$$$$$$$$

[Bill Pierce]

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out. Digital cameras are new enough that there is significant improvement in them with relatively little passage of time.

There are sports photographers who are always going to need the fastest in autofocus and frames per second. There is fairly rapid improvement, and upgrading is expensive. Some commercial photographers are going to need the medium format with the most megapixels. That’s probably an even more expensive upgrade.

But most of us don’t have those special needs and can get by with upgrading much less expensive equipment when we want to take advantage of new features or better image quality.

Film? For me, it was approximately 50 years between my M3’s and my M7’s. And the M3’s were still working alongside the M7’s. If you want to look at it on a per annum basis, spread out over 50 years my Leicas hadn’t cost that much. On the other hand, M8, M8.2, M9, M9P, M Monochrome, M-E, Leica M in a relatively few years - that’s rapid change, rapid improvement and per annum expensive.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? How long will the Leica M be top dog in the Leica line up? Does it make sense to invest $2800 in a Sony RX1 with a fixed 35mm, f/2 lens and $450 in an electronic viewfinder or $600 in an optical finder? There is no question that these two full frame cameras are state of the art, excellent cameras.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? I don’t think there is some all purpose answer to the question. I think the all the answers and all the reasons behind them are as individual as the photographers behind them. And I would like to hear your answer.

 

[lynnb]

If you're making money with the camera there's the question of keeping up with the competition and client expectations - however unrealistic the latter may be.

Otherwise I guess it just depends on your budget, and whether the advances in technology make a significant difference to your picture-making.

 

[chathaway]

ok...shoot me...but why isn't there a "Like" button?

 

[robklurfield]

that change in per annum expense is scary and true.

 

[twopointeight]

I'm a pro for 35 years and I've been divesting of Leica for this reason. The full frame DSLR is the mainstay of pro work. Now that there are bodies like the Canon 6D which should serve one well for 5 or 6 years, there's no need to spend more than $2000 on a pro work body. Lenses are the better investment. I also just set up an Olympus OMD with a few lenses to see if this could really replace the full frame DSLR chip. As good as the OMD is with primes, it can't replace the Canon. Too bad about Leica. I still come to RFF for the nostalgia. Some years ago, a Magnum photographer I knew shot with Canon Rebel film cameras and the best glass. He told me they are disposable $300 bodies. Save your money for L glass. Good advise.

 

[jsrockit]

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out.

I can't bring myself to buy anything Leica new (or even at most used prices) since using the Fuji X series cameras. To some, the Fujis may still be too expensive, but that is as high as I am willing to go these days.

I look at the depreciation of digital cameras as the same as the amount of cash I'd spend on film and processing.

 

[helvetica]

... Some years ago, a Magnum photographer I knew shot with Canon Rebel film cameras and the best glass. He told me they are disposable $300 bodies. Save your money for L glass. Good advise.

That's the same reason I shoot L glass and a Rebel T2i, it's hard to justify a camera upgrade over the lenses. If you don't need 10fps or the full frame field of view, then your money is better spent on lights, modifiers, lenses, and tripods.

 

[thegman]

I only buy film cameras these days, so value can drop, or stay fairly solid, it's possible it will go up, but I doubt it.

I do buy computers though, and these days I spend far less on them. The cutting edge of computers is not really required for most tasks, so there is no point spending the big bucks. I'd rather spend £500 a year on computers, than drop £2k on one and hope it lasts me 4 years. Anyway, the £2k computer today is next year's £500 one. Currently I'm thinking about buying a certain Panasonic Toughbook. List price was £2k last year, eBay prices now are £300 - £400.

But really it's all about how much money is worth to you, for some a £5k Leica digital every couple of years is worth the money, to some it's not. Your wealth may make £5k insignificant, or it may not, it's just a situation that can only be answered by the individual.

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out. Digital cameras are new enough that there is significant improvement in them with relatively little passage of time.

There are sports photographers who are always going to need the fastest in autofocus and frames per second. There is fairly rapid improvement, and upgrading is expensive. Some commercial photographers are going to need the medium format with the most megapixels. That’s probably an even more expensive upgrade.

But most of us don’t have those special needs and can get by with upgrading much less expensive equipment when we want to take advantage of new features or better image quality.

Film? For me, it was approximately 50 years between my M3’s and my M7’s. And the M3’s were still working alongside the M7’s. If you want to look at it on a per annum basis, spread out over 50 years my Leicas hadn’t cost that much. On the other hand, M8, M8.2, M9, M9P, M Monochrome, M-E, Leica M in a relatively few years - that’s rapid change, rapid improvement and per annum expensive.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? How long will the Leica M be top dog in the Leica line up? Does it make sense to invest $2800 in a Sony RX1 with a fixed 35mm, f/2 lens and $450 in an electronic viewfinder or $600 in an optical finder? There is no question that these two full frame cameras are state of the art, excellent cameras.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? I don’t think there is some all purpose answer to the question. I think the all the answers and all the reasons behind them are as individual as the photographers behind them. And I would like to hear your answer.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

If you are starting out a Leica D-Lux 6 (with viewfinder) makes sense. However, if you have already made and investment in lenses wouldn't a Leica M9, M9P, or M240 be appropriate? The dominant issue with film is the availability of labs to process and print images. With digital the M240 jpeg images appear to be very satisfactory and there is not need to have a lab or post process much. The issue really is safe long time storage of the image.

(This is not a discussion of jpeg v. raw as most renowned photographers eventually did not process their own images/prints but supervised.)

 

[btgc]

One day I thought how long Leica will make strange cross of new tech with obsolete mechanical RF? Probably longer as we may think, just because it's a boutique not bread'n'butter. As long as people believe they buy something special and are spending fortune on it, Leica will be live and prosperous. Technically there's no reason for them, but it lasts while it sells. Good to them all.

As for film vs digital costs there are two schools - one think that digital captures are basically free as no need to buy film and process it, and some think now cheap film gear and moderate amount of film is still cheaper. I see it as a restaurant with 1-3-5 year subscription - put down several grands (like for system camera and couple of lenses) once and have a free a la carte meal every day and guaranteed table. But you have to pay right now for whole period. Or restaurant where one pays for each meal, but can customize menu, have special dishes or skip some days or weeks and thus save, but there's no guarantee of free table at that day and hour.

There's no straight answer which way it comes out cheaper, but definetily both ways have their streghts. There are lots of people whole buy not the most expensive subscription to free meals but still frequent nice and cozy restaurant where they can have meals of their childhood and meet their good friends.

 

[furcafe]

For a lot of general purpose photography, I think the answer is yes. It's already happened w/most consumers as they have begun shooting everything w/their smartphones. Even for "serious" amateurs, etc., there's less & less of a need to get a top-flight dSLR or equivalent as there was in the days of film.

Speaking of film days, I think the technological change not only was slower but was different in scope because it was split between the camera companies & the film manufacturers (though some, like Fuji & Konica were both), whereas w/digital the optics & imaging are always combined in the same product, even if they're made by different companies, e.g., you weren't forced to upgrade your Leica body between the M3 & the M7 to take advantage of the improvements in film technology between 1954 & 2002. For some of us, it would be awesome if sensor technology were to be standardized enough to be routinely divorced from cameras & lenses, but that has yet to happen (& will probably not happen in my lifetime).

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out. Digital cameras are new enough that there is significant improvement in them with relatively little passage of time.

There are sports photographers who are always going to need the fastest in autofocus and frames per second. There is fairly rapid improvement, and upgrading is expensive. Some commercial photographers are going to need the medium format with the most megapixels. That’s probably an even more expensive upgrade.

But most of us don’t have those special needs and can get by with upgrading much less expensive equipment when we want to take advantage of new features or better image quality.

Film? For me, it was approximately 50 years between my M3’s and my M7’s. And the M3’s were still working alongside the M7’s. If you want to look at it on a per annum basis, spread out over 50 years my Leicas hadn’t cost that much. On the other hand, M8, M8.2, M9, M9P, M Monochrome, M-E, Leica M in a relatively few years - that’s rapid change, rapid improvement and per annum expensive.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? How long will the Leica M be top dog in the Leica line up? Does it make sense to invest $2800 in a Sony RX1 with a fixed 35mm, f/2 lens and $450 in an electronic viewfinder or $600 in an optical finder? There is no question that these two full frame cameras are state of the art, excellent cameras.

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? I don’t think there is some all purpose answer to the question. I think the all the answers and all the reasons behind them are as individual as the photographers behind them. And I would like to hear your answer.

 

[Lss]

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense?

Are there (m)any? Perhaps we can count the "Hasselblad NEX-7" as an extreme example.

 

[jody36]

Expensive cameras are out for most people. Dont know figures but im sure sub 500$ us cameras outsell above 1000$ dollar cameras probably 5 to one. Just a guess

 

[Canuk]

For myself, I can see that sometime in the future, I will more that likely buy a Digital M. The image quality in the new sensors from any of the manufacturers is good enough for my needs for the foreseeable future. Once I decide that working with my M6 and film is too much of a hastle, but for now I am having too much fun with it.

 

[rbiemer]

Right now, for digital, I'm using my phone and an older Samsung "all in one" or bridge type camera. Both were not the latest generation of technology when I got them but they work well enough for me.
I am not a pro and so do not have the concerns or motivation to stay at the leading edge of things.

I have been thinking about a digital body to use my existing ltm lenses on but, for me, that means looking at something like the Panasonic G-1.

The idea that the newest technology some how makes the older stuff unusable is, I think, most often false.
By staying behind a generation or three, I can keep my costs down for this hobby of mine and still get the major benefits and have fun.
Rob

With change coming so rapidly, does an expensive but non specialized digital camera make sense? I don’t think there is some all purpose answer to the question. I think the all the answers and all the reasons behind them are as individual as the photographers behind them. And I would like to hear your answer.

 

[Godfrey]

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out. Digital cameras are new enough that there is significant improvement in them with relatively little passage of time. ...
{snip}

Same old song I've heard a bazillion times, Bill. Can't we get past this obsession with comparing the cost of film and digital cameras?

Sure, you want a new top-end camera every year and it's going to cost you a bunch. Digital cameras front-load the expenditure ... once you buy one, you just use it for as long as you want and don't need to feed it consumables. Buying a top-end film camera costs less, but if you shoot a lot the cost of film and processing rapidly becomes what you're spending the gross part of your money on.

However, you don't need a new digital camera every year, just like you don't need a new film camera every year. If you buy a top-end digital camera and don't regard it as a piece of disposable junk, respect it and use it the same way you use a quality film camera, it can last a very long time indeed and not cost you another penny to operate.

My Olympus E-1 was manufactured in October 2003. It is a professional grade camera in every respect, and was priced at just north of $2000 then. I bought it in 2008 for about a quarter of that. Another five years on, a decade old, it's still producing superb photographs, is still the best handling SLR camera (film OR digital) I've owned, and is in no need of replacement unless I desperately need ISO {stratospheric} and more than 5 Mpixels. I'll be shooting with it for years to come, and the only costs to me are going to be another new battery sometime in the next year or so.

I bet that a serious photographer buying a new Sony RX1 or Leica M9/MM/M now would be able to recite the same story in a decade or more. I'll have the opportunity to check on that about 2022, since my M9 is now a year old and still in no need of replacement ... ;-)

G

 

[Mcary]

The issue really is safe long time storage of the image.

I think, based on current and expected cost trends, that solid state drives will soon become one of the best options for long term storage of digital image files.
Really depends on what you feel is a reasonable per GB storage cost. Example current its about a $3 per GB (based on 3 copy/drive storage plan) for others it might be $1 GB.

 

[shadowfox]

I wonder if for many of us the day of the expensive camera is out. Digital cameras are new enough that there is significant improvement in them with relatively little passage of time.

+1

Spot on as usual, Bill.

The days of chasing the latest and greatest digital gadgets had long gone for me as well. Now I just spin the rumor mills now and then, and "argue" about small things with forum members just for tickles.

When I want to produce something, now I have my darkroom to go to.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Not too long ago corporations carried the burden camera cost, upkeep, and purchase. Today it is all freelance. With that the dynamics change. Now the photographer foots the bill and all the work. (If you read the history of the Life photographers you will learn that they mailed to the office unprocessed film.) Today the photographer shoots ten times the amount of digital images and must process them him/herself prior to submission; and this is done on an overnight basis. The photographer must also compete with amateurs and amateur digital cameras that produce very good images. In mid-20th century professional cameras were very expensive and beyond the ability of most people to use and, of course, the time lapse was up to 30 days, even longer.
As far as cost goes Leica has a long waiting list for their new M, which probably will not be fulfilled for 2 years.

 

[dabick42]

Photography is only as $$$$$$$$$$ as you let it become.

Leaving aside professional photographers, whose equipment needs and expenditures are largely governed by commercial necessity ( and are tax-deductable anyway), amateurs can plant their feet on whatever rung of the equipment ladder takes their fancy - disposable income level and wife permitting.

As there are as many different types of ''amateur'' as there are quills on a porcupine, it would take forever and a day to categorise every one of them.

The bottom line is surely this : -

If you're convinced that it will improve your photography, and the children, wife and dog won't starve if you buy it, then go ahead and buy it.

However, if you've convinced yourself you need it because Joe and Fred have got it, the cupboards are bare, there's big bills to pay, and your wife threatens to call a divorce lawyer if you even think about buying it, it's best you don't buy it.

Within those two extremes, it's every man for himself... !