You will now start to spin any sort of mis-information to "prove" your point.
No matter where you embed the driver.....on a chip in firmware, in a flashable chip, in software, it is still a program.
It is a set of instructions. Please stop posting ridiculous confirmations about how much you "know".
Firmware is still a program, a set of instructions which tells the LCD how to map and display information.
Anyway, you already posted you "were out of time". I guess you found time.
No matter where you embed the driver.....on a chip in firmware, in a flashable chip, in software, it is still a program.
It is a set of instructions. Please stop posting ridiculous confirmations about how much you "know".
Firmware is still a program, a set of instructions which tells the LCD how to map and display information.
Anyway, you already posted you "were out of time". I guess you found time.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I do not like to enter in technical discussion, but this thread confirm me that in the digital era it is not worthwhile to invest too much money in gear (of course where too much depends on personal evaluations). In old times I could buy an high price pro camera (F5 or M xx) and sell it after a few years loosing only a reasonable part of the money spent. This is no more possible. But on the other side, the positive one there are many cameras at medium price which can deliver excellent photos. Of course I'm thinking as the amateur I am. Pros maybe will think differently.
robert
robert
raid
Dad Photographer
I think in a very similar way about this issue, Robert.
Pros may defend like lions their digital investments, but amateurs like me just want to take photos and not lose much money in doing so.
IEDEI
Well-known
nonsense, IMO.
there are plenty of reasons to invest in digital equipment....technological issues are always surmountable, just like mechanical ones were in the past.
this is an issue of part supply, not an issue of whether it can be fixed or not. I can assure you that in the PRE-DIGITAL era, there were still issues of part supply......it is generally an issue which can be resolved and is resolved most of the time.
The trick is to buy the digital stuff cheap, enjoy it, and then sell it at a profit or at least break-even before it reaches end of life and becomes worthless.
I got my Leica M9 refurbished at a great price. I have been greatly enjoying it for two years. I'll sell it and will have had years of pleasure practically free, or I might even make some money on it.
You can't fall in love with digital equipment, you are buying basically a function, not an intrinsically valuable piece of mechanical art.
I got my Leica M9 refurbished at a great price. I have been greatly enjoying it for two years. I'll sell it and will have had years of pleasure practically free, or I might even make some money on it.
You can't fall in love with digital equipment, you are buying basically a function, not an intrinsically valuable piece of mechanical art.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Bingo Raid...
But even "pros" look at digital cameras as merely cameras - and they know that rotating them every 3 years or so is "the norm" - you can only, after all, write down an asset (for tax purposes) such as a DSLR for a certain amount of time - you can't do so infinitely. So at a certain point, from a tax perspective, the camera does in fact become "worthless" - and you proceed to get another. The same can or could be said about a film camera but there are other factors at play when it comes to film.
Regardless, in order to get this thread back on track - "Leica didn't think enough about their customers !!!" - there.. now people can get back to being nasty to each other.
Cheers,
Dave
IEDEI
Well-known
i have never owned a film Leica M and likely will not. Not because I do not appreciate it, but because I prefer digital for the needs that I have.
A digital M is still a beautiful, exquisite piece of mechanical art in every sense of the description. An item can be digital in its interface and still be mechanical in its function.
All the original people who designed and produced older "Leicas" are dead.
There is no such thing as "Leica" other than a brand name. It is basically an entity which purchased the name "Leica" and undertook to continue the product line.
The people who made the M3 are dead. It is not the same company it was 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
The entity named "Leica" is here to make money. Make a profit. They are not here to repair old cameras forever. They will make decisions based on profitability.
They market their products to people who like the values of the "old" Leitz/Leica, and create an imaginary thought-world which ropes in these people. This is the purpose of successful marketing.
But you are not buying a 1953 M3, you are buying a new product, from the new entity.
There is no such thing as "Leica" other than a brand name. It is basically an entity which purchased the name "Leica" and undertook to continue the product line.
The people who made the M3 are dead. It is not the same company it was 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
The entity named "Leica" is here to make money. Make a profit. They are not here to repair old cameras forever. They will make decisions based on profitability.
They market their products to people who like the values of the "old" Leitz/Leica, and create an imaginary thought-world which ropes in these people. This is the purpose of successful marketing.
But you are not buying a 1953 M3, you are buying a new product, from the new entity.
The mechanical part, the rangefinder, the castings, yes. But not the electronics. The M9 is practically a small cottage industry coupling of a mechanical body with digital components grafted on.
IEDEI
Well-known
we have to remember what time we live in. EVERYTHING has electronics. I am big time into automobiles. Sure i appreciate a 1969 Alpine-Renault A110 1600s just as much as the next guy, but I also appreciate a 2013 Audi RS5 as well.
I liken cameras to automobiles----both have moved to electronics, yet the spirit and the goal is the same. If one wants to buy an old car or an old camera, one can----but if one wants a new car or a new camera, then one has to accept the changes that have arrived.
froyd
Mentor
I feel like I'm back on Photo.net.
Even longstanding members are cranking up the nastiness.
I think this is an interesting topic, and I'm learning much from it, but the tone of the conversation is too often turning to the unpleasant. May I suggest those who truly feel compelled to sling insults to other members do so via PM and keep the conversation here to useful insights and comments?
Even longstanding members are cranking up the nastiness.
I think this is an interesting topic, and I'm learning much from it, but the tone of the conversation is too often turning to the unpleasant. May I suggest those who truly feel compelled to sling insults to other members do so via PM and keep the conversation here to useful insights and comments?
robert blu
quiet photographer
Thanks for the comment, but maybe a typing error (to instead of too) now corrected did not help to understand my thinking correctly: you are correct, the digital world offers interesting high quality products at a reasonable price. What I meant was that, depending on personal evaluation one has to find where his personal limit (money to spend) is in order not to regret too much for the future obsolescence which is, will be inevitable.
robert
Jeff S
Well-known
Yep, all digital cameras are essentially cameras and computers in one. Almost nobody loves or keeps their computer like they did with their old cameras. Different world. And the reason why I'd like a weather sealed M (with sealed lenses) to somewhat address the fragility of the computer inside.
Jeff
taffy
Well-known
froyd said:
+1 from me. I was just telling someone why I love RFF and it's members.
willie_901
Mentor
I quit agree. Longevity is not part of the equation in the 21st century. This will change in 2 to 5 decades as exponential population growth outpaces available resources. But right now the market dictates digital cameras are not built for a lifetime and they will not have enduring value.
Pros do think differently because paying extra for ruggedness and dependability is good for business. However, pros write off the depreciation anyway so after three years the camera's drop in value is just another expense passed on to clients. When I made my first major camera upgrade to improve my business is when I actually realized a camera is just a tool.
A RF camera is unique and serves a niche market. So buying a digital M is like buying a value added product and buying a full-featured (less expensive) digital camera like a Nikon, NEX, Fuji, Ricoh, etc is like buying a commodity. With one you pay for needing to use a camera a specific way and you choose to use only M/LTM lens, for the others you only pay for the R&D, materials, manufacturing, shipping and marketing. You use the camera the way the marketing/engineers think you should use the camera. You use whatever lens gets the job done. However both choices have essentially identical lifespans. Both choices can produce excellent photographs.
There is nothing inherently wrong with value-added products. Apple has about 120 billion dollars in cash and nets about 12 billion a quarter. Value added products are good. No one buys an Apple product thinking it will last a lifetime. And Apple doesn't suggest their products are "built for a lifetime and enduring in value".
IEDEI
Well-known
There is a curve which happens with 'niche' items such as Leica cameras and other niche items (watches, automobiles, etc). These items are generally more expensive than they should be, however they have attention to detail and serve a specific market.
They depreciate......TO AN EXTENT. They never depreciate past a certain point---and then they appreciate again.
I assure you this was the case in 1970 with cameras from 1958, and I assure you this will be the case in 2020 with cameras from 2008. This is a repetitive pattern seen across many goods over time.
"Digital" products are not immune, just as automobiles functioning on electronics are not immuned. The prices and demand are set by the market. Currently there are MANY people still waiting to get their hands on an M8. I was one of those people....when i had enough money, and the price was low enough, I jumped on board. Basic economics at play to some extent.
Leica products do not compare with Apple products, because Apple products are 'mass produced' whereas Leica products really are not. Everyone can pretty much afford an iPhone or an iPad, but most people cannot (or choose not to) afford a Leica M in terms of pricing for a camera.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Fun you mention Apple, I'm exactly in the process to replace my old i-mac with a new one, i-mac or mac pro
robert
nzyan
Newbie
JJ of Leica just posted good news over at the Leica Forum:
Original post here in the Leica Forum
Andreas
Original post here in the Leica Forum
Andreas
JayM
Well-known
"depends on the age of your defective M8"
I wonder, what is the rate at which they depreciate "Compact, Built for a Lifetime and Enduring in Value. "
Maybe they should just start leasing cameras?
I wonder, what is the rate at which they depreciate "Compact, Built for a Lifetime and Enduring in Value. "
Maybe they should just start leasing cameras?
I wonder what the M9 upgrade really is? I mean, if I wanted to get my screen on my M8 replaced and I couldn't, but they offered me a M9 at $5000-6000, I'd still have a M8 with a broken screen and no interest in the M9.