doug herr Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 "<I>If accounts from respected working pros aren't "verifiable statistics," then I just don't know where to turn. With all due respect, how come Tina's conclusion is a verifiable stat and and Bill Pierce's isn't?</I>" <P> Nothing wrong with Bill Pierce's commentary, but if you're relying on internet blogs to gather stats you're only hearing from 'squeaky wheel' people. This is a badly skewed sample, the ones with problems are more likely to squeak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 El Fang wrote: "<I>That only means something like a 5D would have "paid for itself" in only one month, with the second one paying for itself in little over a week.</I>" <P> Fang, didn't you read that her 5D is sitting on the shelf gathering dust in favor of her M8, and that her stock agency accepts far more of her M8 photos than photo she made when she was using the Canons? The productivity equation requires knowledge beyond second-grade arithmatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The problem most of you are ignoring is the fact that in the past few years we have been seeing a whole new generation of serious photographers who have never - <b>ever</b> - shot film. They cut their teeth on the dRebels and D40s and have come to expect a certain level of performance and service from the average Japanese digital SLR. They have no emotional investment in Leica M series history and most of them likely never will. So hand one of these kids an M8. Show them how you have to take off the baseplate to change a card or battery. Show them what happens at higher than ISO 640. Then show them what happens to the rendering of synthetic blacks and how you need to slap a $100 filter over every lens you own just to bandaid-fix it. You know what their response will be? <p>The problem with the M8 and Leica's current charted course doesn't have anything to do with interchangeable sensors or return for money invested - that is all irrelevant. Leica needs to take advantage of their current partnership with <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/6630.html" target="_blank">one of the largest and most successful electronics manufacturers in the world</a> (#4 behind Siemens, Samsung and Hitachi according to that link), and make their flagship digital M at least match the reliability and consistency that has been the norm for <b>entry level</b> Japanese dSLRs for years, while keeping it a compact, near-silent, professional-grade dSLR alternative that takes their extraordinary lenses. It's time to leave behind the stupid artifacts from the bygone film era, and think about how to make the M concept appealing to a new generation of photographers. And they needed to do all this yesterday.</p> <p>The nostalgic old farts who wax rhapsodic about the greatness of Leica M history are dying off by the day. Sooner or later there will be few to none of them left to sing the praises of the M3, and all that will remain are those wide-eyed, awestruck kids wondering "Holy crap, why the hell would anyone would pay $5,000 for this sh*t." Those of you who keep going on about how "great" the M8 is, how it's "fine" and "just like the M3," - you're the reason Leica will die a slow death within the next few years if they don't wake up and smell the coffee.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 <i>The productivity equation requires knowledge beyond second-grade arithmatic.</i> <p>Of course, Doug, my mistake. You're correct, the M8 is the most awesomest camera ever, nothing at all wrong with it, and all the pros scrambling over each other to grab the Nikon D3 for virtually the same price are complete morons because <a href="http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Photos/Nikon_Adv_USA.jpg" target="_blank">Nikon's 20"x30" poster of racing motorcycles shot at ISO 6400</a> was actually shot using an M8.</p> <p>Happy now? Good. I'll see you at the silent auction for Leica NJ's vacant building sometime next year.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_prokopowicz Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 <The problem most of you are ignoring is the fact that in the past few years we have been seeing a whole new generation of serious photographers who have never - ever - shot film. They cut their teeth on the dRebels and D40s and have come to expect a certain level of performance and service from the average Japanese digital SLR. They have no emotional investment in Leica M series history and most of them likely never will. So hand one of these kids an M8. Show them how you have to take off the baseplate to change a card or battery. Show them what happens at higher than ISO 640. Then show them what happens to the rendering of synthetic blacks and how you need to slap a $100 filter over every lens you own just to bandaid-fix it. You know what their response will be?> Heck, you don't have to have started with digital to see that Leica digital equipment is nothing to write home about. Having grown up in the film era myself just gives me an appreciation for Leica that will sadly be lacking with the new generation of photographers. And Leica does merit appreciation, but that was a bygone era. I have no appreciation for the current situation with Leica, and my film background hasn't blinded me to the truth. There is no advantage to not having a background in film. It gives you a richer perspective of photography in general. On the other hand, I do know that some older photographers from the film era aren't able to separate Leica's present from the past, but that's more of an individual problem rather than a problem with having started with film. The point is that you can't lump all photographers, who cut their teeth on film, with being blinded to the truth of the present. Stereotyping is never truthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 i have a double side track question, what would a M3 cost in todays dollars? (what i mean is if you were to take the cost of the m3 when it was new and add inflation how much would that be)? 500$ in 1933 would be equal to how many dollars today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 oh mr fang... take it easy. i think we are all aware of your feelings by now. for the record though i have been hearing about leica's impending demise for so long now i take it all with a very LARGE grain of salt. i am keenly aware of two camps on this issue. there are folks who USE their m8's be it professionally or not. they remove baseplates, they use ir filters and they expose smashing high iso images. some, including myself, use them as working cameras 6-7 days a week without a hitch. the camera, in my experience, is tough, reliable and produces top notch prints. most of these folks spend the bulk of their time shooting, post processing and chasing down business thus aren't afforded the time to pontificate on leica's future on the internet nor do they formulate their impressions by it. camp 2 is the gear driven, forum haunting shooters that argue days on end over the virtues of taping over the red dot on their camera, calculating the exact date of leica's demise or researching annual sales figures on the internet detailing the company's "obvious" ineptitude. in my humble opinion i would suggest leica focus it's time and energy on camp 1. now forgive my "post and run" behaviour but i must pack my gear (including an m8 or two) and catch a flight. pictures to take and bills to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 OMG, I just clicked on this thread. Maybe photonet ought to collect all these gear debates into a definitive 126-volume reference set for future generations to enjoy. If I get a sentence in there, my nomination for technological pinnacle is as follows: FE2, 24mm and 105mm ais. Cheap, durable, and provide no excuse for your images to fall short of Galen Rowell, Steve McCurry, or a thousand others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_prokopowicz Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 <there are folks who USE their m8's be it professionally or not. they remove baseplates, they use ir filters and they expose smashing high iso images. some, including myself, use them as working cameras 6-7 days a week without a hitch. the camera, in my experience, is tough, reliable and produces top notch prints. most of these folks spend the bulk of their time shooting, post processing and chasing down business thus aren't afforded the time to pontificate on leica's future on the internet nor do they formulate their impressions by it. camp 2 is the gear driven, forum haunting shooters that argue days on end over the virtues of taping over the red dot on their camera, calculating the exact date of leica's demise or researching annual sales figures on the internet detailing the company's "obvious" ineptitude.> I see, there are two camps. If you can't form opinions and don't spend any time on forums it's because you're a real photographer and haven't got the time. I see. Then there's camp two that forms opinions because they have nothing better to do and they aren't real photographers. Okay then. I see. I need to write this all down, or at least commit it to memory. What a golden nugget. I wish life was that simple. I really do. Here I was all these years actually thinking I was a photographer, but how disheartening to learn I'm not because I posted on a forum, and formed opinions. Do you have room for a camp three, by any chance? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 "500$ in 1933 would be equal to how many dollars today?" $7524.61 in 2007 (and risng quickly in 2008) according to an inflation calculator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 thanks Don. so how much was the M3 when it was released? can we inflation calculate that? my guess is that it would be on par with what the M8 cost. (just a thought) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 "I see, there are two camps. If you can't form opinions and don't spend any time on forums it's because you're a real photographer and haven't got the time. I see." i think REAL was a word put in my mouth. WORKING would have been more or appropriate. the point has been missed and perhaps it was a result of my language. the fact is there are many folks working on m8's that have completely differing experiences with the camera then what the forums seem to paint (at nauseum). i believe these experiences remain "uncounted" as many of these individuals either a/ don't have the time to spend on the matter or b/ don't really care enough to sort it out on the internet. it reminds me often of the r-d1. when the camera first arrived on the scene there was a maelstorm of issue's with it. i looked at that camera long and hard before i bought one and was deeply concerned as the internet "review" of it, via forums such as these, was poor to say the least. in the end i purchased one (r-d1s) and it has been flawless. still in action today and i put a LOT of mileage on that camera. today all seems to be forgotten as it is often sighted as a cheaper, better alternative to the m8 with nary a mention of the "issues" of the past. then along came the m8... again the firestorm. un-reliable, poor iso performance etc etc. again i held off, waited, watched, read. again, despite overwhelmingly poor opinion i purchased one and it has been a stellar performer since it arrived.( i did have to suffer one dud before getting my hands on this current camera. where i will agree is that leica needs to SERIOUSLY review it's support and service departments.) the m8 purchase was a business decision for me and i did not take it lightly. i am not a doctor, dentist or lawyer as often sighted so $5000 was a significant amount of dough. although i am not wandering the streets of ramadi i do shoot documentary work (currently covering the effects of oxycontin on the streets) and don't treat my gear with kid gloves. the m8 has proven TO ME to be a reliable and powerful tool in my bag. among the other working folks i encounter using it, the sentiment seems to be the same. anyhow, the "leica going out of business" thing is tired. it has been going on since the m5. i suppose in a slightly less verbose way that was my point. cheers john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emraphoto Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 now i really have to run... thank jeffrey for not letting me get away with it so easily. nudge nudge wink wink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dankapsner Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 <<So everyone is in agreement then? A better version of teh M8 at half th price will do the trick?>> That would certainly work for me! As for everyone being in agreement, well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_prokopowicz Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 <now i really have to run... thank jeffrey for not letting me get away with it so easily. nudge nudge wink wink> Jon, I got your point, just thought I'd have a little fun with you. In fact, I thought I was safe whatever I said because you wouldn't have the time to respond. :) You know, camp one and all. :) Heck, I'm in camp three, I can do it all. :) Cheers to you Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_seelig Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Full Frame or close better high iso quieter shutter and more accurate frame lines if not well ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 "thanks Don. so how much was the M3 when it was released? can we inflation calculate that? my guess is that it would be on par with what the M8 cost. (just a thought)" There are some here who I am sure have price lists. I recall a discussion in the Classic Camera forum last year that quoted a mid-50s price, an M3 w/ 50mm 'cron at 450$, but I don't know if that is accurate, but if so, it would be significantly less than an M8 and 50 today by several thousand dollars for the body alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The big price difference between the M3 and M8 is due to Leica not having any competition and a small market to sell to. They price according to what the market will bear. In order to sell an M8 and 50 'cron at comparable 1950s prices, they'd need a digital rf market the size of the film rf market in the mid-1950s. Unless Leica thinks such a market is here potentially, and can price on economies of scale, lowering the per unit price, they'll have to continue trying to make a slow dime rather than a fast nickel in the existing market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_prokopowicz Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Don, I think Leica, first off, needs to make a better camera, meaning better image quality, especially. They have a five-thousand dollar RF camera, with a poor LCD screen, slow response times, no AF, and it doesn't even surpass a Canon Rebel in image quality. Who in their right mind would even try to bring a product like that into the current market? Only Leica. Loyalty will only go so far before EVERYONE throws their hands up in disgust. Leica is a legend and all that, but damn, you still gotta produce a competitive product. Even Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 M9 non digital RF with lcd to view long exposures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 One thing to keep in mind is that when the M3 came out, it was essentially the Nikon D3 or Canon 1DsMkIII of it's time. There were others (I think Nikon had it's rangefinder, Canon had it's 7 or 7s maybe, Contax had it's IIA and IIIA). Basically it was the top of the heap. The big 2 was Leica and Contax with Canon and Nikon nipping at their heels as the up and comers. I know we've established that there is at least a few professionals who have bought an M8 as a professional tool, but there were those who bought Minoltas or Olympus or Exaktas, etc. back in the M3 days too. These days when you think of the major, most sold, professional cameras of any type, Leica is probably not in the running. This doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the camera, it just has to do with where the market is. Why is this? I'm going to guess (and you pros can tell me if I'm all wet) that it has to do with price, performance, functionality, ruggedness, ability to rent equipment including lenses, service speed, and availability. A pro probably has to watch his tendency to buy gear just because it's cool and instead buy gear that can get the job done for him. I don't think Leica can compete in this ball park, nor does it want to. I think it's next step (to get back to the original question) should be to pursue the Panasonic relationship to develop a panasonic built rangefinder using Leica M lenses using a digital sensor. The RD-2 so to speak, but with at least the M8 sensor, something like the Lumix DMC-L1, only a rangefinder. Price hopefully $1500 or below. By all means keep the M8 going. Use the same lens encoding scheme the M8 is using. Yes it might cannibalize sales of the M8, but I suspect most of the buyers of the RD2 would not be tempted to buy an M8 anyway. And Leica could make money recoding leica lenses as well as selling more lenses. If the M8 is really what the public wants, that will show in time. Also the RD2 could be the backup body for people who DO like the M8, just as a Yashica FX-3 was my backup to my Yashica/Kyocera Contax SLR. But there's no point in buying a Panasonic/Leica DSLR (I have DSLRs already). And I don't want a point and shoot either. If I'm going to pay a premium price for a DRF I want it to be an actual rangefinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_bergman1 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The 1932 price for a Model D + 50mm f/3.5 Elmar was $84. This is from Central Camera in Chicago. The 1954 price for a M3 + 50mm f/3.5 Elmar was $348. This was from Dowling's camera in NY. Their price for the M3 + 50mm f/2 Summicron was $447. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 447$ in 1954 is equal to $3428.86 in 2007. i wish the calculator went to 2008. but, the prices are still in the neighborhood of what they are today. and that is not campared to the competitors even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 thanks for the numbers Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 doing some quick math in 2008 it would be $3691.85 if the inflation rate was constant. 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