So last thread frank mused about the relative costs of two different ff street cameras
"Would one be likely to lose more money buying the RX1 and selling it [after two years], or buying the Leica M that's just about to be released, with an affordable 35mm lens, and selling it them.
"This is pure speculation, but it comes down to whether the depreciation on a fixed lens camera that is cheaper, will actually be less than the depreciation on an interchangeable lens camera that is a lot more expensive."
And i am slow getting around to trying to answer.
Unfortunately i am not confident that i can provide a good answer. Looking solely at the question of depreciation, the leica side of the equation is relatively straightforward, even given the as-yet unknown quantity of the new model. The lenses are solid investments; over the last decade plus, most lenses bought new could be sold for about the same as their original list price, if not higher. The three available leica m-mount 35mm lenses are all ridiculously good, recent designs, with respective strengths. If one were planning to sell them in two years, i doubt you would lose more than a few hundred dollars, unless the lens were battered. As for the camera, leica digitals have held on to their value quite well, considering. Even the m8 still routinely sells for more than half its original price. M9s were selling two years after their introduction for around $1,500 less than original price (which, personaally, i think is too much, considering the value of a new warranty, but there you have it). Now that the rebadged m9 is selling as an ME for about that same discount new, original m9s are of course losing more off their list price (but it has been 3+ years). Still, all told and not counting tax or accessories i would guess with some confidence that one could own a new m+35mm lens for two years for around $2000, less if one were lucky, more if the sensor turns out to be a dog, which is unlikely.
The rx1 sells for around $2800, and i would lay strong odds that you could sell it after two years for better than 800, so it would be hard not to come out ahead. In fact, depending on how production and sales go, and whether sony makes a version 2, the rx1 could easily become a sought-after cult classic and be worth more than you paid for it.
However, i would add two observations. First, if either camera doesnt do what you want it for, then it is a waste of time and effort as well as money. Eg, if manual focus turns out to be too great an obstacle, or if the af on the rx1 just isnt fast enough for how you want to shoot it, then it will only bring frustration, obviously. And second, if i were looking for a good alternative to a bulky dslr in a 35mm equiv and didnt want to shell out for the leica, i suspect the new fuji x100s will be the one to beat. Quiet, light, and advance word has it operating very fast.
Okay, one more observation: if you decided to get the m, i recommend the 35/2.5. It is superb, renders in a very old-fashioned way without the obvious flaws, is tiny and does not flare. Dont bother with off-brand options; though some are optically excellent, the better-made ones are annoyingly built with third-stop aperture clicks (which clashes with the half-stop shutter speeds), and several other options lack tabbed focus rings and/or arent made to the same mechanical standard, potentially leading to more difficult focus and aperture rings which dont stay where you left them.
It seems that the chocolate flavoured herbal tea does not serve Frank well.
