Why Does Leica Not Make AE M Lenses?

So depreciation $2,000 per year, $8 per roll, 250 rolls per year, is ~5 rolls a week. With processing 2-2-1/2 rolls per week pays for the $8,000 digital camera.

($8+$7) * 2.5 rolls * 52 weeks = $1950
Plus all the time saved developing and scanning.
Am I missing something here?

This feels like an argument that was had years ago.

Joe
 
das said:
I obviously get why not it is not possible on film Ms, but why not for digital Ms to add a program mode or (modes), a shutter-speed priority mode, and the ability to set the aperture via the digital menus instead of the lens? Would seem to be relatively easy with a standard electronic connection between the body and the lens to provide the power to stop the lens down as necessary (you could even use a mechanical / electronic hybrid system to accomplish this as well). You could just have an "AE" setting on the lens for these modes. And then you could still use the "AE" lenses on film and older digital bodies but you would have to select the aperture manually, as normal. It has never made much sense to me that Leica builds an expensive mirrorless camera that lacks many of pro features and menu programming that every other mirrorless camera has today.
Click to expand...
WHY WOULD YOU WANT THIS?

You could put a steering wheel on a horse, I'm sure.
 
das said:
-Many avid film photographers already have scanners. And they are not that expensive. Let's say $400 for your Plustek 8200.
-Bulk loading film is easy and can get the price down to $6-7 per roll. Fuji 200/400, which are great all-around films, can be had for around $8 per roll.
-If you are using a lab that charges more than $7 for "develop only," then that is not a good deal. I know that some digital photographers like to find the most expensive labs in the country for these comparisons. Lab scanning is rarely worth it if you can do it yourself.
-Let's say $14 for film + lab processing. Cheaper if you can develop at home.
-So, I can take 20,571 35mm film photographs for $8,000, or 571 rolls of film + processing, or 1000+ rolls of film without processing.
-And then remember that the $8,000 camera depreciates in value rather quickly while any quality film camera (at least for now) may hold close to 100% of its value, or may increase in value a bit. So, if your $8,000 camera is only worth $6,000 two years later, that depreciation alone adds 250 more rolls of film.

Obviously, there is a great economic case for pros for the $8,000 rig. For everyone else, unless you are spraying and praying every day, the case is not that strong.
Click to expand...
Add to that, most "serious" (?) film photographers (in B&W anyways), process and print their own images.
 
  • Like
Reactions: das
retinax said:
Are we seriously having another full blown film vs. digital debate? What is this, 2003?
Click to expand...
Yes, it seemed to go pretty quickly from "why doesn't Leica do what i want" to the dreaded film vs digital.....
 
Deardorff38 said:
well the same can be said of computers & scanners....
Not to fuel the argument (oops discussion) Take the $9k for an M11....that buys a lot of anything (used camera, lens, film, complete darkroom, used car....)
Click to expand...
Sure, but I'd never buy a new Leica Digital to me its just smart not to... Say what you will. At the end of the day its a workflow thing nothing more nothing less... Some people like the Digital flow others Analog flow no right or wrong answer.
 
35photo said:
Sure, but I'd never buy a new Leica Digital to me its just smart not to... Say what you will. At the end of the day its a workflow thing nothing more nothing less... Some people like the Digital flow others Analog flow no right or wrong answer.
Click to expand...
I don't know what's "smart not to". If no one buys new Leica cameras, there won't be any used ones for those who cannot afford new, and eventually there won't be any Leica Camera either. What's smart about that?

I've bought all but one of my digital M cameras new. And when I wanted a different one, for whatever reason, when I sold the one I no longer wanted, I received back 85-90% of what I paid for it. That makes that "$8000" expense something more like $1000 to $1200 spent over three or so years, which is a fairly modest expenditure considering that the last Nikon I bought for $2100 I was only able to get back $900 on nine months later. It did mean I had to tie up a larger amount of money for a longer amount of time for the Leica, but eh? :)

G
 
I don't feel comfortable putting more money into digital Leicas until they make a proven, concerted effort to improve support. Not spending 9 grand on a body only to have it back in Wetzlar for 8 months which happened to my Q... 😟 Leica should have far and away the best service and support in the industry. Instead they are mediocre...it would have taken even longer if not for the continuing extra efforts put forth by my dealer (Popflash.)
 
splitimageview said:
I don't feel comfortable putting more money into digital Leicas until they make a proven, concerted effort to improve support. Not spending 9 grand on a body only to have it back in Wetzlar for 8 months which happened to my Q... 😟 Leica should have far and away the best service and support in the industry. Instead they are mediocre...it would have taken even longer if not for the continuing extra efforts put forth by my dealer (Popflash).
Click to expand...
That's where the dealer makes all the difference. Does your dealer tell you "send it to Leica - and good luck"? or does he tell you "send it to me - and I'll take care of it"?
 
I've been using Leica M's and R's since the mid 90's. For many years I was a professional and I used Leica's, as well as many other makes of cameras. My R's have AE and I find it useful. My M7 has AE or manual. From my M2 through M6 I made many images without automation. Digital requires no thinking, the computer chip does it all. All you need to decide is the image, and you can modify or change it with imaging software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: das
I, for one, enjoy being one of the last holdouts for gelatin / silver / whatever film-based photography. 100 years from now, people will look back on 2000-2030 as being just a transitional period to AI-generated everything. But the select few can sit back, perhaps with Rip Van Winkle beards, harboring about about five cats, in a dusty library somewhere playing phonograph records and listening to AM radio, remembering a time when humans made stuff with physical, tangible properties in the real world.
 
Last edited:
das said:
I, for one, enjoy being one of the last holdouts for gelatin / silver / whatever film-based photography. 100 years from now, people will look back on 2000-2030 as being just a transitional period to AI-generated everything. But the select few can sit back, perhaps with Rip Van Wickle beards, harboring about about five cats, in a dusty library somewhere playing phonograph records and listening to AM radio, remembering a time when humans made stuff with physical, tangible properties in the real world.
Click to expand...
You are not alone..... BTW How many megapixels is that thing? :unsure:

31418789977_e7995d3897_c.jpg
 
Godfrey said:
I don't know what's "smart not to". If no one buys new Leica cameras, there won't be any used ones for those who cannot afford new, and eventually there won't be any Leica Camera either. What's smart about that?

I've bought all but one of my digital M cameras new. And when I wanted a different one, for whatever reason, when I sold the one I no longer wanted, I received back 85-90% of what I paid for it. That makes that "$8000" expense something more like $1000 to $1200 spent over three or so years, which is a fairly modest expenditure considering that the last Nikon I bought for $2100 I was only able to get back $900 on nine months later. It did mean I had to tie up a larger amount of money for a longer amount of time for the Leica, but eh? :)

G
Click to expand...
That's fine, same applies for cars....
 
Godfrey said:
I don't know what's "smart not to". If no one buys new Leica cameras, there won't be any used ones for those who cannot afford new, and eventually there won't be any Leica Camera either. What's smart about that?

I've bought all but one of my digital M cameras new. And when I wanted a different one, for whatever reason, when I sold the one I no longer wanted, I received back 85-90% of what I paid for it. That makes that "$8000" expense something more like $1000 to $1200 spent over three or so years, which is a fairly modest expenditure considering that the last Nikon I bought for $2100 I was only able to get back $900 on nine months later. It did mean I had to tie up a larger amount of money for a longer amount of time for the Leica, but eh? :)

G
Click to expand...
That explanation may work on your wife ;).....but each time you upgraded from M8, to M9 to M10 to M11..... you lost the $1k-$1.2k & bought into a more expensive camera. As an example
M8 - 2006 - $5,995
M9 - 2009 - $7000
M10-2017- $6500
M-11- 2022- $9000
....& how about that sensor corrosion...
& did you just take the money out of your bank acct or finance?....so add financing fee or loss of interest on the purchase amount....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deardorff38 said:
That explanation may work on your wife ;).....but each time you upgraded from M8, to M9 to M10 to M11..... you lost the $1k-$1.2k & bought into a more expensive camera. As an example
M8 - 2006 - $5,995
M9 - 2009 - $7000
M10-2017- $6500
M-11- 2022- $9000
....& how about that sensor corrosion...
& did you just take the money out of your bank acct or finance?....so add financing fee or loss of interest on the purchase amount....
Click to expand...

I don't have a wife ... I'm gay, and my partner and I keep separate financial accounts. He doesn't give a darn what I spend my money on.

I pay cash for everything. If I don't have the cash, I don't buy. I haven't paid for anything with financing in thirty years or more.

I spent a grand or two every time I've changed cameras, but I made 10-20x that in photo license sales with each camera I've owned. I think that's a pretty good return on my expediture.

Discounting the film Ms, I've had Leica M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, M10 Monochrom*, and M10-R*. * == "I have at present." Of course, I've had other cameras as well, both Leica and others, in parallel with the Ms.

My M9 was diagnosed with sensor corrosion, and Leica offered the full market value of the camera as trade in on the M-P 240. I'd been using the M9 for two-three years by then, and made a good bit of money with it; much more than the difference to buy the M-P 240. No problem for me at all.

I'm not buying as much now since I'm retired, and I'm no longer actively promoting licensing and picture sales. I use everything I buy quite a lot, regardless, for my personal satisfaction.

Oh yes: I don't know what others' experience with Leica service has been, but they've never had one of my cameras or lenses for more than four weeks. And they've always fixed anything I thought was a problem correctly. Very few of my Leica cameras (not just the Ms) have ever needed much service anyway. Just lucky I guess. ;)

I've never stopped shooting with film either. I have four times as many film cameras as I have digital cameras... And I like using them. There's nothing particularly special or amazing about shooting with film as opposed to working with digital capture ... I've been doing film work for 60 years, and digital work for about 40.

What is special and amazing are great photographs, however you make them. (BTW: An AI generated image is NOT a photograph.)

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom