Money savings plan for the M9?

[amateriat]

I really don't see how a $10,000 Leica rangefinder is a viable product. That is Pro price territory, and not enough pro's use Leica rangefinders any more.

/T

Well, there's the S2, purportedly for a wider market...

The big deal, to me, regarding the M9, is that this can't be so "interim" a platform as the M8 sort of seems to be. One way Leica differentiates itself from the pack has been product longevity. While the digital environment seems to make this idea seem quaint, even in high-end photographic products, it doesn't mean Leica need walk lock-step with everyone else in term of product-churn; in fact, attempting this would all but assure Solms' downfall. A degree of product stability/longevity is the niche Leica needs to maintain. An M9 won't likely have an M6-like production lifespan (more't the pity, but that's life these days), but it sure as Hades can be longer than a couple of years. And you can't hurry development but so much for a product like that.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

There's a reason that economists refer to the US Dollar as a currency that is "Backed by debt". In the past, paper money had intrinsic value because it was backed by something tangible, such as gold. Now, it has value because we have borrowed it from others to buy things and we need to earn more to pay our debts.

Furthermore, it's not just that so many of us go into hock without much of a thought, it's what we go into hock for that makes me shake my head, much of it stuff that doesn't last. We've all heard about people who bought cars that fell apart before they'd even finished making the payments on them. It's the yoke of perpetual debt. Even when you're "done", you're not done. The idea of debt as a temporary state has only come back into vogue under extreme duress.

The personal solution is to get rid of whatever debts are dragging you down, and avoid taking on more if at all possible. If half the country did this, however, our "consumer economy" might look a lot sicker than it does now. (Sigh...remember when we were a producer economy, besides saving a bit more?)

 

[Tuolumne]

Well, there's the S2, purportedly for a wider market...

The big deal, to me, regarding the M9, is that this can't be so "interim" a platform as the M8 sort of seems to be. One way Leica differentiates itself from the pack has been product longevity. While the digital environment seems to make this idea seem quaint, even in high-end photographic products, it doesn't mean Leica need walk lock-step with everyone else in term of product-churn; in fact, attempting this would all but assure Solms' downfall. A degree of product stability/longevity is the niche Leica needs to maintain. An M9 won't likely have an M6-like production lifespan (more't the pity, but that's life these days), but it sure as Hades can be longer than a couple of years. And you can't hurry development but so much for a product like that.


- Barrett

The S2 is a medium format camera: pro size sensor, pro size price. At least pros have demonstrated with their money that they'll buy into that range. If anything, the opposite has been demonstrated for the M8. If it's financially viable, it's not because the pros buy it. So, a $10K M9 is looking for buyers from where? Plus, by the time it comes out (if indeed it does) there will probably be all kinds of m4/3rds bodies that give you most of what you want in a digital rangefinder-like body. Who's left to buy a $10K M9? OTOH, if it were "only" around $3K, that would be another matter altogether.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

10,000 US$ is € 7,120 which fall into line with the expensive glass that Leica is selling today. Sure, this is prices for professionals. To put it mildy. Here in Europe Leica has always been very expensive. This is not new to us. But due to a far stronger US$ and a strong purchasing power, Leicas has been far cheaper to Americans. That has changed.

There is only one Leica lens that costs that much, the new Noctilux. Everything else is a fraction of $10K, which is admittedly still very expensive, but not $10K expensive.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Nobody really knows what an eventual Leica M9 will cost. But I have asked prominent dealers both here in Norway and Cathay Photo, Singapore. It is easy to predict that a M9 will be more expensive than a Canon 1Ds III or Nikon D3x. Due to the much lower over all sales volume. With today's currency relation between the US$ and € they both say that '10,000 US$' is a very likely price.

Leica has confirmed that they are indeed working with a new M-model and that they are facing some tough challanges regarding IR/UV filtering. Among others. Some say that a M9 will be ready later this year. I dont believe that. There is no suitable sensor available yet. Without a good sensor, Leica has no camera. A new M-camera with a larger and better sensor will hardly be available on the shelves before 'early 2012'.

I wish them luck. I want Leica to be around for a long time. But I won't be a customer for it at that price.

/T

 

[eleskin]

Believe me I can swing the price. It is the WIFE that I have to contend with. Yes, I know I am justified, especially since I am in the photo profession, but I like the stress free approach of funneling money here and there so i get what I want with no arguements (I keep telling her my M lenses have gone up in value since I began buying them in 1991, used by the way. Anything she has bought for her profession has gone down in value).

Bills taxes, etc, also factor in here, but I own an M8 and the way I manage my purchases works like clockwork for me (and I stay out of trouble).

 

[eleskin]

I really hope $10,000 is not the price

I really hope $10,000 is not the price

Well, this is just INSANE!!!

It would only make sense if it were a "Camera for Life" where a modular design would allow easy upgrades. even then, it is really high. Lets face it. We all started with the M6 in 1991 or so being $1,800. Now the same thing
is $4000 ish. The M8 is the highest priced M EVER (excluding special editions), and I doubt $10,000 is justified. We are now reaching a point where megapixels are not as big of a deal anymore, and more people are thinking LENSES are more important (AS THEY ALWAYS WERE!!! FILM OR DIGITAL!!!). The problem here are the lenses are the true value and not the camera. I just spent $4,700 on a used Noctilux and understand its value after a few hundred shots, and will NEVER sell it. So the idea of an M being $10,000 is absurd. i am asking myself why does the thing have to be made like an M7 when it is oudated in a few years? Why not build it like the quality of a Pentax 645N (Metal inside with carbon fiber shell). Who cares what it would look like. As long as it is a rangefinder. I do not care about shape (remember the M5, a beautiful camera!!!). By doing this, the cameras become more tools, and obsessions about what the thing looks like or if the paint is wearing off etc,, go away.

I think the next revolution in cameras may be a universal full frame body that can use any lens ever made by a known or unknown yet camera maker (Think Tesla motors vs GM). This would open the market, and would cause photographers to select lenses because of their unique "look". Product loyalty would go. Leica has alot going for it here, and their "Look " is not the same as Canon or nikon, hence their ability to sell not only to old users like me, but many others who never had M lenses.

 

[victoriapio]

There is nothing wrong at all for saving up to buy an M9. If you are not quite there when the M9 is introduced, hopefully you will have enough for a used model as they will become available quickly I think.

I have a feeling the M9 will not be in the $10,000 range, but I also believe Leica may prove me wrong :>)

 

[Olsen]

I think it is evident that an advanced M9 will cost more than a 1Ds III/D3x. - If there will ever be a M9. The current credit crisis slump could spell the death of Leica.

But it could well be that Epson & Cosina (Zeiss?) will launch a simpler and cheaper model with a 1,5 crop sensor with more pixels and better highISO properties at - about 5,000 US$.

 

[Tuolumne]

I think it is evident that an advanced M9 will cost more than a 1Ds III/D3x. - If there will ever be a M9. The current credit crisis slump could spell the death of Leica.

But it could well be that Epson & Cosina (Zeiss?) will launch a simpler and cheaper model with a 1,5 crop sensor with more pixels and better highISO properties at - about 5,000 US$.

That would make the M8 the best deal of all (at used prices).

/T

 

[Olsen]

That would make the M8 the best deal of all (at used prices).

/T

Absolutely.

With the prices I see on 2.hand M8s around, it is the best buy of just any digital rangefinder - or any other camera that can take M-lenses. Both now and in foreseeable future.

3 - 4,000 $ for a 2. hand M8 is a bargain.

 

[eleskin]

I have seen used M8's between $2300 to $3000, a better buy if you will, but
it still lacks better high ISO performance, and having in camera stabilization would help, especially with the slower lenses out there that are fantastic (Voigtlander Super Heliar, etc,,,), although it would be interesting to have stabilization with a NOCTILUX (STABILIZATION ADDS 4 F STOPS IMAGINE THAT WITH THE NOCT).

There are used cameras now that have more features than the M8, so "better Buy" is a better term than "bargain". I only have an M8 because I have M lenses and there is little choice out there. If there were more serious options, both new and used, I would consider them, and used they would be an even better "bargain" than the M8!

 

[jaapv]

Seeing that most M8 users can shoot a 35 mm consistently at 1/8th and more than a few me included have no problem with 1/4, image stabilisation would in the case of four stops move you into the 2 seconds zone. That seems rather doubtful, as with 2 seconds the camera movement would be far out of the capabilities of any stabilisation system.

 

[taxi38]

I have seen used M8's between $2300 to $3000, a better buy if you will, but
it still lacks better high ISO performance, and having in camera stabilization would help, especially with the slower lenses out there that are fantastic (Voigtlander Super Heliar, etc,,,), although it would be interesting to have stabilization with a NOCTILUX (STABILIZATION ADDS 4 F STOPS IMAGINE THAT WITH THE NOCT).

There are used cameras now that have more features than the M8, so "better Buy" is a better term than "bargain". I only have an M8 because I have M lenses and there is little choice out there. If there were more serious options, both new and used, I would consider them, and used they would be an even better "bargain" than the M8!

adds stops but not speed so lots of blurred people photos.

 

[Ray Kilby]

People who have to worry about saving to buy a Leica shouldn't be buying one.

People shouldn't be so idiotic with there foolish comments. If you have to save for one, then you deserve it. And if you don't then you are very lucky that you don't have too. Sory but that infurated me.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Sorry about my foolish comment. Didn't mean to insult anybody. We just aproach things in different ways. My truck has lost the clear coat on the hood and part of one fender, has a few scrapes and minor dents, and runs just fine. I figure that I can get another five years out of it. I paid cash for it. There's a kid down the street with a custom paint job and his set of rims probably cost more than I paid for the truck. To each his own!

 

[Olsen]

If and when a M9 is announced I will sell my M8 and most probably other photo gear also. The rest I have to 'save'.

 

[jack palmer]

People who have to worry about saving to buy a Leica shouldn't be buying one.

Al , isn't this how our parents made most any large purchase? They saved for it. Saving and then making the purchase means you don't have to worry. and if you can't save for it,maybe you weren't meant to have it anyway.

 

[Ben Z]

Al , isn't this how our parents made most any large purchase? They saved for it. Saving and then making the purchase means you don't have to worry. and if you can't save for it,maybe you weren't meant to have it anyway.

I don't know about your parents, where you're from, or when you're talking about, but when I grew up in the midwest USA in the 60's-70's, everyone's parents (who had all been poor kids growing up during the 30's depression) had a mortgage for their house and a loan for their car. And though VISA cards hadn't been popularized yet, every furniture and appliance store offered customers the ability to buy "on time", that is, make monthly payments, and that's how everyone's parents I knew had furniture, washers/dryers, TV's, etc. But the lenders were much pickyer about who and how much they lent, and most people's parents would've rathered pay cash if they could've.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Jack, that's how I used to do it too! But most camera stores would have "house accounts" for regulars and pros, no credit card (or interest). You'd pay your bill in full at month's end, but sometimes you'd go in the store and the owner would greet you with "I just got in a really nice clean Debtagon on a trade. I'll let you have it for $90 including original shade and case!" Then of course you'd owe more than you could pay off in one month. It was just a sneaky way of making sure that you'd keep coming back to his shop, where you'd buy your film, chemicals, and paper when you stopped off to make a payment.

You also knew the last few owners of the lens and/or camera you wanted to buy, and where it had been. The first time I saw my button rewind M2 it was being purchased by a UPI photographer who wanted it for the 1968 Mexico City Winter Olympics. A few years later another photographer I knew bought it to cover the Republican and Democratic conventions (and LOTS of anti-war protesters!) for the Associated Press when both conventions were held at the Miami Beach Convention Center. I bought it from her for $100. It's still working, with just one CLA when I had M4 style flash sockets installed.

Today you call a big out of town dealer using their 800 number, pay with your VISA, and hope for the best!