would you rather buy a used m9 or a new A7?

[Frank Petronio]

A $2000 M9 or a $1200 A7 would be at the tipping point but by the time their prices come down to that level, there will be similarly priced cameras from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, and maybe Panalympus (!) that will probably be all-around better values. Right now I can go get a $1200 Nikon D7100 and a $200 50G and it will deliver images as good or better than either of those other cameras, with extra durability and several other advantages. A $200 Pany GX1 with a $150 lens is probably only a stop off the M9 in terms of compact performance....

Frankly I'm not in love with any digital camera and they depreciate so fast that it seems silly to buy any of them early on... if you can wait for a years or two - after all you've already waited all your life - they are such better deals. Just pretend it is two years ago in technological terms... you know, 2011, when people made those crude, primitive digital images that are barely suitable for reproduction.

Maybe I'm a Scottish Italian?

I just learned that even if you have the discretionary income to buy extravagant cameras, it is a much better investment to spend that money on photographic experiences or, at the least, preventative healthcare, emergency prep, retirement. Much rather have a Nikon and a trip than a Leica and a shortfall.

 

[NicoM]

I think i'd have to go with the A7.

Before the A7 was released, I would have probably chosen the M9 over any other mirrorless.

 

[Snowbuzz]

A $2000 M9 or a $1200 A7 would be at the tipping point but by the time their prices come down to that level, there will be similarly priced cameras from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, and maybe Panalympus (!) that will probably be all-around better values. Right now I can go get a $1200 Nikon D7100 and a $200 50G and it will deliver images as good or better than either of those other cameras, with extra durability and several other advantages. A $200 Pany GX1 with a $150 lens is probably only a stop off the M9 in terms of compact performance....

Frankly I'm not in love with any digital camera and they depreciate so fast that it seems silly to buy any of them early on... if you can wait for a years or two - after all you've already waited all your life - they are such better deals. Just pretend it is two years ago in technological terms... you know, 2011, when people made those crude, primitive digital images that are barely suitable for reproduction.

Maybe I'm a Scottish Italian?

I just learned that even if you have the discretionary income to buy extravagant cameras, it is a much better investment to spend that money on photographic experiences or, at the least, preventative healthcare, emergency prep, retirement. Much rather have a Nikon and a trip than a Leica and a shortfall.

This is so true. I'm hoping I can overcome my propensity for camera avarice. 😉

 

[Ronald M]

Sony looks like a box designed by a blind man. UGLY.

Used Leicas, get a really good warrantee and check out the shutter count. I have two, but they can be expensive to repair and too costly to throw away. Do not buy if you are on a budget.

My camera of choice for budget is D7100 Nikon if you do not mind the 3 raw file buffer. Look at a 5200 or 5300. A bit more money, D610, not a 600.

My walk about is D800e with 24/120. Buy the primes for a bit better image. The G primes will satisfy all but the most demanding photog who will buy Zeiss or Leica for double or triple the cost for 10% more image quality.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it was me I would ask the question "Do I want a camera as a status symbol or do I want to capture images?"

Question answered? (No offence to the Leica brigade - just saying)

As someone who just wants to capture images, I don't understand the appeal of status symbols -- which is why I have an M9 and not a (much newer but much inferior) "status symbol" electronic toy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[drinkingeye]

A7 may be technically a great camera. But optically it is such an ugly toy - would never sell my M9 for it. Excuse me.... just my 2c...

 

[jsrockit]

As someone who just wants to capture images, I don't understand the appeal of status symbols -- which is why I have an M9 and not a (much newer but much inferior) "status symbol" electronic toy.

Yet you call the "inferior" camera a toy? Sounds like snobbery to me Roger. 😉

 

[k__43]

A used M9 costs twice a new A7. I've no money for either one. If I would shoot more digital I'd dream to own a M9 and shoot with a A7.

 

[Fraser]

As someone who just wants to capture images, I don't understand the appeal of status symbols -- which is why I have an M9 and not a (much newer but much inferior) "status symbol" electronic toy.

Cheers,

R.

Leica has got to be the biggest 'status symbol' camera ever.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why are so many people so obsessed with Leicas as status symbols?

They're just good, versatile cameras. They won't suit everyone, but hey, nor will any other camera. Yes, they're expensive. Is everything expensive to be classified automatically as a status symbol? If so, why?

Snobbery? The point I was trying to make is that from where I'm standing, an A7 is just another damn' electronic gadget: another iPad, where having the latest and "best" is an obsession with a certain kind of status seeker. A Leica is part of of a history of picture taking since 1925, and a part of the way I've been taking pictures since 1969. To dismiss that as a "status symbol" strikes me as a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what taking pictures is about.

Basically, I was reacting against the mindless assumption that people buy Leicas as status symbols, and that if they just wanted to take pictures, they'd buy something else. Hell, if "all you want to do is take pictures", why not buy a Box Brownie?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leica has got to be the biggest 'status symbol' camera ever.

Why?

Because of the cost? In that case, Alpa has them beaten. Or Hasselblad or Gandolfi.

Let's face it. Most non-photographers wouldn't even recognize a Leica unless they read the name on it. A status symbol that no-one recognizes ain't much use as a status symbol.

Cheers,

R.

 

[NicoM]

Why?

Because of the cost? In that case, Alpa has them beaten. Or Hasselblad or Gandolfi.

Let's face it. Most non-photographers wouldn't even recognize a Leica unless they read the name on it. A status symbol that no-one recognizes ain't much use as a status symbol.

Cheers,

R.

I'd argue that a large percentage of the people that own Leica cameras are not photographers. I read earlier this year that the biggest market for Leica is currently China and that many buy Leica as a symbol of status similar to how someone would buy a luxury watch or car.

The way that Leica positions themselves is a boutique brand. You don't find Leica next to Canon or Nikon. You find them next to Hermes and Luis Vuitton.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd argue that a large percentage of the people that own Leica cameras are not photographers. I read earlier this year that the biggest market for Leica is currently China and that many buy Leica as a symbol of status similar to how someone would buy a luxury watch or car.

The way that Leica positions themselves is a boutique brand. You don't find Leica next to Canon or Nikon. You find them next to Hermes and Luis Vuitton.

Highlight 1: Quite unlike Canon, Nikon, Alpa, then. Why single out Leica? For that matter, how many Porsches and Ferraris are sold to people whom you would presumably dismiss as "not drivers" just as you dismiss some Leica buyers as "not photographers"?

As for the highlight, I have to say that although I don't frequent Hermes and Vuitton shops, I'd be astonished if they had Leicas in them. Personally, I've seen Leicas quite often in camera stores, next to, yes, Canons and Nikons.

Look at it from Leica's point of view. You know that many photographers (whether they're competent or not) love Leicas. You don't really need to persuade them to buy your cameras. IF you can sell them on price as well, to the sort of people you dismiss as "not photographers", you'd be a fool not to.

What ain't gonna happen is cheap Leicas. Selling 'em in China keeps prices DOWN (economies of scale), not UP.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Many of these remarks sound all too familiar when conversations change to motorcycling
and Harley-Davidsons... Peter

 

[Frank Petronio]

I suspect most of the billion-plus cameras out there are used by "not photographers". That's a good thing, most of the digital cameras I've purchased used have only had a few hundred clicks.

I've owned Leicas simply to possess them as precious objects, not much different than my wife's jewelry that she never wears because she doesn't want to lose it. If it cures your itch, just get a nice vintage Leica set and fondle it occasionally, that's what I did until I went on a minimalist kick. Nothing wrong with it, especially if a nice $1,000 screw mount kit saves you from dropping $10,000 on a MP or digital kit.

 

[jsrockit]

Snobbery? The point I was trying to make is that from where I'm standing, an A7 is just another damn' electronic gadget: another iPad, where having the latest and "best" is an obsession with a certain kind of status seeker. A Leica is part of of a history of picture taking since 1925, and a part of the way I've been taking pictures since 1969. To dismiss that as a "status symbol" strikes me as a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what taking pictures is about.

As someone who has owned the M9 and doesn't like the A7, I get what you are saying. But the A7 is certainly a capable camera. The output is still a digital photograph, just like the M9. It's not a toy.

 

[shadowfox]

As someone who has owned the M9 and doesn't like the A7, I get what you are saying. But the A7 is certainly a capable camera. The output is still a digital photograph, just like the M9. It's not a toy.

Agree, what makes a camera a toy is the attitude of the one using it, and sometimes the results show it in a painfully-clear way.

 

[2WK]

I'd argue that a large percentage of the people that own Leica cameras are not photographers. I read earlier this year that the biggest market for Leica is currently China and that many buy Leica as a symbol of status similar to how someone would buy a luxury watch or car.

The way that Leica positions themselves is a boutique brand. You don't find Leica next to Canon or Nikon. You find them next to Hermes and Luis Vuitton.

I wonder what the percentage of Canon / Nikon owners are actually photographers. All I know, anywhere I go I see tourist familys toting canikon dslrs and I doubt they are "photographers". 😉

 

[Michalm]

A7 is just another damn' electronic gadget: another iPad, where having the latest and "best" is an obsession with a certain kind of status seeker. A Leica is part of of a history of picture taking since 1925, and a part of the way I've been taking pictures since 1969. To dismiss that as a "status symbol" strikes me as a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what taking pictures is about.


Cheers,

R.

I have to disagree , This Sony is in a way revolutionary no-nonsense camera. It is affordable and can take virtually ,,any'' lens , it is still not ideal ( it lacks foveon style sensor 🙂) but it is step in a good direction , something many people have been long waiting for. I will however wait a little bit longer.
R.[/quote]

 

[Pete B]

Why?

Because of the cost? In that case, Alpa has them beaten. Or Hasselblad or Gandolfi.

Let's face it. Most non-photographers wouldn't even recognize a Leica unless they read the name on it. A status symbol that no-one recognizes ain't much use as a status symbol.

Cheers,

R.

I was wearing a black M6 round my neck at a wedding and the wedding photographer came up to me with very inquisitive face (as though he could smell my arm pits) and asked, "What on earth is that?". So much for a status symbol. I should imagine most people look at Leicas and wonder why would anyone want to be using such a crappy old camera in this day and age.
Pete