How much is too much for you?

[former member]

It depends on your needs and on your budget. For technical photography, machine vision, optical computing- you need to fit the optics to the application. A custom lens makes an F0.95 Noctilux look cheap. $40K is not uncommon for custom optics.

For amateur work? Depends on expendable income and how badly you want something.

I'll end up buying an M9 for home use eventually, and use a $67 J-3 on it. That's what I want.

 

[Keith]

Dear Keith,

Why not?

I would, if I could afford it.

Alas, I can only afford one, and that only by going without other things.

Bonuses at one of the banks recently averaged over $100,000. Give me a $100,000 bonus and I'll buy another M9 and half a dozen lenses.

Cheers,

R.

But an individual can only hold one camera and one lens up to the eye at a time Roger. I can understand a fashion photographer or similar needing multiple bodies and a supply of lenses though.

I remember ages ago seeing a doco about Annie Lebowitz doing a shoot for Vanity Fair I think from memory ... her assistants wheeled in a two tiered trolly full of bodies and lenses! 😀

 

[Leigh Youdale]

About a year ago I had (I think) about twelve cameras including a few old Voigtlander folders and two Leica IIIf's. As you'll see below I now have five. I realised I was collecting cameras because they were beautiful objects and not only did I not have time to use them all to keep them in good operating condition but frankly, the tiny faded viewfinders and non-ergonomic controls made using more modern gear a sensible choice for taking photographs, not just admiring cameras. So I sold them - not without some regret - but I sold them.
Roger would like two M9's. Well I'd like two M7's but I don't need them. My 'need' for two similar cameras is satisfied with the R3A and R4A Bessa bodies and a range of CV lenses from 15mm to 75mm. Would Leica equivalents be better? Quite possibly, but I'll never know and don't feel the need to find out because I'm well satisfied with what I have.
I still have my Nikormat kit with lenses from 24mm to 200mm for the (few) times I might need an SLR or macro lens. I have my Rolleiflex for the occasional MF situation and I recently bought a GF1 with external viewfinder and the kit zoom to enter the realms of digital for times when that seems the most appropriate choice. It gets used now and then.
If someone offered me a Leica M6, M7 or MP for $2000 with prime 50mm lens I'd buy it, even though I'm also retired and on a pension. But I don't lie awake wondering when that's going to happen.
I've got enough.

 

[David R Munson]

At my income level, I actually have to balance my photography budget in a month with how much I want to eat, any weekend trips I want to take, if I want to take my girlfriend out to dinner, etc. When I buy equipment, it's a meeting of practicality, need, and what *works* for what I need to do. My most recent equipment purchases have been a Canon EOS 3 body, vertical grip, and the Canon 24mm f/2.8. In practical terms, I'm eating more ramen presently (it's better in Korea, at least), but am making more good images thanks to having the tools that do what I need them to do. Sure, I'd much prefer the Canon 24mm f/1.4, but at this point a $1,700 lens vs. a $400 (in Korea) lens is a no-brainer. Even if I put enough money aside for the f/1.4, that's a month's salary for me.

So....how much is too much for me? Kinda depends on how much I want to eat. The whole "starving artist" concept exists for a reason! 🙂

 

[kshapero]

Three main reasons:
1. Have money and want to show of(MOST LIKELY)
2. Working photographer who's equipment is partially sponsored by the employer(LESS LIKELY)
3. Perfectionists, just like to have best of the best.

That was easy

Thats a little too simplistic for me. Folks have all kinds of good reasons and sometimes dumb reasons to spend a bunch on lenses and I will defend all of them, although I choose not to go there.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But an individual can only hold one camera and one lens up to the eye at a time Roger.

Dear Keith,

Well, yes, but if you only have one camera and it breaks down or is stolen or otherwise suffers misfortune, suddenly you have no cameras to hold up to your eye. This is a nuisance even if you're a few miles from home. If you're scores or hundreds or thousands of miles from home, it's likely to be a disaster. Especially if your main reason for being there is shooting.

Of course you can carry a cheap backup, but the quality won't be as good, and it won't be as pleasant to use. As for the argument you sometimes hear, "Buy a decent point-and-shoot locally if your camera is stolen or breaks down", that's assuming that (a) there's a camera store within 100 miles; (b) that you have the faintest idea which P+S cameras are any good; (c) that uou don't mind dropping a few hundred on a camera you'll probably never use again.

I've once had an M2 stop working so it needed professional repair -- 13 miles from home, taking pictures at a dance school, but of course I had another Leica with me -- and my M4P once needed some emergency surgery in the Julian Alps several hundred miles from home, though I fixed that myself (bent rewind crank from a knock). Those are all my misfortunes with broken M-series Leicas so far (touch wood) but the peace of mind of a backup is worth whatever I can afford (not, alas, another M9).

If I've spent even a thousand on going somewhere to take pictures, I'd be a bloody fool to rely on one camera. At two thousand, it's twice the argument, etc. I spend more every year on travel than on cameras and lenses (in fact, some years I don't spend anything at all on cameras and lenses).

This can be taken as a professional viewpoint, but equally, thinking back to my amateur days, I never wanted to risk (and never did risk) working with a single camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bingley]

I've drawn the line at no more than $300 for any lens, and w/ careful shopping I've picked up some great old (Canon, Leica) and new (CV) glass that I'm quite happy with. I don't think my photographic skills (such as they are) are being limited in any way by those lenses, and improving my technique at this point has more to do w/ film developing, scanning and post-processing than w/ glass.

 

[antiquark]

So, how much is too much for you to pay for a lens?

The most I've paid for a lens is about $350 (Nikkor 35/2 AF). Does that make me a hack? 🙂

 

[sig]

Now, maybe 150-200 dollars..... well most likely under 100. When I look around me there are so many other things I rather spend money on, and there are already to many cameras and lenses around me already.

In the same way as it is nothing wrong in spending 8000 on a handbag there is nothing wrong with a 6000 dollar lens. Now somebody will say this is sour grapes, bitching etc. all I am saying is that a 1000 dollar hand bag can probably do a decent job as a hand bag

 

[charjohncarter]

What really surprises me is the image quality difference between 6x6 and 35mm. You can get an inconvenient folder that is smaller/lighter/possibly cheaper than some Canon 35mms. And maybe not have the bells and whistles (of the Canon) but you have a much higher quality negative.

 

[wjlapier]

Too much? I think when I bought a 50 lux asph for $3000 I exceeded my limit. Re-evaluating my shooting style and considering I shoot for fun, I sold the lens and a few others.

When I got hooked by Leica M bodies it was because of the size and feel of using them. DAG once told me that "Leicas are the only camera that one can enjoy while not taking pictures".

If I'm using a rangefinder I prefer the whole kit to be small. I now use Nikkors on my M6. The 50/1.4 is low contrast wide open, but competes with other Leica Summicrons from f/2 on. And it's very compact for a 50/1.4 lens. The LTM wides are so tiny, and with my style of shooting--daylight mostly, the slow speeds are not a concern.

So, for the price of a 50 lux asph, I have now a kit I really enjoy shooting with.

 

[Rayt]

All M-Hexanons outperform thier Leica counterpars IMO and at much lower cost. Biogon ZM 21/2.8 is unmatched IMO, in it's class. Many old Russian lenses deliver superb results. So why do we keep buying those more expensive Leicas? Well, I dont anymore.

That is because we are all Goldman bankers who do nothing else with our expensive toys than to snap cheap shots of homeless people sleeping in the streets. I hope I get hit over the head and my precious M9 taken from me 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Now, maybe 150-200 dollars..... well most likely under 100. When I look around me there are so many other things I rather spend money on, and there are already to many cameras and lenses around me already.

In the same way as it is nothing wrong in spending 8000 on a handbag there is nothing wrong with a 6000 dollar lens. Now somebody will say this is sour grapes, bitching etc. all I am saying is that a 1000 dollar hand bag can probably do a decent job as a hand bag

I don't think so. It's a completely rational approach for you, just as buying the Thambar was completely rational for me. Unlike you, I don't find that many other things that I want to spend my money on (apart from travel), and the same would be true even if the Leicas and travel didn't constitute an important part of earning a living for me.

Criticism of high prices descends into sour grapes and bitching when people make the wild and unjustifiable generalization that the only reason to buy Leicas is to show off, and that the majority of Leica users are rotten photographers.

Actually the latter is probably true, but only because the majority of users of any camera system are rotten photographers. To pretend that this is anything to do with using a Leica is sour grapes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MikeL]

I'm trying to decide which is more tiring:

a. smugness and pride of owning expensive Leica lenses and bodies, or

b. smugness and pride of being 'rational' by not buying expensive Leica lenses and bodies.

Personally I have yet to meet many of 'a', but the number of 'b' sure seems to have grown on RFF.

I just hope everyone is happy, whatever the reason.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That is because we are all Goldman bankers who do nothing else with our expensive toys than to snap cheap shots of homeless people sleeping in the streets. I hope I get hit over the head and my precious M9 taken from me 😀

Have your people call my people and we'll do a mugging...

Cheers.

R.

 

[Morca007]

The most expensive photographic gear I've ever bought is my used Nokton 50 1.5, and given how often I use it compared to my cheapo Nikon F-mount 50 1.4 setup, I think it may be time to give it up and spend that money on film and food. That lens individually cost more than my entire 4x5 setup, and more than both of my 6x6 setups together, and I got a 'good deal' on the lens...

e: What I'm saying is, I guess ~$250 is my upper limit when it comes to gear.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Wrong question

Wrong question

These conversations among us here (How much do you spend on...whatever?) do just one thing for me. They always, instantly, bring to mind a quote. It goes like this (it came from my CPA when he was doing my taxes a few years ago):

"No one NEEDS more than 3 times what a teacher gets paid!"

(I'm a teacher, by the way.) I suspect that this quote means much different things to different folk. To some, it likely raises thinking about philanthropy, community involvement, caring for others, etc. To others, it probably sounds like something a raving socialist would say.

When we talk about all this money we spend (and I include myself) on our gear, why don't we instead ask "On what could it be better spent?" We here in the U.S. must admit that there are an awful lot of money-related problems upon us these days: health care, financial industry excesses, large-scale poverty & homelessness, ... on and on and on.

I wonder what our world would look like if we, by some miracle, found ourselves saying something like "What does a teacher get paid today? I don't need more than 3 times that... I'm very happy with what I have, and that much money gives me everything I want. Now what problems out there can I help solve with this ridiculous bonus check?" 🙄

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Well I am not really bounded by a budget, although most of the money is in long term investments which I can't enjoy at the moment or may loose in future. So the budget is there if I want something else, BUT...wanting something else always meant I was a bit tired off something I already had. Therefore in times I sell a lot of gear in order to make place for other. Once I waited to long with that so at a peak I had invested about Euro 18.000 in photografic gear and thought, oh my god, this is not different than long term investments since I couldn't enjoy the investment in the gear any more to full extent.
After that I set myself a sort of golden rule, i.e. a "tight budget": if you want something than first have to sell some gear you (hardly) do not use anymore. This worked out quite well since the past 4 years my total investment in photogear is steady around Euro 10.000. And it turned out that that amount gives me enough space to acquire cheap as well as pricy gear.
Also over time my interest shifted quite a lot. In the past I bought lots of different camera's (not only rangefinders), but ended up only with some, and got more and more into acquiring and using different lenses. I experienced that using them gave me more joy than just acquiring lots of cameras. These lenses can have very differing prices though, I can enjoy cheap lenses just as much as I can enjoy the pricy ones; if I want it "need it", I'll buy it. To give a recent example. Past year I got very interested in the 35mm summicrons - mind you not only one, but all of the versions (and very recently also into the forerunners). So what am I doing: I am acquiring all five types and start shooting and testing them...well we'll see for how long that experience will last ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

These conversations among us here (How much do you spend on...whatever?) do just one thing for me. They always, instantly, bring to mind a quote. It goes like this (it came from my CPA when he was doing my taxes a few years ago):

"No one NEEDS more than 3 times what a teacher gets paid!"

(I'm a teacher, by the way.) I suspect that this quote means much different things to different folk. To some, it likely raises thinking about philanthropy, community involvement, caring for others, etc. To others, it probably sounds like something a raving socialist would say.

When we talk about all this money we spend (and I include myself) on our gear, why don't we instead ask "On what could it be better spent?" We here in the U.S. must admit that there are an awful lot of money-related problems upon us these days: health care, financial industry excesses, large-scale poverty & homelessness, ... on and on and on.

I wonder what our world would look like if we, by some miracle, found ourselves saying something like "What does a teacher get paid today? I don't need more than 3 times that... I'm very happy with what I have, and that much money gives me everything I want. Now what problems out there can I help solve with this ridiculous bonus check?" 🙄

Unless you earn more than 3x as much as a teacher it's quite hard to argue with this. I used to be a teacher in the 70s, and don't earn 3x as much, inflation adjusted, as I did then. But I don't work as hard, either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

I bought a new CV 21 and a new CV 40. That was pretty spendy for me. My other RF lenses were all bought used. Every one's financial situation is unique so you will get as many different answers to the original question as there are folks who'll answer. No one should apply their own personal situation to anyone else's and criticize the other's choice in spending on photo gear. Photography as a hobbie is still much cheaper than drug abuse or supporting a mistress. (I'm thinking)