ptpdprinter
Veteran
Amortization is an accounting technique for businesses, and, for non-business purchases, a rationalization.
shawn
Veteran
Maybe, but an awful lot of people that bought film cameras 20+ years ago feel they are obsolete too due to advances in technology.
Shawn
bmattock
Veteran
I don't hate Leicas, nor do I love them. Someday, I'd love to give one a go, most probably a film type such as an M5. They are outstanding machines from all accounts.
I think people should buy and enjoy whatever it is they want. I don't begrudge anyone their Maybach car or IWC watch or Leica S3 or whatever it is they desire. I don't lust after that kind of kit, but to each their own.
I think some of this gear-chasing is not really about photography. I hope I can be forgiven for harboring such a thought.
I note the tendency to play follow-the-leader, and I never quite got that.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Whereas refusing to admit that (say) 20 years of pleasure from something that cost (say) $2000 equates to $100 a year can't even be excused as rationalization.
Cheers,
R.
karateisland
Established
Can be true, but not if buying one expensive camera in 2010, and using it for 8-15 years, means you're not buying a bunch of less expensive cameras in that same period. Some of us, for whatever reason, are always going to pine for what we believe to be "the best" and sometimes it's just best to go for it and save ourselves the frustration and extra expense in the long run.
To my mind, it can also be a rationalization to tell ourselves we will be happy with a less expensive camera--that is, if we know we are constitutionally incapable of being happy with anything but what we consider the best. It's an emotional decision as much as anything, and each one of us knows himself best, and can make that decision for himself.
That's not to say that expensive cameras ARE the best (no such thing), but that we all have different tastes, and it can be helpful to be honest with ourselves up front when making one of these choices.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. No problem. What puzzles me are the hysterically-pro and the hysterically-anti; and of course those who'd rather buy the substantially same thing (low- or-mid range Canon, Nikon) every couple of years as an "upgrade" instead of buying what they actually want.
And I've always believed in the old saying that "quality doesn't cost -- it pays". The trouble is that the link between price and quality has all but disappeared perhaps except at the very top of the market (Alpa, Linhof, Lobb): a lot of people pay silly money for brands and labels, regardless of quality.
Then again, who in this context is "the leader"?
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
Tastemakers are seldom a person, but often a group with shifting membership, and different groups depending upon the types of gear being discussed, in my experience. It's the 'wisdom of crowds', which can of course be actually wise, but with the addendum that the 'pile on' effect often leads this wisdom astray.
I give you the Pentax K1000. A reliable, workmanlike, competent manual camera. It has, unfortunately, assumed a mythical status it does not even slightly deserve, with prices to match. The Canon AE. The Nikon F2. And even, dast I say it, the Leica M4.
The hints I use to attempt to discern such things, beyond price point, are the terms used to describe them. If the terms are precise and objectively descriptive, I listen. If the terms are subjective but relate to usability, I listen. If the terms are anything at all like the words used to describe wine, I begin to suspect we're not talking about cameras anymore.
MIkhail
-
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I can't help feeling that it's a self-stoking process. People rave about (say) the K1000, perhaps never having tried another reliable, workmanlike camera, perhaps even without having tried even a K1000. So people pay a lot for them, and then feel they have to justify having paid over the odds for a very ordinary camera; so they talk them up even more.
Likewise, the M4 is OK. So are its younger sisters, M4-2 and M4-P. Personally I'd rather have an M2 or an MP. But a lot more depends on condition and your experience of other Leicas (good, bad, indifferent, worship, hatred) than on precisely which model you buy.
Cheers,
R.
colker
Well-known
I used to shoot w/ a Nikon D100 6mp. It had me discover digital color ... but I wouldn´t want those 6mp back.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I had a computer chip inserted into my brain...it shoots 4K and 100mp...don't need cams anymore..
Tom Diaz
Well-known
It used to be that durability and repairability justified it, for me. I had a Leica M6 for 10 years that was as solid the day I sold it as the day I bought it. I would still be shooting with it, if I had not given up on film in 2013.
The M lenses, and other fine lenses, are still worth it to me, because they outlive digital camera bodies, which drop rapidly in price and also become rapidly obsolete. I think good lenses are still worth it for that reason and they also tend to maintain their resale value somewhat longer.
I'm interested in the forthcoming L-mount cameras, partly as a platform for the M lenses I still own. However, I will consider waiting and buying a used one, as some of the responses here suggest. Even the Leica SL may be considered behind the times, at age 4, by the time the other L-mount bodies come out.
TD
For me, it has to be unique and it has to feel good in the hands. That is why a camera is expensive to me. Thankfully, the expensive cameras that fit any other definition of expensive aren't appealing to me and not all unique cameras that feel good in the hands are expensive.