Digital M depreciation (MD-262 Question)

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Everyone 

My first digital M was/is MD-262 and I've also recently purchased an M10-D.

It's testament to how great the MD-262 is that I bought the M10-D simply because I love my MD-262 so much.  The M10-D's rarely come up for sale in my country so I thought I just couldn't lose to grab it and try it out.   The end result is I now have 2 digital M's when really I only 'need' one.  

While I am sure this is a highly personal decision, I am wondering everyone's thoughts on whether all digital M's are going to suffer price depreciation, or whether we feel the 'D' models (due to their uniqueness) are more resilient against this.

The short story is that I should really sell one of them as I won't be using them both regularly enough to justify keeping both around as users, but on the other hand thankfully I don't exactly 'need' the money I would get from the sale.    So I would keep them both if they perhaps are going to be fairly resilient against depreciation.  If on the other hand all Digital M's are doomed to decreasing steadily in value then I can't really justify having one sitting on the shelf doing so and someone else may aswell be using it while it depreciates. 

Or maybe the D's could appreciate (Or is that a completely crazy thought for a digital M?)

I know none of us have a crystal ball, just wondering your thoughts !     

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by grahamc
added info

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[a.noctilux]

We don't have cristal ball, may we use in place a simple coin ?

 

Flip a coin !

 

To be more serious,

In my view in LCDless M, the M10-D has gone too far with too many added functions appealing to many people.

At one time I dreamed of M10-M-D , but in the end using two (out of many more as you know already) nice cameras replaces hand down the one in all of my dream.

So I use Monochrom when I need it, or M-D/M10/M262/etc. when I don't need monochrom files.

 

Using film compensates the digital war, sometimes I do use film as it is.

Film M has no screen, ideal size, even a working wind-on lever, can use b&w/slide/negative colour/IR etc.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by a.noctilux

[grahamc]

Thanks Arnaud 

I agree the m10-D and D-262 are completely different. I think that’s how I’ve “accidentally” ended up with 2 that I love.  262 is by far the more correct ethos of the screenless m.   Ok the other hand I really like how the 10 size / body shape pairs with my new-to-me M6. Since I only planned to own one digital Leica and one film for the next few years i thought it kinda neat that the size and body shapes match. 

Buuuuut.... maybe I need to keep a spare digital M “just in case” and then that is my problem solved ;).   Obviously the smarter choice if I am to own 2 digital m’s is to get one with a screen, but you know I just love these D’s  

Edited August 19, 2021 by grahamc

[a.noctilux]

Graham,

we are lucky to have choices ...

 

One more or one less waiting/funding for next fabulous one or more, just ask ourselves if the money can be better used elsewhere 😇.

[grahamc]

True. I think the answer is probably “no” at this point.   If one needs time away for repair it then it would be a shame also if I don’t have back up. 

I am pretty new to Leica but judging by this experience they must be very hard to part with.  I agree though that if it’s to fund something special or a ‘next  purchase’ then that’s a good reason.  
 

[pippy]

7 hours ago, grahamc said:

...I am wondering everyone's thoughts on whether all digital M's are going to suffer price depreciation, or whether we feel the 'D' models (due to their uniqueness) are more resilient against this...

If history is anything to go by then the answer is all regular production (i.e. non Limited Edition) Digital M cameras will depreciate for the forseeable future. As far as how the M-D Typ-262 is concerned the following is how things seem to stand at the present time (all subsequent figures rounded-out marginally for clarity);

When the M-D Typ-262 was released it cost £4,650. Adjusted for inflation that price becomes £5,180 in today's money. The only one I've seen advertised in a dealership this year was £4,000 (was it you who bought it, Graham?); a loss of £1,180.

The purchase-price figures for the more usual M Typ-262 was £4,050 which becomes £4,510. Produced in higher numbers it comes as no surprise to see there are currently quite a few advertised here in the UK. Ffordes shows three on their site and the asking-price for the two in Exc++ condition averages out at around £2,900; a loss of £1,610.

Expressed as a percentage these figures become a total loss of 22.5% for the M-D Typ-262 as opposed to 34.5% for the M Typ-262.

However if we also take into account both cameras would have a possibly-similar amount as their initial 'depreciation hit' the M-D cameras seem to retain a higher percentage of the original cost in comparison to the M-262 version.

Will the M-D ever be sought-after enough to make hanging-on to it worthwhile? If bought used and for a good price then 'possibly'. I bought mine as an ex-demo mint-in-box-140-clicks camera in Dec. 2019 and, at current asking-prices, could probably sell it any day of the week for considerably more than I paid so prices have risen recently - possibly due to there being so few coming up on the s/h market.

But, almost certainly, they WILL still depreciate.

Philip.

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Philip that’s good advice. 
 

I agree with all your points , the MD really does seem to be holding up really well there was an excellent condition one advertised for USD5,500 recently that didn’t seem to hang around for long and another at USD4850 reasonably well used that also sold.  I wasn’t the purchaser from the dealership this year by the way, I bought from a private seller in France. 
 

I think in consideration of your fair advice that all digital M’s will ‘probably’ depreciate over time, aswell as Arnauds thoughts here - I think the real question is actually “how much do I need 2 x digital Ms” for example a back up.
 

I hadn’t seriously contemplated keeping both, mainly because I envisaged really bedding down into one camera over the next few years. But it’s of course an option to keep both .   I’ve been photographing long enough to know that time without a favourite model can be quite annoying if one needs repair etc. 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by grahamc
Typos

[grahamc]

an option could be to trade one for a screen model. I’m not sure how interested I am in that though, because shooting with the D’s has already improved my photography a lot IMO   

[Guest BlackBarn]

13 hours ago, grahamc said:

, I am wondering everyone's thoughts on whether all digital M's are going to suffer price depreciation

I own 2 M’s and an SL2 and considering buying another M’s on the 2nd hand market. I only use one camera at a time and even then now prefer spending more time taking less photographs and more time looking and considering which photos to take. So I am using my cameras less but they are levering more consideration. I also have a number of lenses but obviously again only use one at a time. So I always have camera stuff lying around being unused but  I enjoy option variety regardless of how often I use each particular element.  So - for me - it’s not about depreciation/residue value or ‘technical’ superiority but more about differences in their characteristics. Less about ‘need’ and more about the  ‘enjoyment’ component.

So I consider photographic equipment as consumables in the same way I might have a great meal with friends….but in this case I get to take the ‘plates and wines glasses’ home with me….capable of being reused with friends and family again. 

So my primary purpose is to enjoy making photographs and not the financial consideration. However if it were,  enjoyment would need to be recognized as a component and be financially quantifiable as depreciation alone doesn’t exist in a vacuum. So to arrive at a meaningful figure, I would first need a value sensitivity range to establish a ‘value’ spectrum of enjoyment - apply a value - then offset this against the nominal sum of depreciation to give me a financial figure with some contextual meaning. The depreciated ‘value’  guesstimate is really only a part of the equation, a single component and colored by each individuals circumstance. 

Depreciation is  a useful/necessary financial accounting method to help derive the performance/ financial health of a whole business entity within a given time frame. It’s been high jacked and now often misused as an isolated indicator for a small subset within a humans life.  It’s simply doesn’t work in the same way.

Expressing myself through photography is one of the components of my life I enjoy…..the tools I use to achieve that is really the white noise. If it’s the same for you but there is a financial component,  then I would suggest rephrasing and broadening the question as the two cameras you already own may be limiting the possibility of your choices.

 

[grahamc]

That's great feedback @BlackBarn thanks.  the final part is thought provoking, it may not be a case of 'too many' it may be just that these camera's scratch a similar itch.   Also of note is that the enjoyment (as a value component) of these particular camera's is not always down to the shooting them, it does feel nice to own these items particularly if they are unique or you see something special in them.   I agree with your points about considering these kind of elements even if a camera sits their on the shelf declining in financial 'value'.

I am becoming more open to moving one on and filling a 'gap' with another camera that fulfils a different purpose.  But who knows, I need to sit with this one a while longer I think.

Funnily enough I am going through a similar thought process with a 35 Summircon v4 which seems largely redundant after a 35mm summilux pre-asph purchase.   in that particular instance I really love the pre-asph and find it in inspiring in a way the v4 never really did, for me at least.  If I was to move on one of my D's aswell as the summicron I'm sure I could get something quite special to even out my 'collection' a little more and open up the choices you have alluded to.  Good food for thought as my decision progresses.

always worth noting we are lucky to have these kind of considerations 

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by grahamc

[pippy]

On 8/20/2021 at 1:58 AM, grahamc said:

......an option could be to trade one for a screen model. I’m not sure how interested I am in that though, because shooting with the D’s has already improved my photography a lot IMO......

I am becoming more open to moving one on and filling a 'gap' with another camera that fulfils a different purpose.  But who knows, I need to sit with this one a while longer I think......

Are you interested in shooting black'n'white images, Graham? If so might you consider replacing of one of the Ds with a Monochrom body?

When I bought my M-D I was an M9-P user. On the first day out shooting with both cameras I realised that I had been far more productive - and had far better levels of concentration and 'vision' - when using the M-D than with the M9 so I decided to trade the 9 in for something I knew I would use and picked up an M9M.

As a pairing I find them to be very well matched. Having become accustomed to the screen-less mind-set I find myself behaving with the Monochrom in exactly the same fashion as the M-D and so my shooting rhythm and productivity is unchanged.

Just a thought!

Philip.

[grahamc]

7 hours ago, pippy said:

Are you interested in shooting black'n'white images, Graham? If so might you consider replacing of one of the Ds with a Monochrom body?

When I bought my M-D I was an M9-P user. On the first day out shooting with both cameras I realised that I had been far more productive - and had far better levels of concentration and 'vision' - when using the M-D than with the M9 so I decided to trade the 9 in for something I knew I would use and picked up an M9M.

As a pairing I find them to be very well matched. Having become accustomed to the screen-less mind-set I find myself behaving with the Monochrom in exactly the same fashion as the M-D and so my shooting rhythm and productivity is unchanged.

Just a thought!

Philip.

Thanks Philip - yes I'd thought about that as I do think the right decision is to change one of the D's for something that opens up 'another option'.  the monochrome would be great for that as I enjoy shooting B&W film and also convert many of my images to B&W when editing anyway 

I can image they are really nice - you only ever see to read rave feedback from users 

The truth is I don't really need 3 cameras at all which is why I'm trying to justify the 3  with some consideration of the financial aspect . So it may be that a second film M gets the vote rather than a second digital    

I'll look forward to reading this post back in 5 years when I have a cupboard full of them and have re-mortgaged the house lol 

Edited August 24, 2021 by grahamc

[a.noctilux]

Some years (or decades ) ago, I would never think that after the second M came the third, then more and more.

Now I don't count them anymore, what for 😇 ?

 

Out of topic...

Anecdotic, as for my LP collection, I buy once in a while some records (new or used, we have a very good records seller here), to see that I DO have some 'same LPs already.

Said to myself, that those LPs would be backups when those will worn after some time auditionings.

I don't count hours of auditioning those nice LPs anymore.

 

I can say that in those years, I traded/bought/sold what I needed or NOT ( to learn or to use ! ) then the gear changed without any hurt to my family life that I preserved over all.

 

 

 

[grahamc]

On 8/25/2021 at 7:47 PM, a.noctilux said:

Some years (or decades ) ago, I would never think that after the second M came the third, then more and more.

Now I don't count them anymore, what for 😇 ?

 

Out of topic...

Anecdotic, as for my LP collection, I buy once in a while some records (new or used, we have a very good records seller here), to see that I DO have some 'same LPs already.

Said to myself, that those LPs would be backups when those will worn after some time auditionings.

I don't count hours of auditioning those nice LPs anymore.

 

I can say that in those years, I traded/bought/sold what I needed or NOT ( to learn or to use ! ) then the gear changed without any hurt to my family life that I preserved over all.

 

 

 

Lovely story Arnaud, I can relate to the LP collection also ... aswell as unintentionally buying things I already have .  I tend to do that with books as I forget the titles ha 

I think what this pandemic has taught us all is that we have to enjoy.  And, as you mention, as long our families aren't jeopardised by our decisions then we should enjoy this life and the nice things that come our way

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by grahamc
typo

[Ko.Fe.]

Any digital camera goes down in price. M, with D or not it doesn't matter. If you don't have proof your camera is somewhat collectible, it will depreciate. You know some Bobby Harwitz nobody knows about signature series. Regular digital camera, any, goes down it price.

Digital are not like film cameras, they depreciate because they are surpassed by next revision. D, P and such. 

[Anthony MD]

On 8/19/2021 at 3:39 AM, grahamc said:

Hey Everyone 

My first digital M was/is MD-262 and I've also recently purchased an M10-D.

It's testament to how great the MD-262 is that I bought the M10-D simply because I love my MD-262 so much.  The M10-D's rarely come up for sale in my country so I thought I just couldn't lose to grab it and try it out.   The end result is I now have 2 digital M's when really I only 'need' one.  

While I am sure this is a highly personal decision, I am wondering everyone's thoughts on whether all digital M's are going to suffer price depreciation, or whether we feel the 'D' models (due to their uniqueness) are more resilient against this.

The short story is that I should really sell one of them as I won't be using them both regularly enough to justify keeping both around as users, but on the other hand thankfully I don't exactly 'need' the money I would get from the sale.    So I would keep them both if they perhaps are going to be fairly resilient against depreciation.  If on the other hand all Digital M's are doomed to decreasing steadily in value then I can't really justify having one sitting on the shelf doing so and someone else may aswell be using it while it depreciates. 

Or maybe the D's could appreciate (Or is that a completely crazy thought for a digital M?)

I know none of us have a crystal ball, just wondering your thoughts !     

 

 

 

I don’t see the MD 262 or M10-D depreciating .

They are too rare…!

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!

[Anthony MD]

On 8/19/2021 at 11:47 AM, pippy said:

If history is anything to go by then the answer is all regular production (i.e. non Limited Edition) Digital M cameras will depreciate for the forseeable future. As far as how the M-D Typ-262 is concerned the following is how things seem to stand at the present time (all subsequent figures rounded-out marginally for clarity);

When the M-D Typ-262 was released it cost £4,650. Adjusted for inflation that price becomes £5,180 in today's money. The only one I've seen advertised in a dealership this year was £4,000 (was it you who bought it, Graham?); a loss of £1,180.

The purchase-price figures for the more usual M Typ-262 was £4,050 which becomes £4,510. Produced in higher numbers it comes as no surprise to see there are currently quite a few advertised here in the UK. Ffordes shows three on their site and the asking-price for the two in Exc++ condition averages out at around £2,900; a loss of £1,610.

Expressed as a percentage these figures become a total loss of 22.5% for the M-D Typ-262 as opposed to 34.5% for the M Typ-262.

However if we also take into account both cameras would have a possibly-similar amount as their initial 'depreciation hit' the M-D cameras seem to retain a higher percentage of the original cost in comparison to the M-262 version.

Will the M-D ever be sought-after enough to make hanging-on to it worthwhile? If bought used and for a good price then 'possibly'. I bought mine as an ex-demo mint-in-box-140-clicks camera in Dec. 2019 and, at current asking-prices, could probably sell it any day of the week for considerably more than I paid so prices have risen recently - possibly due to there being so few coming up on the s/h market.

But, almost certainly, they WILL still depreciate.

Philip.

A mint MD 262 could and will keep its value…!

[Anthony MD]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:34 PM, Ko.Fe. said:

Any digital camera goes down in price. M, with D or not it doesn't matter. If you don't have proof your camera is somewhat collectible, it will depreciate. You know some Bobby Harwitz nobody knows about signature series. Regular digital camera, any, goes down it price.

Digital are not like film cameras, they depreciate because they are surpassed by next revision. D, P and such. 

Not for those that are extremely rare…!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

In my experience, digital Ms depreciate from new over the first 2 years of their release by around 30% (after they become easy to obtain, in the first 6 months there is always a waiting list which drives used prices up). However second hand ones bought after 3 years of release tend to hold their value or appreciate. The 240 series today is more expensive then it was 5 years ago, even before covid. With a more specialised model, like the M10-D, the value in the resale price normally holds but takes much longer to achieve, as it’s simply a more specialised model. Most people would rather have a straight M10. M10s fly off the shelves if priced right. If you want to sell one, I would simply say which one gives you the most pleasure ? That’s the one I would keep.

at the end of the day, after 5 years of ownership, the value means nothing anymore to me personally, as the usage I have got over that period has been worth more in the leasing cost of happiness then the depreciated cost.

Edited July 25, 2024 by colonel

[a.noctilux]

On 7/25/2024 at 8:52 AM, colonel said:

at the end of the day, after 5 years of ownership, the value means nothing anymore to me personally

...also in my case.

I don't care what "value" (in $ £ € etc.) the gear will reach (appreciate/depreciate in few years) as I use them and the "use value" is always present.