Collectors and users

[David Murphy]

Well if they came back, that is really, really good. I like the Rollei 35, but not to the tune of 4300 Euros!. New Rollei cameras are not stocked anywhere in the USA that I can find at the moment. On eBay damaged Rollei 2.8C's are bidding up to $800 and good a decent 2.8F will sell for well over $1000 - big money to most of us, and much more than they were 2-3 years ago. Mind you these are 50-60 year old mass produced cameras, not rarities, and they usually need servicing. In reality though everything on eBay is getting more expensive lately since the fees there take about 10% of a sale (experienced sellers know how to pass these fees along to the buyer - tribute to eBay/PayPal).

Dear David,

Sorry, you're wrong on two counts (Insert smilies, etc., to soften the harshness of that statement). Yes I have seen insanely expensive Rolleis -- and new ones at that, at photokina.

Franke and Heidecke was wound up and reconstituted (because that's the only easy way to shed staff in Germany) as DHW, who had a stand at the show. Quite a big stand. They are making the SLR, the full range of TLRs, and Rollei 35s, all in Germany. The Rollei 35s are 4300€ each, call it $5800. The TLRs are, predictably, even more expensive. The site is www.dhw-fototechnik.de, aber Die Seite befindet sich im Aufbau if you go to it (Under Construction).


Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

This is the best special edition ever... I want one so I can use it... 😀

 

[damien.murphy]

At 50% upgrade cost, it is about as cost-effective to sell the old camera and buy a new one. Noise isolation, heat dissipation, component size makes it difficult to design a housing that will be optimal for current and future technology. It either ties the hands of the engineer designing the next-generation of electronics, or forces "what-if Over-Engineering" into the current packaging. The latter usually means bigger and heavier bodies. If someone took apart an M9 and M8, laid the body and electronics out side-by-side, it would be interesting to see what small changes were required for the new generation of components.

You could argue the same about film M development, and how remaining true to the classic M film body hampered Leica's efforts to add new features such as metering to later M's.

I think your argument, while it might make economical sense to your average camera buyer, is a little different to the mindset to the average M user, for whom durability for one is an important characteristic. Also I feel the disposable character of most digital cameras, typified by the 'if it breaks, just buy a new one' philosophy, is a little alien to film M users at least.

Personally speaking, I could handle a little over-engineering, even if it increases the size of the body over a film M. It gives me a great kick to be shooting with cameras that are older than me, and dare I say a little pride of ownership.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Leica did this with the DMR, and that approach would lend itself to a camera with upgradeable electronics. The shutter mechanism, viewfinder, etc in one unit with the digital system implemented as a back. That would allow the design to accommodate upgrades in the future.

A number of people complained about the greater thichness of the M8/M9 body. A digital back would probably be thicker. If future electronics allowed a return to the thickness of an M3, I am sure it would be a popular move even if it was not upgradeable.

It gives me a great kick to be shooting with cameras that are older than me, and dare I say a little pride of ownership.

I should add- I have used Digital Imagers since about the time you were born, ~1981, they were extremely big and required a rack of electronics. The oldest Digital camera that I have that is in operating condition is a 17-year old Kodak DCS200.

 

[damien.murphy]

Leica did this with the DMR, and that approach would lend itself to a camera with upgradeable electronics. The shutter mechanism, viewfinder, etc in one unit with the digital system implemented as a back. That would allow the design to accommodate upgrades in the future.

A number of people complained about the greater thichness of the M8/M9 body. A digital back would probably be thicker. If future electronics allowed a return to the thickness of an M3, I am sure it would be a popular move even if it was not upgradeable.





I should add- I have used Digital Imagers since about the time you were born, ~1981, they were extremely big and required a rack of electronics. The oldest Digital camera that I have that is in operating condition is a 17-year old Kodak DCS200.

I take your point Brian, but fear we're drifting off-topic 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I'll pull us back on track.

Collectible and usable. Nikon E3, full-frame Digital camera, 1997. This is SN67, probably less than 100 made.

I still use it at work, great for macro work as it takes the SB-29 made for Nikon's film cameras. one-point-three million pixels. But good enough for a report.

 

[damien.murphy]

I'll pull us back on track.

Collectible and usable. Nikon E3, full-frame Digital camera, 1997. This is SN67, probably less than 100 made.

I still use it at work, great for macro work as it takes the SB-29 made for Nikon's film cameras. one-point-three million pixels. But good enough for a report.

Lol, I suspect it has its work cut out to topple the Hello Kitty crown 🙂

On less trivial note, are digital cameras regarded as collectable ? I'm curious

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A few of the earliest ones are collectible. Go figure. I bought the Kodak DCS200ir new, in 1993 for "A LOT" of money. They go for $50 on Ebay. The earlier DCS100 goes for more, it was "first". The Nikon E3 was originally $7000, I picked it up for $200 about 5 years ago. Some are going for over $1000 now. If you want a cheap, early Digital camera to play with Ebay Search "Fujix".

 

[Ben Z]

It's just that few of us can afford to collect new, limited edition Leicas. So why should we denigrate those who do?


So how much of the sniping at collectors is simply sour grapes?

Cheers,

R.

Whether it's sour grapes or just being a sour person, IMHO sniping and/or denigrating anyone for doing anything that isn't causing harm to anyone, only reflects badly on the person doing the sniping/denigrating. Billions of people collect things. Baseball cards, stamps, coins, art...and scads of utilitarian items which (like the typical anti-camera-collecting "argument" goes) were "meant to be used". I sometimes wonder though if there's something specific about Leicas that triggers certain people's rage, or do they hang around stadiums denigrating guys for collecting sports memorabilia. I suppose not...too much chance for a poke in the nose, unlike the safety of their computer 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whether it's sour grapes or just being a sour person, IMHO sniping and/or denigrating anyone for doing anything that isn't causing harm to anyone, only reflects badly on the person doing the sniping/denigrating. Billions of people collect things. Baseball cards, stamps, coins, art...and scads of utilitarian items which (like the typical anti-camera-collecting "argument" goes) were "meant to be used". I sometimes wonder though if there's something specific about Leicas that triggers certain people's rage, or do they hang around stadiums denigrating guys for collecting sports memorabilia. I suppose not...too much chance for a poke in the nose, unlike the safety of their computer 😉

Probably the price. As a schoolboy I collected matchbox labels. As far as I know, there aren't any that sell for vast sums (at least, there weren't then, though there may be now) so it's regarded as a harmless eccentricity: 'poor fool'. People have much more of a problem with 'rich fools', even though they aren't necessarily all that rich or all that foolish.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mynikonf2]

Whether it's sour grapes or just being a sour person, IMHO sniping and/or denigrating anyone for doing anything that isn't causing harm to anyone, only reflects badly on the person doing the sniping/denigrating. Billions of people collect things. Baseball cards, stamps, coins, art...and scads of utilitarian items which (like the typical anti-camera-collecting "argument" goes) were "meant to be used". I sometimes wonder though if there's something specific about Leicas that triggers certain people's rage, or do they hang around stadiums denigrating guys for collecting sports memorabilia. I suppose not...too much chance for a poke in the nose, unlike the safety of their computer 😉

AMEN!!! could'nt agree with you more. 😎

 

[ferider]

Whether it's sour grapes or just being a sour person, IMHO sniping and/or denigrating anyone for doing anything that isn't causing harm to anyone, only reflects badly on the person doing the sniping/denigrating. Billions of people collect things. Baseball cards, stamps, coins, art...and scads of utilitarian items which (like the typical anti-camera-collecting "argument" goes) were "meant to be used". I sometimes wonder though if there's something specific about Leicas that triggers certain people's rage, or do they hang around stadiums denigrating guys for collecting sports memorabilia. I suppose not...too much chance for a poke in the nose, unlike the safety of their computer 😉

Agreed.

Probably the price.

Don't think so. Some people collect cars and are at the worst considered excentric.

However, no car collector thinks of him/herself as professional race car driver.

What makes Leicas special is the frequent/wrong association of Leica with "good photography", that owning a Leica makes you belong to some kind of elite. "You buy a Leica, you are a good photographer." It's arrogance that p*sses people of. Either by the person who bought a Leica, by the person who doesn't think it's worth the money, or by the person that tells others that you have to have one, for whatever rationalized reason.

What makes it worse is that "professional" or "good" photography is impossible to define.

Now take a proud Leica owner and have him brag about eating caviar for breakfast and see what you get .... 🙄

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

well one interesting thing about collecting is you often find that the most effective tool is the least rare or collectible piece in the collection.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agreed.



Don't think so. Some people collect cars and are at the worst considered excentric.

However, no car collector thinks of him/herself as professional race car driver.

What makes Leicas special is the frequent/wrong association of Leica with "good photography", that owning a Leica makes you belong to some kind of elite. "You buy a Leica, you are a good photographer." It's arrogance that p*sses people of. Either by the person who bought a Leica, by the person who doesn't think it's worth the money, or by the person that tells others that you have to have one, for whatever rationalized reason.

What makes it worse is that "professional" or "good" photography is impossible to define.

Now take a proud Leica owner and have him brag about eating caviar for breakfast and see what you get .... 🙄

Roland.

Dear Roland,

That's not the same as collecting, though, is it? Buying a Leica to take pictures, even if you are a completely useless photographer, is exactly like buying any other camera to take pictures. 'Collecting' implies rather more than just one Leica, or even two or three, and it doesn't imply taking pictures.

Besides, what's wrong with caviar for breakfast? I've only ever had it for breakfast twice in my life -- real sturgeon caviar, that is -- but I'd do it a lot more often if I could afford it. Well, and if sturgeon weren't in serious danger of decline from overfishing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I wonder how many collectors also work on the equipment themselves?

Most of the camera equipment that I buy is in "less than pristine" condition, some of it is inoperable. I take pride in using a piece of equipment that I fixed, or improved. Users, Collectors, tinkerers. It's fun. Collectors tend to preserve state, users tend to sometimes break things, tinkerers try to improve things.

 

[Roger Hicks]

LOL 😀

Didn't understand but did a Google search and found the breakfast menu. Wow. 😱


Way to go Roger!

.

Well, I'd quite forgotten about it. But

(1) I'd not call it bragging -- the point was to compare a 'luxury' breakfast with a $2.99 cheeseburger (and I know which I'd rather have). Perhaps the 'bragging' is in the eye of the beholder?

(2) Calling me a 'proud Leica owner' is a bit weird. Happy Leica owner, yes, but I don't really see it as 'proud'. I'm no more proud of my Leicas than I am of the boots I wear or the computer on which I'm typing this: I need cameras, boots and computers, and I choose to buy Leicas. I'm quite proud of earning a living as a writer and photographer for some decades, though.

(3) Lumpfish 'caviar' is not expensive stuff (about 4€ for a 100g pot). In fact I had some for breakfast this morning (about 1/3 pot), with two hard-boiled eggs, some Hellman's mayonnaise (honestly!) and a glass of white Bordeaux. Total cost less than 3€.

True caviar is another matter. As I say, I've had it for breakfast twice in my life, but I'd do it a lot more often if I could.

I should add that when I say 'breakfast' I really mean 'brunch', i.e. the first meal of the day, which I typically take around 11:00 -- I don't normally eat a separate lunch.


Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I didn't.

Not me either.

Bon appétit! 🙂

Sorry, Carlos, I didn't mean to imply that you did. It was your rediscovery of the breakfast menus -- which as I say, I had quite forgotten -- which led me to reply to your letter, not Roland's. Once again, my apologies for not being clearer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

I'm hungry now - something like smoked fish and eggs and some toast - yum.

Back to the topic, I often perceive in myself and a few others the use of the value-by-association or value-through-ownership syllogism. I'll use Leica as an example, but any higher-end brand works:

1. I have a Leica.
2. Leicas are wonderfully capable/valuable/exquisite.
3. Therefore, I am wonderfully capable/valuable/exquisite.

Sound reasoning, but invalid as to conclusion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm hungry now - something like smoked fish and eggs and some toast - yum.

Back to the topic, I often perceive in myself and a few others the use of the value-by-association or value-through-ownership syllogism. I'll use Leica as an example, but any higher-end brand works:

1. I have a Leica.
2. Leicas are wonderfully capable/valuable/exquisite.
3. Therefore, I am wonderfully capable/valuable/exquisite.

Sound reasoning, but invalid as to conclusion.

Dear Mike,

An omitted middle, I think.Unlike mine, given the way I eat. Just off to make some skorthalia to accompany lamb croquettes and steamed vegetables...

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

Roger, sounds delightful. May the garlic be brilliant with the croquettes. Bon appetit!

--Mike