Rick Posted March 13, 2014 Share #81 Posted March 13, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would buy the M if it had an EVF similar to the Olympus VF-4 built in, not as an add-on. I hate the add-on. 24 mPix is fine. And a diopter, please. You need to dream big. Don't settle for just a diopter. Why not a megadioper, at least? And, what if the new M had a removable EFV that was a wearable stereo goggle that connected to the new M via bluetooth. That would be way cooler than any built-in EVF or junky old RF. Also, I think I've pretty much shown that we need more MPs in the sensor to keep up with the new LR that can zoom in way beyound what the current technology of the M240 can support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Hi Rick, Take a look here Would you upgrade to M(360) for $9000. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
BerndReini Posted March 13, 2014 Share #82 Posted March 13, 2014 Under no circumstances. In this day and age, I am having a hard time imagining paying $7,000 for a digital camera. Sorry, but in my opinion, Leica should maximize production by keeping the body the same and change only the electronics at this point. This way they could maybe offer the future Ms at a more "reasonable" $5,000. Let's be completely honest here: why should any new M cost that much more than the original M8? I'm hoping the market gets saturated enough where this price gouging ends. I am a huge fan of Leica and really enjoy my M9 and film Ms. I would love to get a Monochrom, but with two young children, the expense is just very hard to justify. $9,000 really is a LOT of money, maybe not for some people, but objectively, it is a LOT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 14, 2014 Share #83 Posted March 14, 2014 Under no circumstances. In this day and age, I am having a hard time imagining paying $7,000 for a digital camera. Sorry, but in my opinion, Leica should maximize production by keeping the body the same and change only the electronics at this point. This way they could maybe offer the future Ms at a more "reasonable" $5,000. Let's be completely honest here: why should any new M cost that much more than the original M8? I'm hoping the market gets saturated enough where this price gouging ends. I am a huge fan of Leica and really enjoy my M9 and film Ms. I would love to get a Monochrom, but with two young children, the expense is just very hard to justify. $9,000 really is a LOT of money, maybe not for some people, but objectively, it is a LOT. Bernd: There is logic in what you say but it will almost surely fall on deaf ears. Leica will charge a lot more than $5000 for the successor to the M240. The reason is that the market will allow them to get away with it. They are not a not-for-profit organization seeking to benefit their clients. They are a profit-maximizing company, owned by profit maximizers, and like it or not they will do exactly that. I would not even call it price gouging because it isn't as if there are no alternatives to Leica products. If they lose some sales to customers who cannot pay the asking price, they will assume they will make up those lost sales on customers who can and will pay -- unless, as you note, the market becomes so saturated that the math no longer works. But Leica sales are so small that it is not likely they will find the market saturated. Look what happened with the $7000 M240. They couldn't meet demand. Perhaps it is the difference between "need" and "want". "Need" may be logical concept but "want" is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 14, 2014 Share #84 Posted March 14, 2014 I have no idea where that silly $9000 idea originated. Apart from the fact that prior to the announcement of the M (Typ 240), some people were suggesting a similarly ridiculous price tag. And frankly I have no idea what the specs of a successor for the current M might look like. A new, faster processor is pretty much a given, but that’s just common sense. There will surely be an improved EVF by then. Other than that I don’t really know. I would say it was too early to even speculate about a successor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 14, 2014 Share #85 Posted March 14, 2014 I would say it was too early to even speculate about a successor. But will an MM successor precede the next M? (Rhetorical) Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 14, 2014 Share #86 Posted March 14, 2014 But will an MM successor precede the next M? (Rhetorical) Jeff You must be reading my mind. That crappy 18MP MM is an embarrassment. I'd pay a lot for a camera like that with more MP... and I don't understand why Leica didn't make a color version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 14, 2014 Share #87 Posted March 14, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I prefer to wait for the MMM (with a suitably large dot). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyman Posted March 14, 2014 Share #88 Posted March 14, 2014 I'm very happy with the M, and it will always be a more than sufficient tool and challenge for me. There will be new lenses in my future, but at close to 60 years old, I’m considering this my ultimate still camera. I'm happy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 14, 2014 Share #89 Posted March 14, 2014 Anyway, my Leica M seems to have less megapixels than some of the new cameras and I want to have the best because, I want to show my pictures on this new television using LR and I am shooting for 1000 percent crop factor with the new software in the LR program. .and you will focus at 1.4 or 0.95 with a RF and 36mp ? it's already a problem with 24mp but I agree with you I want the best and the most modern body ,but it will never be a RF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 14, 2014 Share #90 Posted March 14, 2014 The Leica M cost 6200 euros tax included in continental europe. That's a little over $9000 and it still sells, even in countries like Italy or Spain where 6200 euros is a lot of money. But that's how most people justify those purchases : I buy an M in 2013 for 6200 EUR, use it for 3 years, sell it in the spring of 2016 for 3500. I had a great camera for 3 years and it cost me 900 EUR a year. That's less than some people pay for their gym membership and licra outfits, and I have prints on my walls to show for it. My numbers are conservative : if you look at what a 2009 M9 sells for these days, the cost per year is even less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 14, 2014 Share #91 Posted March 14, 2014 The Leica M cost 6200 euros tax included in continental europe. That's a little over $9000 and it still sells, even in countries like Italy or Spain where 6200 euros is a lot of money. But that's how most people justify those purchases : I buy an M in 2013 for 6200 EUR, use it for 3 years, sell it in the spring of 2017 for 3500. I had a great camera for 3 years and it cost me 900 EUR a year. That's less than some people pay for their gym membership and licra outfits, and I have prints on my walls to show for it. My numbers are conservative : if you look at what a 2009 M9 sells for these days, the cost per year is even less. I agree totally, and if you can buy a Noctilux and sell it in 10 years the cost per year will be very small Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 14, 2014 Share #92 Posted March 14, 2014 US price is about $7K in round figures so a $9K body would cost around €8K in Europe instead of €6.2K currently. Hardy realistic to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2014 Share #93 Posted March 14, 2014 The Leica M cost 6200 euros tax included in continental europe. That's a little over $9000 and it still sells, even in countries like Italy or Spain where 6200 euros is a lot of money. But that's how most people justify those purchases : I buy an M in 2013 for 6200 EUR, use it for 3 years, sell it in the spring of 2016 for 3500. I had a great camera for 3 years and it cost me 900 EUR a year. That's less than some people pay for their gym membership and licra outfits, and I have prints on my walls to show for it. My numbers are conservative : if you look at what a 2009 M9 sells for these days, the cost per year is even less. I don’t think that is very realistic. Most M owners I know are not on the buy-sell carrousel. They buy the camera and will use it for as long as it pleases them, which means quite a few are in there for the duration. But then, in Europe, we don’t “invest” in a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2014 Share #94 Posted March 14, 2014 US price is about $7K in round figures so a $9K body would cost around €8K in Europe instead of €6.2K currently. Hardy realistic to me. You lost me here. 9000 $ = 6500 Euro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 14, 2014 Share #95 Posted March 14, 2014 What's unrealistic about it? I based my prices on very conservative observations of what M9s and M9Ps sold for a year ago, and actual conversations with people who do rationalize these kind of purchases that way. Or do you profess to know what's in people's mind? Even if someone was to never sell their camera, that only makes my point more true : after 10 years of ownership, the cost per year of your M240 will be less than a transport card (here in Oslo). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 14, 2014 Share #96 Posted March 14, 2014 I paid the same price for the M240 as I did for my M9, new, from a Leica Boutique. I paid less for my Monochrom than the price of a M9P. Why should I expect the next version be more money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2014 Share #97 Posted March 14, 2014 No, I see what people around me are doing. Very few if any rationalize their purchases this way. I think the economic argument for a hobby photographer is spurious. He will buy the equipment he can/wishes to afford and the moment he buys it is it written off to zero, as something one does not wish to sell has a financial value of zero. It goes for cameras, for skis, for sports bicycles, guitars, hifi, you name it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 14, 2014 Share #98 Posted March 14, 2014 So the corollary argument is "would you upgrade to M(360) for $0?". Since the likely hood of that occurring is about the same as $9000. It's all facetious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted March 14, 2014 Share #99 Posted March 14, 2014 My Leica M is now 8 years old, never has complained, No Lug, No card, No WB, No lock up's, or battery problems. When I switch her on, and press the shutter it fires, it's images are amazing, the fuji sensor cost me 9.50 Dont have to worry about dust on the sensor or getting it cleaned. So why in the hell do I need to up grade......Lol. Ken. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223447-would-you-upgrade-to-m360-for-9000/?do=findComment&comment=2549366'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2014 Share #100 Posted March 14, 2014 Dont have to worry about dust on the sensor or getting it cleaned. . Having fought dust, tramrails and fingerprints all my photographic life, I cannot agree with that one… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.