Expensive Cameras

[Bill Pierce]

What makes an expensive camera worth it? Medium format cameras are expensive in part because they have expensive sensors. Bigger is better and costs more to produce, especially when you are trying to avoid dead pixels. But, in the end, the improvement in image quality is worth it to some photographers.

What about cell phones? For many that is their camera of choice. Are they getting their money’s worth when they buy a $1000 phone. It is a camera that is always with you and always ready to shoot. Does that make it worth it?

A current digital Leica M is going to cost somewhere between $5,500 and $8,000 with its more popular lenses ranging between $1,800 and $6,600. And yet, DxO mark gives the M10 a score of 86 (102 is their current high score) and describes its quality of its full frame sensor as similar to the best APS-C chips. But for a photographer moving from film Leicas, does the lens compatibility with his old lenses and the operating simplicity make it worthwhile?

All of this is complicated by the introduction of a great many less expensive, main stream digital cameras that deliver technically excellent results. Maybe what we looking at in these expensive cameras is a uniqueness, the fact that they are very different from the main stream. I really don’t know, but would love to know what you think about expensive cameras.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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. The expensive ones are made of metal and are weather sealed to keep out rain and dust. Cheap models are plastic and not sealed.

 

[peterm1]

"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. The expensive ones are made of metal and are weather sealed to keep out rain and dust. Cheap models are plastic and not sealed." (Chris Crawford)

Yes I agree. On a few occasions I have bought cheap model cameras deliberately because they are cheap - knowing that their build quality is "poorer" but that in most other respects their performance may be identical to dearer models.

A case in point is the Sony NEX F3 which I bought more or less as a back up to my Sony NEX 7. OK, the 7 is a slightly later model with a larger capacity sensor so the two are not in that respect identical but they are similar and they certainly both produce excellent images. The NEX 7 cost me exactly double what I paid for the F3 due to its metal build quality dials and EVF. I have to say the "cheap" F3 is never the less an excellent shooter - especially with a top mounted accessory EVF added. And I think it handles poor lighting and high ISO even better than the 7.

But as my main camera I will often prefer a pro model if I can get it as they tend to be tougher and also have nicer handling (e/g extra buttons and dials that do stufff which otherwise would require a trip to the camera's menu).

But in many respects I have to admit that cheaper models are often not the inferior cameras that the purveyors of the most expensive models would have you believe. And its been this way for many years. I like to tell a story about the old "pre Spotmatic" cameras - their early ones without meter which were lovely cameras across the range and the first to put Pentax cameras in the hands of millions of people.

The S1 model was Asahi Pentax's top of range at one time but Pentax decided that they needed a cheaper model to fit that part of the market. The following quote describes how they did it.

"The Asahi Pentax S1A was Asahi Pentax’s attempt to make a consumer-level version of their S, S2, S1 & S3 professional SLR range in 1963. Their rather counter-productive way of accomplishing this was to remove the mark for the 1/1000 shutter speed (it’s still there, it’s just not marked, you just dial one past 1/500)."

In other words the cheap model and the expensive model were in effect identical cameras with identical capabilities. You could still use the S1A at 1/1000th - you just had to know to turn the dial to the unmarked position and shoot away.

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/220205-asahi-pentax-s1a-hidden-depths

So camera makers have been pulling this one ever since there have been cameras. And I for one am happy about that as it means I can get a lot of camera for less money if I am savvy. But as I say for the most part I prefer to have some top of range expensive kit too. Just because....................

 

[charjohncarter]

Someone told me,'buy a cheap box but use expensive lenses.' He may have been right as long as the company doesn't 'delete' mounts.

 

[lynnb]

In my experience, buying decisions for amateurs are mostly made on emotion, while buying decisions for professionals are made on utility. Amateurs and professionals can each buy expensive cameras, but for different reasons. A professional usually values ergonomics, reliability, compatibility and whether IQ meets client expectations. It's worth it if it meets those requirements. Cost is a small consideration.

To an amateur, an expensive camera is worth it if they want it badly enough. Motivations vary from wanting to own what they perceive as the best or desiring a particular camera, and everything in between.

 

[Huss]

Someone told me,'buy a cheap box but use expensive lenses.' He may have been right as long as the company doesn't 'delete' mounts.

Wait, what? Dammit.

 

[Richard G]

I agree with Lynn. Emotion plays a big part in the choice of us amateurs. But that is not without merit. I still shoot film and passed on getting a Phase One back for my Hasselblad chiefly because it was too heavy and not square format. The digital Leicas, M9-P and M Monochrom kept me out of the X-Pro 1 and the first two lenses and the later iterations up the XT 2 etc. I just have my X100 in Fuji. And I have stayed out of the upgrade cycle of M240 and M10. And all my original lenses work with my now 6 year old M9 and 5 year old MM. both have or will have new sensors funded by Leica. Overall, to me, it has been well worth it.

 

[bmattock]

I don't have the kind of money y'all seem to have. That's the name of that tune.

 

[Contarama]

I was very disappointed by the high price tag when the Df was introduced. I had to wait a couple years in order to snag one at half price. Maybe it is the specialty thing.

The D700 cannibalising the D3 is a good story about form and function and cult cameras.

How about pioneer expensive cameras such as the rd1? Innovative expensive when new and still expensive. What a camera.

I wish M8/M9 did video. 🙂

 

[benlees]

To a certain extent less is more. Expensive. For all items of conspicuous consumption: cameras, hifi, cars; you name it. There is a threshold of what you actually get, in terms of features, and what you don't get, in terms of brand/exclusivity that meet at a similar price point for different products- say Leica M vs Nikon dslr. One has a ton of features and the other is reassuringly expensive (in the language of British Airways selling seats on the Concorde). How you see yourself determines what you "need". Savy consumer (but professional, of course) comparing feature after feature to determine value? Or the purist who mustn't be bogged down so are willing to pay more for the "freedom" of less? Of course, someone could be both...

 

[phaedrus]

What makes an expensive camera worth it?
--snip-- Maybe what we looking at in these expensive cameras is a uniqueness, the fact that they are very different from the main stream.

Spot on! And that's the modus operandi in Leica's attractive (to me) offerings. The M line being the only digital rangefinder cameras available new, within it the Monochrom being one of the few cameras with a monchrom sensor. And the -D cameras leaving off the rear screen. Those that speak to me are leaving something out that can get in your way when you photograph. Less is more and worth more.

 

[Richard G]

The Leica Q is going well because it fits a recognised need of experienced photographers. Look up Mike Johnston the Online Photographer’s “Letter to George.” He amusingly enumerates the significant opportunity and dollar cost of graduating slowly through numerous rigs until eventually you get a good body with a good prime lens.

 

[Sumarongi]

What makes an expensive camera worth it? Medium format cameras are expensive in part because they have expensive sensors. Bigger is better and costs more to produce, especially when you are trying to avoid dead pixels. But, in the end, the improvement in image quality is worth it to some photographers.
[...]
All of this is complicated by [...]
I really don’t know, but would love to know what you think about expensive cameras.

«I think complexity is mostly sort of crummy stuff that is there because it's too expensive to change the interface.»
Jaron Lanier

 

[pgk]

If you look at the history of photography I think that you will find that cameras and lenses are probably cheaper now than they have ever been, especially if you factor the cost of film into the equation. The differential of 'quality' of image output between high cost cameras and low cost ones has narrowed though. Some expensive cameras do offer greater longevity (shutters are more robust) and so on, so to some extent cost over time depends on need or heavy usage. Cost is not as simple as up front price of a camera body anymore.

Needs and want come into the equation too - as has been mentioned. The emotive desire for specific, expensive equipment is almost certainly vastly underestimated .....

 

[RichC]

If you look at the history of photography I think that you will find that cameras and lenses are probably cheaper now than they have ever been, especially if you factor the cost of film into the equation. The differential of 'quality' of image output between high cost cameras and low cost ones has narrowed though. Some expensive cameras do offer greater longevity (shutters are more robust) and so on, so to some extent cost over time depends on need or heavy usage. Cost is not as simple as up front price of a camera body anymore.

Needs and want come into the equation too - as has been mentioned. The emotive desire for specific, expensive equipment is almost certainly vastly underestimated .....

Additional to quality, the price of "uniqueness" has been mentioned by Bill and others. This takes many guises - a rare camera desirable to collectors or a sign or wealth and prestige as PGK says, but it can also be a needed tool...

I've just spent £450 ($570) on an old 45-85mm Pentax 645 lens and a tilt-shift adapter, as I need that for a project. Neither is especially common, nor are their alternatives, and this is reflected in the price I paid.

 

[Richard G]

The Leica Monochrom, the original, is unnecessary. No question about that. And maybe it is now redundant. But the CCD sensor and its mid-tone subtlety, its amazing capacity to lift the shadows without much noise and the fine detail obtained all result in something that for its time was unique and in the view of many users, still is. It is a palm-held full frame digital that allows shooting on the street at 1600 ISO and f5.6 at 1/1000 with a 28 and no compromise in image quality. You can crop out almost 90% of your original frame and still have a printable shot at small or moderate size. The iPhone cannot do that. Some equipment inspires you to try things or look at things you might not otherwise attend to. This is one of the most important aspects of medium format and large format photography, for instance. The M10 quicker wake from sleep and external ISO dial are improvements that for some are worth having. Expensive is relative. I just traded in my ailing seven year old car on a three year old car for not much more than the cost of an M10-P. My immediate colleagues spend 5-10 times that on a car, or more. I love the new car and don't want anything 'better' and I love my two old Leica digitals. Am I extravagant? I don't think so, but it is certainly possible to be more frugal than I am. I didn't need to be and would be the worse off for missing the fun and education I've had.

 

[Wouter2]

Image quality does come into the picture for me. As you grow as an - amateur - photographer, you come to demand more in terms of IQ, both from yourself as from the equipment that is your tool. This comes with a pricetag. Currently, I'm on the fence of buying an as new rx1, after having gone through fuji x100, Coolpix A and Ricoh GRD cameras. I'm attracted by fullframe, depth of field control, sonnar rendering and build quality. The rx1 is a huge financial stretch for me, even so, I believe it will deliver pics beyond the threshold of these other, also excellent, cameras.

 

[shimokita]

"The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell." ― Confucius... to be honest it sounds more like a fortune cookie quote but it highlights my point.

Some brands understand and try to get it right, some are just in it for the money, and in most cases there is an overlap... the former approach can sometimes jell in a specific product while the latter has nice, even useful bells & whistles... When it all comes together, it's worth a look see even if it costs a little more.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Based on what I see here and especially at LUF, Leica is predominantly purchased for pleasure. PJ is next to gone these days.
News agencies asking for mobile phone shots from witnesses. If it is accepted by them and viewers, it means quality is enough.

Who and why is purchasing dMF cameras, I don't know. Even if those are now less than Leica in price I don't see many threads on forums...

I don't see professionals on all kind of events and on assignments with fancy mirrorless, most of the time they are using DSLRs and large zooms. And who knows how much some of them have to spend on the lights.

Major camera purchases are done by amateurs. DXo or whatever this bunch of gearheads is called might give Leica zero score. It means absolutely nothing. Leica gives highest score on prestige meter. And most likely on pleasure to own. To me Fuji, Sony, Panasinic and else are ugly box makers. Every time I hold them in my hands, it feels dirt cheap. My apologies for HOP.

For pleasure I use Leica, for 100% warranted results I'm using old, not so much expensive DSLRs. My professional grade DSLR lenses leaves Leica glass in dust, BTW.

 

[kshapero]

I like buying a $2000 camera when it is used and fully operational at about $1200. Add the needed lens and away I go.