It would be interesting to see a Japanese, or perhaps a Chinese effort at improving on the M11. Especially if they ‘got’ the minimalist aesthetics and operation. Is it possible to integrate some kind of EVF focusing aid and view to a genuine rangefinder? I din’t know, but maybe Japanese designers and engineers could come up with something that German engineers can’t. Or how about a 65x24 panoramic framing in live view and registered in some way in the files - 60mp is plenty to accommodate that and still have 30mp panoramic images. And how about a beautifully integrated tilt screen a la Fuji 100XV?
Fuji comes close with the X100 but their insistence on APSC sinks it. They keep making interesting cameras that are just not quite right. That new MFD fixed lens camera should have a 45/3.5. Cropping into a 35/4 to simulate a 45 is not good enough. It’s a little more workable with the Qs 1.7 lens. When making a fixed lens camera you should start with a lens that is to die for and form everything else around that. I’m sure that 35/4 is spectacular but it’s not what most people are asking for.
Nikon should look at the success of the ZF and do an S style mirrorless. No need to use the Z mount, just give us 3 or 4 amazing and small lenses. Or be legends and just make it a real RF.
For me, I like German and Japanese craftsmanship. but usually wait for the planned obsolescence to play out as it always does and buy new old stock at discount prices. I recently picked up a new SL2-s for $2300 with full extended warranty. The environmental waste of planned obsolescence should be a good reason to consider the camera cycles and the absurd minimal upgrades of digital cameras.
speedgraphic wrote:
Leica is not the ‘best’ at anything. They are however the only real option (pixi max I guess) in the digital RF space. But also as many commenters have pointed out, the camera has numerous bugs, and Leica’s service and support is downright abysmal. Their lenses are barely better than a common Voigtlander at this point. The fact that they don’t have to compete with anyone has made them lazy and fat and they get to ignore the need to innovate or improve.
If you want to shoot top notch digital IQ you can get a freaking medium format Hasselblad for less money at least 2nd hand. Even Nikon is giving Leica a run for their money in the film look alike category.
The fact is, at least when it comes to RFs, the Leica is a one of one. I accept that. But it doesn’t excuse their flaws and it doesn’t justify their prices. The Rolex comparison is apt. If you care about rarified watches you can self justify having one, but in order to be the kind of person who cares about fancy watches your brain has to contort itself quite a bit to avoid the part of your mind that knows that there is no way that little shiny circle on your arm can be worth as much as a car.
And hey, I’m not immune to Leica’s charms. Their cameras are sexy as hell. I could probably justify spending around $3k on a used M10 if I didn’t care more about film. But being significantly more expensive than medium format digital and even pro cameras from Canon or Nikon? Uh no. I remember thinking these cameras were over priced when they were $6k. Wait till the tariffs kick in…yeesh!
Lucky for me the M4-P is the last Leica I’ll ever need. I think it has a roll of TMax in it which makes it “MONOCHROM”…except unlike the real “MONOCHROM” I can make silver gelatin prints from it. ...Show more →
Well some can justify the expense and hassles of film. I am guessing that over the life of the camera that makes the digital less expensive by a big margin even at Leica’s high prices.
By the way, you can make true silver gelatin prints from digital files. I use this company to do that when I want that look. Excellent results.
Digital Silver Imaginng
As for cost with Leica rather than object to Leica’s pricing I embrace it. In total for me Leica has been a very affordable camera system. I allocate an amount of money to have in camera systems. With Leica I buy used. When I resell I tend to get all of my money back and often make a good profit. So far my net costs of owing Leica has been less than zero on equipment purchased, used, and then sold. This is a better financial outcome by far than I experienced with my Sony and Nikon gear.
Nothing holds value like Leica M. Every other camera system's price drops significantly. The M10-R for example has been $5000-$5500 for almost 3 years now. So it doesn't matter if you pay more for it, because you are likely going to recoup most if not all of it. Even M11 for its issues, still holding steady at $6000-$6200.
gordec wrote:
Nothing holds value like Leica M. Every other camera system's price drops significantly. The M10-R for example has been $5000-$5500 for almost 3 years now. So it doesn't matter if you pay more for it, because you are likely going to recoup most if not all of it. Even M11 for its issues, still holding steady at $6000-$6200.
Yes, with most other brands, the value keeps dropping even after several years. Leica is different in that its prices tend to stabilize after the initial drop, which usually happens within the first one to two years. That early depreciation is normal for any new camera. If you buy a Leica camera or lens new, you're likely to lose a good chunk of value fairly quickly. But if you buy used after two or three years, it often feels like a free rental, since you can use it for a long time and still resell it for close to what you paid.
speedgraphic wrote:
And to defend China a bit…I’d say the finest large format cameras in the world come from there. Chamonix view cameras are top notch. Alec Soth uses one. If you know anything about manufacturing in the USA, all the stories I hear is that xyz company wanted to make something in the States but ended up turning to China not because it was only cheaper (which it was), but also the quality was significantly better. That’s ok, the USA is post industrial. But in general it’s a mistake to think of China and low quality in the same sentence. They put the world to shame at this point. Their market disruptions give companies reasons to do better, that’s how competition works and that’s what Leica badly needs. ...Show more →
*currently made. Alec also uses and Ebony, which are much nicer than Chamonix. Just not made anymore.
AndrewNYC wrote:
*currently made. Alec also uses and Ebony, which are much nicer than Chamonix. Just not made anymore.
In his recent social media posts, he's got an 810V. He used to use a Phillips Explorer but said it broke in a way he could not fix. Given the guy's relationship to the format, I'm guessing he has a lot of cameras, but I've never seen a picture of him using an Ebony. I've handled those cameras and they just seem like over engineered Deardorffs.
johnld wrote:
For me, I like German and Japanese craftsmanship.
Round and round...there was a time when anything coming out of Japan was frowned upon as being of inferior quality. That rapidly changed of course. The first Chinese camera I ever used was a twin lens Seagull in 1986. It was remarkably awful! Terrible craftsmanship and horrible optics. The best of the lenses coming out of China today are right up there in regards to craftsmanship with the lenses out of Japan I also use (Thypoch vs Voigtlander for instance). In some instances, maybe even better. I certainly would not think twice about buying a high end camera made in China today if the decision came down to expectations regarding craftsmanship.
Don’t want to spoil the Chinese lens party, but I do think there are sound reasons a company like Lensrentals doesn’t carry them. Don’t know if it’s the construction or a lack of servicing, but I’m curious.
Surely, the Chinese can make great products, but their after-sales support is often lacking.
I find the Leica digital holding their value thing to be a myth to a certain extent.
Just look at how the math shakes out:
B&H has the Nikon D850 selling for $2398 new, and roughly $1600 used. 66% of it's new value.
The Leica M10 was $6595 when it first came out, now it's selling at KEH for $4563, so 69% of its new value.
For the M10R, $8295 new, if they're selling for $5k, that's roughly 60%.
Roughly the same level of depreciation.
The M240 is trading at roughly 50% of the new price. The same year the M240 came out, the D800 was released. This camera is significantly cheaper, at around $500.
For the older cameras you're talking about the M9 or M8, and you really need to be an aficionado to appreciate those cameras...they're absolutely not for everyone so it doesn't make a ton of sense to include them comparatively. Personally I would argue that relative to their 'actual usefulness' and 'reliability', they are unreasonably priced. They're more likely at this point to brick themselves than keep working for years. Even the memory card compatibility is becoming problematic. For a camera of a similar era, the D700, you have a much lower barrier to entry. You can get one under $400 which is completely appropriate. And the same 'stabilized' effect applies here. The D700 is probably not going to drop much further than that. However, the M10 and M240 will continue to drop in price as new models come out, just as the D850 will too. Both of them will eventually reach a 'floor' of value...and by that time only certain dedicated people will be seeking them out.
TL/DR, these cameras all hold their value in roughly the same way. It's just that Leica's require more up front investment. And you should also question whether it's 'good' that you have to pay $3k for a 2012 camera that has a lot of sensor banding at high ISO, even if someone else will pay $3k for it when you trade it.
For the film cameras, I think about it differently. You can certainly feel like you're parking money in the value of an M4. You take care of it, and you'll get it back. The digital Ms will eventually just become unusable.
speedgraphic wrote:
I find the Leica digital holding their value thing to be a myth to a certain extent.
Just look at how the math shakes out:
B&H has the Nikon D850 selling for $2398 new, and roughly $1600 used. 66% of it's new value.
The Leica M10 was $6595 when it first came out, now it's selling at KEH for $4563, so 69% of its new value.
Roughly the same level of depreciation.
The M240 is trading at roughly 50% of the new price. The same year the M240 came out, the D800 was released. This camera is significantly cheaper, at around $500.
For the older cameras you're talking about the M9 or M8, and you really need to be an aficionado to appreciate those cameras...they're absolutely not for everyone so it doesn't make a ton of sense to include them comparatively. Personally I would argue that relative to their 'actual usefulness' and 'reliability', they are unreasonably priced. They're more likely at this point to brick themselves than keep working for years. Even the memory card compatibility is becoming problematic. For a camera of a similar era, the D700, you have a much lower barrier to entry. You can get one under $400 which is completely appropriate. And the same 'stabilized' effect applies here. The D700 is probably not going to drop much further than that. However, the M10 and M240 will continue to drop in price as new models come out, just as the D850 will too. Both of them will eventually reach a 'floor' of value...and by that time only certain dedicated people will be seeking them out.
TL/DR, these cameras all hold their value in roughly the same way. It's just that Leica's require more up front investment. And you should also question whether it's 'good' that you have to pay $3k for a 2012 camera that has a lot of sensor banding at high ISO, even if someone else will pay $3k for it when you trade it.
For the film cameras, I think about it differently. You can certainly feel like you're parking money in the value of an M4. You take care of it, and you'll get it back. The digital Ms will eventually just become unusable....Show more →
Just note that the Nikon D850 new price upon introduction was $3299. It has been severely discounted, almost certainly due to the older F mount no longer being the current Nikon mount. I'm thinking using older F mount Nikon's as a comparison is a bit tricky due to the abandoned mount as compared to the M mount which is remarkably still current.
speedgraphic wrote:
For the film cameras, I think about it differently. You can certainly feel like you're parking money in the value of an M4. You take care of it, and you'll get it back. The digital Ms will eventually just become unusable.
I don't think either of these are immutable facts.
The film camera's usability is predicated on the availability of film. That's not a guarantee.
The digital camera's unusability is predicated on the pace of innovation in digital imaging continuing as we've seen it the past twenty years. Also not a given; it's been slowing considerably in recent years. One of the biggest areas of evolution - autofocus - doesn't impact the digital M at all.
itai195 wrote:
I don't think either of these are immutable facts.
The film camera's usability is predicated on the availability of film. That's not a guarantee.
The digital camera's unusability is predicated on the pace of innovation in digital imaging continuing as we've seen it the past twenty years. Also not a given; it's been slowing considerably in recent years. One of the biggest areas of investment - autofocus - doesn't impact the digital M at all.
…and the continued availability of batteries for the digital M's.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Just note that the Nikon D850 new price upon introduction was $3299. It has been severely discounted, almost certainly due to the older F mount no longer being the current Nikon mount. I'm thinking using older F mount Nikon's as a comparison is a bit tricky due to the abandoned mount as compared to the M mount which is remarkably still current.
The same works if you use the Z7II as an example. It's like 65% of its current new price, or like 50% of its original new price at time of release.
speedgraphic wrote:
In his recent social media posts, he's got an 810V. He used to use a Phillips Explorer but said it broke in a way he could not fix. Given the guy's relationship to the format, I'm guessing he has a lot of cameras, but I've never seen a picture of him using an Ebony. I've handled those cameras and they just seem like over engineered Deardorffs.
speedgraphic wrote:
In his recent social media posts, he's got an 810V. He used to use a Phillips Explorer but said it broke in a way he could not fix. Given the guy's relationship to the format, I'm guessing he has a lot of cameras, but I've never seen a picture of him using an Ebony. I've handled those cameras and they just seem like over engineered Deardorffs.
A google image search and I'm having trouble finding an image that *isn't* of his Ebony. His Youtube videos he's using his Ebony as well.
