A lot of $$$

[kshapero]

Remember when we waited eagerly for the newest Mac or PC to be announced. 2 years was the max for owning any PC. Now we hardly notice a new announcement. We are not quite there yet with Digital Cameras, but it's gotta happen where it levels off soon, right?
I was at a wedding this week and the amount of camera technology there was staggering. Three or four guys 24 years old, were working the floor with kits made of the latest stuff. Where did they get that kind of money so early in life. I did weddings with a Nikon F and a 28/3.5 and an 85/2, period. All bought used for under $500. Back then we waited for a review by Herbert Keppler to help us make our next purchase. Then off to Shutterbug to see the prices, both new and used. It's all good.

 

[Corran]

On the flip side, I did a bit of freelance work recently with one of the largest graduation photography businesses in the USA and they used nothing but Nikon D3000's and the kit lens, with flash.

 

[mfunnell]

My only serious digital camera died "in sleep" when it was 5 years old, and it was almost unused.

And I just grabbed my poor old Canon 300D (aka original Digital Rebel), stepped out on my balcony and took a quick shot to demonstrate it still works (I've owned it for more than 10 years; it got about 18,000 shots on the clock before being 'replaced' with a 30D).


[click through or download to view the EXIF if you like]

I'm not sure what either anecdote proves.

...Mike

 

[thegman]

Depends on the person, for some, it'll end up being a stress-producing drain on finances, for others it'll be worth every penny.

Digital camera are not a lifetime investment, but of course, nor do they have ongoing costs in the way film does. It's like a computer, I know my computer is plummeting in value the moment I buy it, but it'll serve me every single day for the cost of the electricity it uses. My computer isn't an investment, but nor is a great bottle of whisky, but certainly worth the money.

 

[nongfuspring]

And I just grabbed my poor old Canon 300D (aka original Digital Rebel), stepped out on my balcony and took a quick shot to demonstrate it still works (I've owned it for more than 10 years; it got about 18,000 shots on the clock before being 'replaced' with a 30D).

Yikes, technology sure has come a long way.

 

[leicapixie]

One can make numbers dance!
Film costs each shot.
True.
Digital is not free.
No Siree!.
Computers are replaced regularly.
Need extra drives in case a "no read files" disaster..
Digital high end cameras seem to need more adjustments than my old film ones..
Canon, Nikon and Pentax all owned by friends "many" times off to guarantee servicing.
Leica not only one with less than perfect record.
I use point and shoot cameras for digital.
Last Canon that died after one of it's many falls, had exposed over 70,000 images!
Film i shoot carefully.
My numbers nowhere near my digital..
So at present shooting, incl. darkroom, storage sheets, total costs per month, would need about 2~3 years to equal even a basic DSLR.
Film will also allow me to do wet darkroom, for a few special B/W.
A fellow i met attended a Magnum workshop with his Leica 240 and Asph lens.
The Magnum member commented that he could "not be a professional to afford that camera"..
Few pros can balance the costs of Leica lenses and constant new bodies.
I learn't that way back in 70's when 2 of my Leica lenses went away in an attack on my car.
I could not, nor would afford that cost of replacement.

 

[mfunnell]

Yikes, technology sure has come a long way.

I agree - and yet, in a different sense, I've recently been admiring the technological leap between open-aperture metering and earlier stopped-down metering SLRs, and the different ways the various manufacturers did that. Comparing the original Spotmatic with the Spotmatic F (the day the universality of the M42 mount died), the Nikon, Canon, Miranda (yes, Miranda!) and other solutions and non-solutions - while realising these are still (still!) often excellent cameras with excellent lenses, some of which need not hang their heads in company of well-regarded modern lenses.

I've also been noting that cameras, in those days mattered less than they do now. For many subjects it's almost impossible to tell whether a frame was taken with an 'amateur' AE-1 or a 'professional' EOS-1v using their respective 50mm/f1.4 lenses and 'whatever' film choice (in my case, Tri-X in HC110, but it works just as well with Provia in E6). You can tell the difference with digital kit. My personal take is that digital won't really be mature until you can't. (Within the same or similar formats.)

...Mike

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Having read through all the replies so far, I get the sense that I'm the only one who agrees with the OP, even though I don't disagree with the observations of any of the other commenters. I'm just not sure anyone else is exactly addressing the point Mr. Pierce was making. The camera manufacturers seem to implicitly agree with him; hold a D800 in one hand and an F6 in the other, hold an M9 in one hand and a Nikon S2 in the other. On the one hand you've got items built to last, and on the other items built with the understanding that there is no point in taking that much care in manufacturing because nobody will be using them long enough for that to matter.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I rarely think of buying cameras in terms of holding value. To me the value is in actually using them. I'm lucky in the fact they are all paid for through the work I do. Right now I have over 100K on both my Canons. ANd well over 100K on the ones before I bought these. I have over 30K on my Leica MM. Those are all photographs I wouldn't have taken if I didn't have the equipment. The plan is to switch completely over to Leica M in the next couple of years instead of replacing the Canons with Canons.

 

[Huss]

I don’t like the camera brand I grew up with, Leica, becoming a conspicuous consumption item worn like jewelry instead of a camera just because it’s expensive.

It always has been. Of course there were serious photographers back then who used Leicas, but there were also doods like my Dad and Uncles who bought Leicas because they were the fanciest cameras. And funnily enough I don't remember them taking photos.
Kinda like now.

What I have noticed is that now there are far more people who have old Leicas as an item of jewelry rather than digital ones. Because they are cool, and frankly, a lot prettier. They have that steam punk chic that is missing in modern cameras, and it helps that they can take a decent snap too if need be..

 

[bobkonos]

This may be a parallel observation, you guys decide: I've been thinking a lot lately about $$$ and Leica, but not for a digital Leica: I am looking into getting an M-A and the black chrome 50mm Summilux lens. Now when I heard about it, I thought the M-A was no more than an expensive M2. Some time in the last few weeks I've changed my tune, and am now in the process of reducing "my inventory" of cameras to help fund this purchase. I am not thinking about resale but am thinking about what the expense will give me (and not necessarily you}: a modern made new film camera in the style of the classic Leica cameras that I now own, use, enjoy. I have a chrome 0.72 MP that gives me the same aesthetic: modern made but classic design; the M-A takes that further. Spending $8k on a monochrome makes no sense to me and makes sense to apparently many. $4k for an M-A makes sense to me but I suspect few others. C'est la vie.

 

[darya151]

When I was a kid, my dad used to develop film in our kitchen. It was magic - the red light, the trays where an image began to appear. He had a Leica, it was a beater, he got plenty of use out of it. I'm with the OP on this one, there's so much conspicuous consumption today, which 'brand' defines who you are? Leica digital cameras are really expensive now - the new Q is over $4K, and it looks to be a wonderful camera, but for me, that is crazy expensive - particularly because what I really love doing is going out amongst people who are going through really hellish circumstances, and documenting their lives.

Although I haven's used film in a while, for me, it is a beautiful medium. Some of the work on this forum, film and digital is really inspiring. That creativity can't be defined by a brand.
A lot us, myself included, are amazed at what some of the new cameras can do. I love the Monochrome - but for me, it just isn't a realistic option.

 

[Oscuro]

For A Thousand Bucks....or you could buy an FE

For A Thousand Bucks....or you could buy an FE

Some guy on the interweb posited that the best camera ever was an M3 with a 50 2.0 and that you could do it for a grand.

Great. Super. Do it. But a grand is a grand and a lot o' dosh.

A lotta folks would be very, VERY, happy with an Nikon FE and a Series E 50 1.8.... I mean really. Got the dough? Great. Buy the M3 (or M2 or M6 TTL...) But if you only have a few hundred bucks and NOT a grand, cheee..... You'll not notice the difference in the images, you really won't.... Promise.

Pinky swear.

Pinky swear forever on your mama's best church hat.

Unless you shoot pictures of brick walls or Lensalign targets or something sociopathic like that.....


Or.....

You could buy any of the two-year-old iterations of digital loveliness for about the same dough (an X100 $500; a D700 w/ 50mm is less than a grand..... etc, etc, etc,...) and THE CAMERA/LENS WILL NOT HOLD YOU BACK.

H3ll, shot carefully, at its base ISO, a "responsible for a family" person can shoot an S95 for less than $150 all decade long and never be disappointed in the camera or the "technical quality" of the images.

The content, however.... That'd be another story, bru.......

 

[giellaleafapmu]

It's like with any gear, a camera has its life cycle, during which should produces money, if you compute properly how much you are making with each product choice and how much does it cost to buy and resale against how much does it cost to rent you should easily compute whether you are spending too much on gear or not. If you use a camera for your enjoyment then all this does not apply and you should only ask how much you want to spend on your joy. Just talking of the new Leica Q (which is more expensive than most cameras), if you consider that a tailor suit and shoes can get more expensive than that and that with the price of the Leica Q you don't even get close to the cheapest Rolex or Audemars Piguet watch I think that after all cameras are not so terrible at this level. Now if you fancy a PhaseOne or certain light sets things get different, but few do outside professional work.

GLF

 

[quadtones]

As it happens, the advent of the latest two or three Leica models has me struggling with whether to divest myself of the Leica gear I do use. In all, I can barely tell the [meaningful] difference between the photos [at print size] shot in 1984 with my first M6 [which I still own and use] and my M9, which is now in its sixth year [not to mention the prints from my 50mm Summicron and the M2 I picked up used sometime in the late 60s]. First, that's because my youngest lens is a 35mm Summicron that I picked up in 1984 [used at the time], and my other lenses, six in all, have been purchased used and accumulated over quite some time. I finally added a Monochrom, purchased used, a couple of years ago, financed by selling off some other gear.

I don't have to earn a living with this stuff. I do exhibit, sell some prints, etc., but am fortunate to be able to be my own patron. Even so, looking at the new gear, I simply cannot justify the expense of "upgrade." The only reason I have even thought about upgrading it is the ownership of a number of lenses I could never afford to replace with their contemporary counterparts.

I agree with Bill's original observation, and feel that these cameras have somehow become "objects," rather than "tools." I would prefer to continue to think of myself as a photographer rather than simply a consumer of "Veblein goods." Still, it's hard at this time to consider a completely new tool set, especially when the lenses designed by Mandler still work for me after more than 30 years.

 

[Oscuro]

Look, Bill's right.
The thing is, there currently exists sufficient tools to produce printed or projected images of stupendous quality. Camera builders know this.

The marketing departments know this and the ownership knows this. And hey, innovation is good.

All too often, however, the force that drives people to reconsider their arsenal, particularly in digital imaging, has nothing to do with the quality of the imagery. It has everything to do with exploiting a lingering sense of insufficiency or inadequacy (read Maslow for a more in-depth analysis) and the creation of need where none previously existed.

Cameras, film and digital, have long since become objects in the sense that Bill is using. The irony is that at the same time that this objectification caused the development of a huge market segment (as desired by marketing) and reduced the prices of cameras that are "outdated" and thus easier for a working stiff or a hobbyist to afford, it has also exploited and rubbed raw the "need" to have the latest.

It's done very deliberately.

All the working pros that I cross paths with are curious about new developments. I'll say it again, all the working pros. Some are more gear-centric than others - I'll use Kirk Tuck as an example of a cat who changes kit as frequently as a banana republic changes governments. There's nothing wrong with that. But there are certainly a lot of guys and gals for whom the camera has sort of disappeared and are quite happy using "outdated" gear and the imagery certainly isn't suffering as a result.

We can always rationalize the upgrade using the quantum improvement in equipment that we've convinced ourselves that will make our jobs (or our hobby) easier. But it is usually just that, a rationalization.

A friend of mine who is an air force pilot makes the joke "never fly the A-model of anything." Of course, he doesn't get the choice which is partly what makes it funny. The photographer might consider not shooting the next three models of anything. That usually the choice is inherent makes it even funnier.

 

[leicapixie]

Earlier i wrote about part of my experiences, as to costs.
The reality all my pro jobs these years are headed to the internet.

Small images, seldom printed..
I have not been allowed on these pro jobs to use film, where tonality and dynamic range, would have bettered digital.
Digital scores with almost no light for exposure.

I don't have fancy Digital cameras but P/S digital..
So there is good and bad.
The good for me, that should I destroy or damage a camera, like kinda out $100 or less.
One Nikon P/S digital was $5, Minolta Dimage free(stunning B/W).
Working this way, there are no 30x40" prints..
There never were, even in my film only days..
The results are what counts.
Clients happy, I am happy.

 

[Huss]

In all, I can barely tell the [meaningful] difference between the photos [at print size] shot in 1984 with my first M6 [which I still own and use] and my M9, which is now in its sixth year [not to mention the prints from my 50mm Summicron and the M2 I picked up used sometime in the late 60s]. First, that's because my youngest lens is a 35mm Summicron that I picked up in 1984 [used at the time], and my other lenses, six in all, have been purchased used and accumulated over quite some time.

What size is your print size? I use all sorts of film Leicas with lenses ranging from 1950s summicrons to current asph luxes and the difference is extremely noticeable between the film Leicas and digital (M9 or M240) using the same lenses.
At 4 by 6, hard to tell. By 8 by 12 it is obvious w/ regards to sharpness, clarity, 'grain'.
I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other (which is why I use both), just saying that there is a dramatic difference in the way the images look once printed at 8 by 12 or beyond.

 

[Ronald M]

We have gone far enough for it to be practical. Film is a niche market already.

A new machine can be purchased when the old wears out or becomes unrepairable so unless there is some killer feature you must have, just take a pass.

 

[peterm1]

It probably does not make sense to keep spending given the rate of obsolescence in the field. The way I approach it is to seldom buy the "latest and greatest" gear. The truth is for most practical purposes, gear that is one or two generations removed from the latest is perfectly adequate. Sometimes even better (ironically the M8 Leica seems a case in point given the technology problems later versions have experienced). So I have kept my M8 and still use it.

For this reason I did not even get a digital camera until about 2002 but stuck with film. Until the Nikon D70S came out (I stuck with Nikon as I already had Nikon lenses) my view was that digital cameras simply were not value for money. Today a couple of upgrades later, having purchased a second hand D200 to upgrade from the D70s, I still use a D700 which is still quite adequate for my needs (although for landscape work I may eventually get a D800 or some such because of the great increase in sensor resolution. Many others I know whould have gone D70s/D80/D200/D300/D700/D800/D810 etc by now.

But I have made mistakes too. Some years ago I lusted after a Panasonic L1 (which Leica was also rebadging as one of theirs) as it was the closest thing to a digital Leica then within my grasp. I did not foresee that the four thirds technology would be taken over by micro four thirds making this a dead end.

My advice to someone starting out would be as follows. (1) Buy a good camera that is one or two generations behind current models. Don't worry about that so long as it does what you ask of it. (2) Hang onto it for as long as you can and do not upgrade on a whim. Only do so when you have a real reason. (3) Put your money into the best lenses not the best and most current bodies which date much faster than lenses. (4) Invest in a mature system which is not going to suddenly start selling cameras that are not backward compatible and will require a whole system of lenses and accessories if you change. (5) Use your cameras as much as you can as they will not hold their value anyway.

A final thought. Although the speed of change has increased greatly what we are seeing is not new. Camera equipment makers have always had the problem of having to induce us to regularly buy new equipment so they can stay in business. Even when the change makes no sense. One of may favorite stories is this.

Back in the early days of SLR film cameras Pentax made a range of SLRs that they sold before the Spotmatic. One of these models was sold with a top shutter speed of 1000ths of a second and was marketed accordingly as a top end camera as that was unusual in the market then. When that market segment was full and sales declined they then marketed the identical camera (with a new top plate) as a slightly cheaper model with only 500th of a second top speed. But nothing had changed internally and if you knew the trick you could still shoot at 1000ths by turning the shutter speed dial one (unmarked) stop beyond the 500ths mark. It kind of shows how desperate makers are to sell, sell, sell.