Jump to content

mixed feelings after a few years


uroman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All, i own a M9 and a 35 cron, 50 lux (both bought new), and a 75 lux.

I love the lenses and pictures I can take. I like the camera.

 

However, does anyone ever get a little upset about the cost of the products? I have spent over 15000 USD for this kit, and I'm still not done. I look at FF canon cameras and I could do very well for a much smaller cost.

 

I like a RF over a DSLR, but does the cost of leica products cause anyone to second guess themselves? I am not a pro, just a hobbyist, so I probably could also learn alot from a 5d3 and a few primes, or a sony a7s.

 

I dont know how to assess the value of the equipment i have - the pictures are beautiful, but it is hard to put a value on that.

 

I dont plan on selling anytime soon, but i'm not sure i want to expand either. I would like to see more value in leica bodies - i like my M9 but I am blown away by the a7s, and i'm not sure if I am on the right path. I looked at the m-p, but for 8000 usd, it seemed to be a difficult upgrade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I no longer buy new Leica products. A ton of money can be saved buying used gear, and much of it has been pampered and virtually like new. I bought my first M240 as a Leica official demo for $1000 less than new, and just ordered a second one as Leica certified-preowned for $1700 less than new. The same deals can be found on current-generation lenses. These products come with 1 yr (pre owned certified) or 2 yr (demo) warranties from Leica.

 

Even more money can be saved if you don't need to pride yourself on owning the very latest lenses. My newest lens is the 1994 version 28 Elmarit, all the rest are from 60s-80's. But so it seems, Leica lens prices either remain stable or appreciate, so as expensive as they are it's a relatively safe proposition compared to digital bodies. At one time I owned several ASPH lenses and sold them because I couldn't see enough performance advantage to be worth the money I had tied up in them. Big mistake, because I could've nearly tripled my money if I had held onto them. Then again nobody could have predicted Leica would hike their prices so outrageously and get away with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The kit you use is largely irrelevant to the quality of the photographs you end up with. With few exceptions, nobody remembers the camera used to take great images, but they remember the photographer. David Bailey took some great shots with his iPhone, and I've taken crap ones with a M240.

 

Keep telling yourself:

- the best camera is the one you have with you.

- the most important equipment for the shot is the 6 inches behind the sensor.

But:

- if you like the kit and can afford it, then buy it :)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always have a camera with me - I have an iphone. I dont take my leica to work - that would be weird for my job.

But i do take it to events in which i plan to do photography.

The more PP in lightroom that i do, the more I feel that the camera itself may not be as important as the ability to post process and use lightroom and photoshop.

it is a complicated proposal - once I consider "value" for leica, I have a hard time finding it. I understand it is a luxury product. Perhaps I should look at leica like a expensive watch or handbag, rather than a tool. Im not sure.

 

Overall, however, i love shooting with the m9. The pictures are really nice. I just dont know if the next M will be in my future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that is not the only thing you can have such thoughts about. Many of us own a car that is much nicer than they need, a house  expensive beyond our needs, maybe a mostly "useless" motorcycle, guitar or sailing boat. I just realized that my daily use pipes have cost as much as an M240 body...
Don't worry, just use what you like and can afford.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, does anyone ever get a little upset about the cost of the products? I have spent over 15000 USD for this kit, and I'm still not done.

 

Buyers remorse is proportional to (time + affordability^2 ).You purchased the camera and three lenses only recently in both terms. I'm surprised you can even get out of bed in the morning.

 

I look at FF canon cameras and I could do very well for a much smaller cost.
Consider selling the Leica gear, buy the Canon and spend the difference marching through Canon accessories until broke, then move on with the same sell - buy with the next down camera that honestly suffices.

 

Within six years you will likely be shooting film in a 1950 Exacta with a normal lens.

.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that Leica has effectively priced new equipment out of my retirement budget. I bought my M4 in 1968, then traded my Canon kit for a Leicaflex SL. I bought new 35 & 50 Summicons and 90 TE for the M4 after college, and used the SL for Tele and close-up. Later added an M6 body when it came out, and then an R4. That was my Leica gear until I retired 5 years ago. I used my retirement bonus for an M9, staying with my old lenses. I have since bought mainly VC and Zeiss lenses to expand my range, and have tried a number of used Leica lenses from the film age. Finally I splurged and bought a new Summicron 50 for the M9, but expect that will be my last new Leica purchase.

I never found a dSLR I could stand, but did spring for a Sony A7 body and use it with all my old R, Pentax & etc. SLR lenses. The results I get with these are good enough that my Leica buying days are over, although I still love using the M9. I'll keep using it as long as it lasts, with reasonable repairs as needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a RF over a DSLR, but does the cost of leica products cause anyone to second guess themselves? I am not a pro, just a hobbyist, so I probably could also learn alot from a 5d3 and a few primes, or a sony a7s.

 

In my case the answer is based on how much I enjoy shooting with the camera. I do some paid photography and generally perform that with my Nikon D4 and autofocus zoom lenses. I find that I and the client are happy with the images, but I no longer find taking pictures with that equipment particularly enjoyable. When I go out to shoot for me - it is either the M9 or Monochrom. With these bodies I re-learned the enjoyment of taking photographs.

 

I find the DSLR experience to be very different from that of the digital M. My D4 feels like a computer with a lens on it, while the Leica is a camera. Both produce superb images, but I prefer shooting with the Leica. That is a very personal and subjective preference and others will have a different perspective. Shoot with what you enjoy. If you can have the same enjoyment with gear whose cost does not concern you, then go for it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of your Leica is entirely subjective and only you can know what its value is - to you. One way to discover its value to you is to ask someone who you trust implicitly to lock your M9 and lenses away for (let's say) 6 months with clear instructions not to return it to you until the time has elapsed even if you beg or blackmail them to give it back early.

 

After the time has passed you'll know how much your Leica equipment is worth to you.;)

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, does anyone ever get a little upset about the cost of the products?

The upside of the high outlay cost is the good resale value and low depreciation. Even the M8 (despite its apparent shortcomings) sells for much higher prices than other cameras of equivalent cost when new. Lenses retain excellent value and if you buy used equipment carefully actually cost very little to own. [FWIW I have Canon gear which has depreciated substantially (bodies and lenses) relative to my Leica gear].

 

I too have mixed feelings, but mine are more about the general depreciation of high cost digital bodies and their viable longevity (from any maker).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Let's be clear - I can afford the leica quite easily. The issue is - am i getting a good value for the expense. I love the camera and i love the lenses, but let's say i did an anonymous set of photos with a 5d3, an A7s, and a M9. If i mixed them all together, would i be able to tell which ones are which? Sure, some lenses have character - i can definitely tell on my 75 summilux. But I'm not a pro, so i dont know how much it matters for other cameras.

 

I guess, it is a luxury to me. And I've decided to try out that luxury. I just dont know if it is sustainable with new bodies at 8000 USD, and other great cameras being far less in price. I can do it once, and maybe once more if there is a new monochrom out. I just dont think I can do it every 3-4 years. It is a very high expense.

 

Ultimately, maybe the problem is that with film leicas, it seems that you could buy one body and use it for 10 years. With digital, the technology moves so fast. Are digital cameras essentially disposable? If so, it will be hard to invest in 8000 USD bodies.

 

I understand the use of old lenses and used equipment. But i could upgrade a 2000 USD body every few years with little concern. At 8000 USD, it gets much more challenging.

 

The problem with technology is that it moves so fast. I upgrade my iphone every 18 mos. And the new one is always much better than old. Upgrading an M digital body is much more difficult due to the price point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Let's be clear - I can afford the leica quite easily. The issue is - am i getting a good value for the expense.

 

If you do a cost benefit analysis I suspect Leica is not a good value. If the Leica form factor, optical quality, and rangefinder combination are what gives you maximum enjoyment in your photography - then Leica is worth what it costs. But that is an emotional assessment, not an analytical one.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a personal thing isn't it. I look at it this way; if all Leica cameras and lenses suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth I would have to entirely cease and desist with photography,

I have never met a dSLR that I could stand to pick up let alone actually use, I know some people get very fine photos from them, but to me they feel disgusting! And, again purely from a personal perspective,

I am happy that I get absolute value for money from my Leica gear, almost all of it bought new, I experience no guilt.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Let's be clear - I can afford the leica quite easily. The issue is - am i getting a good value for the expense. I love the camera and i love the lenses, but let's say i did an anonymous set of photos with a 5d3, an A7s, and a M9. If i mixed them all together, would i be able to tell which ones are which? Sure, some lenses have character - i can definitely tell on my 75 summilux. But I'm not a pro, so i dont know how much it matters for other cameras.

 

I guess, it is a luxury to me. And I've decided to try out that luxury. I just dont know if it is sustainable with new bodies at 8000 USD, and other great cameras being far less in price. I can do it once, and maybe once more if there is a new monochrom out. I just dont think I can do it every 3-4 years. It is a very high expense.

 

Ultimately, maybe the problem is that with film leicas, it seems that you could buy one body and use it for 10 years. With digital, the technology moves so fast. Are digital cameras essentially disposable? If so, it will be hard to invest in 8000 USD bodies.

 

I understand the use of old lenses and used equipment. But i could upgrade a 2000 USD body every few years with little concern. At 8000 USD, it gets much more challenging.

 

The problem with technology is that it moves so fast. I upgrade my iphone every 18 mos. And the new one is always much better than old. Upgrading an M digital body is much more difficult due to the price point.

Two things: One does not invest in camera bodies.

One buys one and writes it off against pleasure in one go (if an amateur) or against taxes and profits (if a pro) Either way the real value will always be far in excess of the book value.

 

Secondly: don't discount the cost of film and developing over the years. It may well turn out that the loss on a digital body is considerbly less.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the wise thoughts of those more experienced than myself. It really is quite personal, it is financial, it is even related to one's own concept of value, etc. I appreciate the various viewpoints.

 

10 years ago i owned a very exotic italian sports car. It was unbelievably fun sometimes, but ultimately the fun was significantly diminished by the crazy cost of ownership. Several others felt the same way. I guess it is very personal. Ultimately it is complicated because the lenses retain so much value, while the bodies are in a downward swirl from the point of sale. Digital technology is just so rapidly moving, that i hope leica can continue to add "personal value" for me. If bodies increase in price to 8000 USD -10000 USD for current M models. i am not sure I will stay in the game. Leica will be my top preference, but that doesn't mean I am able to actually obtain my #1 choice. Sometimes #2 is "good enough". We will see what the future holds.

 

It is refreshing to read from long term users of Leica. I am younger than most perhaps. I understand the longevity of those who have been Leica since the 1970s. But as a new user (last 3 years), I don't know if I fit into the Leica model customer. I thought i did, but I wonder if it is really true. I can afford this hobby, but I am still looking for more value in this manufacturer - at the level of the digital bodies. I wonder if Leica understands consumers like me, aren't we supposed to be the customers who stay with Leica for the next 20 years? I hope so.

 

The camera is magical, as are the lenses. They make me smile. We will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

….The more PP in lightroom that i do, the more I feel that the camera itself may not be as important as the ability to post process and use lightroom and photoshop.

it is a complicated proposal - once I consider "value" for leica, I have a hard time finding it. I understand it is a luxury product. Perhaps I should look at leica like a expensive watch or handbag, rather than a tool. Im not sure….

 

Depends on your goal(s), and your working method. In my 40 or so years of photography (last 6 digital), it's always been about a disciplined workflow from camera to print (and display, if worthy). The tools have changed at each stage in that workflow, film (darkroom) and digital ('lightroom'), but the real joy has always come from the print. The tools matter, but primarily in the way they minimize obstacles and easily facilitate desired results in that workflow. Digital hasn't changed that philosophy, but I do find that continuing rapid changes to firmware, software, printers, papers, inks, etc., have led to more incremental improvements in print quality than the camera/lens combo….and often inexpensively if not free. There are many cameras today that are up to the IQ task, but many do not meet my other more important criteria.

 

For the camera specifically, the most critical aspect for me is the way it allows me to see and focus on the scene. If that doesn't suit, the rest is immaterial. The M has always excelled in that regard...film and digital….for my needs and subject matter. The rest….size (lenses and camera), handling, ergonomics, etc….are wonderful bonuses.

 

So far the value equation has been easy for me. But I've been fortunate that my 3 digital Ms (2 M8.2s and an M240) have been almost problem free. Leica has stumbled at times in its early digital stages, but I hope that the new M platform proves more reliable and stable….and that the company flourishes. If so, I see no reason for the value equation to change. Plus, nobody has a gun to my head to buy every new model….the M8.2 still works fine, but the M has some nice benefits that, for me, were worthwhile. I'm in no rush for more. YMMV.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 years ago i owned a very exotic italian sports car. It was unbelievably fun sometimes, but ultimately the fun was significantly diminished by the crazy cost of ownership.

 

That particular syndrome is called "maturing"....most of us will experience it eventually when when the realities of life catch up with us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In no particular order:

 

I like the way my Leicas make me slow down and consider what and how I'm photographing.

 

I like being able to see around the framelines when composing and planning my photographs.

 

I like that I can move seamlessly between M7, Monochrom and M240 and use the same lenses.

 

I like that it's simplicity (yes, even the M240 where one can ignore the extra features under the hood) doesn't clutter my photographic process.

 

I like that it is pared down to ISO, aperture, shutterspeed and a simple but effective light meter that I can use to guide my exposure.

 

I like that I have complete control over focus (although I do bugger that up at times :rolleyes:)

 

I like that I know that any crap photos are entirely my own fault and in no way can I blame the camera and extraordinary lenses that I use.

 

I don't like the prices but then I did wait until I was 50and could afford it (sort of) to buy into Leica.

 

Most importantly, I really like using my Leica equipment (so much more than previous camera systems).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I should write advertisements for Leica ;)

Edited by MarkP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All, i own a M9 and a 35 cron, 50 lux (both bought new), and a 75 lux.

I love the lenses and pictures I can take. I like the camera.

 

However, does anyone ever get a little upset about the cost of the products? I have spent over 15000 USD for this kit, and I'm still not done. I look at FF canon cameras and I could do very well for a much smaller cost.

 

I like a RF over a DSLR, but does the cost of leica products cause anyone to second guess themselves? I am not a pro, just a hobbyist, so I probably could also learn alot from a 5d3 and a few primes, or a sony a7s.

 

I dont know how to assess the value of the equipment i have - the pictures are beautiful, but it is hard to put a value on that.

 

I dont plan on selling anytime soon, but i'm not sure i want to expand either. I would like to see more value in leica bodies - i like my M9 but I am blown away by the a7s, and i'm not sure if I am on the right path. I looked at the m-p, but for 8000 usd, it seemed to be a difficult upgrade.

 

The thing is, it's paid for. Unlike the Italian sports car you once owned, there is next to no cost of owning and using your M kit, other than insurance and a once every ten years CLA.

 

Regarding your "I'm still not done" comment, a three lens kit consisting of a 35mm, a 50mm and a 75mm should cover 90% or more of the shooting situations you will encounter. I can see upgrading from the M9 to an M240, but you have a set of lenses that would be the envy of many a Leica photographer. With the M (or any other) system, less gear equals more photographs. I have learned this through personal experience. Putting your faith in photographic success on a large armory of lenses is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

 

If you truly enjoy owning and using your M kit and you value the results it produces, that's reason enough to keep it and use it IMHO. Forget "justifying" the cost of your M kit. Just use it and enjoy it. Keep it simple; don't over-think the money facet of this.

 

As I say to my wife, "Leica cameras and lenses are a quality of life issue." I say this to her in jest - to which she responds with a wifely roll of the eyes.

However - for those who are truly engaged in the creative photographic process, there's far more truth to that statement than there is comedy.

Edited by Carlos Danger
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 years ago i owned a very exotic italian sports car. It was unbelievably fun sometimes, but ultimately the fun was significantly diminished by the crazy cost of ownership. Several others felt the same way. I guess it is very personal. Ultimately it is complicated because the lenses retain so much value, while the bodies are in a downward swirl from the point of sale. Digital technology is just so rapidly moving, that i hope leica can continue to add "personal value" for me. If bodies increase in price to 8000 USD -10000 USD for current M models. i am not sure I will stay in the game. Leica will be my top preference, but that doesn't mean I am able to actually obtain my #1 choice. Sometimes #2 is "good enough". We will see what the future holds.

 

This is a poor analogy. An exotic Italian car has significant ongoing expenses. This is not so for the lenses unless they are damaged or need calibration (cost often covered by Leica) and should you wish to sell them the financial loss is small. Regarding the camera body, again, you already own it and if you are happy with the results you don't need to upgrade (even less of a requirement to upgrade if you get a film M-Leica). I think the M240 is a better camera than the M9 but not to a level that requires upgrading, and again I bet that the resale on the Leica M is better than for a Sony/Canon/Nikon. Repairs may be a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...