My pocket could use some endowment. LOL
90% of the M9 price
75% of the M9 price
50% of the M9 price
30% of the M9 price
Nothing over $2000
Nothing over $1000
Wouldn't take it if you gave it to me
My pocket could use some endowment. LOL
I just don't understand the X1. If you wanted to spend $2K on a camera, there are several top notch DSLR choices and they all offer interchangeable lenses. Or for less you could get any of the fine micro 4/3 cameras and a few lenses. If you want great picture quality, go for a used M8. I know others who disagree with me, but I think the niche for the X1 will be very small. Now if it was $799...
It seems that those without an M8 are the ones who are seriously discounting the camera.
I agree with Guy but assume that Leica does not want to bury used M8(.2) prices and has positioned the X1 accordingly.
I can't understand the expected X1 prices either considering it will be made in Japan and use a sensor similar to the Nikon D300s/D5000. Perhaps, the X1 price will be lower than expected, but I am not holding my breath.
I'm sure current M8 owners will feel differently, but I think a steep drop in M8 prices would be a good thing for Leica itself in the long term.
The reason is that if we look at the set of serious photographers who currently "get" the whole rangefinder thing, and the set of serious photographers who can afford to drop $7,000 on a limited-use camera... well, the intersection of those sets has to be a fairly small number.
I suspect most of those fortunate few have ordered their M9s already.
So if Leica wants to keep M9 sales going beyond the initial feeding frenzy, they have to find a way to make the M9 relevant to serious photographers who don't use one already. In other words, they need recruit more "rangefinder fanboys" (I can use this term without insult because I'm one of 'em) on an ongoing basis.
Unlike, say, celebrity shooters (Seal, John Sandford) who might value a prestige camera as a take-me-seriously merit badge, hardcore photographers care about only one thing: "Will this kind of camera improve my chances of making the pictures I'm driven to make?" If it costs $7,000 (plus the cost of lenses) even to start to find out the answer to this question, Leica is going to have a hard time recruiting candidates to roll the dice.
It was different when M8 first appeared, because then there already was a lower-cost "entry level" DRF camera: the Epson R-D 1. Yes, it had some initial quality problems, and no, it still wasn't exactly cheap (although it eventually became almost a hot seller as a $1995 refurb) but it certainly offered a much lower-priced point of entry to digital shooters who wanted to give the "rangefinder aesthetic" a try.
Of those who tried that shooting style and liked it, I suspect many eventually graduated to Leica bodies. However, with Epson out of the US market and no other manufacturer willing to stick its hand into the meat grinder, Leica no longer can rely on a competitor to furnish a lower-priced "starter" DRF. The only answer is for the M8 to fill that role.
Incidentally, I feel that when it comes to recruiting potential rangefinder fanboys, the X1 is totally irrelevant to this discussion because (a) it's not a rangefinder camera and (b) it doesn't have interchangeable lenses.
In other words, it might seem like an alternative to Leica fans who want "another Leica." But it's not going to seem that way to brand-agnostic photographers who only care about taking pictures.
They wouldn't shop the X1 against the M8/M9... they'd shop it against other fixed-lens "serious compact" cameras such as the Sigma DP2 and Ricoh GRD III, or (going up a notch in size) against the pancake-lens versions of the Olympus EP1 and Panasonic GF1.
Last edited by Ranger 9; 13th September 2009 at 20:08.
I just watched the interview with Stephan Daniel. He was specifically asked about an "entry level" M to get more people interested in rangefinders. They felt they would be in competition with the used M8 market and people would say "why would I buy a baby M if for the same price I could have a used M8". So, they are looking for used M8's to do exactly what you say.
How many M8s and M8.2s are in the field? I remember seeing a unsubstantiated 20,000 figure but that was when I owned one, nearly two years ago.
I think the video I heard they make 12,000 M's a year including M7/MP so your 20,000 is probably pretty close. Too long to go back a look for that portion of the conversation to do some math but Stephan would not give a figure when asked and gave the total M count.
i had an used m8 for awhile but felt it was too 'rich' for my type of shooting and sold it quickly so as not to lose any money on it--i'm not in the rarefied financial position most here enjoy. as the prices drop close to $2k, it becomes a viable option again. i really enjoyed shooting with it, and i took it to places i would never take my D3's into. so this is goodness from my standpoint. i don't blow up pictures to poster size very often and try not to crop much--so limited resolution will work for me. it is a great tool for travel and as an 'extra' camera for pj assignments.
Yeah, a used M8 and maybe some brand new zeiss lenses would be a sweet setup for an entry level DRF system...especially if the used M8s can hover around the 2000 dollar range. Not too terribly expensive...and would make excellent photos.
I had a mint M8.2 and I called around on trade-ins, Camera West, Dale said $3200.00 looked to be about the spot the used market will fall. Both where right there, so for now you can kind of work backwards for a M8, M8u or well used M8.2. I took the trade in.
website under construction
So what are people getting for trade on M8.2 then, given a $3200 retail 2nd hand sale price?
trade in for my M8.2 was $3200...it was like brand new with all the boxes ect.
website under construction
Good deal - $3200 for the trade sounds like a very decent price. Heck, I'd trade my chrome M8.2 for that!
Digital ages badly, sorry for those dreaming they have "invested"
An M8 will be good buying at below $2K before long.
Some are still trying to flog them at premiums, but the buyers are few and far between.
Lenses are always steady price wise, but an old digital body ain't going to steam up a premiums buyers lenses (on his/her face) much at all.
People will buy them, but they are the ones wanting IR or have other back up requirements.
M9 looks good, will be an interest next few months as it unfolds.
I am not one for navel contemplation, but the M8 decision for me never sat right (as a buyer), but an M9 looks far more palatable. Price was never an issue for me, It was more a quality reality thing.
One might be tempted for an M8.2 @ 2K (United States Pesos) and that day is coming folks. Don't be fooled.
I don't know what you mean by "don't be fooled". I'll assume you meant watch out for ebay. Dale, Camera West, Pop won't try to fool anybody. All are stand up companys. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong.
I doubt prices will fall (on a nice M8) that low until significant technology appears which could be who knows when. There isn't that much difference between a M8 and a M9 as far as IQ. Yes it is an advance (and I bought one) but not enough to drive down costs below two thirds of the purchase price.
Last edited by mwalker; 15th September 2009 at 06:05.
website under construction
This stuff reminds me of buying a car ..the differences appear insignificant in relationship to the total price. The bigger decision is "are you going to go to the M9 s "..if so you can only impact the cost by a few hundred dollars .
Anybody buying used is getting a great price if they buy at dealer trade in prices..which they will be able to do on this forum.
After this discussion got going, I went back and re-read the chapter in behavioral economist Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational about the endowment effect. One of the real-world experiments he did was with Duke University students who had waited in line to participate in a lottery to be able to buy Final Four basketball tickets at student-ticket prices. After the drawing, he got a list of the winners (students who had been chosen to buy a ticket) and losers (students who had gone through the same process but had not been chosen.) He called all of them and said he was willing to try to match up anyone who wanted to sell a ticket with someone who wanted to buy one. He made equal efforts to get that "have-ticket" students to lower their asking price and the "want-ticket" students to raise their paying price.
What he found was that among the "want-ticket" students, the average price they were willing to pay for a ticket was $174. Among the "have-ticket" students, the average price for which they were willing to sell their ticket was $2,400! He said this is fairly typical of the results of his experiments with the endowment effect.
Note that the behavioral economists are not saying that would-be sellers are being stupid or that would-be buyers are being unrealistic. They simply do these experiments to point out that this is not the way that classical notions of economics predict that buyers and sellers would behave.
Ariely theorizes that "endowed" sellers think about the item they own in terms of the great experiences they've had, or expect to have, with it... while potential buyers think about it by comparing its cost to other types of experiences they could have for the same amount of money. It's this difference in how buyers and sellers think about the item for sale that accounts for the wide difference in seller and buyer prices -- which in his experiments has averaged about 17x.
I find it fascinating the way the "endowment effect" seems to be playing out in our estimates of where M8 prices eventually will settle. Again, the fact that there is an endowment effect doesn't mean that anybody is right or wrong -- it just means that buyers and sellers perceive the item differently.
A sobering byproduct of Ariely's Duke experiment: He never was able to mediate one single sale of a Final Four ticket! The endowment effect was so strong that he could not find any buyer who was willing to come down enough and/or any seller willing to come up enough to reach a price on which they could agree.
Of course basketball tickets have a built-in "shelf life" (after the game is over they have no value at all) whereas M8s will go on changing hands for years, so there's plenty of time for a "price consensus" to emerge. In the short term, though, it sounds as if there's going to be plenty of volatility. My guess is that if for some reason you need to sell an M8 in a hurry, there's a risk you'll be a bit disappointed in the price you can get, whereas if you need to buy one on short notice, there's a risk that you'll have to pay more than you expected.
Roger, David said trade in to me would be around 3200 I actually made the deal prior to my coversation with David I already committed to Camera West for$3000.
website under construction
Ranger - pretty interesting read. thanks
However we also have to note the supply and demand. Sellers can ask whatever they want for it but it doesn't mean that buyers will buy it. if buyers don't buy, then sellers will be forced to lower their price. at the same time sellers would start offering M8s at fire sale prices to be able to afford M9 thus lowering the market value of the M8s. I remember this happened when D300 came out. Value of D200 dropped overnight.
so it would be interesting to see what happens to current M8 and M8.2 prices in a month or so
There will be an initial rush to buy the M9, but at 7K for the body alone, it'll be a sobering decision for those new to M digital work. 7K buys a lot of "something else".
As I process last weeks' work load, I'm reminded that the M8 is an extraordinary image maker ... which has nothing to do with internet chatter and wishful thinking, and everything to do with making photographs. The M8 didn't suddenly lose that ability overnight.