M9 product timeline

<p>Ok, if I was to consider buying a current Leica digital body (ie, M9), does anyone have some idea of the projected product lifecycle. Its very hard to predict with Leica as the M8 and M8.2 were intermediate steps to the M9, in my opinion.<br>

I would only consider the investment required if I had some confidence in the model longevity, and thus depreciation, and thats the achilles heel of digital photography.</p>

<p>There won't be any model longevity. We will blink twice and note an M9.2 or M10. That's how all digitals are. Why is it the Achilles' heel? Each model is an advance. You either buy into digital or you don't. My 10mp Canon SLR, a few years old, is great, however the M9 image quality at 18mp is much better when magnified.<br>

Nobody can tell me that Leica doesn't envisage a 30mp or bigger M camera, but the problem is that as a small producer, Leica camera may go down the tubes at any time, in this economic climate.<br>

Then you would have M9 model longevity, but perhaps not of a desirable kind.</p>

 

<p>I don't think you can realistically expect any digital camera to hold its value. That said, the digital rangefinder market is very limited, and second hand M8s and Epsons while depreciated, still sell for significantly more than an equivalent age and spec DSLR.<br>

If you intend to keep it long term and use it extensively, IMO depreciation is not worth worrying about. It's not relevant until you sell.</p>

<p>Most digital cameras change every year. Higher-end models usually change every 3 years. With Leica, you'll always be kept in suspense! Needless to say, with the Leica philosophy of going back to the basics of photography without all the bells & whistles, the M9 is already pretty hard to beat in my opinion. The only thing I can wish for is better ISO performance but then again, that's why you have lenses like to Noctilux.</p>

<p>There will always be a more advanced model. The product timeline is often more that of the <strong>"photographer's interest timeline"</strong>. Before the product has failed or is very significantly outmoded (which the M8 is not, in my opinion), the photographer may have put it on the shelf for other interests (writing a book, taking up kayaking, whatever) or may have decided he or she wants to return to the simplicity of a good point and shoot (if small size photos are all that is desired) or buy a MF or LF camera and shoot B&W film or colour film.</p>

<p>Buy an M2 & 10,000 rolls of film -- don't look back (or ahead!) IMO.</p>

<p>I finally pulled the trigger on the M9 less than a few days ago, having sold my M8 and initially thinking that I'd be OK with the M6 along (I would be, of course, but I suffer of LAS).<br>

IMO, the M8 (and the M8.2) was a fine camera, but also it was a tough sell in many ways - too many problems initially, not full frame, pretty borderline ISO performance etc etc. And the coding of the lenses and need for filters drove many crazy.</p>

<p>The M9 is much better, in fact it is so good (from what I can tell using it for a few days, anyway), it costs significantly more than the M8, it is built very solidly and it is still selling out more that a year after coming out, that I wonder, who would buy the M10 if it came out in 2011 or 2012?</p>

<p>I think that poses a not insignificant problem for Leica which I am sure they are brooding over right now. For most people it is a problem to plunk down $7000 or more within 2-3 years of buying the M9, which leaves the collectors and maybe some pro's - not sure Leica can be sustained on those.</p>

<p>I think Leica's future will probably rest on selling other cameras like D-Lux5 etc, to people who want to have the red dot. Personally I think they will also expand on the X1 concept, maybe with a R-lens mount solution that would be a hit. If Sony can put an APS-sensor in a NEX body, why can't Leica put full frame into something a little bigger?</p>

 

<p>I totally agree Dr. Schaefer.</p>

<p>Like most things, and especially in the digital world, <strong>"New and Improved"</strong> eventually becomes<br /> <strong>"Old & Cruddy"</strong></p>

<p>If you're adverse to trading or selling away the old model for the latest version periodically,<br /> <strong>just be happy </strong>with your purchase at the time and enjoy it.<br /> Either way, get used to it.</p>

<p>One interesting aspect of this conversation is the notion that Leica occupy a niche market space in which there is little or no direct competition, at least with the M9. If one wants a FF rangefinder camera that accepts M lenses, there aren't many choices.<br>

Being so positioned, Leica can "afford" to adopt a different product enhancement frequency than, say, a Canon or Nikon who are slugging it out in the main arena with 2-3 year product cycles.<br>

I'm not suggesting Leica WILL, only that they CAN get the most out of sunk development costs by amortizing across a lengthier "at capacity" manufacturing period, given the protective cover of their niche and the fact that production of the M9 remains sold out, 14 months after market introduction.<br>

The statistics are a magnificent tribute to product excellence and customer loyalty.</p>

<p>There have always been a certain number of people Leica could count on to buy their newest items regardless of price, specification comparisons to other brands, reliability problems, and production delays. Between the economy and age/mortality, that number has been declining. With the M9 it looks though Leica has tapped a bigger market, but perhaps only they have tapped more of the original market, by satisfying baulkers who would not accept the M8 with its crop and need of IR filters. After the disappointments of the M8 Leica is now feeding a pented up demand, but even they dole out M9 shipments slowly, eventually the demand shall be met. Then they must offer something new. Many typical Leica customers will become bored and want something new and fresh to play with, and to feel they make envious their buddies with the expensive latest new Leica. So Leica to survive must be already hard working on the next version as I am confident they are. I am welcoming this happening, because it will be why I will able to afford myself an M9, as those rich boys rush to dump their "obsolete" M9 for the next model. I think when there is a succession to the M9, then the M8 will again drop heavily down in money worth. When there is the chance to buy a mint, almost not used M9 for a fraction, there will be little reason anyone to buy a crop and IR filter body like the M8. I will just guess to predict a succession to the M9 at the next Photokina.</p>

<p>So what future improvements are likely? ISO range can be improved. Dynamic range can be improved. Perhaps reliability can be improved. There will be other technological developments: I'm sure we can expect faster cards and read/write speeds and longer lasting batteries. It may be possible to have more frames per second. None of these amounts to a paradigm shift. For me the M9 is good enough, whereas the M8 wasn't quite there. I think the 9 will hold it's value because it does what we want: allow us to take digital photographs with the lenses at their intended focal lengths.<br />Of course newer cameras will be worth a bit more, but I'd be very happy to invest in an M9 now.</p>

<p> I would rather have a regular M camera that shoots film. I like negatives myself. However computer camera's get old quick and that's the game if you want to play. Just do the upgrade thing I guess.</p>

<p>After paying $6000 for an M8, it is going to last me for a while. My trade up will then be to an M10 in two or three or four years, at which time the M8 can have any value it wants (I probably will keepit for its IR B&W imaging that the M9 does not offer), as I will have gotten lots of good use from it and my lenses get used on both the film (full frame) Leica and M8 body.</p>

<p>What will make me trade up? Better ISO performance as already mentioned (I doubt we will see better dynamic range, a problem with digitals), a FF higher resolution sensor (25 or 30 MP) and perhaps some mechanism whereby all the 3 color sensors can be switched to B&W for ultra high resolution B&W digital photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, better dynamic range may be possible. I understand the latest Nikon (D7000) has better dynamic range than any earlier DSLR.</p>

<p>The decision to stump up $7-10k in a digital camera is a serious one. I have this thing about depreciation. I also shoot a lot of film too. I might just get an M7 and a couple of good lenses and buy a good scanner and printer instead. At least this way I can at least be sure the lenses I buy will have zero obsolescence. <br>

The most useful comment here was that one must place a stake in the ground and get whats best at a point of time. Easy to say...not so easy to feel staisfied.</p>

<p>I have the M9 and at this point in quality I wouldn't worry about the next Leica coming out for maybe another 2 updates. This never ends but I see a slowing down eventually of new camera models coming out. From a resolution standpoint I think 18MP is good. I would like to see more dynamic range from 35mm digitals and less digital noise.</p>

<p>Lens obsolescence has nothing to do with buying an M7 or M9. Just winding us up?</p>

<p>James...No it doesn't in Leica terms, but when I can buy a used D3 for less than $4k, there are alternatives. A used D3x will be had for less than $6k within the year. And I'm not comparing here, just looking for a sensible, objective spend.<br>

I've spent twenty years accumulating a range of quality F mount lenses and none are going down in value and I can use all of them on the latest Nikon...it would almost be the same with M lenses if chosen carefully. My concern is the platform...M9, D3x, 5DII, all produce stunning images. I'm not interested in high ISO or fps, just faithful colours and lenses that can match the capability of the sensor.<br>

My film photography is with 50-400 ISO slides. I want to invest in a digital version of that. It might even mean MF with a digital back in a year or so. </p>

<p>Didn't mean to be tetchy<br>

Well, that's the same reason I bought an M9. Apart from some good Rollei SL35 lenses and a mixed bag of screw thread Takumars etc, all my 'good' lenses are Leitz/Leica, including Visoflex reflex focusing stuff, and a few wide V/C lenses. They are mostly middle-aged like me, but unlike many of the digital SLR fraternity don't do barrel distortion on wide, which sets my teeth on edge.<br>

So, not wanting to go through the whole process and expense, I just ordered the camera at the best convenient price, and use a prosumer Canon EOS with 10mp sensor for the convenience of a lot of day to day documentation, for which it has excellent qualities.</p>

<p>So, with a valued Nikon lens line-up, I think you are in the same position. Unless you can't forgo the thrill of a Leica, get a good digital Nikon, plus one or two auto everything convenience lenses, and save yourself grief. I know not all lenses translate well optically to digital use, but the issue is wildly overstated.</p>

 

<p>Indeed, I wouldn't expect any digital body to hold value. If you buy one, you're in for the short-term (or, perhaps, mid-term). With each new model (regardless of whether we're talking Leica M or any DSLRS), the previous model loses value. I have an M8, and I'm happy with it. I will use it until it falters. Or, maybe, an M10 will come up and dramatically suppress the M9 prices. Leica lenses, on the other hand, tend to hold their value much better. Heck, if I had gotten a Noctilux just three years ago, it would have cost what? At most, a couple grand! And they're now going for $5K.</p>

<p>I think the M9 will hold its value. For one thing, it's a Leica. For another thing, the M9 isn't just another digital camera. It isn't just that dealers can't keep them on the shelves. It's that they can't even get one on the shelf. An M9 comes in, and it's gone already. It will go down as one of the 10, or 12, or 20 most important cameras of all time--like the M3, or the Rolleiflex. I bought an M2 in 1060 for $249.00. Try buying an M2 for that price today. You can't. If you want an original MP, figure on putting together about $50,000.</p>

<p>So if you have the $$, go for it. I don't think you will be sorry.</p>

<p>I was happy to pay £5000 for my M9 after selling my M8. In 2 years time I may have to sell it for £2000. That means I have lost £3000 in depreciation.<br>

However, I genuinely believe I will have taken more than £3000 worth of really high quality photos and I will have enjoyed every last minute of it.<br>

£1500 per year is about the cost of a season ticket for a top UK premier league side. That cost is just a memory. The Leica M9 is, by comparison, an inexpensive purchase.<br>

Note that I'm not some Leica fanboy. I like my 1DSiii almost as much.</p>

<p>Shadforth,</p>

<p>Perhaps you should consider obsolescence as a lower priority in your plans. Why? Because digitals are all subject to obsolescence, the evolutiuon of sensors and software being what they are. The guy who plunked down for a Hassy with whatever MP sensor (19 or 20) some years ago is probably changing for a 39 to 60 MP bsack now. Does he need it? Yes, if he is doing super large prints (3 foot x 3 foot or greater). No, if he is simply replacing a prior Velvia 50 slide shooting practice and needs no greater quality. Some of the very fine artists use Hassys and film to produce 7 x 7 inch prints (such as Michael Kenna). Other than the feedback offered by digital for work with difficult light, a 20 MP back would be overkill.</p>

<p>I agree with Rob and Steve. Perhaps the M9 will not depreciate so quickly as suggested, but the point is that it, and even the M8, is a very fine camera and worthy of much photographic work for the better part of the next decade. Assuming that and a price of $7000, that means about $700 per year depreciation.</p>

<p>When I move up to the M9 or its successor, I probably will keep the M8. At $2000 and probably even less then, it will be irreplaceable as an IR B&W camera, allowing me to forget the near diappearance of IR films on the market. An 18 MP M9 will not likely be ever redundant for making images of quality comparable to those of ISO 50 to 400 slides. Medium format is another issue and a very different price range, especially if you already own M lenses (the same applies to Nikon lenses and Nikon digitals - a MF format digital would have to be really needed for super enlargements to foresake that acquired capability for investment in a whole new lens line).</p>

<p>Thanks for the valuable advice. I agree that I am being very conservative. I have only had two platforms in my entire life. The first was with Olympus and the OM1 plus some nice Zuiko lenses. I sold all that in the 90s as I started on the Nikon conversion, to get away from Oly's battery redundancy and to get more lens choice. In the case of the Oly gear, I made a profit against the list price I paid in the 70s. At the moment, after some very careful purchase decisions I would also make a small profit on my Nikon gear. So photography for me has been a very inexpensive, long term exercise. Until.........<br>

I had a D300 until two months ago and sold it on eBay for $900, against the $3000 it cost new, 18 months ago. It was a great DX camera, especially paired to the 11-16 Tokina 2.8, but I want to move up to FX now. I don't really want to experience that kind of loss again either. Its not so much the $$$ so much as the difficulty in finding a buyer.<br>

What it boils down to now is whether to get an M9 plus 3 lenses in the next two months, as I have no Leica glass. To do that would mean abandoning Nikon to eBay. I can't afford both. Its a $10k spend at least. I might just wait a while longer, then make a decision, as I want to continue to concentrate on landscapes. By next June, the D700 replacement will be out to muddy the waters even more.<br>

We also now see Pentax come out with their 645D at $10k. This has shifted the sands as well, placing a stake in the ground at the $10k mark for meduim format digital. And to a landscape fan like me, this is mighty tempting. One thing is for sure. If the pricing of medium format digital drops as it will inevitably now, it will put a ceiling on 35mm digital values. That will force Nikon, Canon and Leica to keep under it. This will impact used values. Good if you are buying, but not if you are selling. In any case, I don't want to be lugging around a D3/1Ds sized camera for landscapes. This swings the choice pendulum back to Leica. And thats where my gut feeing is telling me to go at the moment.</p>

<p>You may want to read Erwinn Puts on Leica lens tests, or one of the European magazines for lens tests. Landscapes means highest possible resolution and microcontrast of small details. Lenses are quite critical. I would be concerned about some Leica lenses resolving well in the digital mode, where off axis rays have to be brought to bear on the sensor pixels at a reasonable angle. Leica has apparently got Kodak (or themselves or someone) to devise an off axis optical correction filter for the M9 FF sensor. This was not a problem with the Leica lenses and former film use. In the MF field, the Hasselblad lenses were apparently no match for new digitally designed Schneider lenses (small LF camera use), using in each case the same high MP sensor (An article in Photo Techniques a year or so ago). That confirmed that new lens design is necessary to get the full potential of digital cameras.</p>

<p>The 35mm ASPH is a fine lens, but if you have to go wider, the 21mm ASPH is also tops, although it has to be focussed on infinity (or exact subject distance) for best resolution of far off and edge of frame details. Maybe the new f3.8 is a bit better than the former fine lens, not sure. An excellent longer lens is the Summicron 75 mm, but I only know that from the reports.</p>