Expensive Cameras

[peterm1]

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

The good thing about digital cameras is that prices always come down. Which is why I am always happy to buy someone else's hand me downs. I can see little point in paying full sticker for the latest, hottest camera body when I know that if I hold out for a couple of years I will pick it up for a fraction of the original list price demanded when it was new. And I will pay even less if I buy second hand. Patience and this strategy allows me to own relatively top end cameras and lenses if that is my wish, at a price I am willing to pay.

 

[Dan]

In that context the build quality of digital Leicas is not very good at all.
But they are so nice in hand they feel like they are high quality pieces, however misleading that may be.

That's the first comment of yours I completely agree with 😀

 

[colker]

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.

Canons? No. get a Nikon!😀

(i am sure someone will chime in w/a horror story of Nikons falling apart)

 

[airfrogusmc]

Canons? No. get a Nikon!😀

(i am sure someone will chime in w/a horror story of nNikons falling apart)

Anything mechanical will fail at some point. My experience is I have had less issues with my Leicas than I have with Canons when talking digital.

 

[bmattock]

20 year build quality means nothing when the camera is digital. Technology renders it an expensive paperweight. There's zero point in chasing that dragon.

 

[Darthfeeble]

20 year build quality means nothing when the camera is digital. Technology renders it an expensive paperweight. There's zero point in chasing that dragon.

Gee, I don't know, but my 14 year old Epson RD1 still works and takes a pretty nice image. If I hadn't flubbed the freebie sensor replacement I would still be shooting my 8 or 10 year old M9, preferring it to the newer M digitals.

 

[KM-25]

I'd say buy what you want or need, regardless of if you earn a living with it or do it only as a hobby. I don't always go for the highest price items, use 1.8 glass instead of 1.4 for my Nikons, bought a Z6 instead of a Z7, would rather pay to have the shutter upgraded on my M10 than buy an M10P, etc.

I have had no more issues with the build quality on any of my digital cameras compared to ones that use film, including the M10 which had to go in to have an orientation sensor replaced.

I don't chase tech either by the way, I usually have to upgrade or replace digital bodies because I put hundreds of thousands of frames on them and prefer to update instead of repair out of warranty.

It does not matter what I need to make a great image, it's not about using only the minimum requirement either. It's about buying the gear that suits my vision and then getting on with it. If it happens to be a $12,000 Leica M10 and 35mm 1.4, I can assure you I am making my best images with it because a lot of thought goes into making the decision to buy that tool.

 

[bmattock]

Gee, I don't know, but my 14 year old Epson RD1 still works and takes a pretty nice image. If I hadn't flubbed the freebie sensor replacement I would still be shooting my 8 or 10 year old M9, preferring it to the newer M digitals.

14 years. Check back at 20, 25, 35, etc.

I shoot my 2004 Pentax *ist DS too, but fact is my 1964 Canon FX is still capable of FF 35mm with zero degradation in quality. My Pentax won't fare as well at that age, I'd guess.

 

[BillBingham2]

14 years. Check back at 20, 25, 35, etc.
....

I used to say the same thing about the Nikon EM. The issue is more connectivity to new technology.

B2 (;->

 

[Corran]

I freelance for one of the largest photography companies in the world.

The company sends out gear for us and we exclusively use the lowest-end Nikon DSLR from 2 generations ago, with kit lenses and set on small basic jpeg, with a flash and large battery pack.

Yesterday while taking candids with said gear I popped a photo of a family who were getting photos taken by one of the family members (younger one too) using a Leica M240. I had him get in the shot so the whole family was there. I balanced the background exposure with flash using a mix of Shutter priority and TTL flash modes with a diffuser, and the photos come out looking great - guarantee better than the Leica w/o flash in the middle of the afternoon.

The camera doesn't matter.

 

[Huss]

That's the first comment of yours I completely agree with 😀

Then I take it back.

😀

 

[Godfrey]

14 years. Check back at 20, 25, 35, etc.

I shoot my 2004 Pentax *ist DS too, but fact is my 1964 Canon FX is still capable of FF 35mm with zero degradation in quality. My Pentax won't fare as well at that age, I'd guess.

I might be around to check in with my Olympus E-1 when it's 20, in 2023, and maybe when it's 30, in 2033, but it'll be getting dicey after that point because I'll be 80 in 2034. I really don't care much if my cameras outlive me. 😀

The Polaroid SX-70 I made some photos with yesterday is 45 and still going strong, I'm happy that someone cared enough to keep making film for it. It's now outlived my uncle, who was the original owner. I'm sure he no longer cares...

 

[bmattock]

I used to say the same thing about the Nikon EM. The issue is more connectivity to new technology.

B2 (;->

No it's literally the tech itself. A frame of film remains a frame of film. Doesn't change in a 50 year old camera vs a 5 year old camera. My 1/3 mp Olympus from 1998 is completely outclassed and essentially worthless. There will never come a day when someone clamors for its qualities. This is the fundamental flaw in the logic of instilling 50 year build quality in kit that will shortly be obsolete.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Whether a high end, top of the range, cutting edge, expensive camera or a bottom of the range, no frills, basic camera, both equally become just another dud when parts are no longer available… increasingly so with today’s electronics. And this now very much applies to lenses with electronic motors and image stabilisation gismos.

There are plenty of examples: from high end to basic manufacturers too numerous to mention but one camera I own comes to mind: the Rollei 6008 Integral II. A fantastic, class leading, quality two-and-a quarter inch square camera built without compromise or cost. But when, eventually, its electronics fail, it will be just another big, fat paperweight.

 

[Archiver]

As with anything else, price is amortized over the lifespan of the camera, and some aspects are hard to quantify, like enjoyment. In another year, my M9 will have cost me $1000 AUD per year to own and shoot, as I've had it since early 2010. My Sigma DP1 has cost me $100 per year to own as it is now ten years old. And in each instance, I feel that these cameras are well worth the money from the enjoyment of usage.

Cost can also be amortized over usage and financial return. The Panasonic GH4 has been my workhorse video camera for three years straight, and brought in many, many times the amount it cost. The lenses can be used on any m43 body, too.

Some cameras have features which only appear in the more expensive models, so you're paying for that access. As we all know, Leica is the only current digital rangefinder manufacturer, so if that's what you want, it's the only game in town and you must pay the price of admission. Digital medium format? Fast and wide glass? Pay up, or you won't get it.

 

[shawn]

No it's literally the tech itself. A frame of film remains a frame of film. Doesn't change in a 50 year old camera vs a 5 year old camera. My 1/3 mp Olympus from 1998 is completely outclassed and essentially worthless. There will never come a day when someone clamors for its qualities. This is the fundamental flaw in the logic of instilling 50 year build quality in kit that will shortly be obsolete.

You are talking about a digital camera from when the technology was in its infancy and comparing it to current technology. Digital is getting to the point where the rate of sensor improvement is slowing down compared to the early days of digital.

Same thing happened with chemical photography too comparing its infancy to current film technology. Initial efforts were outclassed by further refinements. After the chemical process matured (and standardized) we got to the point where cameras had a very long useful life. That doesn't mean there weren't improvements/change to other aspects of cameras over time. My Retina 117 (first standardized 35mm camera) is a very different camera than my F5.

Of course sensors will continue to improve but it is in the everything else category (live view, mirrorless, etc) where bigger changes are occurring, IMO.

Shawn

 

[al1966]

I am quite pleased to buy out of date cameras given how much as others have noted they devalue and I am not so sure the gains are that much now with new models. I shoot in raw aperture priority and rarely print above 12x16" so last gen m43 with 16mp is plenty for day to day. If something requires a massive amount of resolution then either buy a used MF , then sell or rent depending on what will cost the least. Better to spend the money on lenses that you use a lot and pick up a used body when they have devalued into your price point.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As with anything else, price is amortized over the lifespan of the camera, and some aspects are hard to quantify, like enjoyment. In another year, my M9 will have cost me $1000 AUD per year to own and shoot, as I've had it since early 2010. My Sigma DP1 has cost me $100 per year to own as it is now ten years old. And in each instance, I feel that these cameras are well worth the money from the enjoyment of usage.

Cost can also be amortized over usage and financial return. The Panasonic GH4 has been my workhorse video camera for three years straight, and brought in many, many times the amount it cost. The lenses can be used on any m43 body, too.

Some cameras have features which only appear in the more expensive models, so you're paying for that access. As we all know, Leica is the only current digital rangefinder manufacturer, so if that's what you want, it's the only game in town and you must pay the price of admission. Digital medium format? Fast and wide glass? Pay up, or you won't get it.

All indisputably true, but you're looking at it logically, not emotionally. Leicas, above all, are cameras where some buy them because they're actually quite good cameras for a particular kind of photography; some buy them because they're expensive and help validate the buyer's (often illusory) sense of self-worth; and some hate because they're reverse snobs or have never tried one or both. And of course there are those who have tried them; don't get on with them; and (for whatever reason) think that everyone else should react in exactly the same way as they did.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

You are talking about a digital camera from when the technology was in its infancy and comparing it to current technology. Digital is getting to the point where the rate of sensor improvement is slowing down compared to the early days of digital.

Same thing happened with chemical photography too comparing its infancy to current film technology. Initial efforts were outclassed by further refinements. After the chemical process matured (and standardized) we got to the point where cameras had a very long useful life. That doesn't mean there weren't improvements/change to other aspects of cameras over time. My Retina 117 (first standardized 35mm camera) is a very different camera than my F5.

Of course sensors will continue to improve but it is in the everything else category (live view, mirrorless, etc) where bigger changes are occurring, IMO.

Shawn

Time will prove me right. In the meantime, carry on your incorrect assumptions.

 

[Dogman]

I am quite pleased to buy out of date cameras given how much as others have noted they devalue and I am not so sure the gains are that much now with new models. I shoot in raw aperture priority and rarely print above 12x16" so last gen m43 with 16mp is plenty for day to day....Better to spend the money on lenses that you use a lot and pick up a used body when they have devalued into your price point.

A photographer after my own heart! Until I bought a used Fuji X-Pro2, I didn't own any cameras in current production. Buying used or new but discontinued cameras makes it possible to own expensive cameras without too much expense.

Every camera eventually becomes landfill or a museum piece. When there are no more parts available for Barnacks and M's and no more technicians around to repair them, they're toast.