M8 Depreciation [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

boilerdoc2

06-12-2006, 05:10

If it as well respected as all other Leica's it will be great as resale item. The amount of buzz out there should indicate the level of excitement and interest in the M8. This would naturally carry over in a year or so to the $ of used M8's. Whether you could consider it an investment or not I would doubt, but at least you can be confident of not losing the entire cost of purchase as you do with ANY other digital camera. Especially since it will be years before a replacement to the M8 could be expected to appear. Just my 2 cents. I have one on order. Saving my shekels for it.
Steve

jaapv

06-12-2006, 05:11

I feel/hope it will set a new standard for (lack of) depreciation of digital camera's. The Digilux2 seems to be pointing the way. They may be helped by the market apparently moving from innovation by electronics to innovation by camera bodies. Maybe because there is not much relevant to be gained in the electronics/sensor department any more.

bmattock

06-12-2006, 05:18

Maybe because there is not much relevant to be gained in the electronics/sensor department any more.

I tend to doubt that. First of all, the 'next' jump in the silly megapixel war has begun, now a few of the tiny digicams are touting 10 mp, so everybody has to follow along.

Second, the sensors themselves are in their infancy. They still don't have the latitude of color print film, nor the sensitivity of the fastest film without degradation. LCD displays are slowly being usurped by OLED.

I suspect we'll see not just evolutionary changes in CCD/CMOS in the near term, but perhaps replacement technology that will unseat both of them and replace them with something altogether more satisfactory. There are billions of dollars in R&D all over the world right now trying to do just that.

Long and short - the digital camera market is not only NOT a mature market, it is a decade away from a mature market. The road ahead is bumpy. Hold on tight.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

jaapv

06-12-2006, 05:26

dll927

06-12-2006, 05:33

The original posting comes across to me as a slight flavor of sour grapes.

In addition to histories of Leicas, someone should write a history of those who deprecate Leicas but wish they had a few around. Keep in mind that they didn't always cost what they do nowadays, and I also have to question their value as "investments" at current tariffs.

On the other hand, I never could see the point of buying a Leica, then enclosing it in a glass case and never contaminating it with a roll of film. Of course, such contamination would not be needed with a digital, but will it ever get USED?

I might add that I have an M4-2 purchased new in 1983 for $800, plus 50mm, 35mm, and 90mm lenses for it. It has been known to contain film and be used to take pictures.

bmattock

06-12-2006, 05:35

I'm not saying the technowizards have stopped working their spells, Bill, what I'm saying is that it is pretty hard to imagine better results than the Canon 1Dsii's and DMR's of this world are producing.

Ah, and that's the point. We have maybe reached the point where we can say that a dSLR can do 'many' or perhaps 'most' of the things a film SLR can do, but how much more could it do? Do we stop with the plateau of the former, or do we try to find out what cameras COULD BE?

I just printed a 16x24 print from a RAW file on my 6 mp Pentax. Looks great. But I could not crop, so it is a good thing the composition was OK. With a scanned negative, I'd have had room to crop.

And medium format? Large format? Nothing much from the digital world yet, save for some oversized (and way overpriced) dedicated backs for existing MF cameras, nothing at all for the LF folks (that duplicates the area that even 4x5 covers).

With smaller sensors than the equivalent film they replace (with exceptions noted), we lose some ability to do DOF selective focus.

How about ultra-sensitive night-vision type sensors that we could use in near total darkness - pushing back the traditional boundaries of 'available light' photography?

What about photographing in other spectrums? IR, sure, but how about UV?

And frankly, although I tend to doubt it will happen - if someone finally does manage to create a 'drop in' replacement for 35mm film for existing cameras - wow.

No, I can 'imagine' a LOT better than we have now. I don't know where we're headed, but we definitely ain't there yet - not even part way.

And for that reason, I say that my gut tells me the Leica M8 will retain its value better than most digital cameras, but due to its totemic value, not due to its qualities as a photo-taker, which will quickly be eclipsed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Ben Z

06-12-2006, 05:42

With the M8 the depreciation is offset with savings on film and processing. How much and how fast depends entirely on shooting volume. The only reason I would worry about the depreciation is if the camera sits on a shelf.

sdai

06-12-2006, 06:14

Just take a look at the price of an abused Digilux 2 on eBay ... the m8 is going to do a lot better for sure. :D

Finder

06-12-2006, 06:48

I don't buy cameras to sell them later. The stock market is a better place to make an investment.

Andrew Sowerby

06-12-2006, 07:59

I don't buy cameras to sell them later. The stock market is a better place to make an investment.

Exactly. If you want to spend $$$ on something that will not depreciate much a digital camera is absolutely the wrong choice. Buy it and use it until it breaks or something else comes along that better meets your needs.

jaapv

06-12-2006, 08:00

I don't buy cameras to sell them later. The stock market is a better place to make an investment.

Really? I lost more money than any camera will ever cost me in 2001... :bang:

Gid

06-12-2006, 08:45

I tend to agree with Bill on this one.

Depreciation is irrelevant if you're going to hang on to it. It only becomes an issue if Leica get into more regular product updates as per other digi manufacturers - watch the value plummet if they bring out a 16 MP version or a "full frame" version. Also if the competition ups the ante, Zeiss for example.

Mark Norton

06-12-2006, 09:53

I think value retention in the short term is linked to how much people want a rangefinder camera compared to an SLR. Epson are the only player in the market but we do not know for how long. ZI might do their own camera at a lower price point but Leica will pretty much have the market to themselves. Nikon, Canon? I doubt it.

So, until they come out with an M8 replacement, M8 prices will stay strong because it will be a sellers market, the buyers have no place else to go. Come the M9 though, and there will be a sharp fall in M8 prices as Leica produce a higher performing camera for little more (though I doubt actually less) than a new M8.

ywenz

06-12-2006, 10:22

I'd say the M8 will hold their value slightly better than the RD-1s

Gid

06-12-2006, 11:11

I'd say the M8 will hold their value slightly better than the RD-1s

I'd have to agree with you on that one, but as been posted previously, we're not talking investment with any of these options.

fitzihardwurshd

06-12-2006, 16:11

Uncle Bill

06-12-2006, 16:40

I think the M8 will not hold its value like the M7 or the MP because as mentioned above, digitial imaging is an immature technology. Honestly, just give me the MP and I'll be happy.

Bill

shutterflower

06-12-2006, 16:51

Any digital camera - until they decide to stop leeching the market for all its worth - will suffer very extreme depreciation relative to a film camera over a similar amount of time.

I figure as soon as they decide to begin making cameras with full frame sensors that can be upgraded to higher sensor counts (but remain the same size), then digital bodies will begin to hold some value. Of course the sensor won't. I think they could make a body that would accept user-installed plug'n'play sensor upgrades within a range. But they won't because there is too much money in selling people new cameras every year.

The Leica cameras will hold value better than a DSLR if only for their likely higher quality and longer lifecycles - and the first digital Leica will have value because of its firstness. But, its value retention will never compare to a body incapable of obsoleteness.

You just have to think of your film and processing costs now, and your depreciation may mean nothing. I don't shoot enough pictures to really warrant accepting a depreciating piece of gear.

Gabriel M.A.

06-12-2006, 17:07

The cow ain't born yet and the milk's already spoiling? Goodness.

ChrisPlatt

06-12-2006, 17:26

The cow ain't born yet and the milk's already spoiling? Goodness.

Not only that, but it hasn't gone on sale yet and already it's obsolete. ;)

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

John Camp

06-12-2006, 17:43

ywenz posted the following site on the "Now for something completely different" forum:

http://www.photo.net/photos/hpic

These are photos taken with a Fuji P&S. The M8 will be a better camera than the Fuji. Tell me it's going to be obsolete in 3 years.

JC

jlw

06-12-2006, 18:36

I'm not saying the technowizards have stopped working their spells, Bill, what I'm saying is that it is pretty hard to imagine better results than the Canon 1Dsii's and DMR's of this world are producing.

A few months ago I attended a studio workshop in which we shot with a Leaf Aptus 22 back (mounted, incidentally, on a very old Hasselblad.) I'd have to say when you're looking at fine details, transitions, shadows, etc., the differences between its results and those of even a top-tier DSLR are fairly horrifying. The Leaf back produces a huge, smooth dynamic range, you can see farther into the shadows, there's nothing I'd categorize as noise, and tiny textural tales are luridly sharp.

I don't shoot with a Canon 1DSii, but I do a lot of layout and retouching on work from a studio that uses them, so I've had a very critical look at its output. There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with its images... until you look at them side-by-side with the results from a big-league digital back.

Now as I've said before in another thread, I draw a distinction between image quality and picture quality, and there are a lot of good pictures you simply wouldn't be able to get with a bulky digital back on a hefty, slow-operating medium-format camera.

But in terms of current DSLRs having run out of room to improve in terms of technical image quality, it's clear that they haven't. (Ask any experienced user of a 35mm-based digital camera if he wouldn't like to have, say, two more stops of overexposure latitude and you'll get a rousing "Yes!")

shutterflower

06-12-2006, 19:02

But in terms of current DSLRs having run out of room to improve in terms of technical image quality, it's clear that they haven't. (Ask any experienced user of a 35mm-based digital camera if he wouldn't like to have, say, two more stops of overexposure latitude and you'll get a rousing "Yes!")

I can't imagine what their plan will be for increasing pixel count. They are already making lenses tailored to specific sized sensors. Will they someday make lenses tailored to sensors that are larger than the 35mm frame? Or will they spend MORE money and create sensors with better technology?

I hope for the latter. They should be able to do a number of things from here. And I expect we will see a great deal more capability come out of the digital technology. I'd not be surprised to see digital sensors beat film for dynamic range and every other aspect of image quality within the next 2 years. 35mm, at least.

The most important thing for the Leica line of digital products, in my opinion, besides that they create a nice image, is that they rise above the shoddiness of manufacturing we see in general and the cold digitalness too.

I'm not a digital hater. I appreciate it. I think a full frame Leica would be a wise purchase - and I WILL buy that when it comes out. In the meantime, I may end up buying a D200 to shoot film documentaries and the like.

boarini2003

06-12-2006, 19:22

The cow ain't born yet and the milk's already spoiling? Goodness.

It can be seen that way, although my bringing up the issue of depreciation is not meant as a film/digital debate or as declaring something dead before it's born. If I were to buy an M8, depreciation would be a very important factor in my decision.

shutterflower

06-12-2006, 19:31

rvaubel

06-12-2006, 20:21

humanized_form

06-12-2006, 20:28

Any digital camera - until they decide to stop leeching the market for all its worth - will suffer very extreme depreciation relative to a film camera over a similar amount of time.

manufacturers can try to milk consumers dry with the minor upgrade cameras (i'm looking at you Canon 30D and Nikon D70S), but i really don't think this strategy will work for much longer. the technology is maturing and the upgrades are becoming more subtle. the new models are so similar to the previous models that the older cameras aren't really obsolete, at least not when it comes to image quality.

so while many of the gearheads will continue to upgrade and buy the latest and greatest, i doubt the average dslr owner will. what the average owner of a dslr already has, right now, is probably more camera than they will ever really need. similar to home computers, after a while upgrading is meaningless to the average user (not gamers, media producers etc). how much more computer do you really need?

i don't think the Digital M will become obsolete, at least when it comes to image quality, for a very long time.

edit: hmm. oops. reading this over i realized that i forgot to say that i think the M8 will hold it's value a lot better than the cropped sensor dslr cameras will.

jaapv

06-13-2006, 01:16

Although the Megapixel War started to abate with the first crop of 6M DSLRs, the end is not near. For various technical reasons, the endgame for FF format will be about 30MP. For 1.5 crop about 16MP. That means that FF will supplant medium format for the pros and the fruitcase amatuers. The smaller format (1.3 and 1.5) will be fine for anyone with any sense (of which I am often in short supply).
Improvements in dynamic range and sensitivity trumps any increased MP resolution beyond 10MP or so. I can live with the 6MP of my R-D1 because of the rangefinder form factor and I get to use all those cool M and LTM lenses.
The M8 will be a definite improvement over the Epson and reaches a comfort zone I could stay with for a long time. As an aside, I plan to keep the R-D1 as a useful camera in its niche. Not exactly obsolete.
My point is that MP resolution past a certain point is both impossible and unnecessary for FF cameras. Nobody needs to do 50% crops to produce 20" X 30" prints on a regular basis.
Technical improvements have awhile to go, but will be concentrated in other areas than MP. Meanwhile I suspect that cameras of different technological sophistication can co-exist on the same playing field.
And hence, the M8 will hold its value better than DSLR's .

That was a long trip for a short answer.
Rex
Hear,hear! The main thing is that we are rapidly approaching a point where the limitations of our gear are not technological any more but biological. Given the average size of a living room wall and the resolving power of the human eye, there is a natural limit to the megapixels needed. It is not needed to increase the dynamic range of a sensor beyond Ansel Adams' ten zones as the eye will no see a better print when the number of zones is increased. 16 MP is enough resolution to create billboards and most high-end sensors will produce about ten stops of dynamic range, certainly with a little tweaking using raw. Then there is the problem of diminshing returns in lens design. The very best Leica lenses have risen to about the order of 20 lp/mm in resolution, which appears to be as close to the limit of optical possibilities as humanly feasable. That is in the same order as 10-15 Mp sensors, so there is no gain there as well. The only reasonable advances could be in noise reduction, but, well, acoustical engeneers have been working on that problem for fifty years now and it is doubtful that really significant gains are in the offing. So what can we expect? "" upgrades" like better AF, orintelligent camera's that analyse photo content and adjust the camera's accordingly without the brain of the photographer involved? GPS to pinpoint the spot where the camera was at the moment the shutter was pressed? I feel most "advances" from now on will be like that, so not what Leica or indeed RF photography is about.

fitzihardwurshd

06-13-2006, 03:36

A few months ago I attended a studio workshop in which we shot with a Leaf Aptus 22 back (mounted, incidentally, on a very old Hasselblad.) I'd have to say when you're looking at fine details, transitions, shadows, etc., the differences between its results and those of even a top-tier DSLR are fairly horrifying. The Leaf back produces a huge, smooth dynamic range, you can see farther into the shadows, there's nothing I'd categorize as noise, and tiny textural tales are luridly sharp.

Unfortunately all these points, which are decisive for the technical quality, are very, very seldom discussed when it comes to comparisons of film and chip.
The MP and resolution discussion leads nowhere, it just proves somebody we are victim of a marketing strategy .
The output of Leaf backs, which is years ahead from the DSLR stuff tells us what is possible already now and there is no reason to assume even this could not be improved. And this progress will concern of course the DSLR world too.

Tthe leaf back differs from a DSLR in a similar way (at the time still more significant probably) as 35mm always differed from MF. 35mm was a compromise.
And even the top end DSLRs are not more than an acceptable compromise in the technical sense, considering what enormous amount of money and time they save for some professional photogs they are already now a (almost) perfect solution.
Why should a pro worry about quality issues which do not exist at all for his clients ? I say "almost " because these 3 stops more latitude you mention is something also the pros miss badly.

Back on topic, NO digital camera can escape from this pressure of evolution,
Leitz is now out in the real world, it does not decide anymore independently about their own innovation speed.

fitzi

T_om

06-13-2006, 06:55

Right now, I am thinking about buying another DSLR . . . I said I wouldn't, but work may require that I do . . .and my main concern is depreciation since no one is paying for this but me. I have to consider whether depretiation on a DSLR will outweigh film costs with my current setup, or whatever. It gets hairy.

I have people at weddings ask me 'how much did those cameras cost' (pointing at my 5D's).

I tell them the truth. They were free.

My film and lab bills for a year more than paid for them so they cost me nothing. When they wear out, or something better comes along, I'll dump them in the nearest trash can and get the better camera.

It will also be free.

Cameras are tools, not religious icons.

Tom

jaapv

06-13-2006, 06:59

DaveSee

06-13-2006, 08:04

No other camera in the world holds it's value like a Leica. The design is timeless and the construction is second to none, especially the iconic M system. But.... The M8, sure, it's a Leica, but it's digital! How do you think it will hold it's value when compared to other cameras on the long run?
At the moment, the M8 has no value because it isn' t available, regardless of price. What does have value, for me, are the LTM and M lenses I use with my CV and Leica cameras. If the M8 brings with it continued value to my lenses, after film becomes too difficult to attain, then, regardless of megapixels--or is that "mebipixels (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html)" ?--the M8 could have value. As for the collector-types, I've seen old Pulsar and TI digital watches from the early 1980's priced as high as some "jewelled" timepieces, so this M8 might also keep value as a fetish too ;)

As Bill has said, there' s a lot of "digital imaging" yet to be discovered. If Leica can, with this M8, can free the person from the medium enough to "focus" on the image (instead of the histograms, MP, "noise" and "crop-factor"), THEN they will return their brand to image making. What I absoultely adore about my Leica camera is the confidence it manifests as a "Don' t worry about the film, it's OK. Just make pictures!" tool. I'm not sure how that translates to digital media, what the digital analog would be... but a diminished chimping behavior might result...

rgds,
Dave

Mark Norton

06-13-2006, 14:37

I don't think we'll get it but it would be good if the screen on the M8 were foldaway like on the R-D1, Leica's contribution to anti-chimping...

Ben Z

06-13-2006, 16:43

I don't think we'll get it but it would be good if the screen on the M8 were foldaway like on the R-D1, Leica's contribution to anti-chimping...

Naaah, just cover it with black tape :D :D :D

rvaubel

06-13-2006, 19:06

1 wish the screen would hinge so you could look straight down, like a TLR. Good for inobstrusive street photography. Also good for overhead and around corners. But then it would have to be live view, which will take a sensor revolution that is not around the corner.

Rex

DaveSee

06-13-2006, 23:26

I have people at weddings ask me 'how much did those cameras cost' (pointing at my 5D's).

I tell them the truth. They were free.

My film and lab bills for a year more than paid for them so they cost me nothing. When they wear out, or something better comes along, I'll dump them in the nearest trash can and get the better camera.

It will also be free.

Cameras are tools, not religious icons.

Tom
Tom, with resepct to your post, work, skill and profession you have removed yourself from the original poster's context of "the beholder". However, in so doing, you have not addressed his claim/comment with respect to(wrt) the implied value of the tool as an object.

OK, so you may amoritize the true value in cost v. return. That is, in a sense(essence?) value. However, there are those who may yet ask if the means by which one attains a valued result is also intrinsic/a part of this value.

By your admission, you are removed of the means, easily discarded.

But, would you purchase an M8 with this same attitude? That's what was asked.
You have presented an interesting perspective, oft cited: itś not how, but how many/much.

I have many images, however mundane/valueless to others, produced with my RF gear that speak as much about the tool as the tool's user which, throwing away the tool ,would be simply a waste of future images... if I wasn't looking ;)

So, if you were not able to discard a tool, what might that be? Why? Oh, silly me, you already answered that! It doesn't matter.

rgds,
davidc

Mark Norton

06-13-2006, 23:51

I suppose if you are stuck on the treadmill of wedding photography, the notion that using a digital camera can reduce your costs and increase your profits is attractive.

Doing so doesn't make your cameras free - it just changes your cost structure - and to claim otherwise to goggled-eyed on-lookers is just a smart arse comment. Even when the savings exceed the cost of the camera, the camera still has a value as the working tool he is banging on about and I doubt our friend with the dangly eye-glasses - astute businessman that he obviously is - would actually dump them in the trash. More likely, he'll sell on ebay and impose a surcharge for paypal.

Kevin

06-13-2006, 23:51

I tend to doubt that. First of all, the 'next' jump in the silly megapixel war has begun, now a few of the tiny digicams are touting 10 mp, so everybody has to follow along.

Second, the sensors themselves are in their infancy. They still don't have the latitude of color print film, nor the sensitivity of the fastest film without degradation. LCD displays are slowly being usurped by OLED.

I suspect we'll see not just evolutionary changes in CCD/CMOS in the near term, but perhaps replacement technology that will unseat both of them and replace them with something altogether more satisfactory. There are billions of dollars in R&D all over the world right now trying to do just that.

Long and short - the digital camera market is not only NOT a mature market, it is a decade away from a mature market. The road ahead is bumpy. Hold on tight.

I completely agree.

Now I also suspect that the M8 will be very successful among the new rich, ie the millions of millionaires around the globe who already seem to spend a fortune on wares that are used only once (ie. expensive clothes and shoes).

If the M8 is surpassed by a M9 they will have the very first ones. The high price is a reason for them to buy the thing in the first place.

shutterflower

06-14-2006, 00:04

I just got finished playing with a Nikon D200 kit today. A place near my home let me take one till Friday and play with it so long as I return it in "unused condition".

No problem.

I took it home, plugged it in to charge, and an hour later it was ready to play.

It produces images that are on par with top-quality 35mm film scans, but without any grain at all. It's very very fast, responsive, and built like a tank. Built 90% as well as the Bronica. Zero shutter lag, 5fps, crips AF like the F100. This thing will keep value.

For the DSLR market :

Now, where am I going with this. . .there are two points to make here that really apply across the board on this generation of digital products. Companies are building hgher quality products now that the technology evolution is slowing down. Nikon has decided they are not making larger sensors in the foreseeable future (just more sensors packed onto the same sized chip). The camera is built to last. It feels more than twice as durable as the D70, handles like an F6 (75% as well). It will not depreciate as fast as the D70 for durability, the fact that the image is very close to 35mm quality, and people know the DX form factor is stable.

Depreciation will become a less and less affecting factor in decision making over the next couple years, and I see it becoming a non-issue after then. The boom is largely over. I mean, we went from .3 MP to 16MP in a handful of years. Now, I see a future of bodies and performance upgrades, but alot less in the way of MP count increases. This will mean that digital bodies will maintain value more strongly. Firmware, software, and hardware will limit how far they can go and still sell to a large market. The pros will continue to chase the full frame 6x6cm sensors, but the DSLR market is reaching its apex in terms of MP performance.

Too many words so far.
For the Leica market :

Point is, DSLR market is stabilizing because they have a strong lens selection for hte DX format and they don't intend to create larger sensors. Leica will enter with a crop factored M8 to fit a thousand classic lenses. No cropped lenses in the future. Big deal. Very big deal. Unlike the DSLR with its zoom glass, croped primes are troublesome. You can't zoom to the proper focal length. Your lenses become what they are not. When the M9 comes out (hopefully full frame), M8 value will crash hard. THere will be almost no use in a cropped camera to all those with the cash to spend on a full frame camera.

They, Leica, are forgetting that Leica users have a thing for gear and they love their lenses. Cropping the lens is just not fair. It defeats some of the fun and value of buying neat glass. It makes it artificial - which is very much against RF grain. Leica is simply scared if they don't hold their market off for a year or two till the M9 comes out, they are going to lose the whole thing to another maker.

Mark Norton

06-14-2006, 00:28

Agree with your comments about the D200 and the D2X delivers even more. But, it's big and heavy and noisy.

If a full frame sensor were both technically feasible for use with M lenses and cost effective, I am sure Leica would have run with it. Sadly, it is neither so a sensor with a smaller crop than the Nikon you've got excited about will have to suffice. Leica are not doing this to be "unfair", they are pushing the limits of what can be done at the moment, and users will need to recalibrate how they use their lenses. If you used a 35, you'll now need to use a 28. Sure it will take some getting used to, but so too will the ability to download your pictures after a days shooting to review them instead of hoping they'll be OK.

If you don't like the rules of the game, don't come to the party!

I agree the M8 will hold value until the M9 comes out but I think that is many years away. If rangefinder photography floats your boat, it's the best game in town given we don't know where Epson are going and ZI aren't saying.

DaveSee

06-14-2006, 00:29

Unfortunately all these points, which are decisive for the technical quality, are very, very seldom discussed when it comes to comparisons of film and chip.
[snip]
Back on topic, NO digital camera can escape from this pressure of evolution,
Leitz is now out in the real world, it does not decide anymore independently about their own innovation speed.

fitzi
Hmmm... well, nearly correct. In 1960--to pick a random date--there was film, film produced by Agfa, Kodak and others. One may say that today there are CCDs/CMOS produced by Kodak, Sony and others. Difference is a "chip" is not "film"(emulsion).The film produced today is not subject to the camera produced in 1950. The chip produced in 1998 is the camera which uses it.

That Leica chooses *a* chip--and the interfaces provided therein--does imply that a given camera has "chip-specific" capability. But that does not include *how* Leica will or *must* use this resource.

Take CD music discs. Similarly encoded discs played in one "player" will not necessarily /sound like/ that same disc in another. So too, light recieved on one CMOS/CCD as evaluted in "playback"/recording will differ between devices(cameras, RAW files,etc.).

Quite simply, the digital imaging industry has proffered a RAW format, yet what is truely RAW, as in naked, has yet to be seen(sic).

Leica could claim a "more true RAW"... and as for MPL, that's left to the bits resolved and not pixels, necessarily! Pixels are so course to true mathematics! Why are recent digicams shielded/filtered of IR and UV when the "chip" can "see" them? The camera cannot cope/resolve this information *and* produce an image....

...Leica--and others--can work this out: there's lots of room for innovation... even within 8 megapixels.

Bottom Line... megapixels hold more in less than we've just recently been exposed. Yet film emulsion, as currently used, still offers much more PURE DATA.

rgds,
Dave

Mark Norton

06-14-2006, 00:37

Has *anyone* ever told *you* that using ******** to show *emphasis* is *intensely* *irritating* ?

Traut

06-17-2006, 05:28

I was shooting 16mm stock in around 1964. When Ampex realeased their portable videotape unit for $20K or so. How could technology ever pass that milestone. Better color, sound and instant playback with stop action. No darkroom, reusale stock, etc.

Then VHS - BETA wars 20 years later.

Then DVD recording, etc, etc. I can do more with my cellphone than
with my old Arri.

So plesae don't look to 12mp 35mm size sensors and think this is the summit - its only the most recently attained plateau. We can't imagine - By the way my Leicas from 1964 are worth more than I paid for them.

jlw

06-17-2006, 05:42

The guys on "Imaging Resource" had an interesting take on this several months ago, when they first discussed the digital M.

They pointed out that a big part of the reason Leicas have held their value so well is purely functional: In terms of overall picture-taking performance, a 1954 Leica M3 isn't really much different from a 2006 MP, for example. Yes, the newer camera has a few added features such as a built-in meter... but in terms of the qualities that Leica buyers care about, a Leica is very little affected by the passage of time, so it's natural that its value also isn't affected much by the passage of time.

The M8 is going to be a different matter. There are bound to continue to be rapid advances in sensor technology, image-processing capability, etc., that mean an M8 even a few years old will be a significantly less capable camera than whatever comes later; that means its value is bound to depreciate more.

ezio gallino

06-18-2006, 02:39

I can do more with my cellphone than with my old Arri.

Sorry but I don't think so; Sure movie filming cost are reaching the stars... but 1964 B&W films (maybe with a digital step for cleaning) are still enjoyable.

Question is complex: If we consider mechanics maybe things were made better 50 years ago than now. It's a matter of costs; so certain works linked to human creativity as acting, scripting, and creating a plot were set by Aristotele. Nothing has changed below the sun; really.
Leitz optics has always been on top of the world never treur than now: mechanics was lightly simplified but recently has restored to original project. A leica M can work in north pole or in the desert without problems; not many others can.
Digital queston is complex because is a mix of sensors, software, filming and why not optical limits. Leica knows it very well and leaved part of work to kodak and imacon to very experts. Results : this real piece of art named DMR who made Kodachrome in digital (at terrible cost) noone else (Canon & Nikon at first) has been able to do it. Sure it's for professonists people who need it and earn bread on it, but the waiting list is very long.
I don't think that M8 will be different stuff: sure it will be lighter: but the actual limits are OPTICAL no PIXELS: until someone will invent a sensor who accepts even very angulated rays as film (it can be done in six months or in 30 years) LEICA M8 will be state of the art. Sure sooner or later LEICA M9 will come but even Nostradamus has known when. and under my point of view cellar phones are just toys. Last but not least looking to my Leica gives me peace of mind. God only knows what I need it.

Big greetings.

Ezio

harmsr

06-18-2006, 05:38

Personally, I'm very excited about the M8 and don't think that it will become obsolete for a long time.

Leica cameras are built to last. The files from the similiar sensor in the DMR are fantastic. My D200 at 10 MP is also fantastic. The files from my D200 are better than the Nikon 5000 ED scans of my film.

So in my opinion, the M8 will simplify my shooting (no scanning) and deliver image quality at least on par with film (maybe better and with no grain). I was happy with film and have experience on how nice good 10MP files can be printed. Therefore, I think the M8 will fulfill the needs of most for many years to come. It should not become one of those electronic items that you change every 6-18 months.

Just my $.02.

Ray

John Camp

06-18-2006, 07:19

If there's a sharp round of depreciation, I believe it's as likely to be in the film Leicas as with the digital. Within ten years or so, film users will be such up small and specific enclave that Leicas will be sold only into a small circle of enthusiasts: it'll resemble a market for people who like and use typewriters. The photos will be good, for sure, but processing and handling will be so much more trouble that the market will simply drift away. Your Leicas will only be worth what somebody is willing to pay for them, and there will be fewer and fewer somebodies willing to pay a big price. If you have a routine M3 (as opposed to a collector model) I suspect its value has already peaked.

As to the M8, I believe its chip will produce photos that are "good enough" that it will essentially be very usable until the chip wears out. It'll make excellent 16x20 photos, and when you move to an M9, it'll be because you want to make excellent 30x24 photos; but at 16 by 20, you won't see any difference between the M8 and M9.

Another aspect of this whole thing that isn't being considered is that while newer cameras will have more and more processing power, it's also true that more and more processing power will be available as free-standing software. Sean Reid has posted on his forum a comparison between the Nikon D200 and the Canon 5D. At ISO 1600, the 5D is notably better; but if you run both through Noise Ninja or other available software packages, the change is remarkable. Maybe Sean should do that, just to demonstrate the out-of-camera processing possibilities.

To sum up, you have to consider that there WILL be improvements to the M8 as it matures -- the improvements (aside from firmware upgrades) will be in out-of-camera processing. This out-of-camera software has already been thoroughly demonstrated with MF software packages, and I'm sure it'll show up with Leica, as well. Overall, I think the M8 value will hold up about as well as Leica values always have. Besides, when I get mine, I'll consider it a tool, not an investment -- for investments, mutual funds are a much surer deal.

JC

PaulN

06-18-2006, 08:01

The boom is largely over. I mean, we went from .3 MP to 16MP in a handful of years. Now, I see a future of bodies and performance upgrades, but alot less in the way of MP count increases. This will mean that digital bodies will maintain value more strongly. Firmware, software, and hardware will limit how far they can go and still sell to a large market. The pros will continue to chase the full frame 6x6cm sensors, but the DSLR market is reaching its apex in terms of MP performance.

I'm not sure if I agree 100%. Canon has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their semiconductor plants so that they can produce CMOS sensors for their cameras. I don't think that they are going to stop pushing the bar higher and higher just because we hit a minor plateau at the moment. When Intel hit 1ghz, they didn't rest on their laurels, they kept making the chips faster. I think Canon is going to do the same thing. This is going to drive the megapixels up and the costs down. Every time Canon sells a camera, they are making it cheaper to bring the higher megapixel sensors into lower end models. I have no doubts that they are going to pull a "D60" with the 5D and introduce a 6D that is a full-frame CMOS sensor (14mp?) in a DSLR body for $1600. I bet this will be the case by next summer.

Canon is in a unique position because they make their own sensors. Everyone else purchases them. With that kind of investment, I don't think they are going to slow the car down and keep producing the same chip over and over. If they do though, the prices are going to plummet. Either that or they start selling sensors to their competitors.

If you had your own CMOS plant and your stellar sales were paying for the research to make bigger and better sensors, what would you do? I think that P&S cameras are going to become like cellphones. People will upgrade every 2-3 years. Something with a higher number is always more appealing. If the P&S cameras keep progressing with higher MP counts, the DSLRs always have to be out there in front, with 25% more pixels to justify the price.

With higher pixel count comes the greater need for storage though. The storage companies don't mind. They'd love to sell you a 750gb SATA drive for you to fill up with pictures and digital video. The computer companies want you to shoot raw, so that you upgrade to a faster processor, too :)

-Paul

ezio gallino

06-18-2006, 08:54

I'm not talking about investments but let's say mechanics; do you know how for example Mercedes Benz were made in '50 and part of '60 in last century compared to how they're made now; sure they're modern, lighter , more silent and why not safer , performing and less polluting now than ever, but certain solutions adopted in that period are simply impossible to consider under any point of view; noone now even Rolls Royce but example are infinite can think to work as they used to do in the fifties: true for tuners (marantz 10b) amplifiers (tube macintosh) turntables (EMT) and too many other things houses for sure; original way of working survives on some swiss watch (surely Patek Philippe but look at they cost) and Leicas MP: let's add Western digital tubes ($500 each!); in many cases to mantain original technology it's a small miracle. Today we think that everything can be ruled by computers : surely true but not always; a movie in VistaVision is simply impossible to do; that's the truth; many times you're lucky if you just find a spare part. The moral of the story is that before you throw away something that ruled for more than fifty years think over it; new doesn't mean necessarilly better. If it was so rangefinder does not interest to anyone: period . Told that I don't want to go back to horses: I only want thet people reflect what their doing.

Bye as always.

humanized_form

06-18-2006, 20:33

regarding dslr's and consumers upgrading. i'm not so sure the vast majority will.

look at the life span the standard dslr 6mp sensor has had. why would the average user upgrade? unless they are interested in making bigger prints they don't need more megapixels. they will see no difference in their images.

of course i'm excluding the camera enthusiast from the above. we will upgrade more often. however, it's clear to me that the manufacturers are more interested in serving the needs of the mass market, than they are in serving the segment we represent. i mean if it wasn't for epson, which has no real history in cameras, there wouldn't even be a digital rangefinder available.

Tom Diaz

06-22-2006, 04:45

The one thing that Leitz could do different than other digital manufacturers
would be to offer an upgrade program. Much of the manufacturing costs of
the M8 will surely be in the mechanical system. If it was built such that
electronics could be replaced, let's say 25-30% of original price for an
upgrade to 16 MPixel when they become available, the entire system would
get a new face, IMHO.

Roland.

Yes, I agree very strongly. If Leica offers an upgrade program many more would be enticed to buy one. I also think the M8 will hold its value fairly well for a while, like the Digilux 2 has, but an upgrade program would be a great idea.