Why the next digital M will not cost $10,000 USD

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
2:17 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
I remember when the M9 first came out, Leica was rock solid on not selling the M9 for more than $7,000 USD. Why? Because top of the line Nikon and Canon DSLR's are not that much more, and the M9 is a specialty camera that would appeal to pros as a middle camera or camera for specific needs. Also, for under 10K, you can buy the new Pentax 645D at 40MP. Why would Leica price what is likely to be under 30MP at 10K? I see the M10 as having much better high ISO, not more megapixels. The megapixel war was nonsense for quite a few years now, and we all know better lenses, sensor image quality and high ISO are way more important !For advanced users, Many do not have the disposable income they used to have, and 7K seems to be the limit.

Also, fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, the M9 or M10 is likely to get more competition in the future. The Fuji X100 will be a great success next year, and will generate talk and eventually lead to an interchangeable lens version in the $2,000 or so range. We will see more from the other camera makers as well, and Zeiss and Voitlander will eventually break down and come up with something better than an M8, but not as many Megapixels as the future digital M9.2 or M10. So here, anything priced at $10,000 USD is unrealistic, especially in todays market and economy!
 
I hope that it's a lot cheaper, just so I can justify one at some point. However, there's no rational reason to suspect that will be the case.
 
I don't think CV can just sit on the sideline and watch the digital market for RF-like cameras just get taken over right in front of them. They need to make a move NOW.

All we need is a digital Bessa and combine that with Fx100 and inevitable competitors to it and the market would be free for all with prices going down and camera companies doing everything to attract customers.
 
I would tend to agree for the following reasons:

The m9 can be refined, reducing the costs for Leica.
The M9 has sold well (better than expected) which created revenue that can be reinvested to support larger scale production with the economies that brings
The market for the M9 wont stomach a higher price. Especially when pros need at least two.

I suspect the 24-30 MP M10 will be a honed M9 with more res, but it might just possibly have similar resolution and better high ISO with other tweaks. I can see the price staying the same.
 
Leica M9 seems not all that bad ;) and sells well - even with the mirror-less digital crowd growing. If guys at Leica can keep up with the rest and bring M10 that will as good as the M9 was (relative to others available at the time) I do not see why is should be priced differently from M9. Now as that will happen in the future and all currencies loose their value - the price may get close to $10k, though not necessarily above.

Leica will sell well until it will not get direct competition in the same segment - manual RF focus FX digital camera capable of using Leica M lenses. And that is not very probable to my opinion. Now whether M10 will be just M9 with better sensor or if some new technology will come - there I have no idea.

I think that Leica just needs to remain a representation of "puristic photography machine" (whatever that means at given time).
 
Just a prediction, but remember I was spot-on with the price of both the M8 and M9 ;)
An M9.2 will be 6000 Euro and tn M10 6500 Euro, in dollars, who knows? Maybe the USA will get into another unwinnable war and trade at 2$ to the Euro, maybe the Euro will collapse and it will be the other way around...:rolleyes:
 
The important question is what will an M9.2 or M10 would improve upon over M9?

I can only think of ISO performance, other than that I don't see anything that needs improving and worth upgrading from M9.

But I also don't have an M9 so M9 owners can describe what features they would want.
 
Megapixel war is over?
But I still want more megapixels.
When I use 1 of those fancy Leica lenses with insane resolving power, I would like the medium/sensor to capture what the lens produces.
May I assume that a typical Leica lens today can produce 30 mega of fine chromo-pixels? If so, I'd like a 60megapixel sensor to capture all those.
1.3m x 2m prints are getting cheaper. I don't mind being able to make wall papers out of my pictures.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Repeat after me. There is no viable market for a lower cost digital RF. RFF myopia at work again. :)
Click to expand...

The probem, basically, is a price/demand curve, coupled with economies of scale. You need to make an awful lot of cameras to get prices down to RFF fantasy levels, and the demand ain't that big.

I'd guess than an M9.2 or M10 will be slightly more expensive than an M9 but probably no more than 200-300€ more at most (though of course jaapv could well be right). This is based on the simple observation that all new Leicas with extra features have cost more than their predecessors. I have no other basis for that prediction, except experience, a bit of market consultancy and knowing some people in the business. And I've been wrong before.

Of course, given the current world financial markets, 200-300€ could be $200-$600.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
A digital Bessa could actually compete with m43 for a lot of the "people who know how to focus manually" crowd, but it would never be a mainstream success.

Of course, it wouldn't have to be if they made money on it :)

Oh, and full frame sensor - PLEASE!
 
axiom said:
When I use 1 of those fancy Leica lenses with insane resolving power, I would like the medium/sensor to capture what the lens produces.
Click to expand...

Basically what you're asking for is that sensor makers increase sensor resolution until 1:1 crops from the best of lenses no longer appear sharp.

From a marketing point of view I don't see that as a particularly attractive proposition.
 
I would buy a great high ISO M mount over the M9, even if it had the M8 crop!

I would buy a great high ISO M mount over the M9, even if it had the M8 crop!

I would buy an M mount digital with superior high ISO with the M8 crop factor of 1.33x over the full frame M9 as it exists today. Now how hard would that be to make by Cosina, Zeiss, Fuji, Canon or Nikon? Not hard at all I suspect, and the price would be reasonable compared to the full frame M9.

I was debating for some time as to wether I should buy the M9, but in the end, I bought a second M8 (I now have 2) to hold me over until I see more options by Leica and other manufacturers. The price difference did not add up to the slight gain the M9 offered in performance over the M8 (I tested the M9 3 times to come to this conclusion).

So knowing this, I only had to spend $2,000 USD to give me the second M8, and what I would have spent ($5,000) went into lenses (Nokton 35 f1.2, Super Wide Heliar, etc,,) and future funds for the M10 or a camera made by another manufacturer which is sure to come.

A digital M mount with a 1.33x crop and superior high ISO would make the fast Leica mount lenses sing unlike any other combo in low light. The crop factor would be irrelivant to me.
 
axiom said:
Megapixel war is over?
But I still want more megapixels.
When I use 1 of those fancy Leica lenses with insane resolving power, I would like the medium/sensor to capture what the lens produces.
May I assume that a typical Leica lens today can produce 30 mega of fine chromo-pixels? If so, I'd like a 60megapixel sensor to capture all those.
1.3m x 2m prints are getting cheaper. I don't mind being able to make wall papers out of my pictures.
Click to expand...
Actually, 18 Mp just about matches the real resolving power of the best Leica lenses. Canon has quite a problem with their 21 Mp sensor (which is but a small difference to 18 Mp and even less so with the resolution loss of the AA filter) outresolving most of their lenses.
 
eleskin said:
I would buy an M mount digital with superior high ISO with the M8 crop factor of 1.33x over the full frame M9 as it exists today. Now how hard would that be to make by Cosina, Zeiss, Fuji, Canon or Nikon? Not hard at all I suspect, and the price would be reasonable compared to the full frame M9.

I was debating for some time as to wether I should buy the M9, but in the end, I bought a second M8 (I now have 2) to hold me over until I see more options by Leica and other manufacturers. The price difference did not add up to the slight gain the M9 offered in performance over the M8 (I tested the M9 3 times to come to this conclusion).

So knowing this, I only had to spend $2,000 USD to give me the second M8, and what I would have spent ($5,000) went into lenses (Nokton 35 f1.2, Super Wide Heliar, etc,,) and future funds for the M10 or a camera made by another manufacturer which is sure to come.

A digital M mount with a 1.33x crop and superior high ISO would make the fast Leica mount lenses sing unlike any other combo in low light. The crop factor would be irrelivant to me.
Click to expand...

Well, a year ago Zeiss stated they were not able to produce a FF DRF at the quality level of the M9 at a pricepoint that could compete with Leica. And presumably they have access to the whole expertise of Sony.:rolleyes:
 
Wouldn't Leica stun us if the price was lower. It seems incredulous, but considering the form factor and the impact of the M9, is is possible that a more capable tool combined with increased sales could be encouraged to greater heights with a lower price. Some pro docu shooters bought 2 x M9 for reasons of weight and discreteness. I suspect the market is bigger than some think if they can produce the features people want. The m9 was darned close, but pros will want another couple of stops high ISO and a few other things. Deliver upon that and surely the market offers greater potential? Cheaper CV and ZM lenses also soften the blow and open up more interest in the body because the kit becomes more affordable. I have no real idea, but surely the market for a cracking M10 with good high ISO could be double or more the size of that for the M9. Personally, I see ISO not resolution being the issue here. After all, look at the popularity of the D3/s and D700 amongst PJs and wedding shooters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom