enboe Posted June 11, 2015 Share #1 Posted June 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So, I see the new Q today, and expect to be getting the call for the M246 next week. Waxing philosophically, I look at the assemblage of gear here and had a couple of thoughts: Film M's, properly maintained, have a good chance of being a no cost to use proposition. The MP I picked up in 2003 for $2700 new would bring that or more today, hence no depreciation. Film and processing are your costs for use. Digital M's, properly maintained, lose about 35% of their value per 3 years. There seems to be a floor at approximately 35% of the original cost. $'s per year of use are pretty easy to calculate. X's, and I predict Q's, have a steeper depreciation over 3 years, something like 45%. I don't see a floor, as depreciation seems to be continuing for my poor X1. So, if you enjoy the technology, the new "Q" might be just the right thing for you. If you want something as an enduring investment for a lifetime, maybe a film M is worth a look. Want something in between, pick up a digital M, maybe a clean CPO or Q2 model. Thoughts? Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Hi enboe, Take a look here M's vs Q's/X's - enjoyment per $ discussions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
skernsnapper Posted June 11, 2015 Share #2 Posted June 11, 2015 It would seem obvious that a film camera is likely to retain its value better than a digital version since manufactuerers are in business to make money & they rely on buyers wishing to have the latest versions of their cameras. It is far easier to bring out a new version of a digital camera than a film one, hence the digital one will diminish in value more quickly than the film one. My 1938 3A still gets used & produces images of good quality, it just not as convenient than one of the later versions. Incidentally how does one recognise a film Leica these days, i.e. which of the multifarious 'M's are film cameras? Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enboe Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sure you are aware of the following, but just in case it benefits the random reader of the thread, there are still three current film M lines, the M7 (no Typ #), the MP (no Typ #), and the M-A (Typ 127). The M7 was released in 2001, MP in 2003, and M-A in 2015. I don't know if we will see another film model in the future. Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 11, 2015 Share #4 Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) So, if you enjoy the technology, the new "Q" might be just the right thing for you. If you want something as an enduring investment for a lifetime, maybe a film M is worth a look. Want something in between, pick up a digital M, maybe a clean CPO or Q2 model. Thoughts? I don't buy cameras as investments, and I don't choose to make silver prints versus inkjet prints based on costs. Photography for me is a creative endeavor, not a financial equation, and the camera is but one tool in the process. I switched from film to digital 6 years ago, for many reasons, and my enjoyment continues. YMMV. Jeff Edited June 11, 2015 by Jeff S 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted June 11, 2015 Share #5 Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) I buy digital Leicas used or as demos and find that I get much more enjoyment out of having someone else suffer the biggest hit of financial depreciation vs buying them new which is tantatmount to paying to be a de-facto beta tester. Edited June 11, 2015 by bocaburger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 11, 2015 Share #6 Posted June 11, 2015 I buy digital Leicas used or as demos and find that I get much more enjoyment out of having someone else suffer the biggest hit of financial depreciation vs buying them new which is tantatmount to paying to be a de-facto beta tester. JPEGs should cost less anyway. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 11, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Enjoyment aside, which is a big issue, I always viewed the price difference as one paying for a lot of film to be developed and scanned up front when you buy a digital camera. So yes, it does depreciate faster and, because technology changes, there is no real floor. Although I do wonder about the Q given the quality of the lens sitting on it. Nevertheless, a Q at $4250 runs to about 120 rolls of film all in, based on prices I pay in NYC. Leica film Ms have a value probably because of the lenses? I can buy an old top line film Canon or Nike for $200 or less -- in real terms essentially almost 100% depreciation. Buy what you like, enjoy film, digital,, both, the costs all in after several years tends to run about the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted June 11, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 11, 2015 These discussions of cost may make sense for a professional who is going to keep track of investments in his or her business. For amateurs, the discussion reminds me of when I had a boat. One would never ever, ever, want to calculate the cost of owning a boat (even a sailboat where the fuel costs were trivial). If you can afford a Leica and enjoy using it, consider it an investment in mental health. 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.