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?
bmattock
Mentor
I have no basis to form an opinion, but my gut tells me that the totemic value of the Leica camera will tend to keep the resale value high. There will be relatively few sold - thus there will be no 'market' per se; and those who buy them will (mostly) be Leicaphiles already. Without intending insult to Leica fans, they do tend to be a tad...obsessive about their kit. Thus, it will be important to 'have' an M8 long past the time that an M8 will have any value as a 'camera'.
Just a quick gut reaction, I could be wrong.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Just a quick gut reaction, I could be wrong.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
boilerdoc2
Well-known
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
Steve
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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
Mentor
jaapv said:
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
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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.
dll927
Well-known
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.
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
Mentor
jaapv said:
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
Mentor
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
Established
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. 
Finder
-
I don't buy cameras to sell them later. The stock market is a better place to make an investment.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Finder said:
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
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Finder said:
Really? I lost more money than any camera will ever cost me in 2001... :bang:
Gid
Well-known
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.
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
Well-known
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.
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
Mentor
I'd say the M8 will hold their value slightly better than the RD-1s
Gid
Well-known
ywenz said:
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
Spiteful little devil
boarini2003 said:
Even if Leitz manages to build a camera as reliable and efficient as the mechanic versions are, this cameras depreciation will be influenced strongly by the technical evolution, which is still at he beginning , as Bill said.
And it will be also influenced by what concurrent companies will offer in future and how fast THEIR evolution will be. Who could dare a forecast now ? Maybe we should wait 'til the first shots are done ?
fitzi
Uncle Bill
Well-known
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
Bill
sf
Mentor
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.
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.