I'll have to create a thread on my Digital Cameras. A $12,400 DSLR with 1.6Million Pixels and a fixed 80MByte internal hard-drive. A $7,000 1.3Million Pixel DSLR that weighs more than a Nikon F2 with MD-1/MB-1 motor drive. A $5,000 Nikon D1 with 2.7Million Pixels. $7,000 D1x with 5.4Million Pixels at ISO 125. Above that ISO setting- forget it, looks miserable. The latter is less than 10 years old.
So- a $4,000 M8.2 with 1-year warranty looks like a bargain to me.
So- a $4,000 M8.2 with 1-year warranty looks like a bargain to me.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Mentor
I paid no attention to the hype having come from the dSLR world - pure fantasy what leica promoted.
Doesn't change the fact that I like my M8 - the M9 and M8.2 made it affordable for me.
Obsolescence? Maybe it's my ally, being the bottomfeeder I often am.
Doesn't change the fact that I like my M8 - the M9 and M8.2 made it affordable for me.
Obsolescence? Maybe it's my ally, being the bottomfeeder I often am.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And the same to you and yours
:angel:. About the upgrade path, I'm not so sure. There are a number of technical products where I have come to the end of my personal upgrade path, irrespective of "improvements". Gimmicks mostly. For instance cars I only replace when worn out; Hifi, I haven' t bought any new gear the last ten years, and the M9 seems to fall in the same category, as does the DMR. I have a strong impression that there are quite a few people in the same situation with the M8.
Last edited:
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
It still gives me pause to see how the M8's perceived value dropped so quickly as soon as the M9 was a reality.
And it doesn't seem to me like the M9 (apart from full-frame) is so incredibly improved that it can stand the test of five years of sensor advancements and refinements.
I believed Leica when it came to the upgrade program - I actually thought it to be a smart move and a ballsy marketing strategy. In hindsight, it looks like either a) a money grab and/or b) the remnants of a company at odds with itself.
And it doesn't seem to me like the M9 (apart from full-frame) is so incredibly improved that it can stand the test of five years of sensor advancements and refinements.
I believed Leica when it came to the upgrade program - I actually thought it to be a smart move and a ballsy marketing strategy. In hindsight, it looks like either a) a money grab and/or b) the remnants of a company at odds with itself.
>I remeber the majority of journals saying the Nikon D1x was as good as it gets and would
>cover all possible needs.
It covers my needs for scientific and technical photography. That and every Micro-Nikkor that was made at the time that I bought it. Actually, bought two of them. I'm still using them.
>cover all possible needs.
It covers my needs for scientific and technical photography. That and every Micro-Nikkor that was made at the time that I bought it. Actually, bought two of them. I'm still using them.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If Leica want to play in the same arena as the other FF players then it better have a shorter product cycle than that. When introduced it was already behind what others offered in terms of performance in FF sensors. I can see the merit in paying more for a body that will be usable for a long time in the film days but with digital it does not make sense.
Bob
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
It is called class-action suit and the lawyers get 33.3% of the settlement.
The question is: How many M8's were sold, how much can the plaintiffs claim and what is the final payday [and how soon] for the lawyers be?
Leica did not say what in the M8 is not upgradable... A simple defense is to offer a silly accessory and call it an upgrade.
jack palmer
Well-known
I don't think Leica could get away with silly accessory as an upgrade. Read paragraph two of the first post again. They probably should be sued over this.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
That, my friend, is for lawyers to argue and a judge to decide.
Pickett Wilson
Mentor
Civil law is simple. The side with the most money wins.
_mark__
Well-known
Ok for a timeline of Leica Rhetoric,
Generic Email received by many, 31 January 2008 it culminated,
"We would feel very honored if you would be amongst the first to
participate in our new program for the lifelong value retention of
your M8.
Yours Sincerely,
The Leica internet team"
Stephen Lee Sacked February 22nd 2008
M9 project officially started April 2008.
Luminous Landscapes interview with Stephen Daniels in which he confirms upgrade path for M8/8.2 halted.
Generic Email received by many, 31 January 2008 it culminated,
"We would feel very honored if you would be amongst the first to
participate in our new program for the lifelong value retention of
your M8.
Yours Sincerely,
The Leica internet team"
Stephen Lee Sacked February 22nd 2008
M9 project officially started April 2008.
Luminous Landscapes interview with Stephen Daniels in which he confirms upgrade path for M8/8.2 halted.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
What that lame brain Leica Internet Team was trying to do was to scrape up membership [read: marketing data] for a go-no-go decision for the M9.
Lee was sacked because he was not dye-in-the-wool bred-in-Wetzler/Solms.
Leica should have been owned by Hermes still. They belong there.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Lawyers swore an oath, upon being "called to the Bar", not to pursue cases without merits [read: income].
Leica, like many large corporations legal department will first ignore you, until you file suit...but at which jurisdiction?...then they wait. I have known cases where the plaintiff died before "discovery [of evidence]" even happened.
More complicated yet for class-action suits.
Might you be happy if Leica "gives" you an M9 as settlement on your death bed?
The M9 was already behind its time when introduced. There will be an M10 soon [watch for October 10, 2010 announcement].
The best way to get even with Leica is not to buy their products. But then, there are authorities in these forums who insist that Zeiss or Cosina won't or can't play ball...so you have no choice. :bang:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Yea, when you are the only game in town you can do or not pretty much what you want and charge the sky as the price of admission. I don't think any camera that is digital will hold it's value well until the technology is at a mature level. Name it whatever you want, Leica in the digital world is not proof against depreciation in value. I guess it depends on what you would reasonably expect to receive for your hard earned money. If the performance level of a 5D is satisfactory for your needs, and I can understand that as I am in no great rush to up grade from a D700, but I would gag at having to pay multiples times the cost of a used 5D for the privilege of being allowed to use the only DRF in town. That is just me personally and everyone is different.
Bob
jack palmer
Well-known
It's not a matter of "getting even". a lot of customers put up a lot of money based on the promise of lifelong upgrades, and retaining value. Just have a look at eBay to see where those values are after only a couple of years. This is just the kind of corporate BS that deserves to end up in court.
_mark__
Well-known
My point explained beautifully!
I will add, that the heavy premium for a Leica digital M was acceptable given Leica's rhetoric from that time i.e. "Full frame impossible!", "lifetime investment!" etc. There has to be an overlap where the marketing spiel became deliberate deception this is the point where the legality of it can be challenged.
sper
-
I for one think that pro digital SLRs at least, have reached a point where a future upgrade or release along the same line does not necessarily make the previous model 'obsolete.' Consider the 1Ds Mrk II, still a mostly usable camera for professionals, same with the original 5D. I'd imagine that the current crop of pro cameras will have even better staying power. All we really needed is a printable image up to say...16x20 and images that don't look like garbage at ISO 1600. We've got far more than that now in my opinion.
Even the M8 when well handled could be used for editorial and personal assignments. I think it's capable of making just about the best 10mp image you can make at up to iso 320.
Even the M8 when well handled could be used for editorial and personal assignments. I think it's capable of making just about the best 10mp image you can make at up to iso 320.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Brian
I am glad if your D1X is still in use and meets your needs, but lets not pretend that it is as good as it gets. It was pretty good in its day but just look how Nikon have hoaned and evolved that product in the last 10 years. Then again, if you are happy with a D1x best not to!
All the best for the year ahead.
Richard
_mark__
Well-known
I am not debating the quality of the M8, I am questioning the false promises and deliberate deception made by leica regarding its upgrade path and support.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I also don't have a M8 so this line of argument is a mute point.
I don't either, nor would I buy an M9. My only Leica is an M2, and mounted only with CV lenses.
I don't care to defend Leica, I vote with my wallet.
I have had some experience complaining to faceless large corporations...the standard tactics was to ignore you until you file suit complete with A Statement of Claims.
Upon being issued a Summons, all they have to do is to file an Appearance...a simple form stating they intend to defend themselves...
Unless you pursue the case further, they don't have to do nothing.
You have to prove them guilty first...but guilty of what?
Leica can easily argue that it was indeed the M8 product intent...but no one did subscribed to the program. They didn't say it was free either, nor they specify what exactly the forever upgrades and frequency were [same argument software company used in Product Maintenance].
Fool me once...shame on you; fool me twice...shame on me; or was it the other way around.