How soon we forget....
"Dear LEICA M8 customers,
The desire to own a digital camera manufactured by Leica,
possessing the identical lifelong value retention associated with
every Leica product, was brought to us by many of our customers.
Leica Camera AG has now configured the LEICA M8 to meet this
demand. With today's newsletter, we would like to inform you
exclusively and in advance of an outstanding innovation regarding
your cherished LEICA M8.
With the introduction of a perpetual upgrade program, every LEICA
M8 will forever be a state-of-the-art digital camera. Today's and
tomorrow's users will always be able to incorporate the latest
refinements and developments in handling ease and technology. It is
our aim to secure your investment in the LEICA M8 for the future.
While other digital cameras quickly become outdated and are
replaced by newer models, our new concept extends the value
retention and resistance to obsolescence embodied in the Leica
ethos. Over time, we will gradually offer new product features and
developments as upgrade options. Our customers can therefore
still invest in the photographic tools they need without worrying
that they will miss out on improvements and technological developments
along the way."
raid
Dad Photographer
I am pleased that this thread includes many useful comments and opinions on why or why not some people decided not to get a digital Leica M.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I tried Fuji and didn't care for it at all. And I think of all the photos I have taken in the past two years so in just that regard it was worth it to me. My commercial work does pay for it all but either way it was worth it for me.
John Bragg
Well-known
I didn't make a concious decision NOT to buy a digital M body, since I have no interest in such a camera. It was more of a "non decision", since I am more than happy with my M6 and film capture in general.
zuiko85
Veteran
Concerning Fuji and Sony being 'rangefinder like' in size or handling, well I don't know, perhaps......but; My 1965 Olympus Pen F, with no mirror box or prism hump has more the profile of a contemporaneous RF camera but of course is a reflex and behaves as one with TTL viewing. The lenses are small like then current RF lenses lending to the impression.
The only digital camera I know of with optical-mechanical focusing, viewing and composition with interchangeable lenses is Leica. All the rest are live view and AF, quite different.
Now let it be noted however, that with the optional electronic VF the M240 can be configured for viewing more like the Fuji or Sony mirrorless cameras. So, I guess there are some crossover features.
The only digital camera I know of with optical-mechanical focusing, viewing and composition with interchangeable lenses is Leica. All the rest are live view and AF, quite different.
Now let it be noted however, that with the optional electronic VF the M240 can be configured for viewing more like the Fuji or Sony mirrorless cameras. So, I guess there are some crossover features.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
• I used to be very much interested in Leica products. When they shot film. I've had M7s, an R8, R7, CM.... And, a lot of Leica glass, from the vintage through the ASPHs. But, i bought them all because of how the glass worked with film. The "leica glow" was never defined satisfactorily for me, but i do acknowledge that i fell for the vintage tonality, bokeh, and sharpness that Leica lenses bring to the equation. But, with digital, all of that is gone. There just isn't anything in digital imagery that separates Leica files from others, and other cameras make the process of photography significantly more efficient.
• Price. Yeah. Leica prices are stupid. There was a time when i was just buying Leica stuff without even thinking about it. Those days are in the past. But, having gone through all that, i've learned it was all a bit of folly, and even if the current prices didn't seem so ridiculous to me, i wouldn't invest in the leica product line.
• Support. They sorta promised R support. Didn't materialize. They stopped repairing the CM only a few years after i bought it new. When i had to have my M7s fixed, for silly issues, it took forever. When i bought a NEW 50/1.4 ASPH Summilux, out of the box it was a lemon. A dud. It took two trips to Leica repairs for them to acknowledge the problem and do something about it. And, that still took 6 or 7 months. A new lens!
• Image. Leica used to be the company that was the foundation for some of the greatest photographers of the previous century. Now, it's the company that seems to pride itself on serving sheiks. I don't, at all, begrudge luxury companies. I covet Ferraris and Aston Martins, and own Mercedes and Panerai. But, the prospect of buying a Leica these days, with their promotional images featuring white gloves, sorta feels icky. I just don't want to be a part of that club.
• Tech. Leica always seems two steps behind in sensor development and whatever it is that makes a digital camera do what it does. Paying far beyond 'top dollar' for old tech feels stupid. Then, there's the matter of their 'upgrades' model. They'll put an old, obsolete LCD screen on a new camera, just so that they can create an 'updated' model a few months later. Why do you guys accept that?
• The whole reason, for me, to use a Leica/rangefinder was the lenses. But, the images i love most from Leicas are those made by pre-ASPH glass. Improved lenses just haven't resulted in better photography. They certainly will test better, but that's not what photography is. If i look at my huge collection of photography books, not one of the images was shot with an ASPH lens, and certainly none of them were shot with a digital M. A secondary reason for using rangefinders was the matter of mirror impact, and being able to shoot in lower light. Well, now, with digital, clean high ISO imaging is just a given, so the mirrorless factor is negated.
• Price. Yeah. Leica prices are stupid. There was a time when i was just buying Leica stuff without even thinking about it. Those days are in the past. But, having gone through all that, i've learned it was all a bit of folly, and even if the current prices didn't seem so ridiculous to me, i wouldn't invest in the leica product line.
• Support. They sorta promised R support. Didn't materialize. They stopped repairing the CM only a few years after i bought it new. When i had to have my M7s fixed, for silly issues, it took forever. When i bought a NEW 50/1.4 ASPH Summilux, out of the box it was a lemon. A dud. It took two trips to Leica repairs for them to acknowledge the problem and do something about it. And, that still took 6 or 7 months. A new lens!
• Image. Leica used to be the company that was the foundation for some of the greatest photographers of the previous century. Now, it's the company that seems to pride itself on serving sheiks. I don't, at all, begrudge luxury companies. I covet Ferraris and Aston Martins, and own Mercedes and Panerai. But, the prospect of buying a Leica these days, with their promotional images featuring white gloves, sorta feels icky. I just don't want to be a part of that club.
• Tech. Leica always seems two steps behind in sensor development and whatever it is that makes a digital camera do what it does. Paying far beyond 'top dollar' for old tech feels stupid. Then, there's the matter of their 'upgrades' model. They'll put an old, obsolete LCD screen on a new camera, just so that they can create an 'updated' model a few months later. Why do you guys accept that?
• The whole reason, for me, to use a Leica/rangefinder was the lenses. But, the images i love most from Leicas are those made by pre-ASPH glass. Improved lenses just haven't resulted in better photography. They certainly will test better, but that's not what photography is. If i look at my huge collection of photography books, not one of the images was shot with an ASPH lens, and certainly none of them were shot with a digital M. A secondary reason for using rangefinders was the matter of mirror impact, and being able to shoot in lower light. Well, now, with digital, clean high ISO imaging is just a given, so the mirrorless factor is negated.
KM-25
Well-known
I just had to go back and read what your original post, the poll options and the headline was...
Both the poll and the question was why did those who decided not to buy one choose not to, not why they did, right?
People who did buy one could have just passed on the thread then, right?....but they simply can not resist, so we get to hear about how "Once I was lost....but then I saw the light and praise...I was found!"
Shocker, lol!
lukitas
second hand noob
But, I didn't decide not to buy one. I just can't. Not that I don't want to.
So I didn't vote. I might yet decide to sell a kidney, or rob a bank.
cheers
So I didn't vote. I might yet decide to sell a kidney, or rob a bank.
cheers
raid
Dad Photographer
I typed the word "not" in capital.
Still, there is no censoring, so anyone can chime in.
Raid
Still, there is no censoring, so anyone can chime in.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
The meaning is understood; cannot afford to buy .... decide not to buy
Peter Klein
Well-known
This is a *very* interesting thread. In my case, I did buy a digital M, the M8, about 7 months after the release, after the "gotchas" were known. I bought it because I'd been shooting Leica since about 1970. I had the essential lenses and wanted to shoot them digitally. At that time, Leica said that a full-frame digital M was impossible. Silly me, I believed them. I have not upgraded since, because the M9 didn't seem enough of an upgrade to warrant the loss of selling the M8 and buying again. So I'm still using it.
I don't regret my decision to buy an M8. With hindsight, I might have been better off waiting for the M9, where I could use my 50mm lenses as "fifties." Or at least I thought so until the M9 family's sensor delamination issue came to the forefront recently. Now my M8 is looking pretty good. I've gotten many great pictures with it, and I know it well enough to work around its shortcomings most of the time.
One aspect of Leica has not changed since the M3: A Leica M-anything focused by a well-practiced human is probably the best camera to capture fleeting human expressions in ordinary room light or dimmer conditions. There is no EVF lag, no autofocus delay, no evaluative exposure delay, and no mirror blackout. You look directly at what you're photographing, and you see the shot as you take it. Leica lenses render beautifully--both the classic lenses and the modern ASPHs, each in their own way.
The problem with buying a digital Leica is that what we *think* we're getting is not necessarily what we're actually getting. Digital has fundamentally changed some things. What we thought was true isn't necessarily so any longer.
The legacy of film Leicas and their role in the golden age of photojournalism can cloud our judgement. The film M was the ultimate available light camera. The M8 and M9 are not. They are still (technically) better than film, but a noisy shutter and noisy sensor mean that other digital cameras play better in that arena. Which is frustrating, because the other cameras are still less good at capturing "decisive moments."
The M8 and M9 produce stunningly good photos in good light. But we now had to deal with focus shift, which nobody but Noctilux owners had ever had to think about before. The mechanical Ms just worked and worked, could be easily fixed and adjusted by repair people who truly knew what they were doing, and would last a lifetime. The digital Ms, not so much. Considering how much they cost, that "not so much" is a deal-breaker for many. If I didn't have a lifetime of Leica shooting and a bunch of lenses, I wouldn't dream of getting into the system today.
The M240 has finally solved the noisy shutter issue, and both it and the MM have solved the high-ISO issue for most reasonable people. Those cameras interest me, but new prices are stupid-crazy. I had to really stretch to reconcile spending $5,000 on an M8. Today, with "digital rot," it's worth less than half that, and they come out with $7,000 and $8,000 models. My head says, "No [adjective] way." My heart says, "Well, maybe, if prices go down, maybe if I can find a decent deal..." And then the delamination issue surfaces. And I'm reminded that every digital M has had some major issues for which there's little excuse at the price point. I've been lucky so far. If you're one of the unlucky ones, Leica has smaller resources than Japan, Inc. That often means long repair periods when you're without your camera.
The Fuji cameras are not rangefinders. They are modern, "fly-by-computer" autofocus mirrorless digital cameras with some aspects of the RF form factor. They are wonderful general-purpose cameras, their high ISO capabilities leave the M8 and M9 in the dust. But most RF shooters I know who've tried them are not satisfied if they need to shoot the fast and fleeting. Too slow to focus. My "other" camera is on Olympus E-M5. I love it. It's versatile, small and light, great prime lenses, does decent high ISO (way better than the M8, quite usable up to 3200). But I have lost more shots of fleeting expressions than I care to remember, because of EVF lag, shutter lag, or autofocus confusion. Yes, I could pick up one of the Canikons, but I don't like big DSLRs, and "mirror blink" and slap add issues of their own.
Re. B&W film, I feel like it's the Garden of Eden. Nothing else looks like it. It has a beauty all its own. I still shoot my M6 some of the time. But digital was like eating the apple. I can visit, but I can't go back completely.
--Peter
I don't regret my decision to buy an M8. With hindsight, I might have been better off waiting for the M9, where I could use my 50mm lenses as "fifties." Or at least I thought so until the M9 family's sensor delamination issue came to the forefront recently. Now my M8 is looking pretty good. I've gotten many great pictures with it, and I know it well enough to work around its shortcomings most of the time.
One aspect of Leica has not changed since the M3: A Leica M-anything focused by a well-practiced human is probably the best camera to capture fleeting human expressions in ordinary room light or dimmer conditions. There is no EVF lag, no autofocus delay, no evaluative exposure delay, and no mirror blackout. You look directly at what you're photographing, and you see the shot as you take it. Leica lenses render beautifully--both the classic lenses and the modern ASPHs, each in their own way.
The problem with buying a digital Leica is that what we *think* we're getting is not necessarily what we're actually getting. Digital has fundamentally changed some things. What we thought was true isn't necessarily so any longer.
The legacy of film Leicas and their role in the golden age of photojournalism can cloud our judgement. The film M was the ultimate available light camera. The M8 and M9 are not. They are still (technically) better than film, but a noisy shutter and noisy sensor mean that other digital cameras play better in that arena. Which is frustrating, because the other cameras are still less good at capturing "decisive moments."
The M8 and M9 produce stunningly good photos in good light. But we now had to deal with focus shift, which nobody but Noctilux owners had ever had to think about before. The mechanical Ms just worked and worked, could be easily fixed and adjusted by repair people who truly knew what they were doing, and would last a lifetime. The digital Ms, not so much. Considering how much they cost, that "not so much" is a deal-breaker for many. If I didn't have a lifetime of Leica shooting and a bunch of lenses, I wouldn't dream of getting into the system today.
The M240 has finally solved the noisy shutter issue, and both it and the MM have solved the high-ISO issue for most reasonable people. Those cameras interest me, but new prices are stupid-crazy. I had to really stretch to reconcile spending $5,000 on an M8. Today, with "digital rot," it's worth less than half that, and they come out with $7,000 and $8,000 models. My head says, "No [adjective] way." My heart says, "Well, maybe, if prices go down, maybe if I can find a decent deal..." And then the delamination issue surfaces. And I'm reminded that every digital M has had some major issues for which there's little excuse at the price point. I've been lucky so far. If you're one of the unlucky ones, Leica has smaller resources than Japan, Inc. That often means long repair periods when you're without your camera.
The Fuji cameras are not rangefinders. They are modern, "fly-by-computer" autofocus mirrorless digital cameras with some aspects of the RF form factor. They are wonderful general-purpose cameras, their high ISO capabilities leave the M8 and M9 in the dust. But most RF shooters I know who've tried them are not satisfied if they need to shoot the fast and fleeting. Too slow to focus. My "other" camera is on Olympus E-M5. I love it. It's versatile, small and light, great prime lenses, does decent high ISO (way better than the M8, quite usable up to 3200). But I have lost more shots of fleeting expressions than I care to remember, because of EVF lag, shutter lag, or autofocus confusion. Yes, I could pick up one of the Canikons, but I don't like big DSLRs, and "mirror blink" and slap add issues of their own.
Re. B&W film, I feel like it's the Garden of Eden. Nothing else looks like it. It has a beauty all its own. I still shoot my M6 some of the time. But digital was like eating the apple. I can visit, but I can't go back completely.
--Peter
Pioneer
Veteran
Well spoken. Since I do own them I have deleted my post.
raid
Dad Photographer
There is no need to delete any posts.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
I have enough cameras to last longer than myself. Most are older than or as old as myself. Most are in better shape than I. Why add another piece of hardware that lacks the ruggedness of even my average consumer grade body? I have made a resent purchase , a Minolta 303-b, it makes pictures as good as I need. No buyers regret at less than fifty bucks USD, I ask myself will spending thousands on a bit of plastic and wire improve my photographic experience? I think not, for others maybe. Some Pro's may need a specialize tool. Good for you but if only purched as an ego-stroker, good for you if that's what does it for you. Enjoy, it's just not for me.
geetist
Established
Because its digital and doesnt hold its value... simple
Pablito
coco frío
Too expensive and unreliable, and I have lenses form my film days that I could use, so all I would need would be a body or two.
Everyone I know that has one has had trouble with it.
Some of the staffers at the NYT have them, but then they can just turn it in if it breaks.
Everyone I know that has one has had trouble with it.
Some of the staffers at the NYT have them, but then they can just turn it in if it breaks.
Lss
Well-known
I guess this is where personal experience, preference, and style of photography are so important. I have not found a camera that is as efficient for me as my M8. I will gladly buy one that is both cheaper and more efficient. Chances are it would be a Sony, as they seem to come out with a new model every fortnight.
Leica behaves pretty nicely here, I think. What is the Leica example you are thinking of? X1 and X2? (No idea what their screen specs are.)
I do use one brand that is rather notorious in this game, Sony. It is easy to make fun of them, but as a camera owner I really don't have a problem with them churning out a model after a model with generally fairly small improvements (and sometimes some cost-cutting steps back, too), as I buy what seems most suitable at the time of buying. If it works, it works, and continues to work after the next release. And the next. Worried about resale value? Buy the older model instead.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think I've ever bought a camera or anything else for that matter based on that train of thought.
I have a vehicle downstairs that cost me 30k about eight years ago ... currently worth around 5 or 6k with one hundred thousand on the clock. It even got peppered in a hailstorm a week or so ago and now looks more like a golf ball!
benji77
@R.F.F
Personally for me, it is because if the lack of dependability of the digital M's.
For example, short battery life, *corrosion** of the sensor??, does not work well with some lenses, lack of good flash systems.
A Nikon D3 is much more versatile and dependable, the only draw back being its size & weight.
For example, short battery life, *corrosion** of the sensor??, does not work well with some lenses, lack of good flash systems.
A Nikon D3 is much more versatile and dependable, the only draw back being its size & weight.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have yet to read a complaint about battery life on the M240, nor corrosion.