retow
Well-known
About as meaningfull a statement as: On average about 5 posts per day (each and every day!) in a forum say a lot about a poster.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Do high end products do well in recession/depression? Ferrari has a waiting list for its cars and as many have pointed out, well heeled photogs do shoot with Leica. Only time will tell.
Personally I'll pick up a used M8 in black thank you very much.
ST
Personally I'll pick up a used M8 in black thank you very much.
ST
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Well, I fully agree with Roger.
A used Canon 40D sells for around 550 EUR and a new Canon 50D for some 1100 EUR.
Is the 50D twice as good as the 40D?
Cheers,
Uwe
GrahamWelland
Well-known
I'm also in full agreement with Roger's comments and I applaud his efforts to explain them to the mob. It's a bit of a futile exercise because they just won't get it ... unless it's something that matches their own prejudices.
Oh well.
As regards whether an M8.2 is worth the premium price over the M8 ... I thought so but that's just for me. I don't need to convince anyone else of my opinion so YMMV and that's fine for you.
Oh well.
As regards whether an M8.2 is worth the premium price over the M8 ... I thought so but that's just for me. I don't need to convince anyone else of my opinion so YMMV and that's fine for you.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Just to reiterate the main point of this post for those of you who can't separate your own high self-regard from an objective question:
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW VS. SECOND HAND.
The point is this: Is a camera with a few minor handling and cosmetic upgrades worth a large premium over the cost of its predecessor which is still available at a much lower cost? How much lower? Well, to make the difference as stark as possible I took the Used/Mint price point. THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH NEW VS. USED. It has to do with value for money in the digital realm. If you would like to compare a new M8.0 to a new M8.2 and answer that question, equally fair. It just doesn't emphasize the price difference as much.
Note that in the technology world you always get more for less over time. That's a market generalization of Moore's Law. It is true for every main stream digital camera manufacturer that I am aware of - except for Leica. You get some combination of significant technical improvements: higher resolution, lower noise, faster writing speed, better color handling, water sealing, multiple card handling, etc. etc. And YOU PAY LESS, NEW, THAN THE PREVIOUS VERSION COST NEW.
Why is one a Yahoo for asking about the market implications of Leica's violation of Moore's Law? Rather it seems to me that those who don't understand that very basic point are either being deliberately obtuse because they have some other agenda to push (Full disclosure question: Is Roger being paid by Leica to post here?) or they are just your standard Leica bigot who can't bear to hear anyone question the Leica Orthodoxy.
/T
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW VS. SECOND HAND.
The point is this: Is a camera with a few minor handling and cosmetic upgrades worth a large premium over the cost of its predecessor which is still available at a much lower cost? How much lower? Well, to make the difference as stark as possible I took the Used/Mint price point. THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH NEW VS. USED. It has to do with value for money in the digital realm. If you would like to compare a new M8.0 to a new M8.2 and answer that question, equally fair. It just doesn't emphasize the price difference as much.
Note that in the technology world you always get more for less over time. That's a market generalization of Moore's Law. It is true for every main stream digital camera manufacturer that I am aware of - except for Leica. You get some combination of significant technical improvements: higher resolution, lower noise, faster writing speed, better color handling, water sealing, multiple card handling, etc. etc. And YOU PAY LESS, NEW, THAN THE PREVIOUS VERSION COST NEW.
Why is one a Yahoo for asking about the market implications of Leica's violation of Moore's Law? Rather it seems to me that those who don't understand that very basic point are either being deliberately obtuse because they have some other agenda to push (Full disclosure question: Is Roger being paid by Leica to post here?) or they are just your standard Leica bigot who can't bear to hear anyone question the Leica Orthodoxy.
/T
sirius
Well-known
The M8.2 is a mature product. It's what the M8 should have been. If you want the best digital rangefinder out there that mimics working with a film Leica, then it's the best camera---plain and simple.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Oh, no?:angel:
May I cite your opening post, please?:
Used, excellent condition M8s can now be had for around $3,500 or less. Given the fact that the M8 and M8.2 have exactly the same picture making HW and SW, is the M8.2 worth almost 2x its predecessor? What say you?
/T
Now, you were not even referring to "mint" in your opening post.
Ok, lets compare prices here in Germany:
M8, brand new was 4495 EUR
M8.2, brand new @ 4995 EUR
That's an 11% price increase.
Now, let's compare Canon:
EOS 40D, currently available new @ 629 EUR
EOS 50D, cheapest internet price in Germany @ 1061 EUR.
That's a 68% price increase for a camera that is not even better than the previous model:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp
Now, what punishment would you suggest for Canon breaking Moore's Law, too?
Or, maybe all these economic laws are just plain bs which brought world economy into the state it now is? :bang:
Again, what's the punishment for violating Moore's Law?
You consider yourself the Numbers Guru - well, from what you present here, I wouldn't even let you check my shopping receipt - sorry!
Cheers,
Uwe
Fred Burton
Well-known
"The M8.2 is a mature product. It's what the M8 should have been. If you want the best digital rangefinder out there that mimics working with a film Leica, then it's the best camera---plain and simple."
Well, yeah; but, it's the ONLY camera!
Well, yeah; but, it's the ONLY camera!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Whichever way you wiggle, you were comparing a brand new camera to an used one. Apples to oranges. Invective won't change that.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Uwe,
Try comparing the prices when they were new. Not the current prices. I only have a memory for the cameras I have bought. Nikon D200 (body only), new price from B&H when first introduced, $1,800 (perhaps $1,900). Nikon D300 (body only), B&H price, today: $1,512.95. QED: Moore's Law at work.
BTW, I see you are paying too much for Ketchup at your local grocery. I would recommend shopping for it elsewhere.
/T
Try comparing the prices when they were new. Not the current prices. I only have a memory for the cameras I have bought. Nikon D200 (body only), new price from B&H when first introduced, $1,800 (perhaps $1,900). Nikon D300 (body only), B&H price, today: $1,512.95. QED: Moore's Law at work.
BTW, I see you are paying too much for Ketchup at your local grocery. I would recommend shopping for it elsewhere.
/T
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Actually, you are trying to revise your strategy again...
You didn't even compare prices "when first introduced", but compared used vs. new and drew your conclusions. And now you are trying to convince me to revise my comparison to come to your conclusions.
What do your customers say to such practices - or don't they even notice?
Well, I am not too keen on ketchup, anyway. And our daughter does not like that expensive, sweet Heinz stuff - she prefers the El Cheapo own brand stuff from our local Aldi - and that's the cheapest one 20 miles around!BTW, I see you are paying too much for Ketchup at your local grocery. I would recommend shopping for it elsewhere.
/T
Cheers,
Uwe
Tuolumne
Veteran
As I've said before...I'm not here to score points in a debate. I want to explore interesting questions. If I was unclear before, I apologize. Consider my question restated thusly:
What are the implications for Leica as a company for violating the marketing equivalent of Moore's Law: "In general, technology products get much better and cheaper with each new generation." (I'm sure you can find exceptions to this rule, since it is a combination of both technology and marketing strategy, but in general it holds for computers and digital cameras alike.)
Previous discussions on this forum have questioned whether Leica could keep up the innovation pace of digital technology, could invest sufficiently to do so, would obsolete their old product too quickly for their tradition of durable, quality products, etc. etc.
With the introduction of the M8.2 it is clear that Leica is taking a very different direction, perhaps due to technological problems that can't be solved yet (or ever), perhaps due to limited R&D budget, etc. They are not going to keep innovating; they will not obsolete previous generations of products. The M8.2 is an M8.0 with a few cosmetic tweaks and perhaps a bow to the luxury jewelry market with its "diamond" glass back.
So, what are the implications of this for Leica Camera? What are the implications of this for you as a Leica digital camera user or aspiring RF digital camera user?
Seems like an important question to me.
/T
Last edited:
shenkerian
Established
Tuolumne
Veteran
Tuolumne
Veteran
Actually, you are trying to revise your strategy again...
You didn't even compare prices "when first introduced", but compared used vs. new and drew your conclusions. And now you are trying to convince me to revise my comparison to come to your conclusions.
What do your customers say to such practices - or don't they even notice?
Well, I am not too keen on ketchup, anyway. And our daughter does not like that expensive, sweet Heinz stuff - she prefers the El Cheapo own brand stuff from our local Aldi - and that's the cheapest one 20 miles around!
Cheers,
Uwe
Ok, you are right. I am wrong.
Now, can we get on with the discussion?
/T
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Your point may hold true for mass-produced items, using even more mass-produced chips etc. For a camera like the M8, virtually handbuilt and in small series (=high impact of R&D costs), it is not necessarily valid. I would presume that rather the opposite would be the case - which in actual fact it turns out to be.
Btw, the glass may seem jewelry to you - for me, who has a hefty scratch on the LCD, and my brother, who destroyed the coating on it by an LCD protective foil, it seems to be rather appropriate..
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
Jappv,
Such hand production and its associated costs are the kiss of death. You will never get six-sigma quality ore a reasonable price from an electronic device that way. Leica has dug its own grave if that's what's required, and no, I get no joy from that as a Leica user.
As for scratched LCD screens. Yes, they are a problem. I have a scratch on my R-D1 screen that I wish weren't there. Here's the $40 fix:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...027&at=Brand_Giottos&basicSubmit=Submit+Query
I use one on my G9 and am delighted with it. I get the "diamond" protection for a Zirconium price.
/T
boy_lah
Discovering RF
my 5cents worth: I bit the bullet and bought my mate's 'used' very good condition m8. i used the unit for 2 months and really enjoyed having a d-rf in addition to my m7. They're good/useful for different photos/mood.
I have not been able to try the m8.2 but regardless I can't justify one new. So the decision was an easy one for me. Moreover, I value a quieter shutter and more accurate VF. Those are upgrades i will 'treat' myself too when the exchange rate is better / next year when i've had more use out of the m8.
Still a lot of money for me so a used m8 is still more fun than no m8.2 that i can't afford. ; )
I have not been able to try the m8.2 but regardless I can't justify one new. So the decision was an easy one for me. Moreover, I value a quieter shutter and more accurate VF. Those are upgrades i will 'treat' myself too when the exchange rate is better / next year when i've had more use out of the m8.
Still a lot of money for me so a used m8 is still more fun than no m8.2 that i can't afford. ; )
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Jappv,
Such hand production and its associated costs are the kiss of death. You will never get six-sigma quality ore a reasonable price from an electronic device that way. Leica has dug its own grave if that's what's required, and no, I get no joy from that as a Leica user.
As for scratched LCD screens. Yes, they are a problem. I have a scratch on my R-D1 screen that I wish weren't there. Here's the $40 fix:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...027&at=Brand_Giottos&basicSubmit=Submit+Query
I use one on my G9 and am delighted with it. I get the "diamond" protection for a Zirconium price.
/T
Hmmm... With Leica hand-built is their raison-d'etre. It would influence my decisions to buy rather negatively if it came from a robot-driven mass machine. I have a suspicion that the majority of Leica buyers feel that way. Furthermore I think the relationship between price and sales is not very pronounced with this type of product. Even if you would believe that a higher price would reduce sales significantly, ask yourself: "would a 25% lower price attract many more buyers?" I would think not.
Btw, what is the difference between a "professional screen protector"and a non-professional one?
Tuolumne
Veteran
Can we agree that products that are mass-produced according to the best six-sigma processes are far superior in production quality, longevity, and reliability than any custom-built hand product? This fascination with hand-made Leica products is a fetish that gives rise to all of the reliability and warranty problems we read about. Japanese manufacturers make many millions of camera with few problems. Who wants a hand-assembled electronic product? It's just a prescription for disaster. Notwithstanding which, I understand how it can still be perceived as a (false) differentiator of quality.
As far as price goes, I would definitely consider an M8.2 at the original M8 price (what was that, $4595?), never at its current price, and I am far from rich.
I think the "Professional" protectors are the ones with multi-coated Schott glass. The others are of a lesser material without coatings.
/T
As far as price goes, I would definitely consider an M8.2 at the original M8 price (what was that, $4595?), never at its current price, and I am far from rich.
I think the "Professional" protectors are the ones with multi-coated Schott glass. The others are of a lesser material without coatings.
/T
Last edited: