Depreciation of Digital Leica M and related issues

>>> Ray, First you start a thread asking 'who does some great 'excellent' 'stuff' with the M8, and now ask for re-sale values and depreciation.

 

Brad,Vivek,might not be the sharpest pencil in the box,but he does have a point.

 

Ray,buy,use,be happy. Tommorrow is the undiscovered country.

Allen: Oh, ho! All those pent-up frustration, eh?!

 

You are a genius as well.

Jeez,Vivek, just agreeing with your point of view. What's the matter with you?

Does the M8 have anything in common with the iPod? ;-)

If you are coming over the channel sometime, drop me a line and I will treat you to beer and some Jenever. OK, Allen?

I'm not losing sleep over whether my M8 will be worth much in years to come. I'm enjoying

using it and for as long as I can.

I will treat you to beer and some Jenever. OK, Allen?

 

Okay,but only if you have a Jenever with Ray first. If his still posting i'll know it's okay;)

Deal.

 

I will even lend him an RF camera to do some photography.

I personally hope the resale is crap so I can buy a cheap backup.

<i>"'ve done this, and my experience is the opposite of yours. I've used the 85/1.4 in autofocus on my F-100, and both a 50/1.4 Lux and a Noctilux on my Ms (both the MP/M3 with film and the M8). In all cases, I get more correctly focused shots with manual focus and the M. Furthermore, since I'm often shooting at 1/30 or below, even the correctly focused shots from the F100 are not as sharp as those from the Ms because of camera shake. Your mileage may vary depending on what you shoot. I'm shooting portraits close up in very dark conditions, trying to focus on the curve of the iris of the eye.</i><p>I have never shot with an F100. Similarly, I never get close enough with a lens to focus on the curve of a person's iris, similarly, ahem - get real - BOB how close do your M lenses focus ???? - the focal plane of a curved iris is macro lens stuff - and I would use a Canon f2.8 100 macro in autofocus mode to capture this ahead of any M ever made....anyway whatever works for you - :)

How much do faulty M's get on ebay? That's probably not a bad guide to future M8 prices as it is inevitable that some aspect of it's electronics will fail, capacitors dry out, all electronic components have a mean time between failure etc. Unless there are third parties manufacturing spare parts for them they will not necessarily be repairable. 20 years from now no one will want one anyway, other than as a collectors item, certainly not to use.

 

JJ

The F100 is a 10 year old design. If you compare with an F6 or the new D3 and a 100mm VR Nikkor you will get more up to date AF in a camera body that has MLU and VR in the lens to give 3 f-stops vibration reduction. Also slr framing close up is accurate since there is no parallex issue. On the D3 you have multiple cross sensors in the AF and live view composition on a 900,000 pixel 3"lcd or a 100% optical VF.

<i>I never get close enough with a lens to focus on the curve of a person's iris, similarly, ahem - get real - BOB how close do your M lenses focus ???? - the focal plane of a curved iris is macro lens stuff</i>

<p>

Interesting. All of the following photos were taken with the M8 and a 50mm Noctilux f/1.2 "ASPH" at it widest aperture and at 1m (minimum focusing distance) or slightly more. I also sometimes use a 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH to get a little closer.

<p>

At 1 meter with a 50mm lens at f/1.2, or at 0.7mm with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 depth of field is 2mm.

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/543402116_ac7a0ded14.jpg" width="403" height="500" alt="aside" /></a>

<p>

In 3/4 portraits at this distance, when the near curve of the iris of the near eye is in sharp focus, the far curve of the iris is somewhat out of focus and the far eye is completely out of focus.

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/425864217_c3bbc8a8e3.jpg" width="500" height="403" alt="eye" /></a>

<p>

The nose is noticeably out of focus.

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/502566466_eecd4305ac.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="Phil" /></a>

<p>

You don't need a macro lens to take pictures like these - you just need to conquer shyness.

<p>

You can click the pictures to see them bigger (and examine depth of field more closely) at flickr.

Bob, Your examples here (and the many more you had posted over the years) just show that you are well versed with using your Noct.

 

It is incredibly difficult (as your own post illustrating the DOF when it comes to fast lenses indicate). The best proof of this is all the buying/selling that goes on with Noctilux lenses. Very few Noct owners stick with it for actual use.

 

For fondlers, though, that hardly ever matters.

The Noct is often bought by folks who use Summicrons at F8; then they shoot some images at F1 with the new/used Noct and discover all is not like other Nocts shots. Then then sell the Noct; and rebuy the Summicron they sold off; and blame the Noct imstead of the M body that was last calibrated when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was in office. its a one night stand lens for most users. Here I have never worried about the Noct not focusing closer than 1 meter; or that it doesnt bake bread or do laundry like the Summicron. I also dont use a sledge hammer to hang picture tacks; or bitch that a 6 Lb or 12Lb sledge weighs too much. I dont bitch that my 10 1/4" BIGFOOT circular saw is too big for building birdhouses; or thats its heavier than mu battery operated dinky circular saws. A 50mm F2 summicron should not be sold off when one buys a Noct; nor ones 16oz claw hammers if one buys a 4Lb mini sledge hammer. I didnt sell off my 14" Mccullough electric chain saw when I bought a Stihl 20" electric saw. Tools are made is sizes for a reason. In a pinch one can use a the wrong size tool for a job; it might be too heavy for day to day usage; or the smaller one might require more light' or more taps.

I would have posted the first shot and left it at that. As photographs the two that follow are

very

ordinary.

If I were applying for gallery representation rather than illustrating depth of field effects, I'd

be worried about that.

Bob on your points re DOF and eyes ...- this one was a posed shot taken with a D200 and an old manual 50 1.4 wide open up close<p><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/1349924397/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1389/1349924397_00121efa39_o.jpg" width="750" height="502" alt="KateLP750" /></a></center><p> this one was a candid taken with an 85/1.2L on a 1dsmk11 (babies don't stay still for too long) ..<p><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/1349924187/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/1349924187_e2dee6f8d7_o.jpg" width="750" height="493" alt="Bubba750LP" /></a></center><p> and this one is my preferred wide angle 'environmental portrait' thrown in for some fun on a DMR and a 24 shot at 5.6....<p><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/1349924605/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1197/1349924605_af82d32658_o.jpg" width="750" height="475" alt="FishingButtLP750" /></a></center><p> I guess one can make all sorts of portraits and even similar using a range of cameras and lenses - each to his /her own preferences -:)

Couldn't agree more with that Peter A! :)

<p>

This one was taken with a 50/1.2 AIS on a D70 at f/1.2 (UV pass filter, false color UV capture):

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1253/1286662539_87ab19bb04.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a>

<p>

This, through a 50/0.95 on an Epson R-D1s @ f/0.95

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/83257830@N00/977837055/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/977837055_71766f0b5a.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="" /></a>

<p>

Same gear @f/0.95.

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1301/801428927_df8be2e9de.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a>

Vivek, that shot of the girl and the groundhog(?) is fantastic. Peter, your first two portraits are very nice too. They clearly demonstrate that you were wrong when you said <i>"I never get close enough with a lens to focus on the curve of a person's iris"</i>, which leaves me wondering why you asked me the question.

Thanks, Bob. Another (similar) shot is posted here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MVZa

 

Your point about RF and hand-holdability is true (at least for me)when it comes to a fast beast like the Canon 50/0.95.

99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of portrait shots I make is a good definition of 'never' for me I guess. I was surprised when you suggested that this was your portrait 'modus operandi'. <p>Nothing more than that - and your examples elicited a search through my new but inefficently structured Lightroom database - and I came up with two shots ot of many thousands , neither of which done with a Leica M - both using DSLRs one of which used autofocus as well as focus confirmation ( hence on topic)

The only models we have to compare are the Epson RD1, and the Digital Module R Leica

SLR digital back. In one instance an "M" mount rangefinder, and in the other instance, a

Digltal camera back made by Leica. How are they doing in the used marketplace?