The M10 massive loss in resell value unprecedented?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I quite agree. The M240 was the entrance of the M series into present-day technology. It is a pity Leica made a retro-U-turn with the M10. Maybe commercially a good decision, but they have backed themselves into a niche IMO.

The halting of the modernisation of the M series was my reason to switch to the CL. I still keep my MM1 - a never-sell camera- , and the M9 for nostalgic reasons and full-frame Super Elmar and Summilux 24 work.

[Jeff S]

The M240 remains special if one demands video capability from an M (regardless its effectiveness).

Jeff

 

[Kwesi]

The M240 has become the digital M5

[RexGig0]

My first Leica camera was an M10. The M240-series and M10 both seem to be quite special and wonderful, to me, though the Monochrom 246, rather than the Type 240, was the one I bought, to complement my M10. The 246 is noticeably thicker, but not enough to be a bother, and will shoot, seemingly, all day and into another day, with one nicely thick, heavy battery.

 

[jdlaing]

4 hours ago, Kwesi said:

The M240 has become the digital M5

Really?

$789,000,000.00 ain’t bad for a digital M5.

[adan]

2 hours ago, jdlaing said:

Really?

$789,000,000.00 ain’t bad for a digital M5.

Where does that figure come from?

Leica's average annual gross income over the life of the M240 = ~$364,000,000 pa . https://leicarumors.com/2016/04/05/leica-with-record-sales-increased-revenue-for-the-20152016-fiscal-year.aspx/

Once sports optics, eyewear, camera lenses of all types, accessories, film cameras, and non-M digitals (S, SL, T, C, Q, Panaleicas) are subtracted, that means M digital camera sales were maybe 25% of that = $91,000,000 per year

Over 5 production years = $455,000,000. Maybe.

But, true, not exactly an M5 (total 5-year sales in 2019 money, ~$142,590,000)

 

 

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Kwesi said:

The M240 has become the digital M5

Has it? No question mark? No " IMO or  "IMHO " ? A statement based on what?

The M 10 resembles the M 240  in looks ( the M 10 is only a few mm less thicker than the M 240, hardly visible on a distance of two meters ). The M 240 derived from the looks of the M6 TTL or maybe M7. 

The M5 was a  newly  designed camera not only inside... ( Puts ) , but ( maybe too much ) also from the outside. .

The M5 is a really fine camera to work with , some call it superb and in design  a real user camera, but it reminded me to much of the DDR, like a Lada-car ( a spectacular car to drive in with cold weather , great heating system! ) maybe I wasn't the only one....Form follows function was the Wetzlar thought in those days. 

The M 240 design was the other way around, it was IMHO based on the looks of the  M9 titanium , Walter de' Silva ,  a design like an Audi -car , omitting the glass from the viewfinder lines and replacing it with a led. 

The M 240 reminds me op my M6 . It reminds me of my MP. It doesn't at all remind me of the M5 I used al lot before I bought my own M6. In no way, I think, the M 240 will go down in history as a failure IMHO.

 

The M 10 looks back to the past with it's thinner design and iso wheel, resembling in the past of the MP IMHO. In the picture you'll get the picture:

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!

[sblitz]

I know a professional fashion photographer who prefers the M240 to the M10 because he says it has a warmer palette. I don’t know enough to argue. I had the M9, and while I loved the colors, it was Kodachrome, its low light performance was awful. My issue with getting the M10 is that I want video capability, for the grandchildren. 

[jdlaing]

13 hours ago, Paulus said:

 

The M 240 design was the other way around, it was IMHO based on the looks of the  M9 titanium , Walter de' Silva ,  a design like an Audi -car , omitting the glass from the viewfinder lines and replacing it with a led. 

 

 

The glass is still there. LED lights shine through the masks, instead of reflected natural light, on to the glass.

[Jeff S]

Mechanical frame line masks are the same as in the M8 (and earlier); only the illumination has become electronic...

Jeff

[farnz]

On 4/19/2019 at 9:48 AM, Gavbo said:

M240 - Probably the least special of all the Digital M's to date.

The M240 was particularly special when it was released because it was the first digital M with a CMOS sensor that enabled LiveView to be used with an optional, pluggable, electronic viewfinder so that macro, super wide-angle and telephoto lenses could be focussed.

For me at the time it was my R camera as well as my M camera.  That's another thing that made it special.  The ability to shoot video was another. 

Pete.

[dkmoore]

M240 is still a fantastic camera. The fact that 6 years from release the M240 still sells for $3k shows that the M10 will probably hold similar value. 

We are halfway through the life cycle of the M10 so yea, if you are just buying one now, you will notice a faster depreciation than those early adopters. 

[Jeff S]

Plus the M240 spawned the M Edition 60, the M262 and the M246, besides its own P version and special editions.  Hardly a failure in that respect.  Of course only Leica can assess its financial impact.

Jeff

[cp995]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb dkmoore:

...We are halfway through the life cycle of the M10 so yea, if you are just buying one now, you will notice a faster depreciation than those early adopters. 

Thats one side of the view ...

The other is buying a used M10 now and you save a lot of money!
In this case the future loss will be much smaller than buying a new M10 today.

Same procedure as with every early adopter deal ...

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, cp995 said:

Thats one side of the view ...

The other is buying a used M10 now and you save a lot of money!
In this case the future loss will be much smaller than buying a new M10 today.

Same procedure as with every early adopter deal ...

I totally agree with you. My comment was in response to the OP and those buying brand new. 

[IkarusJohn]

The M(240), with its CMOS sensor, opened technological doors to the M system which had not been available before - eg live view and video - and in doing so it also challenged the future of the M camera.  If you have live view, macro, zooms and longer telephotos, why do you need the rangefinder to hold the camera back.  Save your outrage - however much you like the rangefinder (and I do), it is limiting in its application.

At a time when Leica was developing the SL (and it was developing the SL at that time), why continue with a technology which unnecessarily complicates what is an elegant and successful formula?  Particularly when the SL does all those new things better and Leica is committed to the L mount?  Jaap moving to the CL is exactly the result which Leica would have hoped for (if he wanted Live View, a small traditional looking retro styled camera and simple video).

For those unconvinced, consider this.  The M camera, from the M3, was a limited camera - focal length and parallax, to name 2.  The SLR cameras were in many ways a better solution (as the success of the Nikon F showed).  Leica even made the clunky Visoflex and lenses to try to scratch that itch for M owners, but it was Heath Robinson, compared to the polished apparent simplicity of the Nikon F.

That is why I never bought into the M(240) - for me it is the bastard child of the M system.  Sure, when used as an M camera, it did the job of any other M camera, albeit thicker.  But that is not what we buy into with the M system.  It’s the entire paradigm, based on the rangefinder.  Now, for those who find the SL ugly, I’d line it up with all the others which offer full frame mirrorless functionality - I’ll take the SL every time.  Why?  Because it works so well - it is a fabulous camera.  Looks a bit M5 like, but I don’t care ...

The M10?  When I hold my M10-D with an M lens, being “limited” to a prime (and a very good one at that) and using that fantastic rangefinder. It gives me real pleasure.  I can pretend I’m not holding a computer, but a real camera with real dials.  There’s nothing the M(240) would offer that I would want, and a lot I don’t want.  To the extent that Leica killed anything off with discontinuing the M(240) line of thought, if disappointed what must be a minority who, for some reason, want a rangefinder based camera, with video.  I think Leica, quite rightly, came to the view that this had no future - the M is an oddity most M users get and love, and it should, in my view, stay right where Leica has put the M10.

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I can pretend I’m not holding a computer, but a real camera with real dials.  

The computer is in your phone for the dedicated app.

The M240 didn’t need that, and had settings in-camera to disable video and LV.  

Lots of choices and ways to pretend.  

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

40 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The computer is in your phone for the dedicated app.

The M240 didn’t need that, and had settings in-camera to disable video and LV.  

Lots of choices and ways to pretend.  

Jeff

Sorry, Jeff. Thank makes no sense to me.  My M10 is fundamentally a computer wrapped up to feel like a manual camera. Who said snything about an M(240)?  I was talking about the camera I own.

Sure, M(240) owners can do the same thing, but you can understand how it is that the M10 feels more old fashioned?  Perhaps you need to reread this thread from the beginning?

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Sorry, Jeff. Thank makes no sense to me.  My M10 is fundamentally a computer wrapped up to feel like a manual camera. Who said snything about an M(240)?  I was talking about the camera I own.

Sure, M(240) owners can do the same thing, but you can understand how it is that the M10 feels more old fashioned?  Perhaps you need to reread this thread from the beginning?

You said a lot about the M240 in the same post #56... ‘bastard child’, only disappointment in discontinuance for those wanting video, etc...maybe read your own post again.  

My comment about the M10D was to point out that while you pretend it isn’t a computer (which is fine),  it ironically requires use of a smart phone (computer) app, unlike other Ms, including the ‘bastard’ M240.  And those using the M240 can similarly pretend it doesn’t have video (easily disabled) or other non-essentials. The difference, I guess,  is that you hate the M240, so pretending doesn’t count and it remains a bastard. I no longer own the M240, enjoying the M10 and MM, but the M240 forum here is full of people enjoying their M240, many without using video.  They like the form factor, battery life, IQ, and more.  All M’s have their fans.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paulus]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

Sorry, Jeff. Thank makes no sense to me.  My M10 is fundamentally a computer wrapped up to feel like a manual camera. Who said snything about an M(240)?  I was talking about the camera I own.

Sure, M(240) owners can do the same thing, but you can understand how it is that the M10 feels more old fashioned?  Perhaps you need to reread this thread from the beginning?

Is it? What makes the M 10 to me not a computer wrapped up to feel like a manual camera, is, that is is actually a manual camera. Viewfinder: Manual, Lens focus : manual.  Shutter. I In a way, it's manual also in comparison with the M6 MP , because the only thing altered is the way we capture the light. The rest of the computer things are just to capture. Of course, the M7 did not have a " computer " but the electronics are already there to say :" it's not really a manual camera. When does a camera stop to be a manual camera? M4 , M5, M6? M7? M8? just say when...