retrofocus wrote:
To me the question of pricing comes down to an investment option: Do I vest $10K into a Leica M camera, or do I vest it into a stock/bond fund which gives me some dividend and interest (taxable of course but still). The value of a new camera only depreciates. Which price point would I find a good balance for a camera? My answer is going for a used one in EX or EX+ condition but which lost about 40% of its initial sales value. So this brings me in my example with $10K into the range of $6K. This I could see justified. Currently used M10-R fall into this ballpark - I probably would consider slowly at this point if there wasn't all this battery issue with it. ...Show more →
The "value" of a camera ... in terms of dollars is (imo) one aspect of valuation. +1 regarding depreciation curve of "new" (just about anything) consumer goods.
That said, the more powerful "value" of a camera is what you produce with it ... be that the produced images created, or your own produced joy of use. Money is but one form of value ... and, sometimes it is prudent to recognize $$$ as the tool to getting a different form of value.
So, do we wait two years till the 30% reduction in $$$ cost comes, "investing" the $$$ into other things ... or, do we start producing joy of use, two years sooner. In many regards, the image capture of new cameras today is incremental / iterative gains. But, if one is making a transformative change that produces a greater joy of use ... two years of (earlier) joy ... might be worth the 30% premium. OR, are we very content in the joy / images we get from current gear, such that there is little interest in the "new" tool du jour. Sometimes grandpa's hammer just keeps pounding nails, and fits our hand "just right", such that it is a joy to use. New, schmew. Cuts both ways, so it is an individual decision, but I think when we restrict our discussion of "value" to $$$ costs ... well, we might be in forest / trees territory sometimes.
There are other aspects / factors of "value" beyond this ^ ... but, you get the gist.
That said, my piggybank focuses me on depreciation curve, too. But, on occasion there are some things that bring enough of other kinds of "value" to me, that the new purchase premium is something I am willing to spend for. Case in point ... my Siggy 500/5.6 I bought new when it first came out ... no regrets for the premium of "new" (vs. waiting for depreciation to hit the used market) on that one.
RustyBug wrote:
The "value" of a camera ... in terms of dollars is (imo) one aspect of valuation. +1 regarding depreciation curve of "new" (just about anything) consumer goods.
That said, the more powerful "value" of a camera is what you produce with it ... be that the produced images created, or your own produced joy of use. Money is but one form of value ... and, sometimes it is prudent to recognize $$$ as the tool to getting a different form of value.
So, do we wait two years till the 30% reduction in $$$ cost comes, "investing" the $$$ into other things ... or, do we start producing joy of use, two years sooner. In many regards, the image capture of new cameras today is incremental / iterative gains. But, if one is making a transformative change that produces a greater joy of use ... two years of (earlier) joy ... might be worth the 30% premium. OR, are we very content in the joy / images we get from current gear, such that there is little interest in the "new" tool du jour. Sometimes grandpa's hammer just keeps pounding nails, and fits our hand "just right", such that it is a joy to use. New, schmew. Cuts both ways, so it is an individual decision, but I think when we restrict our discussion of "value" to $$$ costs ... well, we might be in forest / trees territory sometimes.
There are other aspects / factors of "value" beyond this ^ ... but, you get the gist.
That said, my piggybank focuses me on depreciation curve, too. But, on occasion there are some things that bring enough of other kinds of "value" to me, that the new purchase premium is something I am willing to spend for. Case in point ... my Siggy 500/5.6 I bought new when it first came out ... no regrets for the premium of "new" (vs. waiting for depreciation to hit the used market) on that one.
I think that’s in part where my issue with Leica lies. I don’t think it produces better images than other brands and the user experience can be nice, but it’s not that much better for me than many other brands.
But that’s also looking at the initial outlay only, which is high, but over time Leica can be cheaper than the competition. My long gone Sony bodies have individually cost me more over their life span than my currently hardly used but still unsold M11 (granted, bought used).
johnvanr wrote:
I think that’s in part where my issue with Leica lies. I don’t think it produces better images than other brands
Obviously. But in the past, Leica lenses were different and it was obvious on slides and B&W. And to me, superior when it came to rendering, sharpness wide open, etc.
This stopped to be true 1 or 2 decades ago and anyhow, digital and post-processing are great equalizer.
johnvanr wrote:
and the user experience can be nice, but it’s not that much better for me than many other brands.
Once again, for me, the M is something else entirely and much better than any other brand.
I used the SL to shoot wildlife and it was the opposite: I prefer a Canon or Olympus body.
pmeheut wrote:
Obviously. But in the past, Leica lenses were different and it was obvious on slides and B&W. And to me, superior when it came to rendering, sharpness wide open, etc.
This stopped to be true 1 or 2 decades ago and anyhow, digital and post-processing are great equalizer.
Once again, for me, the M is something else entirely and much better than any other brand.
I used the SL to shoot wildlife and it was the opposite: I prefer a Canon or Olympus body.
Agreed. In the film days, my Zeiss lenses clearly beat other brands and Leica to me was similar to Zeiss.
For wildlife, I used to be a Canon shooter while trying Sony and Nikon, but ultimately stuck with Olympus after the OM-1.
