Value of Leica M240 and future models

[achrisproduction]

After Sony announced the A7 and A7R I have a lot of people coming up to me asking why am I still keeping the M240, is it because it looks cool, its a Leica or its expensive.  I guess I just enjoy the rangefinder experience.  (not that they can understand)  but I am already wondering at the same time what would be left for Leica to attract new users other than selling RangeFinder experience? 

[TMARK]

You either get it or you don't with an M.  They are stupid expensive and not very flexible.  They do odd, strange things, like show banding if teh battery isn'y charged.  The screens aren't great.  Collectors, obsessives and fetishists run up the prices on used lenses.

However, if an M speaks to you, well, that's it.  You're done.  I work better with an M than almost any other camera. I think that new users, hearing the hype, after they try, and it connects with them, and IF they can afford it, they will buy it.

[achrisproduction]

You either get it or you don't with an M.  They are stupid expensive and not very flexible.  They do odd, strange things, like show banding if teh battery isn'y charged.  The screens aren't great.  Collectors, obsessives and fetishists run up the prices on used lenses.

However, if an M speaks to you, well, that's it.  You're done.  I work better with an M than almost any other camera. I think that new users, hearing the hype, after they try, and it connects with them, and IF they can afford it, they will buy it.

Very true.  I started from the M8 and I really like the M system.  I just dont think the A7 or A7R is similar to what M can offer although of course they will be offering great PQ. 

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

...I am already wondering at the same time what would be left for Leica to attract new users other than selling RangeFinder experience? 

Great IQ in a small and discreet package?

[TMARK]

Other cameras do this well, the RX1 for example.  I tried the RX1 for 10 days.  Love the IQ, but it didn't speak to me, at least not for $2800.  I think only the X100s really does the trick, but its not quite there either because its a crop and the focusing is not intuitive and simple like an M.  I've tried really hard to love the compacts from Japan.  I think they are brilliant in many ways, but only the M9 gives me what I want. 

There is something that always worked with M Leicas that continues with the digital M.  I am not against new, and think that the new compacts are brilliant cameras, but there is some truth in the design and layout of the older, successful film cameras that was lost in teh digital transition.  The main things lost are the good viewfinders and simple, intuitive operation. 

Great IQ in a small and discreet package?

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
Well, I do not own an M240, but do own an M9 as well as film M3, 4 and 6. What I have always liked about the M's is what Mark Dubovoy writes in his last article about simplicity. The M9 is my daily companion. I use a 5d2 for work that I used to do with a film Hasselblad -- which was also quite simple to use. If money was no object I probably would buy an M240, mainly because of possibly using the EVF to help with focussing. Working with an M -- doesn't matter which one -- is very different from working with an SLR; whether or not the much higher price is worth it is an unanswerable question. In 1968 I paid $450 for an new M4 with a 50 Summicron, about the same price as that of a new SLR of that era, the price differential has sure changed!
Jean-Mihel

[telyt]

In 1968 I paid $450 for an new M4 with a 50 Summicron, about the same price as that of a new SLR of that era, the price differential has sure changed!

In 1968 a Nikon FTn was about the same price as the M4; it had many more features and was much more flexible.  There were also much less costly SLR and rangefinder cameras which represented a good value.  I don't see how this is any different from 2013: a Nikon D4 is about $6000 new, a new Leica M type 240 is about $7000.

[Manoli]

In 1968 a Nikon FTn was about the same price as the M4;... I don't see how this is any different from 2013: a Nikon D4 is about $6000 new, a new Leica M type 240 is about $7000.

The question you should ask is 'What is the second hand value today of a '68 Nikon FTn and what is the value today of the M4' ?  Hint: In 1986 a 50mm Summicron (f/2) cost £259, the second hand value today of that very lens is £699. (The offer was declined). What's the second hand value of an '86 vintage 50mm Nikkor today ?

Not that I think that will continue for the digital M's - M240 included.

[JeanMichel]

In 1968 a Nikon FTn was about the same price as the M4; it had many more features and was much more flexible.  There were also much less costly SLR and rangefinder cameras which represented a good value.  I don't see how this is any different from 2013: a Nikon D4 is about $6000 new, a new Leica M type 240 is about $7000.

Yes, I can see what you mean. The features of the Nikon D4 or Canon Id and such far exceed that of a Leica M, I was comparing what I paid for the M9 and for the 5d2. Another factor, which applies to all digital cameras, is that it is highly unlikely that my M9 will still be useful in 2069 -- my 56 year-old M3 (from 1957) continues to be reliable, and will be for as long as film is still manufactured. I do get an inordinate amount of pleasure in being able to photograph with my 1962 Canadian-made 35 mm Summicron and the M9.
Jean-Michel

[Jim Kasson]

In 1968 a Nikon FTn was about the same price as the M4; it had many more features and was much more flexible.  There were also much less costly SLR and rangefinder cameras which represented a good value.  I don't see how this is any different from 2013: a Nikon D4 is about $6000 new, a new Leica M type 240 is about $7000.

Good point. However, the lens prices are quite a bit different between the two camera systems, which affects the total cost of ownership.

Jim

[telyt]

Good point. However, the lens prices are quite a bit different between the two camera systems, which affects the total cost of ownership.

True.  Also, as Manoli points out, depreciation.

[slackercruster]

Don't have an M, want one but can't afford it. For me it is the rangefinder, shutter dial and manual lens with F stops. Don't think Sony has a shuitter speed dial...so no Sony for me.

Just wish Fuji or Nikon made a FF 28 to 36 mp Leica knockoff for $3000

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I wouldn't compare the D4 to the Leica, the closest competitor may be the A7r, if you want a small high resolution camera that is. The D4 goes to ISO 204800, shoots 11 FPS and weights 1340 g without lens. Leica doesn't do anything of that. If you think the A7r is crap you can compare to the D600 or the 6D.

Best regards
Erik

Good point. However, the lens prices are quite a bit different between the two camera systems, which affects the total cost of ownership.

Jim

[telyt]

I wouldn't compare the D4 to the Leica

I compared the Leica M type 240 with the D4 because a similar comparison in 1968 would have been the FTn vs. the M4.  The FTn was motor drive capable, had interchangable viewscreens and viewfinders and a built-in light meter, none of which was available for the M4.  The FTn's spec sheet had much more than the M4's, and as you pointed out the D4's spec sheet has much more than the M240's spec sheet.  A closer match for the M4's spec sheet would have been the Nikkormat FS which IIRC was much less expensive than the M4.

[Jim Kasson]

I compared the Leica M type 240 with the D4 because a similar comparison in 1968 would have been the FTn vs. the M4.  The FTn was motor drive capable, had interchangable viewscreens and viewfinders and a built-in light meter, none of which was available for the M4.  The FTn's spec sheet had much more than the M4's, and as you pointed out the D4's spec sheet has much more than the M240's spec sheet.  A closer match for the M4's spec sheet would have been the Nikkormat FS which IIRC was much less expensive than the M4.

The FTn and the M4 were similar in that they were each the epitome of their respective philosophies of photographic excellence, as are the D4 and the M240 today. What's different is today is the relative number of adherents to the M school. OTOH, it looks like the DSLR is facing extensional challenges.

Jim

[DaveCurtis]

I had a 'play'with an 'M' for five minutes and that's all it took to understand why photographers love them.

Wonderful simplicity, the bright rangefinder system is great to see the world through and of course very small high quality lenses.

However a Leica system is out of my price range and I will probably wait for the X-Pro2 or may get the A7r wth all it's knobs, buttons and EVF TV screen 

[TMARK]

Check out the Fuji X100s.  Its the closest to an M.  Makes beautiful files.  Has a shutter dial, and an aperture ring.

Don't have an M, want one but can't afford it. For me it is the rangefinder, shutter dial and manual lens with F stops. Don't think Sony has a shuitter speed dial...so no Sony for me.

Just wish Fuji or Nikon made a FF 28 to 36 mp Leica knockoff for $3000

[TMARK]

This is the problem, the cost of the M.  I don't blame Leica for charging gobs of cash for the M and its lenses, but I blame the collectors who drive up used prices.  A 1974 35mm Summicron should not go for $1250 without caps or hood.  Its silly. 

I had a 'play'with an 'M' for five minutes and that's all it took to understand why photographers love them.

Wonderful simplicity, the bright rangefinder system is great to see the world through and of course very small high quality lenses.

However a Leica system is out of my price range and I will probably wait for the X-Pro2 or may get the A7r wth all it's knobs, buttons and EVF TV screen 

[JeanMichel]

This is the problem, the cost of the M.  I don't blame Leica for charging gobs of cash for the M and its lenses, but I blame the collectors who drive up used prices.  A 1974 35mm Summicron should not go for $1250 without caps or hood.  Its silly. 

$1250 for a 35 Summicron is a "good deal" and silly! You do read about collectors who (perhaps an urban legend) x-ray unopened Leica boxes to make sure that the camera or lens is there and put that into their collection, if true that is silly to the nth power. Even if I did not already own Leica lenses I might still consider buying a Leica. Adding up what I own, the lenses :35 and 50 Summicrons, 135 Elmarit, and a 21 VC, at used prices, add up to maybe $5000, and with a new M9 the total cost ends up at around $12,000. That is not inexpensive but not really out of reach. However, buying a Canon 5d, trading it for a 5d2 within a year, and couple of additional lenses cost me much less and and provides me with pretty good equipment.
I did look at an X-pro in a store, just to check it out, and it would tempt me, as would the new Sony  7R. It is the AF and IS features that Leica M's do not have that would tempt me.
Jean-Michel

[TMARK]

Nothing wrong with a 5d2!  Except for the inconsistent AF I really liked it.   In any case, I have two M9s, both used.  I bought them cheap. 

$1250 for a 35 Summicron is a "good deal" and silly! You do read about collectors who (perhaps an urban legend) x-ray unopened Leica boxes to make sure that the camera or lens is there and put that into their collection, if true that is silly to the nth power. Even if I did not already own Leica lenses I might still consider buying a Leica. Adding up what I own, the lenses :35 and 50 Summicrons, 135 Elmarit, and a 21 VC, at used prices, add up to maybe $5000, and with a new M9 the total cost ends up at around $12,000. That is not inexpensive but not really out of reach. However, buying a Canon 5d, trading it for a 5d2 within a year, and couple of additional lenses cost me much less and and provides me with pretty good equipment.
I did look at an X-pro in a store, just to check it out, and it would tempt me, as would the new Sony  7R. It is the AF and IS features that Leica M's do not have that would tempt me.
Jean-Michel