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

I don't print very large, but the reason more megapixels would be beneficial to me (in theory) would be the ability to crop and not lose detail. In theory, with enough megapixels and a lens with sufficient resolution you could eliminate the need for say, a 50mm lens and just shoot with a 35mm and crop and still have a file with enough detail to print at 12x18, and so forth.

To be fair, though, I shoot 35mm film and then usually scan at 2200 dpi (for file size) and then export as 1000xY for web use.

On the point of other features, High ISO is key for me since I shoot in low light routinely, with f1.5 and f1.7 being my fastest lenses. Higher, noiseless ISO makes slower, cheaper lenses more attractive. Imagine being able to use your CV 35/2.5 in situations you would normally need the 35/1.2, and being able to produce the same quality images as you could with the 35/1.2 on an M8? It's not unthinkable considering ISO 100 on the older Canon Mk1's (the then top of the line full frame dslr) is comparable to ISO 800 and upwards on current dslrs.

But, realistically speaking, Leica will never implement features like this, they'll just continue to make marginally better bodies knowing the devoted userbase will always want something to use their M mount lenses with. Now that they've made the FF jump I just wonder what they'll throw in to make the M10 attractive.





Jason808 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Give us some exchange rate love!

Give us some exchange rate love!

jsrockit said:
Supply hasn't even caught up with demand for the M9 yet...
Click to expand...

I'm happy that Leica is doing well, and the M9 has such high demand at $7,000. Good business strategy to keep prices up until demand starts being satisfied.

But, the Euro has lost 20% against the dollar, so why shouldn't the M9 price drop to $5,600? And, why can't I get the 35mm summilux at $4,000 instead of $5,000?

As I said, high volume amortizes R&D, and high volume results in cheaper Kodak sensors. So, Leica should have room to discount due to exchange rate and production improvements.
 
Last edited:
What price fall...?

What price fall...?

I find no indications of the prices of 2.hand M8 has fallen anything at all since M9 was launched. Of my two cameras, M8 and Canon 1Ds III, it is the M8 that has the value kept up, relatively speaking, to what I can see. That the price/value of my M8 will fall to the 2,000 $ level can be expected, - some time. But it has not happened yet. A typical price here in Norway is 15 - 18.000 (NOK 2,400 - 2,800 $), a level which has been stable sine the M9 launch.

Both M8s and M9s are in great demand here in Norway, among a tiny flock of Leica - or RF enthusiasts. If you want to do digital rangefinder photography, M8, M9 and RD-1 is the only alternatives around. Even at 3,000 $ for a M8, it is a great purchase. One M9 is for sale here in Norway right now; for 53.000 NOK (8,200 $) - which equals the net price ex VAT that most Norwegians can buy this camera in countries like USA, Abu Dhabi etc. or as a professional photographer with possibility of deducting the VAT. In other words; a stiff price.
 
Surely this is a good thing? Cheap Leica digital cameras? As for sensor technology not getting better, of course it will, it always does, year in year out.
 
Mephiloco said:
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).
Click to expand...
Both valve and transistor are analog devices.

Also no, it is much, much easier to achieve longevity with a mechanical device.
 
People who reckon that a Leica will depreciate at the same rate as a substantially fungible low-price snapshot camera have not studied either the market or economics very closely. Or psychology, for that matter.

Of course there will be sensor improvements, especially with higher ISOs, but the point that the M9 is now all that most people want as compared with the M8 (most notably full frame, but also no IR filter, fewer lines from light sources, etc.) argues quite strongly that most further improvements will be either incremental, or irrelevant to many buyers, or no doubt in many cases both.

Cheers,

R.
 
kzphoto said:
I'm surprised Leica hasn't offered an M9 upgrade service for the M8 cameras. Drop in a new sensor, electronics, framelines and you'd be good to go. Would be cheaper than buying an M9 and increase the value on the used M8 bodies.
Click to expand...

Could you image Leica actually doing that in anything less than 3-6 months? Their repairs take long enough, so upgrades would bombard them. But I agree it would be a great idea in principal
 
Maybe this will make you guys buying used M8's for $2000 feel a little more secure:

I bought my M8 new, when the price was "only" $4795. That was 3 years ago this month. In Feb of '09 I paid another $1700 for shutter-frame-LCD upgrade, with the assurance from Leica's official word that a FF M9 was not on the horizon due to technical problems for which solutions did not yet exist. So altogether $6495 spent. My camera is now worth $2495 (and that's making the generous assumption someone would give me an added $500 on account of the upgrade). So $4000 depreciation in 3 years.

If you buy a used M8 now for $2000, and in 3 years it's worth only $200 (unlikely, but let's say it's that bad), you've suffered depreciation of $1800 and it won't go down further. On top of the $4000 I've already lost, I'll lose that $1800 as well until the camera reaches a terminal salvage value.

My total losses: $5800
Your total losses: $1800

Feel better now? 😱

(Guess who won't be buying an M9 new 😉)
 
jaapv said:
Huh?😕Turnaround on M9 repairs is five days, the M8 upgrade service was 12 days from door to door...
Click to expand...

Yes, but upgrading an M8/M8.2 would almost certanly be quite a bit harder, the more so as the bodies aren't actually identical (look at the 'step' and frame counter). So you'd need new works, a new top plate, umm... Yeah, there's a $7000 upgrade. It's called 'buying an M9', though you can offset it to some extent by selling the M8.

I know you know this, but apparently some haven't worked out that it costs MORE to use skilled labour to take an old camera apart and replace 50-75% of the components, includng the most expensive single part (the sensor), and then to guarantee the whole thing as if it were a new camera, than it does to build a new camera from new parts.

Cheers,

R.
 
varjag said:
Both valve and transistor are analog devices.

Also no, it is much, much easier to achieve longevity with a mechanical device.
Click to expand...

I might argue that the Tube is more reliable than the transistor. If the transistor goes, much harder to replace. I took apart a 1943 Triumph 241 "Oscillograph". Cleaned all the contacts, found some replacement knobs, got it working. Goes to 10 Kilocycles. Not fast enough to work on the Wang 360K. Looks great in the lab. Makes O-Scope patterns like the "Outer Limits". Digital O-scopes are "boring".
 
PKR said:
The cost of film is determined by the price of silver. Look at the value of silver since 06. In the old daze kodak would keep film costs down as it was a vehicle for selling printing paper. I'm thinking large scale here 500 ft rolls. Many labs would by a $m of paper in a year. With digital photography, few prints are silver based. The whole model went down. So, this also contributes to the increased cost. When I was a student, I bulk loaded my B+W film. I guess if you go through a lot of film and cost is a big factor, that may be (become) an option. p.

I checked Kitco: Silver was $11.08 in 7-06 This month the high (so far) was $ 18.54 but generally abt 17.85. Film is made with silver QED
Click to expand...

Film prices in Japan haven't changed even one iota in that same time period so I don't think it is the cost of silver. The yen to dollar disparity has almost never been greater which has to be part of it for sure, but still the prices are insane. A 5 pack of 120 Provia 400X was under $20 last year and is now over $40. Why is this? I think it has to do with the still shrinking number of film shooters.
 
Avotius said:
I wish M8's were that cheap here in China! Every time I save up enough money to get one in the states I end up having to use it for some other crap. Here in China the Chinese have no concept of second hand value so things like cameras...lenses....cars....second hand are only about 10-15% cheaper than new, sometimes less.....

I found a user M8 in working order, 10000 clicks, but with some pretty good wear on it once with a private party, he would not go a cent under 4200 dollars for it which is BS because new they were only a little more.

Heck I even looked into an RD1 a few times, but used they stay around the 19000 yuan mark which is 2800 dollars for decent shape ones.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that a country as oppressed as China had been for the last 50 years has a problem grasping some free market concepts. In other areas the Chinese are showing the rest of the world what the free market is.
 
kzphoto said:
I'm surprised Leica hasn't offered an M9 upgrade service for the M8 cameras. Drop in a new sensor, electronics, framelines and you'd be good to go. Would be cheaper than buying an M9 and increase the value on the used M8 bodies.
Click to expand...


Perhaps after M9 demand is less than supply production capabilities. I doubt Leica could offer this service since they are unable to keep up with M9 demand.
 
Roger Hicks said:
People who reckon that a Leica will depreciate at the same rate as a substantially fungible low-price snapshot camera have not studied either the market or economics very closely. Or psychology, for that matter.

Of course there will be sensor improvements, especially with higher ISOs, but the point that the M9 is now all that most people want as compared with the M8 (most notably full frame, but also no IR filter, fewer lines from light sources, etc.) argues quite strongly that most further improvements will be either incremental, or irrelevant to many buyers, or no doubt in many cases both.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Are you suggesting these digital Ms will depreciate slower than the pro model Nikons and Canons? Those companies continue to churn out replacement models every couple of years - whether they really need them or not. And I don't see any reason Leica won't do the same thing.
The M9 may be a great a camera. But there is - as far as I know - no evidence suggesting any digital camera model can last more than two to three years before its manufacturer has to replace it with a new model.

That would be a recipe for disaster. Of course, as much as I love Leica, it's very difficult to defend the company as a model of sound fiscal strategy. So who knows. Maybe they'll try to eek 5-6 years out of the M9.
 
Avotius said:
I wish M8's were that cheap here in China! Every time I save up enough money to get one in the states I end up having to use it for some other crap. Here in China the Chinese have no concept of second hand value so things like cameras...lenses....cars....second hand are only about 10-15% cheaper than new, sometimes less.....

I found a user M8 in working order, 10000 clicks, but with some pretty good wear on it once with a private party, he would not go a cent under 4200 dollars for it which is BS because new they were only a little more.

Heck I even looked into an RD1 a few times, but used they stay around the 19000 yuan mark which is 2800 dollars for decent shape ones.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the Chinese that have this problem. In the same camera store where they sold a M8 for about $1500 a few months ago, they currently have a couple used Voigtlander lenses for a dollar more than you can buy them new! Yet they have another Voigtlander for what looks to be a reasonable price.

It is common to see people trying to sell their used Nikon gear for as much or more than you can buy the same item new. I've also seen some pretty amazingly high prices asked for fairly old P&S cameras.
 
tbarker13 said:
Hmmm. Are you suggesting these digital Ms will depreciate slower than the pro model Nikons and Canons? Those companies continue to churn out replacement models every couple of years - whether they really need them or not. And I don't see any reason Leica won't do the same thing.
The M9 may be a great a camera.
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to suggest just that. Here is why. I shoot Nikon, have for nearly 25 years now. When I decided to move to digital, I didn't spend $7k on a body, I spent about $600. My second Nikon DSLR was more like $1700, but that was because I wanted a much higher end model. I've pretty much retired my Nikon film bodies in favor of the used M6 TTL I purchased recently, and I'm starting to build up a collection of lenses (I just purchased my second lens, and am already thinking about getting a 3rd as soon as I can).

I'd like to add a digital Leica body to my collection, but a quick search tells me that would cost me between $2-7,000, depending on if I go with a used M8/8.2 or a new M9. A M8 or M8.2 doesn't buy me much, I already own a Nikon D300, and Canon G11. A FF digital Leica on the other hand would be a definite plus.

Here is another thing to ponder, take a look at a used digital back for a Hasselblad. The oldest ones you can find. I've seen 6MP backs priced at $600, and thought that was very reasonable.

I think that the M9 being a full frame body will hold its value better than the M8 and M8.2. Not only is it full frame, but it can easily use lenses that aren't 6-bit coded, and it doesn't need the UV filters. If I get a digital Leica, I want my 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens! Lets face it, even at $7-9,000 Leica can't meet the demand for the M9, that is among the people who can afford to spend that much! Just wait till the used ones start showing up, it will be interesting to see just how much of their value they retain. There is no Nikon D700 equivalent Leica, that role will eventually be filled by used M9's. Till that time, I'll keep shooting film.
 
healyzh said:
I think that the M9 being a full frame body will hold its value better than the M8 and M8.2. Not only is it full frame, but it can easily use lenses that aren't 6-bit coded, and it doesn't need the UV filters. If I get a digital Leica, I want my 50mm lens to be a 50mm lens! Lets face it, even at $7-9,000 Leica can't meet the demand for the M9, that is among the people who can afford to spend that much! Just wait till the used ones start showing up, it will be interesting to see just how much of their value they retain. There is no Nikon D700 equivalent Leica, that role will eventually be filled by used M9's. Till that time, I'll keep shooting film.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about whether the M9 can hold its value against the M8. I just don't think there is any way it can hold its value against the M10 and M11. I just see no reason to believe that Leica can alter what seems to be a pretty clear path of depreciation for all digital cameras.

And I don't know that it really means anything that Leica can't keep up with the demand for the M9 - unless we know exactly what the demand is and exactly how many cameras the company is producing each month. Maybe the demand is terrific. Or maybe the company's limited production capacity is costing it valuable sales opportunities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom