M10R

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/17/2020 at 10:48 PM, thighslapper said:

£7.1k for a manual camera puts it firmly in the 'desire to own' rather than the 'desire to use' category. 

 

Not really, I passed on the M10P, quiet shutter/touch screen/live view, but enjoying the higher res of the Q2 and with those  features carried over, I will be selling on my much enjoyed, simpler M262 and have placed an order for the 10R.

[glogulus]

It’s everything I hoped it would be. I’m coming from an m10p. Strangely, I love the way it renders images because they kind of look like the pictures I’ve seen out of the m9.

[jamiealquiza]

On 7/13/2020 at 5:50 AM, budjames said:

BMWs and Audis cost more than Hondas and Toyotas too. They target different markets and still make money. I'm glad we have choices. 

Before switching to Leica 3 years ago, I was a Fuji shooter for 5 years and a Canon shooter before that for 40+ years. Yes, I'm old.

Fuji X is a great camera system. I continually upgraded my Fuji X bodies as they became available: Fuji X100S, T and F. Fuji XT1, XT2, XT3 and XH1. I also had a number of Fuji XF prime and zoom lenses which are excellent.

In comparison, the Leica M primes that I have purchased for my M10 will last for decades and still have a resale value. My M10 and M10 converted to M10P bodies should last for years even if made obsolete by newer sensor technology (M10R). Personally, I am happy with the Leica M for my vacation and street photography. I don't shoot sports, wildlife or fast moving subjects so I no longer need long zoom lenses and high speed frame rates. My images look great. I'm very happy!

When I got into Leica, I was told "buy once, cry once". How true!

Also, after owning 6 Audi A6 and S6 sedans over the past 14 years, I just ordered my first BMW, a 2021 M550i, a few weeks ago. My wife loves her Honda Accord. Choices are great!

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

The problem with this whole thing is that nobody is arguing choices, but price creep. Other vendors seem to keep their top end cameras at mostly the same msrp year over year, which really means increasing value if you calibrate for inflation. The M8 was around 5.5k. The M10-R is over 8k and has nothing revolutionary over cameras literally half the price.

And I'm not saying this as someone complaining about the price, but the value. Im sadly thinking this is time to switch to an X1D II (or it's speculative successor) at this point. I can literally keep my Q2 as a p&s and still come in under an M10-R body.

[SrMi]

14 minutes ago, jamiealquiza said:

The problem with this whole thing is that nobody is arguing choices, but price creep. Other vendors seem to keep their top end cameras at mostly the same msrp year over year, which really means increasing value if you calibrate for inflation. The M8 was around 5.5k. The M10-R is over 8k and has nothing revolutionary over cameras literally half the price.

And I'm not saying this as someone complaining about the price, but the value. Im sadly thinking this is time to switch to an X1D II (or it's speculative successor) at this point. I can literally keep my Q2 as a p&s and still come in under an M10-R body.

You have to account for inflation (M8 pricing). In USA, M10-R is about the same price as its 24Mp predecessor. Do not understand why it is not the case in some other countries. 

[farnz]

1 hour ago, jamiealquiza said:

The problem with this whole thing is that nobody is arguing choices, but price creep. Other vendors seem to keep their top end cameras at mostly the same msrp year over year, which really means increasing value if you calibrate for inflation. The M8 was around 5.5k. The M10-R is over 8k and has nothing revolutionary over cameras literally half the price.

And I'm not saying this as someone complaining about the price, but the value. Im sadly thinking this is time to switch to an X1D II (or it's speculative successor) at this point. I can literally keep my Q2 as a p&s and still come in under an M10-R body.

The bottom line is that the price is determined by what the market will stand.  

It matters not at all whether you, or I, or anybody else considers the price of the M10-R to be too expensive or not enough 'value' (subjective) to justify the price.  If the price is right then M10-R's will sell.  If it's too high then they won't sell and Leica would need to reduce the price until they do sell.  Simple economics.

Pete.

[IkarusJohn]

Leica also creates its own pricing ecosystem - its products are cheaper than Phase-One, in the same ball park as Hasselblad; Japanese competition isn’t really competition - either price or product wise.

So they price on a return on R&D, production and IRR; they then price their products relative to each other.  The film M cameras are cheaper (though probably more complex to make); the standard M digital is priced relative to its predecessor (the M(240) was about the same price as the M9, from memory, and the M10 slightly cheaper); then there’s the premium for the P and Monochrom versions; this one is slightly more than the M10-P.  The S3 is more expensive again, and the APS-C cameras cheaper.  Similarly with the lenses, they are priced relative to each other.

If you buy into Leica, you buy in for a reason - then you assess prices based on other Leica products.  No point in thinking about Caniksony prices for comparison - they’re different systems, and if you like those cameras, why buy Leica?

Edited July 25, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The pole holding up the tent is the price of Leica lenses.  I have about five times as much  tied up in lenses as in currently active bodies.  I sell bodies when new ones come along.  I NEVER sell a Leica lens.

[jamiealquiza]

On 7/24/2020 at 4:36 PM, farnz said:

The bottom line is that the price is determined by what the market will stand.  

It matters not at all whether you, or I, or anybody else considers the price of the M10-R to be too expensive or not enough 'value' (subjective) to justify the price.  If the price is right then M10-R's will sell.  If it's too high then they won't sell and Leica would need to reduce the price until they do sell.  Simple economics.

Pete.

I understand pricing. Let me put it simpler: Leica is absolutely a Veblen good at this point; it's no longer simple supply/demand pricing. Not realizing the former and falling for the latter just makes you look silly.

I may even buy an M10-R myself because I like my Summilux 50 ASPH just enough. I can simultaneously admit to myself "this is hilariously overpriced" rather than falling victim to Stockholm Syndrome under the spell of Leica lore and finding cost justifications that simply don't exist.

Edited July 28, 2020 by jamiealquiza

[Chaemono]

I wonder if used prices for the M10 will hold above $5,000. I would guess, they will.

[John Miranda]

About ten years ago, a Nikon D3X (if I recall, it was at the time leading DSLRs with an amazing 24MP) cost $8k.

[AlanJW]

On 7/25/2020 at 3:10 AM, scott kirkpatrick said:

The pole holding up the tent is the price of Leica lenses.  I have about five times as much  tied up in lenses as in currently active bodies.  I sell bodies when new ones come along.  I NEVER sell a Leica lens.

This. When looking at Leica prices, I think one should also consider the longer term.  I have some older Leica lenses that are now worth more used than they cost me new.  What other manufacturer can say that?  The Leica bodies also hold their value better than any of the Japanese compeitors.  So there is an initial shock to the wallet in getting into Leica but after that not so much. 

But as someone said, if you don't like the way Leica prices, there are lots of alternatives.  They seem to have a pretty good idea of what their market will bear.  It is easy to criticize but one thing Leica is not going to do is compete against mass production companies like Canon and Sony (and to a lesser extent Nikon).

 

[Adam Bonn]

16 hours ago, AlanJW said:

The Leica bodies also hold their value better than any of the Japanese compeitors.  So there is an initial shock to the wallet in getting into Leica but after that not so much. 

 

 

That’s quite awkward maths though isn’t it?

Let’s say that in 2012 ‘Bill’ and ‘Ben’ went to the camera shop.

Bill bought a shiny new X-Pro1 for £1300 and Ben went with the M240 at £5000 (prices from memory, but they’re about right)

Fast forward ten years and they both want to sell, so they list on eBay

Bill’s XP1 sold for £250, OUCH that’s an approx 80% value drop in 10 years

Ben’s 240 went for £2000, not so bad… only a 60% drop…

oh but wait… Bill owned a camera for ten years at a cost of £1050, meanwhile Ben lost £3000

Make no mistake, if one buys a new digital Leica, one will lose more money when it’s time to flip it that one would have done if instead a cheaper Japanese camera had been selected 

(as noted above this isn’t true of the lenses, vintage film cameras and lot less true when buying secondhand digital)

 

[T25UFO]

14 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

That’s quite awkward maths though isn’t it?

Let’s say that in 2012 ‘Bill’ and ‘Ben’ went to the camera shop.

Bill bought a shiny new X-Pro1 for £1300 and Ben went with the M240 at £5000 (prices from memory, but they’re about right)

Fast forward ten years and they both want to sell, so they list on eBay

Bill’s XP1 sold for £250, OUCH that’s an approx 80% value drop in 10 years

Ben’s 240 went for £2000, not so bad… only a 60% drop…

oh but wait… Bill owned a camera for ten years at a cost of £1050, meanwhile Ben lost £3000

Make no mistake, if one buys a new digital Leica, one will lose more money when it’s time to flip it that one would have done if instead a cheaper Japanese camera had been selected 

(as noted above this isn’t true of the lenses, vintage film cameras and lot less true when buying secondhand digital)

 

Can't fault your maths, but there are other factors that a simple mathematical calculation will never take into account.  I guess you're a Leica user, which is why you're here, so perhaps you also find an enjoyment factor in using Leica cameras.  

Perhaps someone could write this as a formula along the lines of E>IC-SV where E = Enjoyment, IC = Initial Cost and SV = Secondhand Value at the point of selling. 😁

[M11 for me]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Adam Bonn:

That’s quite awkward maths though isn’t it?

Let’s say that in 2012 ‘Bill’ and ‘Ben’ went to the camera shop.

Bill bought a shiny new X-Pro1 for £1300 and Ben went with the M240 at £5000 (prices from memory, but they’re about right)

Fast forward ten years and they both want to sell, so they list on eBay

Bill’s XP1 sold for £250, OUCH that’s an approx 80% value drop in 10 years

Ben’s 240 went for £2000, not so bad… only a 60% drop…

oh but wait… Bill owned a camera for ten years at a cost of £1050, meanwhile Ben lost £3000

Make no mistake, if one buys a new digital Leica, one will lose more money when it’s time to flip it that one would have done if instead a cheaper Japanese camera had been selected 

(as noted above this isn’t true of the lenses, vintage film cameras and lot less true when buying secondhand digital)

 

Can you pls make your calculation when you keep your equipment 5 instead of 10 years? 

I do not want to make a joke of your points. But I just swapped my 5D MkIV to an R5 last year and last january I swapped my M10 to an M11. Yes I paid more for the M11 deal than for the Canon deal but it never hurts as much as the initial buy. It comes within reach. The lenses will be great for many years anyway.

[M11 for me]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb T25UFO:

E>IC-SV. 

Wonderfull 😁

[Adam Bonn]

Guys,

The fact is that you lose less money on a (new) digital M is a lie

35 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

Can you pls make your calculation when you keep your equipment 5 instead of 10 years? 

No, but it will be a derivative of the same maths though

36 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

It comes within reach

Of course, but 'reach' is one's personal circumstances, not a factual formulae. I don't have $1.000,000, for me $1m is an awful lot of money. But there's people in this world that own things that cost more than that (boats, apartments, holiday homes etc) and they only use them a few days a year... They're obviously happy with this situation as it gives them pleasure and they can afford it but that doesn't suddenly make a million bucks chump change does it? (Even if it is too them)

44 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

Can't fault your maths, but there are other factors that a simple mathematical calculation will never take into account.  I guess you're a Leica user, which is why you're here, so perhaps you also find an enjoyment factor in using Leica cameras.

I am indeed, and I've bought all my Leica stuff (currently 2 bodies and 4 lenses) secondhand or in one case NOS. I like the pleasure and I like to live without the maximum expense!

I agree - you can't put a price on warm fuzzies. But you can on a depreciating asset and with Leica (see also high end cars for example) that price is a fairly decent percentage, but a shitty 'dollar' value when compared to other options

(I'm sure there's folks out there somewhere that wouldn't enjoy rangefinding, whatever the cost... weirdos)

41 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I would gladly pay 3000 quid for a 10 year love affair with a Leica M.

Buy a secondhand one, get the same pleasure and also a big chunk of your money back 👍 

In fact secondhand the 240 costs (give or take) about as much as the top end APS-C fujis cost new, will depreciate less and have all that M loveliness, so it's actually possible to have the best of both worlds

............

In summary, look if the narrative is you'll have such pleasure and pride of ownership with an M that you'll gladly decree "fk the cost, this is awesome" then FWIW speaking personally, I'm 100% cool and gang about it. But if the statement is you won't lose as much money on an M as you would on a lesser (and they are lesser 😇) camera then this is a factoid

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, Adam Bonn said:

I agree - you can't put a price on warm fuzzies. But you can on a depreciating asset and with Leica (see also high end cars for example) that price is a fairly decent percentage, but a shitty 'dollar' value when compared to other options

Very true.  I always find it amusing that car manufacturers (and dealers) don't sell cars, they sell credit.  

They come up with ever more ingenious ways to persuade us that we can afford to buy something we cannot really afford.  If you didn't have the cash, it used to be HP, but if you can't afford the monthly repayments, you now have PCP.  Large bullet payment at the end?  Don't worry about it, just hand the car back and then get into debt all over again.  Sad.

I never borrow money to finance a depreciating asset.  And I've still managed to buy nice new cars and Leica cameras!