Is the new M6 too expensive?

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Huss:

The Leica M5 is cheaper and arguably better, agreed.

NO, not a Leica

[Huss]

6 minutes ago, analog-digital said:

NO, not a Leica

Well then you are sorely mistaken.  Leica is the best, if it wasn’t whatever else you have in mind would still be made.  Because the best survive.

[Matlock]

33 minutes ago, Huss said:

Well then you are sorely mistaken.  Leica is the best, if it wasn’t whatever else you have in mind would still be made.  Because the best survive.

I agree with you. The M5 is certainly one of the best cameras Leica ever made, it just didn't fit in with people's perception of what a Leica should look like. Aside from the frame counter not returning all the way to zero (which I can live with), mine is perfect.

[a.noctilux]

Talking about M5 is funny reliable M pleasing in use and many times "better" in use than M6 with which I "replaced" M5 foolishly,

now after many years of use, these are just different capable Ms.

😉

For the new M6, we'll see if in 50 years, we'll always use them (just like M5 launched in 1971 I'm still using with pleasure).

 

edit:

converting the M5 price FF to Euros, about 3,700€

when I bought my M6 in 1985, conversion FF to 4,700€ of today

Edited October 26, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Archiver]

17 hours ago, Huss said:

People who want the best/nicest cameras they can buy.  Dropping $6000 on the ‘best’ digital camera seems completely reasonable, but dropping $5300 on the ‘best’ film camera is seen as an act of madness by many.  Can you buy a used M for $1500?  Of course.  You can also buy a used Sony a7 for $500.  And in a blind taste test you would not be able to tell the difference in a real photo if that was taken on an A7 or A1..

I kind of get where you're coming from, but this is not an equivalent comparison. The irony is that Leica's 'das wesentliche' philosophy of minimalist essentialism means that film M cameras have negligible difference in operation. A new M6 is functionally identical to the old M6, with the exception of upgraded rangefinder coatings, whereas there is a huge difference between the Sony A7 and A1 in features and functionality. We don't just judge cameras by the images they create, but by the experience of operation. You could just as easily say, 'in a blind test between a M9 and M11, you would not be able to tell the difference,', but look at the differences in shutter sound, shot to shot speed, buffer clearance rate, EVF, illuminated framelines, selectable resolutions and dynamic range, etc etc. Not to mention the vaunted CCD look vs the new CMOS look.

Leica have made a new film camera that appeals to a market that is looking for the romance of the past by resurrecting an old one. In Australia, the price of a new M6 is more than a Canon R3 flagship pro mirrorless body. As much as I love the notion of a new M6, I balk at paying that much for one.

 

[Huss]

3 hours ago, Archiver said:

 

Leica have made a new film camera that appeals to a market that is looking for the romance of the past by resurrecting an old one. In Australia, the price of a new M6 is more than a Canon R3 flagship pro mirrorless body. As much as I love the notion of a new M6, I balk at paying that much for one.

 

I’d never pay $6k for a digital camera, but have no problem paying that for a film Leica.  Actually, that’s a lie, I made sure to take advantage of the current favorable exchange rates.. but you get my point.

Value is where we see it for what we do and how it makes us feel.

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Archiver said:

I kind of get where you're coming from, but this is not an equivalent comparison. The irony is that Leica's 'das wesentliche' philosophy of minimalist essentialism means that film M cameras have negligible difference in operation. A new M6 is functionally identical to the old M6, with the exception of upgraded rangefinder coatings, whereas there is a huge difference between the Sony A7 and A1 in features and functionality. We don't just judge cameras by the images they create, but by the experience of operation. You could just as easily say, 'in a blind test between a M9 and M11, you would not be able to tell the difference,', but look at the differences in shutter sound, shot to shot speed, buffer clearance rate, EVF, illuminated framelines, selectable resolutions and dynamic range, etc etc. Not to mention the vaunted CCD look vs the new CMOS look.

Leica have made a new film camera that appeals to a market that is looking for the romance of the past by resurrecting an old one. In Australia, the price of a new M6 is more than a Canon R3 flagship pro mirrorless body. As much as I love the notion of a new M6, I balk at paying that much for one.

 

Leica gear is expensive, nobody is going to argue with that.  But I think the cost can be justified with two words: Value retention.  Sony, Canon?  Not so much.  I see A7 III for sale at 1/3 the price they sold for new just four years ago.  And, as you point out, film camera 'technology' hasn't really changed much for the last 50 years.  So the camera I buy today will still be 'current' decades from now, which greatly reduces the long-term cost of ownership (CLAs notwithstanding). 

Given all of that, Leica film cameras can be seen as quite the bargain.  At least that's what I keep telling myself when I consider buying one 😉

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, Archiver said:

In Australia, the price of a new M6 is more than a Canon R3 flagship pro mirrorless body. As much as I love the notion of a new M6, I balk at paying that much for one.

Yes and next year there’s another digital wannahave which in the end will cost you more than a camera that lasts for another 20 years. 
The fact is that it’s not all about nostalgia and the revival of film. It is the decline of digital too: the possibilities of innovation for these camera’s are pretty much exhausted by now. There are just a few pixel-peepers who will buy another stepup in resolution towards 100Mp. Our GAS will shift from more pixels or more Nocti lenses to interesting new ‘artistic’ films

Edited October 26, 2022 by otto.f

[Huss]

When you step up to the next mega pixel camera, it’s not just the camera cost.  You also need to support that by making sure your computer’s processor is up to handling it, your storage is up to handling those mega files etc.

[Mikep996]

Re storage...In my current "film experiment" I discovered today that scanned files from the Plustek 8100 are pretty darned big!!!  I scanned a negative at max (7200) and it produced a 10204 x 6736   223MB tiff file!  😱  Scanning at 3600 it was down to a measly 5102 x 3368  56MB file!   I redid it in max w/jpeg and it was only 14MB.  TBH, on the computer I couldn't see any difference in any of them!  🤔

Edited October 26, 2022 by Mikep996

[Huss]

Just now, Mikep996 said:

Re storage...In my current "film experiment" I discovered today that scanned files from the Plustek 8100 are pretty darned big!!!  I scanned a negative at max (7200) and it produced a 10204 x 6736   223MB file!  😱  Scanning at 3600 it was down to a measly 5102 x 3368  56MB file!   

Yet another reason why scanning w a digicam is much better.  Smaller files, sharper images, much quicker to use.

[lmans]

I will still take my plustek.....I hardly ever go to 7200 but by default, scan at 3600.  I send off to print, and 3600 works just fine for even large images. Of course, if I was one of those guys where I placed high  value on sharpness, well....it might be another matter, not sure. But I love softness....and noise

[250swb]

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

Re storage...In my current "film experiment" I discovered today that scanned files from the Plustek 8100 are pretty darned big!!!  I scanned a negative at max (7200) and it produced a 10204 x 6736   223MB tiff file!  😱  Scanning at 3600 it was down to a measly 5102 x 3368  56MB file!   I redid it in max w/jpeg and it was only 14MB.  TBH, on the computer I couldn't see any difference in any of them!  🤔

So how much would you be spending annually on maintaining a darkroom compared with £70 for a 4Tb drive every four or five years? You’d be doing a massive amount of film photography to fill that up and at a fraction of the cost.

I’m going to guess negativity and not creativity will be the deciding factor in your comparisons. The file sizes your are finding aren’t unusual in scanned film, but you do have to factor in that much of the scanned image can be digital noise, stuff that fills the gaps in between the grain. You don’t get this with a camera scan. On the other hand storing your M10 digital files can’t be much less in size or cost if like most digital photographers you take far, far more pictures. Remember, you don’t have to do a high res scan of all your pictures, only the good one’s.

Edited October 26, 2022 by 250swb

[Huss]

This wasn’t meant to devolve into a film vs digital thing.  The point being a new M6/MP/M-A is the top of the line film camera that you can buy new, and that price is in line with top of the line digital cameras made by the big players.

[Danner]

It's a luxury good.  Price should be what the market would bear.  I feel fortunate that I could buy an M6 Reissue if I want one.  The alternative is that the product wouldn't exist, and that is no choice at all.

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, Huss said:

Yet another reason why scanning w a digicam is much better.  Smaller files, sharper images, much quicker to use.

I'll take my darkroom instead.  No files, sharp enough images, 10x slower to use 😉

[Danner]

1 minute ago, logan2z said:

I'll take my darkroom instead.  No files, sharp enough images, 10x slower to use 😉

ditto

[Huss]

23 minutes ago, logan2z said:

I'll take my darkroom instead.  No files, sharp enough images, 10x slower to use 😉

I am looking forward to the day when I can have a darkroom again.  In the mean time, scans it is.

[Mikep996]

"I am looking forward to the day when I can have a darkroom again."

I COULD have a darkroom again but I'm pretty sure I don't want one.  

Hmm...a week ago I was absolutely, positively sure I didn't want one.  🤔

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

1 minute ago, Mikep996 said:

"I am looking forward to the day when I can have a darkroom again."

I COULD have a darkroom again but I'm pretty sure I don't want one.  

Hmm...a week ago I was absolutely, positively sure I didn't want one.  🤔

Projecting from the negative directly onto the paper.  Not worrying about resolution.  Or files.  And watching the image appear in the developing tray is awesome.  Making a contact sheet, then circling the ones you will print, is awesome.