DanskDynamit
Well-known
mich rassena
Well-known
I'm not a professional and make virtually nothing from photography, so I'm still a little regretful I paid so much for a new D600. I can't imagine I'd feel any better about a Leica which will depreciate as quickly. Since cameras are like computers, and full of silicon, it's only a matter of waiting a few generations for the new hardware to eclipse the old. Why spend $5K now, when you can spend $1K every two years and end up in 10 years with a much better camera than $5K would buy you today. I'd rather that than end up with a 10 year old formerly $5K camera, which is now nearly worthless.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I did buy Leica digital. I have had one M8, used. One M9 new and another used. I can tell you why I probably won't buy another and why I am considering selling the one I have. I'm just sick and tired of dust spots. I don't see that they put sensor cleaning in the M (240) and until they do, I'm probably done with Leica digital.
Mephiloco
Well-known
It's a few things for me.
1) Digital M's are overpriced in my opinion and the depreciation is substantial, whereas even now very little of my gear has sold for a loss, even after having used it for years. I'd rather put that money into a lens than a body, period. The separation between Leica and other manufacturers as far as quality and performance is essentially non-existent these days, while the price gap has increased. The digital M system isn't suited for the same tasks the classic M's were; they're luxury items now. I need a workhorse of a camera and unfortunately don't fit into the audience Leica is courting these days.
2) Other digitals perform better for significantly less money. I bought a A7S a couple years ago for $2500 to shoot some footage for a national spot for the Sugarbowl. Luckily the rental on the body for those few days covered over half of the cost, making it a much easier pill to swallow. I rarely make prints and when I do they're 8x10 or 11x14 so 12 MP is more than enough. The low light abilities are astounding (the A7SII is even better) and make fast lenses no longer a necessity (Anyone wanna buy a Canon 50/1.2?) and when I need to shoot video it handles that decently. With a M I'd be paying more than half of what I paid for my A7S while not fulfilling many of my needs.
These are all points that have been beaten into the ground over and over, that being said, I would love to have a Digital M but at it's price point it doesn't make sense for me.
1) Digital M's are overpriced in my opinion and the depreciation is substantial, whereas even now very little of my gear has sold for a loss, even after having used it for years. I'd rather put that money into a lens than a body, period. The separation between Leica and other manufacturers as far as quality and performance is essentially non-existent these days, while the price gap has increased. The digital M system isn't suited for the same tasks the classic M's were; they're luxury items now. I need a workhorse of a camera and unfortunately don't fit into the audience Leica is courting these days.
2) Other digitals perform better for significantly less money. I bought a A7S a couple years ago for $2500 to shoot some footage for a national spot for the Sugarbowl. Luckily the rental on the body for those few days covered over half of the cost, making it a much easier pill to swallow. I rarely make prints and when I do they're 8x10 or 11x14 so 12 MP is more than enough. The low light abilities are astounding (the A7SII is even better) and make fast lenses no longer a necessity (Anyone wanna buy a Canon 50/1.2?) and when I need to shoot video it handles that decently. With a M I'd be paying more than half of what I paid for my A7S while not fulfilling many of my needs.
These are all points that have been beaten into the ground over and over, that being said, I would love to have a Digital M but at it's price point it doesn't make sense for me.
Talus
pan sin sal
How do you define "better"?
I have a 6D and an M9 and I use one camera for one type of shooting and the other for another. On a spec sheet, the 6D does dozens of things the M9 can't do, from wi-fi connectivity to video to usable images in the higher ISO range. The list gotta on and on. So is that a better camera? Because when I pick up the M9 and have to slow down and manually compose, expose and focus, it feels more like challenge and reward. To me it feels more authentic as an artist because I feel like I worked for that shot. It's just different.
That's just one man's opinion. Different strokes for different folks.
papaki
Established
I am not sure if I fit into this now that I no longer shoot digital, but digital Leicas are just way too expensive for what they offer. They may be well built and good looking, but there are others that exceed their digital performance in many ways.
scigeek
Well-known
I like mechanical film cameras. I enjoy using them. Digital is good for work, and when I'm on the kayak, but then the camera is purely a tool. Any enjoyment is from a good shot, rather than actually using the camera.
hth
Well-known
Before I wanted a digital Leica and could not afford it. Well, perhaps I could, but given the short life span, I would not be able to keep updating it, so I never got one.
Now I do not even want one. The digital I do is served well by a Fuji X100, and for the most part I prefer to use film.
Film cameras do not have as many features, settings and things going on and that is a blessing. I especially like using a meterless Leica, it is so simple and gives me the control.
Håkan
Now I do not even want one. The digital I do is served well by a Fuji X100, and for the most part I prefer to use film.
Film cameras do not have as many features, settings and things going on and that is a blessing. I especially like using a meterless Leica, it is so simple and gives me the control.
Håkan
raid
Dad Photographer
The dust spots in the M9 annoy me a lot.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I can't afford one. I'd love to have an M262 and perhaps in a few years I can get whatever the equivalent model is. I'd rather buy used so someone else can take the depreciation hit.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Oh - but there is sensor cleaning provided in the M cameras. It is just that it is manual, like the rest of the concept...
raid
Dad Photographer
I keep it basic; rocket blower and lens cloth most of the time.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I find the Eyelead gel stick very useful as well.
Cyriljay
Leica Like
These are the kind of stuff that encourages all the messy Sensor Corrosion.
E.M
Well-known
I really want one , but too expensive , or better : I cannot afford it right now . A M-262 would be nice ...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is unfounded balderdash.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
a) Analog is more sustainable than digital.
b) My brats tend to dismantle everything, even if it's much sturdier than a piece of digital technology.
b) My brats tend to dismantle everything, even if it's much sturdier than a piece of digital technology.
Mute-on
Well-known
Money. I don't have enough of it to drop $8k+ on a camera.
I could get a nice M2 and 7,000 printed photos for that cost, spread over at least 4 years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I could get a nice M2 and 7,000 printed photos for that cost, spread over at least 4 years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MIkhail
-
Even if I had spare 7K I would find a better way to spend it.
M6 and film + Sony is my answer.
M6 and film + Sony is my answer.