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

Between a D3s or M9, I would get an M9. But I would not sell any of my SP's to do so.

Jarle was an early adopter of the D2x, as I recall. Was not long ago. Was not long ago that I paid "M9" prices for a D1x. One is in the classified for $125 (or $150) right now. D1x, that is.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Between a D3s or M9, I would get an M9. But I would not sell any of my SP's to do so.

Jarle was an early adopter of the D2x, as I recall. Was not long ago. Was not long ago that I paid "M9" prices for a D1x. One is in the classified for $125 (or $150) right now. D1x, that is.
Click to expand...

Well then, I rest my case. Jarle should have waited until now to buy his D2x, or maybe next year, or even the year after? They,ll hardly be worth anything then. He woildn't have had the pleasure of ownership in the mean time, but what the heck?
 
Talex said:
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.
Click to expand...

To me, depreciation on camera gear makes almost no sense, because I'm not planning on selling it: I'm planning on taking pictures with it. And I'll defend this from two directions.

Let's say I take 5000 pictures a year for 10 years with an M9: 50,000 pictures. Now let's say the camera costs $7000. That's 7 pics to the buck, near enough, or $700/year, assuming it's worth nothing in 10 years time. Not a problem. Cheaper than smoking; probably cheaper than my whisky bill.

From the other direction: to hell with the money, and with puritanical considerations of delayed gratification. I might die tomorrow. If an M9 is important to me, and I can afford it, I'd be a fool not to buy it. If it is not important to me, or if I can't afford it, I'd be a fool to buy it. Deciding what's important, and taking responsibility for your choices, seems reasonable to me. "Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord."

Admittedly cameras help me earn a living, so I want the ones that make it easiest and most enjoyable to do that. But why would I think differently if it were 'only' a hobby? I'd still want things to be as easy and enjoyable as possible.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Ezzie said:
Well then, I rest my case. Jarle should have waited until now to buy his D2x, or maybe next year, or even the year after? They,ll hardly be worth anything then. He woildn't have had the pleasure of ownership in the mean time, but what the heck?
Click to expand...

A link to Jarle's web site is featured on the Home page of the Nikon Historical Society. He collects antique Digital cameras, and runs a forum for them. Which I need to re-register for as my account seems messed up!

He would be very disappointed in his fellow Nikon Nuts if we did not properly chastise him on the thought of selling an SP for an M9.

He should just buy the M9. The "dent" in the M9 price that the sale of the SP will make is not worth the effort. I'd just buy the thing! And selling the three Titanium Shutter SP's that I have would come close to an M9. But I'm not doing it!

And pleasure of owning-

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-N8008S-AF...emQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item53dbe4e00e

I've had a DCS-200 for over 16 years now. It was $12,400. You can get one for under $50 these days! Calling Kodak and asking them do a custom run of the CCD's to leave off the IR cut filter was a pleasure. Only an extra $4,000. I don't think a call to Kodak to have them leave off the Bayer filter of the CCD in the M9 would work.
 
Last edited:
Just to add- if I posted a thread on selling my Leica gear to buy a Nikon RF, I would expect Roger to label such action as "crazy". And with 15 Nikon RF's, I would have to agree.
 
Cameras are tools. They are made to be used, to take pictures. Or have I misunderstood something here?
 
Yes, you are misunderstanding something here. Cameras can also be collectible, and typically represent state-of-art of technology of the day. Some of us enjoy using these antiques for their intended purpose, like taking the M3 out yesterday to get some pictures of Christmas decorations in the downtown area. And using the SP with a couple of lenses for Fall colors.

As hard as it is to believe, a few of us actually collect and use older Digital cameras as well. Jarle is one of these types. I shoot with a Nikon E3 made in 1998 more than any other Digital. I could get a D3s if I wanted one. The D1x is all I need for work. Also still keep the DCS200ir working. It's probably the last of its kind. It's a point of pride to be able to take the thing apart and make it keep working.

Having worked with Digital Sensors and cameras since 1981, you get nostalgic.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Buying a perfectly functional camera and putting in a closet so that I can tick it off a bragging list is an insult to the camera.
 
Jarles motivation to buying the Leica and consider selling the Nikons seems to be founded on photographic merit, not collectibility. If he was to profess that he suspects the Leica to be a future classic as his primary motivation, would that make things any better? I think not.
 
Ezzie said:
I disagree. Buying a perfectly functional camera and putting in a closet so that I can tick it off a bragging list is an insult to the camera.
Click to expand...

Disagree with what? My SP's get used, my 17 year-old DSLR gets used. Bragging rights- I keep them in good repair, mostly repairs that I do myself. then I load them up, and use them. Functioning as they were meant to. A lot better than sitting in someones attic or basement, rotting.

Get yourself a point and shoot to make your photographs with, it is all the tool that you need to make an image.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking in general terms. And the fact that Jarle's weren't getting used. I didn't address my views to your collecting mania specifically, did I?
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
To me, depreciation on camera gear makes almost no sense, because I'm not planning on selling it: I'm planning on taking pictures with it.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I'm not worried about depreciation. Not at all.

And I don't worry about "cost per picture" either. My philosophy: Purchasing a M9, the first photo will cost me $7000 (and then some) - the rest is free :)

I've bought plenty of expensive camera gear over the years, and kept most of it. I don't consider my gear an investment (except, perhaps, for a few rare collector's items).

I also agree that cameras should be used, not simply collected, which is why I'm considering selling my S2 and SP. They don't see as much action as they should, even if I still enjoy running some Tri-X through them once in a while.

Considering everything, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble selling them. If they could buy me a M9 I would sell them here and now - but they won't. Having slept on it, I'll probably keep the Nikons. I'll start saving instead.

Thanks again everyone. Interesting thread.

Jarle
 
Jarle Aasland said:
I completely agree. I'm not worried about depreciation. Not at all.

And I don't worry about "cost per picture" either. My philosophy: Purchasing a M9, the first photo will cost me $7000 (and then some) - the rest is free :)

I've bought plenty of expensive camera gear over the years, and kept most of it. I don't consider my gear an investment (except, perhaps, for a few rare collector's items).

I also agree that cameras should be used, not simply collected, which is why I'm considering selling my S2 and SP. They don't see as much action as they should, even if I still enjoy running some Tri-X through them once in a while.

Considering everything, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble selling them. If they could buy me a M9 I would sell them here and now - but they won't. Having slept on it, I'll probably keep the Nikons. I'll start saving instead.

Thanks again everyone. Interesting thread.

Jarle
Click to expand...

Dear Jarle,

That's it, really. Which is why I have absurd numbers of cameras, some of which, indeed, I have never used (though that normally applies only to cameras I was given, or that take weird film sizes).

The hassle of selling things, when you don't really need the money (and there were times when I was younger that I really needed £5 or £10), is sufficient that I can't be arsed to do it, unless perhaps by taking a stall at a camera show.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, I'm glad that Jarle came to his senses after sleeping on it. that M9 will go quite nicely next to a loaded SP. Can't beat Tri-X for monochrome images.

And it will save everyone from hearing the story from "Tales from the Darkroom" entitled

"Invasion of the Camera Body Snatchers"

Just glad Jarle did not put that SD card next to his bed before going to sleep...
 
Ezzie said:
I disagree. Buying a perfectly functional camera and putting in a closet so that I can tick it off a bragging list is an insult to the camera.
Click to expand...

It is not an insult to cameras, and most collectors I know (not photography equipment) are far from braggarts. Collectors preserve history and are usually the most knowledgeable experts.
 
Unless these have sentimental value, they're just cameras. They're not rare. I'd sell them. Think about what you want in life. That's something that only you can answer.
 
Tom A said:
If the M9 is what you want - get it - but know full well that the moment you have forked out $6000+ for it - Zeiss.Nikon/Sony etc will announce a new rangefinder with full frame and more Mp etc at 2/3rds of that price. This is Murphy's Law!
Click to expand...

Sage words indeed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom