It is as cheap as we could make it.
Q: Fair enough, how about a second APS-H model. A digital CL
A: Leica has no interest in producing such a camera.
Q: But aren't you running the risk that only very wealthy people can afford an M9? What about all of the photojournalists and artists who've shot Leica for years? Two bodies, plus lenses is not feasible for the vast majority of them.
Basically the answer to this question was: Tough sh*t. Our order book are full and that's all we care about.
I also played a little with the X1. I like the size, shape and ergonomics. It's very light.
The LCD stutters and lags like every other on the market, so it's useless for anything but static subjects. With focus pre-set, there seems to be some minute delay after you hit the shutter release. I think Reichmann explained that the shutter is always open for live view and then needs to be stopped down, closed and reopened, when you take the shot. Therefore you feel a tiny lag. It's tiny, but it's there. Using AF (center point) with the OVF works surprisingly well with objects that are reasonably large in frame.
For the most part the menu system is excellent and can be understood without opening the manual. But the scale focusing menu is primitive at best. When I asked the rep about this his answer to any question was: It's a 24mm lens. Basically he was implying that it's large DOF was the answer to any problem you may have. So, as far as Leica is concerned set your focus to 2m and don't worry your pretty little head, no matter what F-stop you are shooting at.
Overall it wasn't a pleasant encounter. The guy who was ahead of me and asked about the X1 and manual focusing didn't look all that thrilled either when he left.
For a company that just a short time ago had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, they have gotten awfully cocky. I hope it was only this guy, but when I left the store I sure wasn't in any mood to give Leica another red cent of my money.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
As long as the Asian market will buy anything they make at any price, Leica doesn't have to worry about us po' folks. 
Bill Pierce
Well-known
The digital M's perform very well in bright light with low ISO's. Unfortunately, so do far less expensive cameras that are even smaller, quieter. Even in big prints there is little difference in the quality of some of these cameras and the M's. And one wonders if that difference is noticeable or significant in the kind of photography you do with a small, handheld camera. And the small, less expensive cameras are only going to get better in the years before the "M10" appears.
And, my feeling is that, in making the digital M's cameras that are "bright light" cameras, cameras whose high ISO performance falls off rapidly, they can't compete with some of the DSLR's as "available darkness" cameras. A shame as the rangefinder, bright line finder has real advantages in that area.
When you get to the point that you can't compete with the little tiny cameras and the great big cameras, you're in trouble. You being not only Leica, but us folks who like to use their cameras. And that, to me, is kind of sad.
And, my feeling is that, in making the digital M's cameras that are "bright light" cameras, cameras whose high ISO performance falls off rapidly, they can't compete with some of the DSLR's as "available darkness" cameras. A shame as the rangefinder, bright line finder has real advantages in that area.
When you get to the point that you can't compete with the little tiny cameras and the great big cameras, you're in trouble. You being not only Leica, but us folks who like to use their cameras. And that, to me, is kind of sad.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Bill, you hit the nail on the head. Leica's "solution" to low-light digital photography is for the user to shoot at a very low ISO and buy a large, heavy $6,000-10,000 super-speed lens that delivers microscopic depth of field (if the camera and user are even really capable of focusing it in the first place). The effect is that to most observers, the resulting pictures look mostly out of focus. Not how you would want to showcase a $13,000-17,000 investment, eh?
Dante
Dante
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The M9 will suffice for its intended use, though. Taking snaps of the grandkids. :angel:
Ronald M
Veteran
Leica has become a status symbol for the rich. It was always pricy, but things have gotten out of hand.
Probably the best 35mm camera out there, but a 35mm camera i s worth only so much.
For whatever reason the prices keep going up, Leica`s volumn down, so they raise prices, volumn goes down some more. The answer must be a $30,000 645 digital. That will certainly keep the hoy paloy out of our business. Do you want a lens with that sir?
Perhaps a filter?
So they will sell 100 or 200 or 500 M9 in the first year. 35 S2 cameras. What are they
going to do for act 2.
What good is this thing when they declare backruptcy? Paper weight or door stop because nobody can fix it.
Probably the best 35mm camera out there, but a 35mm camera i s worth only so much.
For whatever reason the prices keep going up, Leica`s volumn down, so they raise prices, volumn goes down some more. The answer must be a $30,000 645 digital. That will certainly keep the hoy paloy out of our business. Do you want a lens with that sir?
Perhaps a filter?
So they will sell 100 or 200 or 500 M9 in the first year. 35 S2 cameras. What are they
going to do for act 2.
What good is this thing when they declare backruptcy? Paper weight or door stop because nobody can fix it.
oscroft
Veteran
Very interesting discussion.
I'm in both the RF and SLR camps, and until recently I've only shot film - Leica and CV RFs, and OM SLRs. I always knew I'd add digital gear to the mix someday - but not until I was convinced I'd get close to Kodachrome quality with lenses that worked at the focal length written on them (it's taken me decades of experience to grok the FOVs of my lenses, and I'm too old to get my head round crop factors now), at a price I could afford.
So earlier this year I got an EOS 5DII (thanks to an unexpected windfall, I could afford to get one a year earlier than I would otherwise have been able to). I've got three lenses now, and by the time I get the other two I think I need to round out the kit (1 zoom, 4 primes), I'll be done, and I'll have spent close to $6,000.
For not much more I could have got an M9, and not needed to buy any new lenses - I already have a decent selection of RF lenses. And I really would like an M9. Really.
But two features of the 5DII have blown me away. The first, as Bill suggests, is its available darkness performance (and I love that term). One of the first places I shot was an outdoor restaurant in Bangkok, handheld, at ISO 6400. With Canon's noise reduction invoked in post-processing, the results are staggeringly good. And that was with an f/4 zoom (I have faster primes), which leads me to feature no 2...
Image stabilisation. My f/4 zoom claims to offer a 3-stop increase in handheld shooting using IS, and in practice I'm happy that is an accurate estimate - those first ISO 6400 shots were taken at the 105mm end of the zoom at 1/20th sec, and occasionally even 1/10th sec.
I'd still love to have and shoot with an M9 (really, I would), but I think it would have to be my second-rank digital camera, with the 5DII taking the top spot, purely because of the difference in high-ISO performance (and even with my small hands, the 5DII with a prime doesn't seem at all too big).
Would I pay $7,000 for my second-rank digital camera? Well, that's a question that I really have no practical need to ponder
Best,
I'm in both the RF and SLR camps, and until recently I've only shot film - Leica and CV RFs, and OM SLRs. I always knew I'd add digital gear to the mix someday - but not until I was convinced I'd get close to Kodachrome quality with lenses that worked at the focal length written on them (it's taken me decades of experience to grok the FOVs of my lenses, and I'm too old to get my head round crop factors now), at a price I could afford.
So earlier this year I got an EOS 5DII (thanks to an unexpected windfall, I could afford to get one a year earlier than I would otherwise have been able to). I've got three lenses now, and by the time I get the other two I think I need to round out the kit (1 zoom, 4 primes), I'll be done, and I'll have spent close to $6,000.
For not much more I could have got an M9, and not needed to buy any new lenses - I already have a decent selection of RF lenses. And I really would like an M9. Really.
But two features of the 5DII have blown me away. The first, as Bill suggests, is its available darkness performance (and I love that term). One of the first places I shot was an outdoor restaurant in Bangkok, handheld, at ISO 6400. With Canon's noise reduction invoked in post-processing, the results are staggeringly good. And that was with an f/4 zoom (I have faster primes), which leads me to feature no 2...
Image stabilisation. My f/4 zoom claims to offer a 3-stop increase in handheld shooting using IS, and in practice I'm happy that is an accurate estimate - those first ISO 6400 shots were taken at the 105mm end of the zoom at 1/20th sec, and occasionally even 1/10th sec.
I'd still love to have and shoot with an M9 (really, I would), but I think it would have to be my second-rank digital camera, with the 5DII taking the top spot, purely because of the difference in high-ISO performance (and even with my small hands, the 5DII with a prime doesn't seem at all too big).
Would I pay $7,000 for my second-rank digital camera? Well, that's a question that I really have no practical need to ponder
Best,
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I think the biggest threat to Leica, is Leica. Snobbery, hubris and arrogance usually becomes ones undoing.
But for the moment while most of their traditional customer base can no longer afford a digital M, they have gained a lot of new customers who have money to burn. The order-books are full and they can't keep up with demand for the M9. Leica seems to be pretty content to sell about 12,000 bodies a year and apparently that is what they are managing to do. So, from where they stand all is well and that probably holds true if you are comfortable with the status quo.
The irony of course is that a large part of the Leica mythology and status comes from the artists and photographers who have used their cameras over the past 80 odd years. And with a few exceptions most of them were not members of the local country club.
HCB has probably inspired more people to plunk down the cash for a Leica than anyone else in history and he's never even appeared in an ad for the company.
Yes, a few wealthy pros will still be able to afford them and quite frankly you only need one or two of them to feature in a shiny brochure or occasional exhibit. But it is a sham. For the most part the future photographic record of Leica will be vacation pictures, found color and shapes, pets, airforce resolution charts and shots of children and holidays.
So, what to do? Yes, you can always buy used, but you will probably always be trailing by one model, because the prices won't come down considerably for used examples of a body that is still in production.
You can hope and pray that Leica comes to their senses an announces a second cheaper model (APS-H). But IMO you can hold out one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first, before that happens.
Or you can just write Leica off. Bill is right. There are a lot of alternatives flooding in to the market at the low end. They may not be as elegant a solution as the M, but they are a viable alternative and are improving at a breakneck pace. I'm not buying an M9 for several reasons and I will probably also skip the X1. But the M43rd cameras, G11/S90, Ricoh GRD III and new GXR are looking mighty tempting.
Being a cult brand can be difficult. Smart companies know to harvest this resource and thrive (harley&Davidson, Apple, Porsche etc). These customers identify with the product on a personal level and develop an unusual level of loyalty. The problem is of course that things can get ugly, if they feel betrayed, because they tend to take it personal. But like I said, the order-books are full and I don't think Leica is losing any sleep about that.
My advice? Use Leica for when they can supply what you need as a photographer and find alternatives for when they fail you.
250swb
Well-known
I think you guys are funny. You missed the best reason of all to buy a Canon or a Nikon DSLR, and that is you can repeat the exercise every 9 months when a new one is released!
Of course you shouldn't factor in the amount of money you lose selling your 'old' body, nor should you consider all the new accessories you need each time the DSLR out evolves its add-ons. And not to forget the fact that zoom lenses are always open to improvement and a new one will go nicely with the new body thank you. No, don't do those sums, they don't fit the theory.
On the other hand, you might suppose an awful lot of Leica M photographers have had their lenses for many years, because they don't really get any better and need improving. And you might also suppose the body gets a good life before being thought of as embarrassingly naff when it hasn't got the latest D** or Mk*** designations.
Now obviously you might want to pick holes in my theory, but its the wider picture I'm looking at, and that is not all photographers are as short term, because without thinking I could throw a blanket across all of you, I'd bet their aren't many with a main DSLR that is more than two years old (or at least in the wider forum population).
I'll admit I like the latest bit of kit myself, but I think it is wrong to suggest all these endless streams of Canon's and Nikon's don't cost much, they do, IF you honestly work it out over a period of time equivalent to the lifespan of a Leica M and its lenses. In comparison to a latest DSLR the M9 will have a Galapagos tortoise like lifespan compared to the Canon or Nikon's mayfly like existence. The reviewer said there may not be any need for an M10, making the M9 a good bet for longevity. And not only that, I'm sure the M8 will still be going strong and make a desirable camera long after the 5d MkII is in the front window of a charity shop, so to speak.
Steve
Of course you shouldn't factor in the amount of money you lose selling your 'old' body, nor should you consider all the new accessories you need each time the DSLR out evolves its add-ons. And not to forget the fact that zoom lenses are always open to improvement and a new one will go nicely with the new body thank you. No, don't do those sums, they don't fit the theory.
On the other hand, you might suppose an awful lot of Leica M photographers have had their lenses for many years, because they don't really get any better and need improving. And you might also suppose the body gets a good life before being thought of as embarrassingly naff when it hasn't got the latest D** or Mk*** designations.
Now obviously you might want to pick holes in my theory, but its the wider picture I'm looking at, and that is not all photographers are as short term, because without thinking I could throw a blanket across all of you, I'd bet their aren't many with a main DSLR that is more than two years old (or at least in the wider forum population).
I'll admit I like the latest bit of kit myself, but I think it is wrong to suggest all these endless streams of Canon's and Nikon's don't cost much, they do, IF you honestly work it out over a period of time equivalent to the lifespan of a Leica M and its lenses. In comparison to a latest DSLR the M9 will have a Galapagos tortoise like lifespan compared to the Canon or Nikon's mayfly like existence. The reviewer said there may not be any need for an M10, making the M9 a good bet for longevity. And not only that, I'm sure the M8 will still be going strong and make a desirable camera long after the 5d MkII is in the front window of a charity shop, so to speak.
Steve
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The 5DMII is light years ahead of an M8 already. It will remain so for as long as the owner keeps it. It will never be worse than the M8. I think your logic is a little odd.
