With a slew of new cameras coming out in recent times, the market has shifted. While there are now some great value options, it means there are also some poorly priced ones too. Which is the worst value camera right now?
There is a trend in the camera industry that I have been distantly tracking for some time: price. When I first got into photography, there were far fewer options when it came to buying a camera body. Similarly, if you wanted a "proper" DSLR, it was going to cost you. The first Canon 5D came out in 2005, and its initial RRP was $3,299. It was a camera for serious photographers and professionals, it was certainly high-end on the spec sheet, and it was priced as such. 15 years later, using an inflation calculator, which estimates the purchasing power of the dollar over time, we can tell that today, that camera would be for sale at roughly $4,450.
The new, coveted Canon R5 is an interesting example of current pricing. It is aimed at more or less the same demographic in 2020 as the original 5D was aimed at in 2005. In fact, you could argue that given the tremendous spec (purported overheating notwithstanding) that it could command a high price or at the very least around the inflation-adjusted 5D price of $4,450. Nevertheless, it is priced at $3,899. Though that's, of course, a lot of money, comparatively — and considering that pace-setting spec — this top-of-the-range mirrorless body is well priced.
In case you're skim reading, I'm not saying the R5 is poor value for money; quite the opposite.
This sort of progression in tech is common. The gains of new products over previous iterations suffer from diminishing returns, the price of production and parts slowly fall, and thus, so does the retail price, usually. So, entry-level or mid-level cameras become more powerful and the price entry point becomes more accessible. But it's the diminishing returns that have created somewhat of an interesting problem that I noticed again this week. New versions of cameras, with often underwhelmingly similar specs, usually don't move much on the retail price of their predecessors. But then comes the dilemma of what to do with the previous model.
Take Fujifilm's X-T4 and their X-T3: an incredibly popular range of cameras and for good reason — they're superb. The differences between them are minimal, however. If you look at various online stores or promotional material, you could be fooled into thinking the X-T4 was the first in Fujifilm's X-Series to be able to shoot UHD 4K at 60 fps; it isn't. The X-T4 has 240 fps slow motion in HD shooting where the X-T3 only had 120 fps, but they could both shoot 4K at 60 fps. There are other differences (5-axis IBIS, articulating LCD screen, autofocus alterations, etc.), but the gap between the two bodies isn't much at all, and this is reflected in the price. The X-T4 goes for $1,699, whereas the X-T3 goes for $1,499. Those extra 200 dollars are undoubtedly strategic rather than on merit. If the X-T3 is priced too low after the new version is released, then spotting how close they are in terms of performance, buyers might just go for the older model. However, priced too close, and they may as well not bother making the X-T3 anymore, and sellers with large stocks might struggle.
There is one side effect of upgrading bodies, however. Sometimes, the upgrades are significant enough that they not only eclipse the previous model technically, but they devalue it too. Many brands seem to shrug this off as par for the course, but some find themselves in a pricing quandary. This week, I believe Leica has landed on that issue, and it has created what I believe to be the worst value camera on the market.
Leica M10
I want to start this by being very clear: I really like Leica. They cop a lot of flak for their prices and their user base and demographic. Yes, they are expensive, but they are also fantastic cameras, singular, built to withstand time and adversity, and designed like works of art. If you have never used one, I urge you to see if you can try a model for a while to really understand why they have the cult following they do. I can't justify being in their ecosystem for the work I do, and they have priced me out of shooting with them for fun, but if I had more disposable income to throw around, I'd likely buy one. This isn't an article taking blind shots at Leica, I assure you. But, the release of their new M10-R has had a bit of an odd consequence.
The new M10-R. Say what you want about the price, it's absolutely beautiful.
The M10-R is for all intents and purposes, identical to the earlier entry in the M-Series, the M10-P, save for one important upgrade: the sensor is now 40.9 megapixels. All previous M10 body variants were 24 megapixels, so the gains here are massive. Furthermore, from early hands-on reviews and reports, the color performance and image quality are equal to or better than the old sensor. Now, as you might expect, it isn't cheap. The M10-R retails for $8,795, which if you are a Leica fan, is probably about what you'd expect, though maybe a touch higher. With the huge jump in resolution with what seems like no downsides, however, choosing the M10-R over the M10-P or original M10 (I'll exclude the M10 Monochrom as that is a singular body for a specific purpose) is an absolute no-brainer. That is, of course, unless the original M10 is now much cheaper.
Well, it isn't. Leica sees themselves as an aspirational, luxury camera brand (and I don't disagree with them), and so, this is where the quandary arises. The original M10 is objectively worse than the M10-R by quite some margin given the latter has a 70% increase in resolution. However, lowering the price of previous M10 models now that the M10-R has been released would damage the brand and the projected value of their products. They must retain the mystique and reputation they have built, and as a result, we are left with what I believe to be the camera which is the worst value for money of any camera currently on the market. The original M10 is $8,000 for a 24-megapixel sensor. This, I'm sure, is tactical to funnel photographers looking into the M-Series into forking out just an extra $300 to upgrade the sensor by 70%, but in isolation, the M10 price point is borderline comical. $8,000 for a 24-megapixel body with a single memory card slot, no GPS, and no IBIS. Yes, Leica isn't pitching its cameras against the rest of the mirrorless market, but either way, the M10 just became the worst deal there is.
Before I am rushed down by Leica fans, please re-read the first paragraph of this section. I have met with Leica at their offices in London several times, used multiple of their cameras, and spoken to everyone from their ambassadors through to their PR team, and I am truly a fan. There's no one else in the industry quite like them, and shooting with their cameras is an experience. The M10-R, I have no doubts, is right up there with some of the best cameras they've produced. But an unfortunate byproduct is that for as long as they're selling earlier M10 models brand new, they are the worst cameras in terms of value for money.
Which Camera Do You Think Is the Worst Value for Money?
What do you think? Am I wrong about the M10-R's predecessors? Is it wrong to even include them in this discussion? Is there a camera that's an even worse bang for your buck? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Old Leica film cameras are built like tanks. Their digital cameras have had their share of electronic and other issues. This is true of all manufacturers, but at Leica prices, they need to do better.
If you want it, can afford the price and are happy to pay the price then it isn't poor value for money. This applies to anything humans buy and sell.
If you need to go into debt to buy it and only want to buy it because you feel you need to do so in order to impress your associates, then it's poor value for money and moreover you're a sucker for fashion.
One factor you don't get into here is resale value. The difference between your original purchase and what it will command on the market (assuming you can get a buyer) is a factor to consider. A used Leica is still a Leica, a used Porsche is still a Porsche. If it has intrinsic demand, that alters the picture. It may seem that the used market cannibalizes the new, but not necessarily. A product with a good reputation for resale can legitimately command a higher new price.
I buy a camera to use it. I'm not greatly bothered about how much I'd get for selling it.
Consider the venerable Cosina C1. It's a mass market, simple film SLR of the 1990s, I think the last all-mechanical film camera made. It is far, far superior to the Canon AE-1 yet sells for a tenth of the price. In this case, the Porsche is more like an Edsel.
With digital, today's wonder product is tomorrow's can't-give-them-away resident on charity shop shelves. And tomorrow is very, very close in the digital world.
At least I know from personal experience with their older lenses, they're amazing. The quality was much better than the Nikkor lenses that I owned.
I think the camera you carry with you because you love using it so much will be the best value no matter how little or how much you pay for it.
any digital camera, really.. anyone gonna want a 20 yr old digital?? even if it's a leica digital??? otoh...1959 M3 are still worth a good amount and can still be used..
Owned quite a bit of Leica gear. Sold it all. Let's be honest here, it's really over-rated. I now use full frame Nikon for journalism and micro 4/3 for travel. Olympus, Panasonic both are good. I even carry a small Sony RX100 VI. I want to say Leica would be the worst value but I'll add another thing to consider. Any brand that abandons a lens mount should be shunned. I'm looking at you Canon. Tons of great lenses obsoleted so a company can sell more lenses for those who bought into a new system. I've shot with tons of vintage Nikon lenses, all with great characteristics. I even have a lens some New York times photographer carried into battle in Vietnam. try that with Canon on a modern body. They make great lenses as long as you buy new bodies and in that statement is where you find the sad part about all of this. This isn't a Nikon vs Canon, this is who supports their customers and their vintage purchases. in the end, Canon is the worst value for not supporting their vintage glass.
I'm a bit confused by your statement about not supporting vintage glass. It is true that when Canon went to the EF mount you couldn't use the older FD lenses on them, but that would have been true no matter if the flange distance had been identical. Older lens designs, including Nikon, rely on a mechanical lever to adjust the aperture of the lens. This means that the body of the camera has to have the necessary mechanical lever controller. Canon ditched this for entirely electronic control inside the lens. Yes it meant that all of their older lenses were now obsolete, but it meant that they could make simpler bodies, and now that they have the RF mount, the adapters are much simpler than the adapters for the Nikon Z mount to Nikon F. It's also why people have been much more likely to adapt Canon lenses to other systems for video work. I have yet to see an adapter for Nikon F to anything that gives you electronic and accurate control over the aperture.
Honestly, I can't wait to pick up a - what feels like an - "inadequate" Sony a7iii. IMO that camera is like 5+ years worth of value as a professional camera. In saying that - I do find it interesting how each update like this can easily make current gear feel lagging even when we all know 1080-4k will be probably industry standard for a much longer time.
I bought a used a7 last year and even with the standard kit lens, the quality of the photos is much higher than my previous 4/3rds.
You may even want to save money by not buying a telephoto lens, just blow up/crop the photo itself. FF is that much better, IMO.
There are other ways to look at this - for most people, for most of the photos they take, 40 megapixels is something they'll rarely use. I bought a demo of the original M8.2, and I recently bought a demo (with new camera warranty) of the M10. I have no need to update to the new camera - it won't do anything additional for me, and I already love both of my Leicas (along with my Nikon Df).
When I was growing up, I bought a new Leica M2. Coming from Contax and Nikon RF cameras, the Leica was a dream come true. There is no longer any competition - all the other rangefinder cameras are history. I wanted to do photography as I did while growing up, and the ONLY choice in 2020 is Leica.
To answer your question, for someone who wants to use a Rangefinder Camera, the Leica M10 series camera can't be the "worst" choice, as it is the ONLY choice. Is "only" 24 megapixels a problem? Not for me. Also, suppose they lowered the cost of the M10 to $5,000. How many people would spend all the additional $$ for 40 megapixels, when the cameras essentially are identical?
I'm still in love with my M240 (bought new, has never had a problem - 1,000's of shots). I've had large exhibition prints (60x40") made from it - absolutely no digital grain or artifacts even under a magnifying glass. I don't see a need for the M10-R - tho I'll probably buy one anyway, when it's used price is about 60% of new in 4 to 5 years. I've been shooting Leicas since 13yrs old, started with a IIIF, then manual M's for decades - especially the M3 & M6 0.85.
Thank goodness! I was hoping my Sony Alpha didn’t make the list! Although I love my A77 Mk II I use a variety of both full frame and APS-C Alpha lenses. I also have an adapter to use my vintage Pentax Spotmatic F M42 lenses but have yet to try them.
The Olympus EM1X has to be a close second to the Leica. Retailing at about £1900 in the UK for what is essentially an EM1 Mk 2, with a brick strapped to it. and a sensor produced by methuselah image corp. Or possibly the EM1 Mk3, available for £1600. when the EM1 Mk2, is available new for around £800, same sensor, and no difference in image quality, but twice the price.
I am not sure I really know which model is the worst value, but if your current camera meets your expectations and provides the results you need, and the only reason you'd buy another camera is 'because its new', then virtually any new camera can be considered a 'poor' value.