speedgraphic wrote:
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.
Agree with your sentiment in general - slight correction here regarding making silver gelatin darkroom prints: you can actually do it nicely from digital monochrome files using the so-called digital negative process at home. I started using it for my digital infrared-converted cameras first with excellent B&W results in darkroom prints.
AndrewNYC wrote:
"Leicas are just overengineered Canons"
That comparison doesn't really hold water. An Ebony is basically a Deardorff design with titanium metal components and more exotic wood. YMMV on whether that makes a difference to you. There are a lotta Deardorffs out there holding up just fine. A Canon mirrorless camera is absolutely nothing like a Leica M digital camera. The SL system however is definitely an over engineered Panasonic.
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.
With one important exemption here why used M10-R prices remain high in the past few years: it is because of the failures in the M11 which made many upgrading to the M10-R instead as the better alternative. The M10-R is still more desired by many in the used market than a used M11 for only a little bit more money with the M11 as you pointed out. If the M11 would have been as promised originally, used M10-R prices would now be < $4K. If willing to upgrade, I would not go for a used M11 either (much too risky) and go with an EX condition M10-R instead for sure.
It is possible with the arrival of a well made M12 that used M11 prices plummet quite a bit even below M10-R prices.
retrofocus wrote:
With one important exemption here why used M10-R prices remain high in the past few years: it is because of the failures in the M11 which made many upgrading to the M10-R instead as the better alternative. The M10-R is still more desired by many in the used market than a used M11 for only a little bit more money with the M11 as you pointed out. If the M11 would have been as promised originally, used M10-R prices would now be < $4K. If willing to upgrade, I would not go for a used M11 either (much too risky) and go with an EX condition M10-R instead for sure.
It is possible with the arrival of a well made M12 that used M11 prices plummet quite a bit even below M10-R prices. ...Show more →
Even if the M11 is a perfect camera, M10R probably is still at its current market value. M10R is what it is because it's an awesome M. Just like M9 is worth just about the same as M240. Some generations of Ms are just pure awesomeness. M10 series have great colors, perfect size and reliability. M10R takes the color science of M10, quiet shutter of M10P and fixed the highlight clipping of the base M10. The success of M10 didn't hurt M9's value at all.
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.
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....Show more →
The current price of an new D850 is highly discounted to clear old inventory. Originally it was priced at about $3,300.using your logic and math, that means it is selling used at B&h for only 48% of value A huge discount compared to how most Leica product performm on resale.
In the realm of electronic products not just cameras Leicas perform incredibly well. Like all products Leicas lose a lot of their value at first. But with Lleica they tend to stabilize. Some even appreciate after the initial drop. Depending on how the current trade negotiations go the is a strong potential for appreciation in the used market.
And if you buy used you will not loose a lot of money.
I remember when I went all Leica M in 2015 I lost a ton 0f $$$$ on my Canon gear, The only piece of Canon equipment I got any kind of return on was my 200 2L. That I got just about what I paid and I had it 9 years.
My M 9 Mono when I sold it to help finance the M 10 Mono I got over 4K IIRC and it was 8 years old.
Just for fun ... if we're talking depreciation values, my Kodak DCS was around $9,000 at launch, and I picked mine up used for $1K (circa 2008-ish iirc) and used the snot out of it, buying up the last batteries in the country I could find, until I finally got something different. Today's value is ... well, not that much.
As to gear holding its value, despite how much I liked my Kodak (colors, and the LCD revealing pixel level RGB values vs. a histogram, like a spot meter, but for color) ... it had a sensor / color science that was compared with Leica back then. But, today's value for the Leica of the era vs. my Kodak ... two different tales.
Just a walk down memory lane, when folks start quibbling about depreciation values.
Compare that to my M10R ... yeah, very different stories. I think my M10R is actually worth MORE today than what I paid for it. Q2, not so much. SL2-S, not so much. M246, pretty close to same, maybe a smidge more.
My X1D II and glass (held its own) I've since sold.
To Allen's point ... when you buy used Leica gear, the primo depreciation has already occurred, and it stabilizes pretty well after the dust settles. Oh, it has its ups / downs and maybe even some additional depreciation, but the curve is a lot nicer than some rigs can be.
RustyBug wrote:
. I think my M10R is actually worth MORE today than what I paid for it.
just curious, how much did you pay for yours?
close to mint M10R are selling for about $5200. I've considered one since I don't want a M11 or M11P. But I really want electronic shutter that lets me shoot wide open in sunlight without ND filters, and I want a bigger battery than the often hard to find M10 battery.
So I'm holding out for the rumored new Leica (M11V?). And in the meantime when I want to shoot color, my CL and newly acquired Q3 are holding me over.
And speaking of the CL and Q3, if the EVF and manual focus experience of the rumored new Leica works as well as EVF and manual focus on those 2 cameras, I'll be ecstatic.
I'd really hope the M11-V's MF experience works almost as well as a Z6iii. Focus confirmation, even face detection, is a really useful evolution of the standard focusing aids. Not getting my hopes up though, I think that is more realistically an M12 thing.
itai195 wrote:
I'd really hope the M11-V's MF experience works almost as well as a Z6iii. Focus confirmation, even face detection, is a really useful evolution of the standard focusing aids. Not getting my hopes up though, I think that is more realistically an M12 thing.
those are auto focus mechanics, and I doubt the new cam will have auto focus
itai195 wrote:
I'd really hope the M11-V's MF experience works almost as well as a Z6iii. Focus confirmation, even face detection, is a really useful evolution of th
e standard focusing aids. Not getting my hopes up though, I think that is more realistically an M12 thing.
I have shot MF with the Nikon ZF which I believe has these same focusing aids. They work Ok. But in my experience the best manual focus through an EVF I have ever used is with a Leica SL-(2 & 3). That EVF is so clear and bright, the focus peaking and magnification are so elegantly and simply implemented, that this is the easiest, and most enjoyable MF experience I have ever used. Rarely miss a shot even wide open at F/1.0.
As much as I love my M cameras and the RF experience, I honestly think the best platform for shooting M lenses is now the SL-3 for a variety of reasons. Though I admit, it is not my favorite form factor camera. The M wins there.
1bwana1 wrote:
I have shot MF with the Nikon ZF which I believe has these same focusing aids. They work Ok. But in my experience the best manual focus through an EVF I have ever used is with a Leica SL-(2 & 3). That EVF is so clear and bright, the focus peaking and magnification are so elegantly a simply implemented, that this is the easiest, and most enjoyable MF experience I have ever used. Rarely miss a shot even wide open at F/1.0.
As much as I love my M cameras and the RF experience, I honestly think the be platform for shooting M lenses is now the SL-3 for a variety of reasons. Though I admit, it is not my favorite form factor camera. The M wins there....Show more →
I switch out between my M10R and M glass my SL2-S on a regular basis. Generally speaking, I use the SL for my longer (75 / 135) M glass. The EVF and IBIS, while I "can" shoot without EVF or IBIS on the M ... the experience can be more fluid on the SL body with the long glass.
It's worth keeping a watch on portrait length M lenses being brought to market. We've already seen several from CV and PRC makers. Ditto for short MFD M lenses, which are springing up like daisies. Back channels exist in business circles.
Leica are huge achievers, also super influential, and with an EVF M program will get even bigger and more important. 'Program' because it will be ongoing, won't it? They have this current reissue of older mid-FL lenses, so they might even resurrect the 75mm Summilux after its 20 year rest in the annals of history.
What is the percentage of M lenses => 75mm for exclusive use on M bodies out of all M lenses in the market? EVF M cameras changes that, and no need for SL buy in.
philip_pj wrote:
It's worth keeping a watch on portrait length M lenses being brought to market. We've already seen several from CV and PRC makers. Ditto for short MFD M lenses, which are springing up like daisies. Back channels exist in business circles.
Leica are huge achievers, also super influential, and with an EVF M program will get even bigger and more important. 'Program' because it will be ongoing, won't it? They have this current reissue of older mid-FL lenses, so they might even resurrect the 75mm Summilux after its 20 year rest in the annals of history.
What is the percentage of M lenses => 75mm for exclusive use on M bodies out of all M lenses in the market? EVF M cameras changes that, and no need for SL buy in....Show more →
+1 long glass on RF M's ... likely not the hot ticket for as many folks vs. the normal / wide M glass.
Of course, next thing will be folks clamoring for IBIS and Tilt Screen in the M body.
At which point, we're talking an SL without a built in grip, and no AF ... and, I could see that doing well, too. Let's see M12, nope, M13, maybe tilt screen. M14, same, M15 ... IBIS technology finally at a level M engineers can pull it off and retain M body form factor.
At which point the original M variants (RF, no tilt, no IBIS) ... is now a "throwback" M variant, like the M-D. Well, sorta.
First things first, though ... let's see what they bring to the table with the new EVF.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 long glass on RF M's ... likely not the hot ticket for as many folks vs. the normal / wide M glass.
Of course, next thing will be folks clamoring for IBIS and Tilt Screen in the M body.
At which point, we're talking an SL without a built in grip, and no AF ... and, I could see that doing well, too. Let's see M12, nope, M13, maybe tilt screen. M14, same, M15 ... IBIS technology finally at a level M engineers can pull it off and retain M body form factor.
At which point the original M variants (RF, no tilt, no IBIS) ... is now a "throwback" M variant, like the M-D. Well, sorta.
First things first, though ... let's see what they bring to the table with the new EVF....Show more →
I would think IBIS would be the most important update, way more so than a tilt screen. There is probably even a very strong argument to be made for NO rear screen whatsoever(ala M-D) since one would have the EVF finder. That would save a bit of body thickness as well and perhaps maintain the minimalist aesthetics of the M. For me, that would be the ideal.
The below image is the bottom of the Sony A7cr with tilt screen and IBIS. I don't have one around to measure but it if we knew the distance from where the tilt screen meets the body to the end of the lens mount, one could add roughly 10mm's to approximate an M body with IBIS thickness, maybe even slightly thinner.
I wish M10R has fast wifi and USB charging like M11 and Q3. Keep everything the same. That would be my perfect M. I don't need the new sensor and menu. 40mp is all I need.
gordec wrote:
I wish M10R has fast wifi and USB charging like M11 and Q3. Keep everything the same. That would be my perfect M. I don't need the new sensor and menu. 40mp is all I need.
I actually prefer that it doesn't have all those high-tech features. I like keeping things simple, with no temptation to connect it to a phone or charge it like one... Maybe Leica should focus on pushing new tech in their EVF models while keeping the rangefinder version more basic, with fewer features and no connectivity.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the latest technological innovations, but for that, I prefer other cameras.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I actually prefer that it doesn't have all those high-tech features. I like keeping things simple, with no temptation to connect it to a phone or charge it like one... Maybe Leica should focus on pushing new tech in their EVF models while keeping the rangefinder version more basic, with fewer features and no connectivity.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the latest technological innovations, but for that, I prefer other cameras.
Well M10s all have wifi but sometimes slow and unreliable with Fotos. I just want it fast and reliable because I use it quite a bit when I travel with my Ipad. USB charging is also nice for travel, so charger stays at home. For me as long there is RF and brass body, it still feels like traditional M.
