Expensive Cameras

Build quality (= reliability and durability). Optical quality, though this is easy to overstate: as I say in The Quality Plateau, "Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera."

And never neglect either novelty -- anyone for a Tessina? -- or the sheer, mostly pernicious power of advertising and consumerism.

Cheers,

R.
 
Comparable cameras seem to cost the same regardless of brand, the result of competition, so if you are buying based on features, price really doesn't figure in the equation. Leica is of course an outlier.
 
bmattock said:
I don't have the kind of money y'all seem to have. That's the name of that tune.
Click to expand...

(Lyrics by Jason and the Nashville Scorchers): "Well, if money talks, I wish it'd speak to me because I need the conversation it's plain to see." 😀
 
I'll chime in as I just spent some hard earned money to buy a Sony A7 Mark III body.

Over the past couple of weeks I've been debating on upgrading my Sony A7 and have considered some cameras

Leica M10
Leica M10-D
Fuji GFX 50R
Fuji X-T3
Sony A7R Mark III
Sony A7 Mark III
Sony A7R Mark II

Ultimately, I decided to go with the Sony A7 Mark III as I deemed it had the best bang for the buck with its improved battery life, AF and silent shutter mode.
Plus this way I didn't have to sell my Sony prime native lenses which are more than enough for my need.
The Fuji X-T3 and both A7R Mark II and III were next close and the Fuji GFX and Leica M cameras last because of their high entry price point.

The 42MP FF and 50MP MF sensors were enticing and I can see myself getting either A7R II or III down the road but looking at my LR catalog and going through some past photos, 24MP FF is more than enough for my travel and landscape photography need.
I've read other photographers opinion on why they think 42+ MP is the way to go and I don't fully agree with them.
Most believe that High MP allows them to just crop later on post requiring them only to bring 2-3 lenses.
The other point is that for a majority of hobby/enthusiast photographers, a good photo is only made when sharp corner to corner photo is taken.
I understand both points and I can see them useful for landscape photography that have already mastered their craft and composition but not so much for casual photographers.

Regarding cell phones, I have no problem upgrading it every other year as you have to also think that these devices are just not phones, they are basically our computer now a days. Because of my work in IT, I spend as much time on my cellphone as on my desktop or laptop. Battery life degrades over time and computing power and resources requirements increases over time.
Now, if I was retired and was photographing with a camera only, then I wouldn't see the need of upgrading my phone often.
 
Style, class and hype are what makes an expensive camera worth it. Like a Konica Big Mini for USD 275 😀 Or said M10.

I think that while Taemo's assessment of 'a good photograph' might be true for hobbyist and enthusiast photographers, in general 'a good photograph' to most viewers means emotion. They want to see someone or something they feel related to and couldn't care less about color rendering, composition, sharpness etc. For the rest of them, it's about prospect: they either look good in the picture, or they can make themselves look good showing them to co-workers and bosses or to friends and relatives.
Camera brand and price have nothing to do with those aspects.
 
Saul said:
(Lyrics by Jason and the Nashville Scorchers): "Well, if money talks, I wish it'd speak to me because I need the conversation it's plain to see." 😀
Click to expand...

I'm not without funds. I am simply not willing to spend incredible amounts of money on camera gear for the sake of I don't know what.
 
These are luxury products: They are capable of taking good quality photographs, but their real aim is to make us feel good about ourselves, and as such, no one really cares that the DxO scores can be matched for far less money.
 
The problem with chasing those scores, which by the way do not count for actual usability, is as consumers you will never catch up. There will always be a latest and greatest. The point should be finding equipment that best matches the way you see and work because believe me the M 10 is perfectly capable of capturing my vision. The real key is seeing.

My Leica color M digitals are the tools I choose for my pro work because they do match the way I see and work. Nothing luxury about that. My go to camera for my personal work is still the original MM. None of those cameras my M 10s or the MM in any way limit me. In fact I would say they are cameras that just get out of my way and let me create.
 
Over-analysis of the cost of cameras, just like in every other thing, is mostly a waste of one's time and energy.

There are plenty of nice cameras in the world. Some work better than others, some have better lenses than others, some are better made than others, and of course some are more expensive than others. I prefer to concentrate on what works best for me, what lenses image the way I want, and what is put together well so it's durable and reliable. Whatever price is required to obtain those three things is what I pay, presuming I can afford it.

Obviously, there are many that are out of my reach due to price. I'm fine with that, and celebrate for those folks who are lucky and wealthy enough to enjoy them.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If you look at 35/fullframe and APS format SLRs and Mirrorless systems, the main difference between a cheap model and expensive model is not image quality. It is build quality.
Click to expand...

There's also megapixels, the current mega-mega-pixel cameras adds to the price. (I'm very happy with 24 MPx.)

Also features, like image stabilization, sensor shift, better flash systems.
 
One more comment: Playing at the state of the art is expensive.

Whatever newly introduced hot digital item that has you salivating now will be only half as expensive in 18-36 months. Ditto for golf clubs. You delay getting any benefits of the new features, and you lose the prestige of having the latest, but it's a lot less expensive to buy one generation behind the bleeding edge.

That would be, for example, the A6000, the A7ii, or the D600 today.
 
I have had a lot less problems with my Leicas than had with my Canons even with the sensor replacement. I had a complete shutter failure with a fairly new Canon when I was shooting for NATO in Chicago in 2012. I had a 1SsMKII show up to me from CPS DOA. I had Canon DSLRs for over a decade. I do miss CPS but I do not miss the Canons.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
One more comment: Playing at the state of the art is expensive.

Whatever newly introduced hot digital item that has you salivating now will be only half as expensive in 18-36 months. Ditto for golf clubs. You delay getting any benefits of the new features, and you lose the prestige of having the latest, but it's a lot less expensive to buy one generation behind the bleeding edge.

That would be, for example, the A6000, the A7ii, or the D600 today.
Click to expand...

Add the A7RII to that list as well. 2015 it was $3200, can purchase it new today for $1600 and that will include $100 or so of accessories.(4 tb drive, or a Thinktank camera bag + memory card)

And it is still one of the best sensors out there. Add the Techart Pro adapter and use all your existing RF lenses on the Sony with Auto Focus.

Shawn
 
bmattock said:
I'm not without funds. I am simply not willing to spend incredible amounts of money on camera gear for the sake of I don't know what.
Click to expand...

I hear you on that. My actual needs are met and it's always about improving the vision and lighting for me.

But I just love those lyrics!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bololoco
Cameras to fix
2
Replies
30
Views
828
Mos6502
Mos6502
Bololoco
New to camera repairs
2
Replies
25
Views
710
Muggins
Muggins
J
Olympus 35 RC - Missing Part
Replies
9
Views
342
Jon6565
J
A
Pana Leica 12mm f1.4 vs Pana 24mm f1.8, thinking
Replies
3
Views
228
Archiver
A
Mark240590
Lomography Jupiter 3+ Users ?
Replies
11
Views
885
santino
santino
Back
Top Bottom