Why did you decide NOT to buy a digital Leica M?

[leicapixie]

intended short life of any digital camera,[/b]
makes it a tough investment.

 

[Cyriljay]

I have voted as too expensive.....
I already have a M6 few lenses and Have a m8 of nearly for 4years.
Some people have bought form M8 to M9 ,M24o and to Mm and still say it is too expensive and hope some other brands will appear to help them .

Me I understand M9 and a MM is a great camera if the prizes goes down I bite the bullet to get one . They are good cameras but very unreliable in so many ways . And they never long last as the M negative cameras. My m6 bought 15years ago as second hand still looking as it was bought yesterday. Work horse camera in sort of. But M digital is never the same . I can't rely on that to go on a holiday. or using on an assignment with out any other body.

More over i have several other Negative camera including a Hasselblad . So i am happy with my negative photography and use the m8 from time to time .

 

[DKimg]

I think it's too expensive for digital gear. Like others say, technology depreciates quickly... Film is fun, and I'm enjoying it while I can

 

[nobbylon]

In reply to your points Dektol Dan,
Your Nikons have held their value? As much in percentage to their similarly aged M digital ? yes
They shoot underwater? I never said they did!
They always are in focus? Yes pretty much!
Perfection guaranteed? where in my post did I claim this?
You can put your zoomy Nikon in your pocket in India? You'll need big pockets to cover the same scope of images and no doubt some lens changes causing even more grief with sensor probs using a Digi M
You've experienced all those Leica failures? No because I realised along with others that it's a time bomb and sold it.
Interestingly I sold that camera for €4500 and I doubt I could get €2500 for it now and yes it had card compatibility issues.
regards j

 

[nobbylon]

I give up
It seems that because I like a debate and because I disagree with some of the fan base I'm labelled as a basher. I'll sit this one out now and come back in 12 months when there's another tale of woe. Good luck in 2015 everyone
regards john

 

[VertovSvilova]

Your Nikons have held their value? As much in percentage to their similarly aged M digital ?

I sold my D3s several weeks ago for $3100.00 (and picked up the D4s.) I used sold listings on eBay to determine fair pricing. M9 bodies are going for the same price as the D3s on average ($2900 min to $3500 max.)

But the D3s cost $4990.00 when new. The M9 cost $6999.00 new. It seems the Nikon cameras do keep their value in respect to their original price (and a D810 is just under $3000 new these days; M240 is $6500.) There doesn't seem to be that wide of a retained value issue with Leica.

 

[nobbylon]

I sold my D3s several weeks ago for $3100.00 (and picked up the D4s.) I used sold listings on eBay to determine fair pricing. M9 bodies are going for the same price as the D3s on average ($2900 min to $3500 max.)

But the D3s cost $4990.00 when new. The M9 cost $6999.00 new. It seems the Nikon cameras do keep their value in respect to their original price (and a D810 is just under $3000 new these days; M240 is $6500.) There doesn't seem to be that wide of a retained value issue with Leica.

Thanks for the numbers. I was too lazy to quote them,
regards john

 

[VertovSvilova]

Thanks for the numbers. I was too lazy to quote them,
regards john

One can do the same for Nikkor lenses (both AI/AIS and D and G lenses) and Leica lenses. Compare prices when new from both Nikon and Leica to the current used prices. e.g., on average a Summilux 35mm FLE drops $1000 from the new price the minute it becomes a used lens ($5000 new to $4000 used.) Look at the price of a new 85mm 1.4 AF-S G lens: $1600.00. Used sales on eBay: from $1350 to $1450.

Maybe Leica used to retain value, but it doesn't seem like it anymore.

 

[oltimer]

I give up
It seems that because I like a debate and because I disagree with some of the fan base I'm labelled as a basher. I'll sit this one out now and come back in 12 months when there's another tale of woe. Good luck in 2015 everyone
regards john

Nobbylon, "you are not a basher" as you lead yourself too think. I enjoy your honest and straight forward comments about using your Nikon's and past use of Leica's. I'm 73 years young and was in the lithography field for many years. I own Leica's; and they are not for so called fast shooting as some so declare. I've never shot my Leica's off a tripod, or maybe I'm missing something? The Nikon F's and the Hassy's I use while doing hunting/fishing resort folders during the '60's to the 1980's did the bill very well. Keep up with your great comments, as they are factual in how you used your cameras, and have given much thought on other ones you used before you commented. Thank you.

 

[Mcary]

intended short life of any digital camera,[/b]
makes it a tough investment.

I've scanned 35mm film and have used plenty of digital cameras that don't have dust removal system and its been my experience that scan film equals a lot more time spent in post removing dust. Now your experience may be different but that been my experience.

 

[NeeZee]

Uhm, I never decided not to get a digital Leica. It's not like everytime there's a new camera on the market I have to decide not to buy it in order not to buy it, I just don't buy it.

 

[Mcary]

One can do the same for Nikkor lenses (both AI/AIS and D and G lenses) and Leica lenses. Compare prices when new from both Nikon and Leica to the current used prices. e.g., on average a Summilux 35mm FLE drops $1000 from the new price the minute it becomes a used lens ($5000 new to $4000 used.) Look at the price of a new 85mm 1.4 AF-S G lens: $1600.00. Used sales on eBay: from $1350 to $1450.

Maybe Leica used to retain value, but it doesn't seem like it anymore.

May not be the only reason that people take a huge hit when buying then turning around and selling new Leica lenses but one the main reasons is a good number of people buying used Leica lenses don't care if the lenses are 6 month old or 6 years old as long as the lenses in good shape that's all that matter.

What about comparing how much of the original cost lens that were sold 10, 20, 40 or more years ago vs how much they're going for today? Wonder if my Summitar 5cm F2 sold for $300 in the 1950s or my Elmarit 28mm F 2.8 sold for $995 in the 1970s.

 

[jsrockit]

I've used a M8 and M9 in the past, but now find that mirrorless suits my photography better. I've learned to like AF, high ISO, and close focus.

 

[raid]

I chose to buy used M8 and M9 cameras. Computers lose resale value quickly, and any digital camera also loses resale value quickly. The Leica lenses I already own. I did not sell any film camera. I really like images from film cameras. My busy work schefule simp,y has not yet allowed me to think a lot about where to develop film and where to have it scanned or which scanner do I buy. I failed twice in a row with buying film scanners. It was bad luck maybe. Just after buying my two digital M cameras, I bought a really nice film camera so that mentally I still had an anchor to film. I got the Hasselblad SWC. It is an old camera, so it won't hurt it to sit there in some camera bag for a while before being used again.i may surprise myself, and I may make my next vacation a "film vacation" so to speak.
I enjoy tremendously the options available to me in photography, while I also enjoy tremendously (again!) my research at the university. Yesterday, it was a day filled with discussions with research collaborators about fertility and edometriosis, followed by discussions on shark attacks and white sharks. Life is good.

Photography keeps me happy.
The M8 is for me a portrait camera. Using a 50mm lens (sharp, small, inexpensive) gives me a tighter fit with the M8. Use a 85mm lens, and it is also perfect for portraits on the M8. The B&W jpg inages lok great from the camera, but I have been using DNG because RFF members told me to do it!

The M9 is a good camera, but I am sometimes worried about repair cost. I will try to enjoy it as long as it works well for me.

 

[Godfrey]

Uhm, I never decided not to get a digital Leica. It's not like everytime there's a new camera on the market I have to decide not to buy it in order not to buy it, I just don't buy it.

Best answer yet.

G

 

[danielsterno]

being the majority of not buying Digital M's is price as in value for the money over time, from many who have M glass from film M's like myself, thus looks like Leica can look at this as a sample for a simple FF digital model, with easy access to ISO dial, white balance(versus menu's)- dynamic range and a lower price point. so we can use our glass….

 

[Godfrey]

being the majority of not buying Digital M's is price as in value for the money over time, from many who have M glass from film M's like myself, thus looks like Leica can look at this as a sample for a simple FF digital model, with easy access to ISO dial, white balance(versus menu's)- dynamic range and a lower price point. so we can use our glass….

You mean, like the M Edition 60, but without the special edition fancy stuff and limited run tariff...? ;-)

G

 

[Duane Pandorf]

I've used a M8 and M9 in the past, but now find that mirrorless suits my photography better. I've learned to like AF, high ISO, and close focus.

I didn't know the M8 and M9 were not mirrorless?

 

[Godfrey]

I didn't know the M8 and M9 were not mirrorless?

Well, they do have mirrors (or prisms, same thing) in the rangefinder mechanism. But I think I understand your barb... ;-)

However, the M typ 240 series models do have mirrorless (electronic TTL viewing) operation capability. None of the M8, M9, MM, or M-E series models do.

G

 

[MCTuomey]

if i'm reading the poll correctly, 83% of respondents cite the expense or preference of another camera as reasons not to buy a digital M.

not surprising at all. the digital M's are niche, luxury products. they are not for everyone, by design and by price.