Jeff S
Well-known
Bad alternative for me, akin to saying "I don't have to photograph anything." The camera is just a tool for me. The digital Ms are the only tools that meet MY needs and preferences (and the M8.2 does that even better than the M9...for me).
So, the value is weighed against not shooting at all (not an option), or using a less than adequate and desirable tool to help create prints for pleasure and exhibit (also not an option).
Easy call...for me...immeasurable value. YMMV.
Jeff
Lss
Well-known
Of course the effect is greater than zero. However, a non-rangefinder camera is generally less interesting for those who are in the market for a rangefinder camera. Therefore the effect is significantly smaller than the effect an updated top-spec Canon has on the prices of older EOS bodies. Common sense and all that.
doolittle
Well-known
@nickw: just picking up on two things you wrote:
"I've been wanting a Leica M for a few years now"
and
"I long for a fully manual camera again. Something well built which will get out of my way, and simply be a pleasure to use."
Have you considered a Leica M film camera? Might be something to bear in mind.
"I've been wanting a Leica M for a few years now"
and
"I long for a fully manual camera again. Something well built which will get out of my way, and simply be a pleasure to use."
Have you considered a Leica M film camera? Might be something to bear in mind.
eleskin
Well-known
Stop the M8 bashing!
Stop the M8 bashing!
I own 2 M8's, tested the M9 3 times, printed files from both, and concluded the M9 was not that much better than the M8 when i looked at prints 17"x22" from my Epson 3800 on Exhibition Fiber. I bought my first M8 later in 2007 well into the production run and my second on Ebay afer I tested the m9 3 times. My conclusion is when used right, the M8 is a great tool for digital rangefinder photography. In fact, maybe the best camera I have ever owned. I say this after being involved with photography since 1987, darkroom for many years, Leica M4-2, M6, Fuji GSW 690, etc,,, the quality is outstanding (keep ISO at 640 and below) and most importantly, the productivity (digital workflow) is enhanced beyond my greatest expectations.
My second M8 was an Ebay item for $2000 and is in mint condition with no issues AT ALL! That is my backup in case my well used one ever goes to Leica for any repair.
By not buying an M9 I freed my resources to purchase lenses which today are worth much more than I paid originally. In fact, if I had a choice between an M9 with few lenses or an M8 with many lenses for the same money, I would take the M8 with many lenses.
The M8 can produce some noisy photos, even at ISO 640 in low light (shadow areas?) , but the miracles of post processing (I currently use CS4, layering, and selective noise reduction. What amazes me is how much you can pull out of an M8 file and work with. Another point: When you up-size the M8 files, especially at the lower ISO's and with lenses like a 50mm Summicron in studio conditions, the files are almost the same as what I would get out of an M9 or any other pro DSLR with high megapixels!
Stop the M8 bashing!
I own 2 M8's, tested the M9 3 times, printed files from both, and concluded the M9 was not that much better than the M8 when i looked at prints 17"x22" from my Epson 3800 on Exhibition Fiber. I bought my first M8 later in 2007 well into the production run and my second on Ebay afer I tested the m9 3 times. My conclusion is when used right, the M8 is a great tool for digital rangefinder photography. In fact, maybe the best camera I have ever owned. I say this after being involved with photography since 1987, darkroom for many years, Leica M4-2, M6, Fuji GSW 690, etc,,, the quality is outstanding (keep ISO at 640 and below) and most importantly, the productivity (digital workflow) is enhanced beyond my greatest expectations.
My second M8 was an Ebay item for $2000 and is in mint condition with no issues AT ALL! That is my backup in case my well used one ever goes to Leica for any repair.
By not buying an M9 I freed my resources to purchase lenses which today are worth much more than I paid originally. In fact, if I had a choice between an M9 with few lenses or an M8 with many lenses for the same money, I would take the M8 with many lenses.
The M8 can produce some noisy photos, even at ISO 640 in low light (shadow areas?) , but the miracles of post processing (I currently use CS4, layering, and selective noise reduction. What amazes me is how much you can pull out of an M8 file and work with. Another point: When you up-size the M8 files, especially at the lower ISO's and with lenses like a 50mm Summicron in studio conditions, the files are almost the same as what I would get out of an M9 or any other pro DSLR with high megapixels!
eleskin
Well-known
If the M10 is 2 years away, what else will we see?
If the M10 is 2 years away, what else will we see?
If the M10 is 2 years away, what else are we going to see? For me, the next new camera I may consider will be the NEX 7 or Ricoh GRX wit M mount. The M8 will work well with these other cameras (similar crop factor, ability to do things the M8 cannot , etc, while the M8 is a true rangefinder, better build, etc,,).
In 2 years, the M9 used will be between 2K and 3K when the M10 comes out. There will also be more full frame alternatives to M lenses at cheaper prices.
If the M10 is 2 years away, what else will we see?
If the M10 is 2 years away, what else are we going to see? For me, the next new camera I may consider will be the NEX 7 or Ricoh GRX wit M mount. The M8 will work well with these other cameras (similar crop factor, ability to do things the M8 cannot , etc, while the M8 is a true rangefinder, better build, etc,,).
In 2 years, the M9 used will be between 2K and 3K when the M10 comes out. There will also be more full frame alternatives to M lenses at cheaper prices.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The camera is just a tool for me. The digital Ms are the only tools that meet MY needs and preferences (and the M8.2 does that even better than the M9...for me).
So, the value is weighed against not shooting at all (not an option), or using a less than adequate and desirable tool to help create prints for pleasure and exhibit (also not an option).
Easy call...for me...immeasurable value. YMMV.
Jeff
Dear Jeff,
Seconded.
And as for the post to which you were replying, "How about this: If the M9 (!) and NEX7 were both priced at $1200, i'd probably prefer the NEX," I don't think many would agree with this.
Cheers,
R.
Jeff S
Well-known
Your guess is no better than mine, but I think $3.5- $4.5K is more likely if M8.2s hold value (now mostly above $3k for low mileage ones; and $3.5k+ at some reputable dealers) and/or the M10 introduces new features that M9 owners don't fancy.
I agree, though, with your comments about the virtues of the M8 (or M8.2) given a proper and disciplined workflow. It's all about the print.
Jeff
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Reading this: I cannot urge you enough to go to CS5 It is an eyeopener on "noisy" M8 files:angel:
Jeff S
Well-known
porktaco
Well-known
it's not worth the money because most of us don't make our livings with our cameras. there's not a cash in/cash out analysis, because there's no cash in. so, we make aesthetic choices and a leica is a luxury item. if you can afford it and want the leica experience, buy one. if you don't value that experience, then it isn't for you.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
No. I'd buy a GXR with A12M, R-D1 or Nex-7. In fact I did buy the first two!
Jeff S
Well-known
What an unfortunately narrow view of the craft. I don't make a living off photography, but that has nothing to do with my passion for it, and my enjoyment from it, each of which is plentiful.
Important things in life aren't restricted to our jobs. The value equation still applies.
Jeff
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Adam,
In other words, it's not worth the money to you.
This is a somewhat different statement from "absolutely not worth the money", regardless of your personal rationale.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jeff,
In fact, I suspect that many people would not work (at least at their present jobs) unless they had to, whereas they would continue to do a lot of other things (such as photography) which are therefore arguably more important to them.
Cheers,
R.
Jeff S
Well-known
I don't have to look far for an example. I retired early and include photography among my primary activities. But, moving close to and caring for aging parents, while I still could, came first on the priority list...can't put a price tag on that.
Jeff
porktaco
Well-known
i concede that yes, my frame of reference is my own, and that cameras do cost money and that people who have bought them have made a monetary judgment.
i don't really want to start a flame war about who should really care about what and what the meaning of is is, but these threads come up very regularly and the narrative is pretty familiar each time. most people here are amateurs - talented and passionate ones, to be sure - but amateurs. we choose equipment for any number of reasons, but very rarely because we think we're going to derive an economic good as the result of our photographs. thus, a purchase is about a whole passle of aesthetics. you like the RF experience, you're a leica fondler, you want to support the german economy, you believe that the camera produces gorgeous images, you hate big bulky cameras, leicas help you pick up chicks, whatever. peace. but the decision to purchase a leica - or any camera for that matter - is more a question of "can i afford X" than "is this worth Y", the latter concept (to me) denoting some kind of economic exchange, specifically photographs for money.
if you were a professional, you could make a judgment about whether a certain camera helped you do your job better, whether the purchase of a certain tool made economic sense. but that's really not where most of us are. i can't "justify" buying an expensive camera. i might want one, and i might even end up buying one with joy in my heart, but it won't be because it will necessarily produce anything of value. it'll be because i enjoy using the device, and by extension, because i think the photographs it produces are pleasing to my eye.
so, i'll repeat what i said before, with some qualification. i'll leave out the hyperbole about an M8 absolutely being not worth the money. so, if you can afford it, and if you think the leica experience is good for you, buy one. if you can't or don't, don't buy one. they're lovely little cameras which produce delicious images, but they're expenditures, not investments. the only worth you'll get from it (apart from an eventual resale) is what you ascribe to it.
i don't really want to start a flame war about who should really care about what and what the meaning of is is, but these threads come up very regularly and the narrative is pretty familiar each time. most people here are amateurs - talented and passionate ones, to be sure - but amateurs. we choose equipment for any number of reasons, but very rarely because we think we're going to derive an economic good as the result of our photographs. thus, a purchase is about a whole passle of aesthetics. you like the RF experience, you're a leica fondler, you want to support the german economy, you believe that the camera produces gorgeous images, you hate big bulky cameras, leicas help you pick up chicks, whatever. peace. but the decision to purchase a leica - or any camera for that matter - is more a question of "can i afford X" than "is this worth Y", the latter concept (to me) denoting some kind of economic exchange, specifically photographs for money.
if you were a professional, you could make a judgment about whether a certain camera helped you do your job better, whether the purchase of a certain tool made economic sense. but that's really not where most of us are. i can't "justify" buying an expensive camera. i might want one, and i might even end up buying one with joy in my heart, but it won't be because it will necessarily produce anything of value. it'll be because i enjoy using the device, and by extension, because i think the photographs it produces are pleasing to my eye.
so, i'll repeat what i said before, with some qualification. i'll leave out the hyperbole about an M8 absolutely being not worth the money. so, if you can afford it, and if you think the leica experience is good for you, buy one. if you can't or don't, don't buy one. they're lovely little cameras which produce delicious images, but they're expenditures, not investments. the only worth you'll get from it (apart from an eventual resale) is what you ascribe to it.
Last edited:
Jeff S
Well-known
Adam, you miss the whole aspect of opportunity cost. I no longer have job income, relying instead on retirement funds. Every dollar I spend is a dollar I don't have to spend on something else, including many necessities of life. When I choose to buy a camera, there is an unquestionable economic analysis that occurs. Reduction of income (life savings) is no different in this analysis than the creation income was in my job days.
You can argue about needs versus wants, but for some people the line is quite blurred. Again, your perspective is just too narrow, i.e., it's yours, not everyone's.
But, I won't argue the point further; my analysis suggests it's not worth the time invested.
Jeff
PS You're right that the camera is not an investment; for me it's only a tool...to do a job, which is making pictures. In this regard, I'm no different than a pro, except for the critical distinction that I lose money for every print I make and don't sell.
You can argue about needs versus wants, but for some people the line is quite blurred. Again, your perspective is just too narrow, i.e., it's yours, not everyone's.
But, I won't argue the point further; my analysis suggests it's not worth the time invested.
Jeff
PS You're right that the camera is not an investment; for me it's only a tool...to do a job, which is making pictures. In this regard, I'm no different than a pro, except for the critical distinction that I lose money for every print I make and don't sell.
Last edited:
I'm guessing that most people do not need to spend more than $200 for a good Digital point and shoot, or $50 for a nice film camera. I'm sure they would have a hard time justifying the cost of an M8, let alone an M9. If you like using RF's, like the 80 year choice in lenses, and are going to Digital- it is worth the cost.
I paid for my M8 and M9 by selling off gear. Made a dent in the collection. Small dent.
I paid for my M8 and M9 by selling off gear. Made a dent in the collection. Small dent.
porktaco
Well-known
lol small dent. i want to see your gear closet.
and jeff, i get it, and i concede your points.
and jeff, i get it, and i concede your points.
If you are into digital mechanical rangefinders, the M8 is the second best option out of three true options. It's worth it if you are prefer mechanical rangefinders to DSLRs etc. Is it the best value? No, far from it.