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.
I don't think the next Leica M will have a hybrid viewfinder. First, everyone expects it, and second, such a development would hurt sales of the EVF-based EV-M models as well as the SL system.
Fuji is actually a good example. They have repeatedly said they don't want to make a full-frame camera for the X system because it would cannibalize both their GFX medium-format lineup and other product lines. They have openly acknowledged that they don't want to undermine their own ecosystem.
With Leica's new CEO, who comes from the luxury watch industry and is well known for his marketing background, I expect the focus to be on styling, design, and positioning the product as an even more premium luxury item rather than introducing a truly revolutionary feature. Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if the next Leica M came with gold-plated accents.
4ALL wrote:
I don't think the next Leica M will have a hybrid viewfinder.
Nope. Imo, Leica is oriented toward excellence of design, not compromise of utility. The hybrid becomes the best at neither (but could be argued as best at versatility), and as far as utility goes, the Visoflex and rear LCD offer versatility, likely standing on that is sufficient in approach.
As to the Fuji ... I had the X-Pro3 for that very reason. Imo, the implementation ... while novel ... wasn't that good (i.e. mediocrity vs. excellence), either. After that, I embarked into the Leica journey. I don't see Leica repeating Fuji's mediocrity by intent.
Kinda reminds me of my desire for a 100% silver mirror in DLSR (i.e. from SLR experience), that was never to be realized. Some things are just a matter of quid pro quo ... and it can be tough to be both things simultaneously, at times. So, unless Leica has something up their sleeve for a hybrid that is vastly superior to what Fuji brought to market ... I don't look for it from Leica.
The one thing that I'd conceive that would be novel in approach, would be to incorporate a "flip" VF, like in the m43 Panny GX8. But, instead of it just being an orientation change, it would be TWO different VF's ... one optical, one digital. So, not a hybrid VF, but twin-VF.
Improvement and modernization of the Leica lineup, which runs afoul of the purist, can be countered by continuing to sell older models. I recently purchased a new M6. So, improvements such as IBIS at the expense of a slightly thicker body and viewfinder improvements can be included in the newer model, as long as older cameras are still available. From my post, it is obvious that I don’t consider the lack of IBIS, or the mechanical rangefinder that requires servicing to be the best that Leica can engineer.
bwcolor wrote:
Improvement and modernization of the Leica lineup, which runs afoul of the purist, can be countered by continuing to sell older models. I recently purchased a new M6. So, improvements such as IBIS at the expense of a slightly thicker body and viewfinder improvements can be included in the newer model, as long as older cameras are still available. From my post, it is obvious that I don’t consider the lack of IBIS, or the mechanical rangefinder that requires servicing to be the best that Leica can engineer.
I think Leica has a solution in mind that will enable IBIS and advanced focus aids in the same form factor as current models. This requires a super fast processor and sensor. This will not happen in the M12.
I beleive it likely tha both the RF and EVF M cameras will both be offered going forward as separate lines.
I just spent Leica lens money getting my eyes lasered so I can focus a rangefinder reliably again.
IBIS is a big advantage to the handheld ethos of the M camera though, I would welcome that.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think Leica has a solution in mind that will enable IBIS and advanced focus aids in the same form factor as current models. This requires a super fast processor and sensor. This will not happen in the M12.
I beleive it likely tha both the RF and EVF M cameras will both be offered going forward as separate lines.
To be honest, I don't think anyone has created the perfect camera yet, but Leica probably comes closer than anything else. A hybrid viewfinder would only expose the limitations of the optical rangefinder, and people would start complaining all over again. Every hybrid viewfinder has suffered from this to some extent, although using one—like in the Fuji X-Pro series—was a very enjoyable experience.
The Leica M system is already incredibly versatile. You can compose in several different ways: from the waist using a hot-shoe level, with the rear LCD (which, in my opinion, is one of the weakest displays I've ever used—it reminds me of the first 1.3 MP digital cameras), with the Visoflex electronic viewfinder, which is especially comfortable if you're around 50 years old and your eyesight isn't what it used to be, thanks to its adjustable diopter, or with the classic optical rangefinder—the true "point and shoot" experience.
As for image stabilization, everyone seems to want it, but in reality only a small percentage of photographers truly need it. How many handheld photos are actually taken at dusk compared to the number of images where photographers intentionally want to preserve movement and natural atmosphere? At this point, I don't even pay much attention to the lack of stabilization because it has become a standard feature in almost every camera except Leica.
What really surprises me about Leica, however, is something I rarely see in other systems: consistency. The camera faithfully preserves the character of every lens. If I mount a low-contrast lens, I can clearly see its unique rendering. Leica doesn't impose its own signature on the image—it allows each lens to express its own personality. That's one of the reasons why using different lenses on a Leica M feels so rewarding.
