Considering selling Nikon S2, SP to fund M9 - crazy?

Wait a year , then the M9 would sell for half what it is today. Just like any other digital camera.
If it was me, I'd rent one for a couple of weeks, make sure my $6k love lasts before I spend it.
Too Bad, one can't do that with the wife.

Kiu
 
Last edited:
I use an LTM to F-Mount converter on the E3 for a Full-frame digital camera.

You DO have an E3, right? Or did you get the fancy E3n...
 
As much as I like Nikon RF cameras, I would sell them if getting the M9 meant more time doing actual photography and enjoying it.
"Sell Nikon for digital Leica "... I never thought that I would ever say that, but life is too short not to spend more time doing what you like doing best.
 
I guess many of us have been at this stage of want and need. The M9 is a great camera for what it is and so are those Nikons. if you will shoot more with the M9 and will not break your finances, then go for it. If you shoot mostly B&W then you need to re think as the cost is too high for those occasional colored pics. Film is best for this medium IMHO. I've waited 2 years since I started RF to get my RD1 and I did managed to find it at a reasonable price here just a few days ago, I was waiting for the digital ZI/VC but I think if it does happen, 2011 will be the earliest. What if Nikon decides to have a digital FM3a FF. They can probably do this in a short time or maybe Nikon has already something in the drawing board, they can be fast as the technology is already there.
 
Jarle Aasland said:
I'm considering selling my S2 and SP (both with 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors) to help fund a Leica M9.

I don't use them as often as I should, and I'm really in love with the M9 (you can read my review here: http://www.nikonweb.com/m9).

I know it's a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. What would you do?
Click to expand...

It's a bad idea, and I'll tell you why just as clearly as I can, but using slightly different examples.

Years ago, I sold a complete Bronica outfit -- and I mean complete -- to fund the purchase of a new computer. I got a good price for the outfit, and bought a top-of-the-line computer with the proceeds.

Three short years later, the computer was finally retired and was essentially worthless, but whoever bought my Bronica, I'm sure, was still enjoying it with no feeling that it had been diminished in its capacity in any way.

Most recently, I sold a very nice and fairly rare guitar to fund the upgrading of a couple of the family computers, plus to buy a scanner and a good printer. You'd think I would learn, wouldn't you? I have no doubt that five years from now, all of the items I bought with the proceeds from the sale of this very nice and fairly rare guitar will have become quite long in the tooth and will have little if any value. But the guy who bought my guitar will be content in the satisfaction that it is worth more -- perhaps substantially more -- than it was when he bought it from me.

The problem with digital cameras is that they are photographic computers. They are very quickly obsolesced and thus represent exceptionally poor investments. One thing is certain: if you sell your Nikon RFs to buy an M9, in a few years time the M9 will be worth less than it is now, and the Nikon RFs will be worth more.

Something to think about.
 
Last edited:
cooltouch said:
One thing is certain: if you sell your Nikon RFs to buy an M9, in a few years time the M9 will be worth less than it is now, and the Nikon RFs will be worth more.

Something to think about.
Click to expand...

And?

He's talking about buying a camera, not about investing in something to sell later. A camera is for taking pictures. And, pretty though Nikon RFs are, I have less than zero doubt about which I find the more usable camera.

If I'd hung onto my Stereoly and viewer, or mint, boxed IIIg, or original black M3, or all kinds of other collectibles I've owned over the years, they'd be worth a lot more now than when I sold them. I don't care. I've had far more money's worth, and enjoyment, out of the things I bought with that money, than from a collectible I don't use.

Also, how is the M9 going to be 'obsolesced' (not a verb I've seen before)? If it takes 18 megapixel images now, it'll go on taking them. There are no new 'modes' to add, and though of course there may be improvements (higher ISO/less noise being an obvious example), these may or may not matter to any given photographer. Sure, they'd be nice to have, but what of it?

Drawing parallels between electronics in cameras, and computers, is a bit like drawing parallels between electronics in cars, and computers. A Rolls Royce has electronic engine management. Does this mean is it 'obsolesced' when newer engine managemet systems come out?

Sorry, I just can't begin to buy your argument.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
My take: If the Nikons are fully functional and you don't use them, sell them! Had I been in the same situation, letting good stuff rot that would be better off in the hands of someone intent on using them, would nag at my conscience day in, day out.
 
My guess is no matter how many photos you take with the M9, you'll regret selling the Nikons. Buy something like the d-lux4, use that for awhile nand see if you really need a M9 at $7,000 plus the expense of lenses.
 
jack palmer said:
My guess is no matter how many photos you take with the M9, you'll regret selling the Nikons. Buy something like the d-lux4, use that for awhile nand see if you really need a M9 at $7,000 plus the expense of lenses.
Click to expand...

Sure, you always regret things a little bit. But learning that life consists of choices is a part of growing up. The trick lies in making the best choices you can, and deciding not to regret anything you did unless it was really, really stupid -- into which category it is hard to fit the sale of two elderly cameras you don't use very much.

I really can't agree with the idea of buying a D-Lux instead of an M9. that's a bit like saying 'buy a moped instead of a motorcycle' or 'buy a pair of trainers instead of walking boots'. There's just no real comparison.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Jarle knows what the M9 is about. He's smitten. For how long is the question? I for one could not leave two lovely Nikon RFs lie about unused, they'd have to go.

Jarle: Gjør det, gjør det, gjør det. Du angrer kun på de du ikke gjorde, sjeldent på det du har gjort.
 
If you are not using the Nikons, you might as well sell it and get something you will use.

However, from a depreciation point of view, the M9 will drop much more than the Nikon S2 and SP in 5 years. That's just the nature of all digital cameras, whereas vintage film cameras such as your Nikons are fairly stable in value over time.

If you count the initial acquisition cost of the M9, plus the cost of acquiring Leica lenes, plus the depreciation hit over time, and the opportunity costs of not having your S2 and SP, then that gives you a better picture how much it will cost you to buy the M9.
 
You can't really bring depreiciation into it. The Nikons no longer pay their way, they are at the moment expensive, albeit pretty, bricks of metal. The M9 however will be paying its way, you can't put a price on the pictures it will be taking during said 5 year period.
 
Ezzie said:
You can't really bring depreiciation into it. The Nikons no longer pay their way, they are at the moment expensive, albeit pretty, bricks of metal. The M9 however will be paying its way, you can't put a price on the pictures it will be taking during said 5 year period.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by the M9 will be paying its way...could you clarify? If you mean that the M9 will be used more, then yes, I would agree with you.

However, I am pointing out the costs of moving to the M9 is more than just the list price of the camera alone.

Depreciation is a huge issue with digital cameras, even the M9. In comparison, the Nikons have already been through the depreciation hit, and the current value is fairly stable.
 
And why I say depreciation is a moot point, is that if you let yourself be guided by the possiblity of something being less valued in a year or five, than at present, then you'll never end up buying anything. A working camera is an investment in the pictures it will be taking, not in itself.
 
I would disagree with you on this point. For most people, money is limited resource, that's why depreciation matters.

You say: "if you let yourself be guided by the possiblity of something being less valued in a year or five, than at present, then you'll never end up buying anything."

That argument does not make sense to me, because I can use depreciation as a guide to buy something after its primary depreciation hit. It simply means delayed gratification, instead of "never end up buying anything" as you suggest.

In the meantime, I can buy M8 for a fraction of what they sold for last year. I expect in a few more years, I can do the same for the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom