airfrogusmc
Veteran
One thing for everyone to remember is Leica has never mattered to the masses. In the late 1980s and into the 1990s everyone was turning to auto focus and Leica M didn't go down that road (thank gawd) Leica M has always been more expensive than even the top of the line Canon and Nikons until recently. Now they are about the same. I remember when Ms cost more than twice what the Canon F-1 cost or Nikon F3 they have never been a camera for the masses and hopefully never will be because that would mean making cameras like everyone else makes.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Here's a computer for lifetime use:
(Courtesy US Army archives.)
Good luck keeping those vacuum tubes in stock!
Phil Forrest
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
But after the M2 and it's three lenses what is there to buy? I mean, I've got a Pentax ME Super and an Olympus XA4 Macro.
Actually the rule I have of never spending more than the price of a cup of coffee has got me some marvellous bargains, it's just a matter of being patient.
Regards, David
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Hepcat. I'm glad I got someone to laugh. Still, I'm not sure its funny all that gear is worth so little now. It held value for many years, then suddenly dropped perhaps 4-5 years ago. Honestly, its the *amount* of depreciation that has me bummed. Consider how selling your OM gear helped cover your Leica acquisitions. If I sold all my Nikon SLR, I doubt it would cover the acquisition of just one M9. I don't know how much OM gear you sold, but I have quite a few pro-level bodies and lenses.
I too started down the road of supporting myself through photography, although that was mid 1980s. My hat is off to *anyone* who can make it. Tough gig, and I actually had plenty of work. Diverse work too. I luckily chose another career path sometime in the early 1990's and I think it was the right choice. I continued to do a trickle of "photo work" until the early 2000's but I am a "personal" photographer today. Its best that way. Family and job are my priorities.
My Nikon SLR were always viewed as tools, and weren't necessarily consumer grade. The F2, F3 were the pro-level offerings at the time I got them. Not sure about the FE2 (that I've come to like most) or its siblings, but the EM I bought for "dirt jobs", was definitely consumer grade. Some lenses were consumer-grade and I'm not surprised at their depreciation, but a few were "pro-level" Nikkors. I do kick myself for being talked into the more expensive "system" avalaible during that time. I was young, it was southern California. Nikon was "where its at".
Back to Leica: My film Leicas have so far been honest "lifetime" cameras. I absolutely do not view digital Leicas as "lifetime" cameras. That's perhaps the main reason I'm loathe to fork over the new price. I guess used prices have me considering. Sheesh, so now perhaps deprecieation is my friend?
Thanks all for letting me vent.
I too started down the road of supporting myself through photography, although that was mid 1980s. My hat is off to *anyone* who can make it. Tough gig, and I actually had plenty of work. Diverse work too. I luckily chose another career path sometime in the early 1990's and I think it was the right choice. I continued to do a trickle of "photo work" until the early 2000's but I am a "personal" photographer today. Its best that way. Family and job are my priorities.
My Nikon SLR were always viewed as tools, and weren't necessarily consumer grade. The F2, F3 were the pro-level offerings at the time I got them. Not sure about the FE2 (that I've come to like most) or its siblings, but the EM I bought for "dirt jobs", was definitely consumer grade. Some lenses were consumer-grade and I'm not surprised at their depreciation, but a few were "pro-level" Nikkors. I do kick myself for being talked into the more expensive "system" avalaible during that time. I was young, it was southern California. Nikon was "where its at".
Back to Leica: My film Leicas have so far been honest "lifetime" cameras. I absolutely do not view digital Leicas as "lifetime" cameras. That's perhaps the main reason I'm loathe to fork over the new price. I guess used prices have me considering. Sheesh, so now perhaps deprecieation is my friend?
Thanks all for letting me vent.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
None of these digital cameras is life time. The glass is a different story of course and I doubt you will loose much on Leica glass over the years.
That doesn't change the fact that I like my MM and it will be used until it dies and Leica or no one else will fix it. I really don't see a reason for me to upgrade from it. I get wonderful 13 X 19 prints from it, I don't want any video or more automation. In fact the MM has to much automation for my liking.
If I still had a dark room I would still be shooting film but I don't.
I have my old Canon F-1s sitting on a shelf right now and they all still function great. THose are lifetime cameras. As were my 500 C/Ms and film Ms. But it's what it is and I have had great pleasure shooting with my MM. More than any other digital camera to date and I've shot wit ha lot of them. I still use Canons for all a lot of my commercial work. But that is in the process of changing to all Leica digital M.
That doesn't change the fact that I like my MM and it will be used until it dies and Leica or no one else will fix it. I really don't see a reason for me to upgrade from it. I get wonderful 13 X 19 prints from it, I don't want any video or more automation. In fact the MM has to much automation for my liking.
If I still had a dark room I would still be shooting film but I don't.
I have my old Canon F-1s sitting on a shelf right now and they all still function great. THose are lifetime cameras. As were my 500 C/Ms and film Ms. But it's what it is and I have had great pleasure shooting with my MM. More than any other digital camera to date and I've shot wit ha lot of them. I still use Canons for all a lot of my commercial work. But that is in the process of changing to all Leica digital M.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Nikon, my friend, has never been "where it's at." The dials and lenses have always turned or mounted "back@sswards" and nothing is in the "right" place. Even while my friends were consuming Nikon voraciously, I held them in the same contempt I hold for the Beseler Topcon Super D (the Navy version of a "pro" SLR.")
Those Navy Topcons were what got me using Leica Ms to begin with. Quiet, small and weighed 1/4 what the Topcon kits weighed. They were seen as "quaint" by the rest of the shooting crew, so I had my choice of the best pieces from six kits to assemble my shooting kit. I was in heaven!Tongue-in-cheek aside, of course I've owned and used several Nikons over the years and they're perfectly serviceable, but still, I never felt quite at peace with them.
I always wanted OMs but never bought them. I shot Canon EOS1 after the advent of AF in 1987, and eventually selling of my M4 kit and moving heavily into Canon EOS1 gear (and Hasselblad.) In about '99 I got out of the business for a while and sold all my pro film gear while it still had value. When I re-entered the fray in about '06, I had my choice of gear, and after investigating, I bought Olympus digital. The Olympus gear I sold was the latest digital gear, E5 bodies with the amazing Olympus glass including my dream lens, the 35-100 f/2 zoom. That may have been THE most amazing portrait lens EVER. That was the gear that paid for much of my current digi-M kit. I really liked Olympus 4/3rds. I only left Olympus because they stopped offering a "Pro" DSLR opting instead to go mirrorless. I dislike EVFs even more than I dislike Topcon Super Ds.
In any event there wasn't going to be another true E body in 4/3rds so I sold my 4/3rds gear while it still had value and determined to return to Leica Ms. I realized early on in my career with the Navy that all of this equipment is expendable... there are stories of troops pitching M4 (KE7A) kits out of helicopters and/or leaving them in the jungle and just packing the film out for recon. Bring the photos back. The photos are what's valuable, the equipment is replaceable.
Of course, there's a little different perspective when the cash for the gear comes out of your own pocket, but the lesson itself is still valuable. And while your Nikon film bodies may not be worth much any more, the lenses certainly will show more value now in this mirrorless adapt-all world.
The last thing to mention is that I always buy gear that is typically one generation back from the 'bleeding edge' and I always buy nearly new condition gear used. I let someone else eat that initial depreciation, and then I typically sell digital bodies when they're almost three generations back while they still have value in the market. I've done pretty well with that. I have to tell you that digital has gotten to the point now that I really don't feel the need to unload either my M8 or M9 to stay "current." They're both adequate performers and will remain so until they either give up the ghost and aren't repairable or I get out of photography. I'm really pleased with this bit of kit.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Nikon is *not* where its at? Now you tell me!
I have to admit, the focusing in the wrong direction and lens mounting in the wrong direction caused me great fits. I have/had other systems, including Leica and they all seemed to agree on the "correct" way. What was the deal with Nikon anyway?
What got me into making photographs was a Rolleiflex SL35 and Zeiss Planar 50/1.8 (my first "real" camera, still have it). That lens showed me what images "should" look like and I was almost never satisfied with consumer grade lenses, especially zooms. It was a Minolta Hi-Matic E that someone gave me as a gift that showed me what a great prime on rangefinder could be like. And that circuitously led to Leica....you can guess the rest.
So, Leica mattered to me way back then, as now.
I have to admit, the focusing in the wrong direction and lens mounting in the wrong direction caused me great fits. I have/had other systems, including Leica and they all seemed to agree on the "correct" way. What was the deal with Nikon anyway?
What got me into making photographs was a Rolleiflex SL35 and Zeiss Planar 50/1.8 (my first "real" camera, still have it). That lens showed me what images "should" look like and I was almost never satisfied with consumer grade lenses, especially zooms. It was a Minolta Hi-Matic E that someone gave me as a gift that showed me what a great prime on rangefinder could be like. And that circuitously led to Leica....you can guess the rest.
So, Leica mattered to me way back then, as now.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Yes, Grasshopper, Nikon is NOT "where it's at." I'm sorry life's lessons are sometimes harsh. <deep bow>
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
I think this is the best lesson, if you want value for money.
I evaluated Leica last year, as I was looking to get back into digital. Ended up going for a different system (Fuji Xpro) for a bunch of reasons. The biggest one was digital systems are not like film systems. They don't have 10s of years of life in them. My 1936 Contax works fine, but I very much doubt any digital system is going to be in action 80 years later (and this includes modern auto-focus/aperture lenses). So, I decided to work with a cheaper system and put more money into glass. My MF lenses will out last me, if taken care off. I expect to replace bodies every 3-4 years.