is M8 priced reasonably?

I suspect $4200 entry for an M8 is likely about the same, $-inflation-adjusted

or Vs average US house price, as was M3, back when it was introduced (an average

new US house would have cost well under $10,000 back then).

 

Of course, film Leicas didn't do bizarre things to color, and it's hard to

imagine anyone paying used M3 prices for a 50-year-old M8, but those are matters

for other discussions.

According to the Consumer Price Index, prices overall are up about 7.5x during the past 52 years, but it doesn't really make any difference what things were selling for in 1954. We aren't living then. Going by the general inflation rate, it would be reasonable for Dell to charge $100 million for your laptop.

<p>

It costs much more than a Canon 5D. But the economics in terms of both supply and demand are very different, so the price winds up being higher. Whether the price is reasonable is up to the buyer.

Well, supply and demand is the only reason that they can sell a camera made with very expensive German labor. Everybody else makes cameras in Japan, Korea, Thailand, etc. (OK, 'blads are made in Sweeden.)

 

German labor is paid well, comes with high payroll taxes, and if you lay them off, you have to keep paying them for at least 3 years...

if your question is "will I get my 4200$ worth" the answer is No.

 

Is it price reasonably compared to equally good cameras in the market, the answer is no.

 

It's actually way overpriced, but this is the value of the red dot.

And before you start wondering, yes I do own one.

1) If you're getting an M8 for $4200, let me know who your dealer is. Generally they are

$4800.

 

2) Historical perspectives are OK - but realistically, I want to know what I can get TODAY

for $4800 or thereabouts.

 

Seems like my choices are: Canon 1D, Nikon D2x, Leica M8.

 

The Canon and Nikon offer 12+ megapixels (blurred with an AA filter), good-to-excellent

AF, up to 8 fps motor, a lot of weight and bulk, and even more weight and bulk once the

lenses are factored in.

 

The M8 offers 10+ Mpixels with no blurring filter, no AF, excellent MANUAL focusing -

and weighs under a kilo with most lenses mounted.

 

For me it boils down to the fact that compactness, low weight, crisp manual focusing, and

high sharpness everywhere on the frame outweigh AF and fps as desirable "features".

 

If Canon or Nikon sold a "digital P" or "digital SP" with the same size and same feature set

as the M8, I would give them very strong consideration. Regardless of the name or the

color of the dot on the front.

 

They might be cheaper than the M8 - and then again, given the hand-labor involved in

building and calibrating rangefinder mechanisms, they might cost the same.

 

One can pay 40% less for an R-D1s and get 40% fewer pixels and 40% less usable lens

range (due to vignetting with wides, or the limits of the RF/VF).

 

So it seems to me the M8 price is reasonable compared to the alternatives.

In terms of Leica pricing, "reasonable" means the buyer can come up with at least one reason to convince himself to buy :-)

In absolute terms, no.

 

For a new, flagship Leica, yes. Absolutely. Just be honest that the nameplate itself has value. Also, the camera certainly has a higher fondle'ability factor than any other on the market.

I bought my first brand new Leica, an M2 with 50mm F2 summicron in 1965 for $225. That $225 represented the same percentage of my income then as an M8 with one lens does today.

 

The consumer price index is only one way of looking at it, but not the most accurate measure.

"is M8 priced reasonably?"

 

No. But what Leica camera or lens is ever priced reasonably? We buy Leica anyway. :-)

<i>but it doesn't really make any difference what things were selling for in 1954. We aren't living then. </i><p>

Speak for yourself. :( <p>

It really is inexcusable to pay German workers a decent wage and let them have good

employment conditions. All we get is a high-quality product. Surely, all new products

should be made in Asia or other developing countries where labour is cheap. Then

companies in the US and developed nations can lay off workers to create more profit

for...er...

>>Of course, film Leicas didn't do bizarre things to color, and it's hard to imagine anyone

paying used M3 prices for a 50-year-old M8, but those are matters for other

discussions.<<

 

Film Leicas DID do bizarre things to color, but since it was the only color that we could

get, that's what we used. That's why we had indoor and outdoor film, and color-balancing

filters, and arguments about different varieties of chromes. Velvia and Kodachrome

weren't loved so much for their color accuracy, as for their color quality -- but it was their

own color, not the landscape's. And it wasn't just that way in color, either. In Ansel Adams

most-sold photo, Moonrise, the sky is nearly jet-block, while there's still natural light on

the landscape... 8-)

 

JC

<i>It really is inexcusable to pay German workers a decent wage and let them have good employment conditions. All we get is a high-quality product. Surely, all new products should be made in Asia ...</i><p>

I read an article the other day. It started by describing the subject's home, the nice house, big tv, stereo system, modern kitchen, late-model car, benefits ... and then he said, "But my job is in danger. The company is considering a move to a country with a lower standard wage." The gentleman was living in Sweden. The new country under consideration was the USA.<p>

I wonder if it cost over 1000$ to build this camera?

If you think like that, you'll be stuck forever in 1953. Technology has made huge productivity increases possible, making things a lot cheaper in real terms over the years. Computers never seem to increase in price, but performance doubles every 18 months. Cameras too. Airfares. Music CD's. You name it.

 

What technology cannot do is make labour cheaper. That's why the M8 is still the same price, in real terms, as in 1953.

<i>Computers never seem to increase in price, but performance doubles every 18 months. </i><p>

That's a myth, of course. If processor speed increased like that we would have terrabit CPUs. :)

Could you please explain what a terrabit CPU would be? Processor speeds are conventionally measured (very imperfectly) in megahertz, megaflops or mips.

 

And actually it's a pretty good rule of thumb, though not the same as Moore's Law. The Intel Core 2's claim about 60,000 MIPS. The original IBM PC was about 1 MIPS. That's incredibly close to doubling every 18 months.

I don't know the answer. But in thinking about this, I would just like to say that the new digital cameras are a combined machine of camera+film equivalent. So in thinking about it, the cost of film saved must be factored in.

 

In fact, that is where Leica erred with the M8, the recording medium (used to be film), which is totally new to them.

Yes, the parts cost alone of the camera is probably around $1000. About the first $400 is the sensor.

"If you think like that, you'll be stuck forever in 1953."

 

I think the big question is whether Leica has actually moved beyond 1953, or whether it has just produced a digital Edsel.

Seems like my choices are: Canon 1D, Nikon D2x, Leica M8.

 

No you have other choices too the Canon 5d now being sold with a $600 rebate when purchased with a lens from Canon.

 

Also the Nikon d200 which many Nikonians feel takes better photos than the D2xs because it has a more recently designed sensor.

 

Its a waste of time arguing whether Leica is overcharging now that their mechanical parts have been replaced with electronics, vertical metal shutter like everyone else, battery dependance, a crop factor that obsoletes wide angle lenses and requires more expensive lens purchases for replacement. Its a waste of time since you either get their digital RF or continue using film with your collection of lenses. The RD1 has its own repair problems and an even more discouraging 1.6x crop factor. Leica knows this and If they were not bashed so hard and loud this past week they would have done nothing for those who kept their orders in place.

 

I hope everyone enjoyed thanksgiving.

for me its a steal (and im not rich by any stretch). less than $1500 more than an m7. i love

my m6 but its so expensive to process film at a good lab anymore. time is valuable and

the time im saving not scanning anymore justifies the price alone. ive spent hundreds of

hours scanning film in the last year or so. i make about 30-40 $ an hour in my job-you do

the math. plus i hate scanning-it is work as well. with my m6 i actually found myself

thinking about whether or not to take a shot because of the price. especially experimental

low light exposures. to think about cost during the creative process is tragic and

extremely detrimental to that process. im shocked at how cheap all the leica m's are.

cheaper than a rolex or tag watch. that blows me away considering the precision of a leica

m. so yes- i find it incredibly reasonable.