Sanford Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Yesterday, I actually asked a guy I saw using an M8 how he liked his new camera and he seemed VERY unhappy with it. I can only assume there there will be more like him eventually creating a supply of used M8's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 "While IMO MPs M7s and also M6's and most of the older M film cameras seem to be holding a more or less stable value on the used market is the M8...going to depreciate in value fairly quickly too" The used market for film Leicas is remaining as stable as it is because many people who had planned on buying an M8 have opted out, or at least to wait for major teething troubles to be sorted, so the "big dump" never happened. Furthermore up until the past couple of weeks the supply of M8s has been a trickle rather than a flood, and even now is still a trickle in most parts of the world outside the major US dealers. The long-term market value of the M8 is harder to predict than one would think. There will undoubtedly be M8s on the secondhand market because completely aside from the glitches and IR issue, for a certain segment, Leicas are big-boy-toys and the novelty wears off sooner or later. If there is an M9, surely there will be more M8s on the secondhand market and the prices will certainly be lower than new ones, but by how much is entirely dependent on how many M8s were sold during its lifetime. As of now, that's not many, even by Leica standards. The DMR is a good case in point. There were only a few thousand made and all have been sold, or at least shipped to dealers. Unlike Canon or Nikon, Leica has discontinued their flagship DSLR without a replacement. There was no anticipatory rebate period, no rumours prior to a major photo show, nothing, just sudden death. Someone who was waiting for closeout pricing is now out of luck, as is someone holding out for an R10 they "knew" was coming on the heels of the DMR. So anyone who still wants a Leica-R-DSLR now is going to be looking for a used one, and without an R10 those who have a DMR might not be getting rid of theirs anytime soon. So common sense says used DMRs aren't going to follow the traditional downslope of discontinued DSLRs. Therefore, I'm not about to make confident-sounding predictions in re the M8 one way or the other. Leica is an enigmatic brand, to say the very least ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_pfile3 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 A pristine 41 year old M3, which went for @ $250 when new, will fetch something North of $1,000 today. That will not be the case with an M8 that's just as pristine, in less than 10 years. That's just the facts that surround emerging technology products. I would not purchase a digital Leica with anything approaching an 'investment' in mind, unless my position allowed me to write it off for tax purposes. It doesn't. In the meantime, use it to take pictures and enjoy it. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 "A pristine 41 year old M3, which went for @ $250 when new, will fetch something North of $1,000 today. That will not be the case with an M8 that's just as pristine, in less than 10 years. " Your logic is totally flawed. If you are speaking of cameras that are used to take pictures, you neglected to calculate the cost of film and negative processing over that 41-year period, which are built-in and fixed with the price of an M8. OTOH if you are talking about cameras that were kept un-used and boxed as collector's items, you have absolutely no clue (nor does anyone) of what an M8 will or will not be worth 41 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 CPAs (tax counsel) advise clients to have some sort of side business and charge depreciation to the government. I do not advocate such ideas. Leica is holding off on the new M9 to preclude a radical drop in M8 valuation. The moment the M9 comes out w/ full sensor and integrated magenta filter....well you know the rest. Enjoy. Just the facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_gorman Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Digital cams do not hold their value the market has proved that time and time again. Leica challenges that concept due to the value placed in the marque. The market moves on and even the most stubborn of stones will eventually be washed away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_gorman Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Digital cams do not hold their value the market has proved that time and time again. Leica challenges that concept due to the value placed on the gazebo. The market moves on and even the most stubborn of stones will eventually be washed away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Everybody is tired ot this post by now, but I believe the M8 is like the Toyota that will keep its value until dropped, 4 to 5 years from now, whereas the other cameras (Leicas included) are like my Ford, which steadily declines in value from the date of its purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Mark that was a lovely post! The M8 will either remain roughly the same or drop like a rock similar to every other digital camera out there. You will know in the next 6 months or so. If anybody else comes out with a similar or better DRF (hello Konica/Minolta/Sony, Zeiss, AND Cosina are you listening), this price decrease will accelerate. My lovely 10d which cost around $1400 new is now worth a grand total of about $400 assuming I could find some sucker to buy it, I have had it for 3 years or so, it has saved me far more than $1000 in film / processing costs. When the 10d dies, I will either get a used M8, or a canon 5d / 5d mkII / 1DmkII/ 1DmkIIn my price limit is about $2000. Have a good night, I am getting ready to shovel a really messy driveway tomorrow morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_pfile3 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Well Vinay, allow me to take my totally flawed logic to the bank. I was unaware that users of digital did not print their photos, nor purchase printers to do so, nor buy computors and storage media (cards and hard drives) and software, nor spend time (my time is worth something)in post processing their images. Learn something everyday (besides not allocating a portion of whatever my wealth is towards a technology that doesn't beat film yet) I guess. Buy two, or maybe three (unless I the taxpayer am subsidizing them). Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Jerry, hardly anyone buys their computer just because they have gone over to digital photography. A computer is a normal household fixture like a refigerator or a stove. You cannot count the computer as part of the cost of digital photography. The same goes for the printer. Storage media (SD cards etc) is fixed one time cost because they are re-usable and they are not very expensive anyway. Software need not cost a lot either. Something like PS Elements costs peanuts. There is also freeware like GIMP for 'processing' your images and most cameras (and some scanners) come with their own bundled image software. Not everyone rushes out to buy the latest full blown release of Photoshop CS2 or CS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_muller3 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 True, new electronics-based cameras typically have significant value drops within months after introduction, but not always. I purchased a new Canon EOS-1Ds MkII in November of 2004. That flagship beast of Canon's continues to be produced, and sells new today for within a few hundred dollars of it's selling price more than two years ago. I thought I was nuts to pay that much for a new digital camera, but it's been a terrific performer since day one. That said, I still love my M6, and have seven lenses just waiting for a new Leica digital body. I've put aside the money for the M8, but just can't bring myself to support a product at this price with these flaws. I just hope Leica can hold things together long enough to correct the problems and produce a product worthy of their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 "I was unaware that users of digital did not print their photos, nor purchase printers to do so, nor buy computors and storage media (cards and hard drives) and software, nor spend time (my time is worth something)in post processing their images." Users of film do all of the above, plus buy a scanner and spend time scanning. Or stand in a darkroom mixing chemicals, adjusting and focusing the enlarger, making test prints, sloshing them in trays, and then cleaning up. What was your point again? A digital camera comes with an unlimited supply of film and developing (I never said printing) whereas a film camera requires paying extra for that. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_pfile3 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Vinay, I drop my film off for processing, generally when out shopping, and pick it up later. And the quality of images beats digital. I shoot 95% slides. And I'll spend less than the average M8 user does when ALL costs are tabulated. Hate to break it you, but not all 'users of film', do the things you indicate they do, e.g. purchase scanners and printers. Finally, given reasonable care, my M3/7 will appreciate over time as long as film is available. And parts and CLAs will be available at many locations. When the warranties up on your M8, how much will a CLA cost, and where will you get it done? Seductive as the digital arguments are, neither the results nor the actual costs hold up on close inspection. In 44 years of adulthood (I'm 64), I've bought 5 film Leicas, and sold three averaging slightly less than twice what I paid for them. Put another way, that's almost 9 years per body. Seriously doubt the value of any 9 year old M8, printer, scanner, computer will hold up as film counterparts have. More to consider. I'll wager film is still made after SD cards are no longer available, being replaced with something better. Then what? Used cards on e-bay? Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_huff1 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Look at the DIgilux 2. Came out what year? 2004? They still go for $1200-$1600 used and I bought mine for $1600 new when it came out. The M8 WILL go down a bit, but those who will be looking for a $1500 M8 in the next few years are crazy. It will not happen. Some Leica digitals hold their value pretty well, expecially compared to Nikon/Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Jerry, are you.. "all users of film" You are happy to generalise wildly about digital camera users (even counting their computer costs in with camera depreciation) but you want us to accept that you are typical of all film users in having 95 percent of your exposures made on slide film. You evidently have a computer. Most film only photographers have computers. Do we count the depreciation of your computer in your photography budget? Most computer users have printers and they print stuff even if they are not into photography at all. Which of my film and digital cameras should the cost of my neg scanner be added to? None. Which of my film or digital cameras should the cost of my computer & printer be added to? None. Computers/printers/scanners etc are household utility items that are not purchased just because someone happens to be into photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 <i> "And the quality of images beats digital." </i> May I humbly ask how you know this? I have many slides and many digital images, so I have an opinion based on my own results. What do you base your opinion on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 "Seriously doubt the value of any 9 year old M8, printer, scanner, computer will hold up as film counterparts have." We get it Jerry, IYHO film good, digital bad. But your argument based on economics is embarassing. How much does a roll of film and just developing (don't count printing) cost you? Call that "x". How many rolls do you shoot per year? Call that "y". In your 9-year example, to compare to a film camera the real cost-basis of the M8 is $4800-9xy. Then subtract the residual resale value if any, and compare that to the cost of $3500 M7 minus its residual in 9 years. Any other comparison, that either ignores the cost of film+developing or assumes the purchase of a used, depreciated film M body, is inavlid. Of course x and y will be variable for individuals, especially y. If you only shoot half a dozen films per year then for you an M8 makes no economic sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 "M8 compared to M film cameras: how long before a price drop?" Unfortunately it will be a while. I wouldn't hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_pfile3 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Trevor, 1. Quality of film surpasses figital. Answer is in resolution. Please direct me to any report that, given the same lens and shot with the same ISO setting, indicates that digital resolution is superior to that of film. 2. Math. Insert $2,650 for the price of a new M7, w/USA Passport and 2 yr extended warranty in your 'calculations'. What's the warranty on an M8? Perhaps Leica knows something you don't. 3. Computer. Obviously I have a computer. I don't request of my fellow taxpayers to assist in that purchase by writing any of that or my photographic endeavors off. Obviously, I don't need one for my film images either. Perhaps you do. 4. 'Digital bad'? Viewed my replies and couldn't find where I said that. Did indicate that it is more expensive than film when all costs are accounted for, and image wise inferior. 5. You didn't address whether SD cards will be produced in say, nine years. Care to speculate on that? Review a little digital history first. 6. "I have many slides and digital images......and an opinion..." What is it and what do you base it on? Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_gorman Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 1. Quality of film surpasses figital I'll take your word having never tried figital. I suppose when the perfect technical image is finally achieved a perfect photographer will emerge from the chrysalis. One can only wait for this final sweaty exhausting coming with anticipation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 "Math. Insert $2,650 for the price of a new M7, w/USA Passport and 2 yr extended warranty in your 'calculations'. What's the warranty on an M8?" Every time you come back you throw out a handful of new extraneous irrelevancies that nonetheless fail to prove your erroneous assertion. If you can buy a new, USA M7 from an authorized dealer for $2650, more power to you. It only means that it might take a prolific shooter another couple months to save the additional $900-worth in film and development by using an M8. Whatever you have to say about the relative image quality is a separate argument and one nobody can win or lose because it's largely subjective. However the cost of a roll of film and the development of negs or slides therefrom is saved for every 36 exposures taken with a digital camera, and sooner or later--depending on the volume--eclipses the depreciation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_gorman Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Near technical perfection<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Jerry, rather than direct you to a 'report' on resolution I would rather suggest you give it a try yourself and compare the images. I am not a 'report' sort of person. I like to try things out for myself. No taxpayer paid for my computer. (Except for this one sitting here typing.) Why would you assume otherwise? Do you suspect digital users are funded this way? In order to display images online from my negs or slides then of course I need a scanner and a computer. You.. "don't need one for my film images either". That is your perogative. I enjoy having a collection of online images and you don't. Fair enough. I know digital is far less expensive, for me, than film ever was. No matter how you wish to calculate it. Even if I counted the cost of my Nikon neg scanner and the printer and the computer and the cameras and cards etc. Still costs less in my experience. My film cameras included Contax Zeiss/Leica M/Rollei/Minolta/Voigtlander, and a few I have forgotten here, but the most expensive component was always film+processing+prints. That has cost many thousands more over the years. I don't care if SD cards are made in 9 years. In 9 years I will be using what ever it takes. Pointless worrying about the future. SD cards cost so little that it is not something to lose sleep over. I had to move from CF to SD recently and I really dont care if I have to change again. You make too big an issue of a few tens of dollars/pounds. My opinion of my slides vs my digital images is that I am happy to carry on with digital. I am also very happy with a lot of my old slides and negs. I don't get into 'this vs that'. For a couple of years I used to go everywhere with a DSLR and a Contax/Zeiss film SLR in the same bag and used both quite happily on the same shoots. That is my way of making up my mind. Use both and decide. You stay with your 'reports' if you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I am really beginning to appreciate Vinay Patel if this is really his real name. The place was getting kind of stale before Vinay showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now