Sub-$2000 M8's, what's next?

SUB $2000 M8's GREAT NEWS!!!!!!

SUB $2000 M8's GREAT NEWS!!!!!!

I bought an M8 in 07 for $4,700 USD. It has worked flawlessly for me. I now need a backup, and do not want to spend 7K on the M9 which I feel is not worth 5K in improvements over a used M8 (larger sensor, yes, better ISO, but not significantly over the M8.

So under 2K for a used M8 is great news for me, as it will be for other shooters, especially students! By the way, I print my M8 files 17" x 22" on my Epson 3800 and I could not be happier! The M8 is still a very serious photographic tool, and cheaper too!!!!
 
jaapv said:
Depends a lot on the production span. As long as the camera is current, condition is more important than age. A mint one will sell for a price close to list.
Click to expand...

But let's hope for Leica's sake that the M9 isn't the company's flagship M camera two years from now. We should be well into the M10 by then.
 
Brian Legge said:
The electronic deprecation curve is interesting. Its just supply and demand, just like film gear. As there isn't really any competition in digital rangefinders, either:

Demand for digital rangefinders is down over all.
- Replaced by other types of cameras or other hobbies?
- People not buying camera over all/recession/etc.
Click to expand...

However, in your economic analysis you have to take into account "substitute goods" in your demand assessment. Modern compact DSLRs, EVIL, and 4/3'rds cameras are substitutes for Leica's APSC M8. The latest crop of consumer-level DSLRs are at least on-par with - if not outright leapfrogged, the M8 in image quality at a much lower cost. These new cameras and "classes" of cameras have shrunk in size to the point where they compete with an M8 in this specifications. These "substitute goods" didn't exist when the M8 was introduced (caveat DSLRs did, but they were larger...)

The introduction of much less expensive substitute goods in conjunction with now generations old technology is resulting in tanking values of the M8 to the point that what you will pay for this camera is essentially the value of the red dot only.
 
WOW!!!!

Check this out!😱

Talk about Digital depreciation... some people are really off their rocker! $800 for a Fuji Finepix F30! Nice camera, but I'd take a u4/3 instead.

The only way to escape what others in this thread have called the digital rot seems to be to acquire cult status and spike people's CoolAid.
 
Mister E said:
With M8's dipping below $2000 everywhere I look it's not going to be long when you can grab one for less than the price of an M6. It's a shame that digital rot will make the M9 a nice paperweight in less than 5 years.
Click to expand...

My local camera store recently had a used M8 for slightly more than I paid for the M6 TTL I bought from them later that week. IIRC, they wanted about $1500, it sold almost immediately. If I'd already had an M6 and some lenses, I'd have gone for it, even though I'm more interested in shooting film and eventually a M9 (or whatever replaces it).
 
Let's see...

Digilux2 average about 750 Euro, 1400 new.. ( The identical Panasonic about 400 Euro, though...)

DMR average about 2750 Euro and rising, new about 5000.

There is hope for the M8 yet 😉
 
interesting

interesting

I'm thinking that once an M8 user realizes he's not spending 0.25cents + for developing and scanning a frame, plus a lot of time, they're going to be shooting like an Apache helicopter gunner.

Sure there will be some collectors, or people who just click very selectively, but I think those will be in the < 25% range of owners.

I'll bet most folks with film don't do lens tests and focus bracketing, simply because of film costs and hassles. But once they get a digital M, there's no excuse not do do these tests, and their curiosity about focus shift will drive their need to test ...

stompyq said:
Maybe we should start a poll?😀. I'll wager money that the majority of Leica M8's out there have very low accuations.
Click to expand...
 
The M8 is a fantastic image maker, more capable then mostly all of us here. For under 2000 dollars it is an even better image maker now that is more accessible.
If you own one and keep using it and stop worrying about what it's worth you might just end up a better photographer.
 
jsrockit said:
$1500 M8...was that shop stupid? ;-)
Click to expand...

They had it on consignment, and as far as I can tell the person selling the item sets the price. Sometimes the used stuff they are selling is insanely high priced, sometimes it is very reasonable, sometimes (like this) it is an amazingly good deal. A few months ago I bought two of the current Hasselblad A12 backs that are like new, for less than 40 year old beaters that don't work right, would typically cost!
 
ampguy said:
I'll bet most folks with film don't do lens tests and focus bracketing, simply because of film costs and hassles. But once they get a digital M, there's no excuse not do do these tests, and their curiosity about focus shift will drive their need to test ...
Click to expand...
If this is what an M8 would inspire me to do, I hope I never get one...
 
Face it...

Cameras are no longer an investment vehicle.... Except for Leica (and other collectables), cameras have never been a good investment anyways.

Depreciation (same as cars) is in the mind only.
 
tbarker13 said:
Better not plan to buy one. Because there is no hope of these things retaining value. Just go to someplace like KEH Camera Brokers and look at all the rock-bottom prices on old Nikons and Canons that were once the top of the DSLR game.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

I don't buy cameras as investments, and do you need all the latest? Do you need 25MP if you're only printing 8x10, 11x14?

1. Does it work?
2. Does it do what you want and better than what you have?
3. Can you afford it?
4. If there's a limited lifespan, do you get what you want for that period?

If the answers are yes, buy it.
 
I can't agree with your points. Film Leicas require more maintenance than almost any other respectable film camera. A canon dslr is more reliable than a film leica just as I would assume an M8 is more reliable than a M2 (granted the m2 will be considerably older, but more moving parts == greater chance for problems).

To say something will have a shorter life in terms of reliability simply because it is electronic as opposed to mechanical simply isn't the case anymore. Though a tube radio or amplifier has it's advantages over a transistor based radio/amplifier, no one would ever argue that the analog (tube based) is more reliable than the solid state (transistor).

Your second point is more valid, but considering we're talking about Leica I'd say it's less applicable than it would be to say, Canon or Nikon. A lot of people would love to go from a m8 to an m9, but the cost is incredibly prohibitive. I imagine the same will be true going from M9 to M10. An M8 is still 'affordable' for a hobbyist, but an M9 is completely out of the question for the majority of photographers, especially when you compare other offerings in the same price range. I think the M8 dropping in price will make it sell even more.


ashfaque said:
Unlike film Leicas digital Leicas' price will go down over time mainly for two reasons:
(1) Depreciation - electronics tend to have more problems as the circuitry gets less responsive/more problems.
(2) new system boards, processors and other forms of 'upgrade' will increase the demand of the new model, reduction in the demand of the relatively older models. Consequently, the price of older models (used ones) will go down. This is a common trend for almost all electronics.
Click to expand...
 
I am no expert but I would be surprised if sensor technology will not be better in the future......
Click to expand...

Cheaper, for sure; that's the big one. Maybe technology improvements give us slightly better ISO or noise. But, diffraction and depth of field are physical limits of the optical system, not semi-conductor physics of the sensor.

You don't want more Mpix because you don't want smaller pixels. First, because that compromises ISO, noise, yields or cost, but mainly because 6 micron cells start to hit the diffraction limit above f/8 (or so).

But, my main point is I don't NEED more Mpix than 18 Meg Full Frame (umm if I could afford it!). If I needed a LOT more Mpix, then I'd want medium format.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom