Is there any such thing as 'best value for money'?

Yes there deffinitely is "Best value for money" But as you say it may be highly personal and depend on what you want. When I started out with my F90X I wanted a 105mm Micro. I could have a Sigma 105mm macro and 24mm f/2,8 for the price of the Nikor. The Nikor may have been better/sharper and more sturdy built but getting both a macro lens and a wide with extreme closefocussing ability did more for my photography many years to come than the Nikor would have. But at that time I didn't know what to look for and since the Sigmas delivered good results it took some time to get to the point where I wanted more image quality thus I learned a lot about photography and creativity for less than "better" equipmment would have cost me.
So its both a matter of what you want quality wise and versatility wise and what will actually move your photography and creativity.
Now both the Sigmas are history, the 24mm is replaced by a Zeiss and I'm dreaming bout the 100mm f/2.0 Zeiss hmm yes cheap turned out to be expensive :D
Best regards
 
Of course the notion of "best value for money" is subjective. You're really discussing trivialities here. Look at it in terms of marginal cost: the "best value for money" is that item where the marginal cost of getting something that corresponds better to what I want rises above the threshold of what I'm willing to pay for it. You can buy and use something "better", but since it will cost more than what you're willing to pay, it represents less value for money, while it may not do so for your neighbour.

This is really a statement of the obvious and essentially you are all saying the same. I wonder how there ever could be any doubt about it.
 
rxmd said:
Of course the notion of "best value for money" is subjective. You're really discussing trivialities here. Look at it in terms of marginal cost: the "best value for money" is that item where the marginal cost of getting something that corresponds better to what I want rises above the threshold of what I'm willing to pay for it. You can buy and use something "better", but since it will cost more than what you're willing to pay, it represents less value for money, while it may not do so for your neighbour.

This is really a statement of the obvious and essentially you are all saying the same. I wonder how there ever could be any doubt about it.
Click to expand...

To me it's not about what I can afford but what will I get for my money.
When I bought my F90X I couldn't afford the F100 though I found it to be BVFM than the one I could afford. Now I have both :)
Is the Leica MP actually $ for $ better to me than e.g a M4 and some extra lenses or will I do better with the lesser camerabody and perhaps a couple of CV or CZ lenses or perhaps even Leica lenses. If you don't need the speed is a 75mm f/1,4 better value than a 75mm f/2,0 or f/2,5 or f/2,8
I know that Frances really liked some of the cheaper slower leica lenses.
If you have 10K$ to buy camera stuff what will give you the best value for money?
Best regards
 
The best values for the money are those obsolete digitals, like the $200 Nikon D70s and the $400 Pany G1 I've gotten. The $175 4x5 Crown Graphic with a Xenar and holders and film comes close, as well as the $8 Olympus Stylus and $75 Nikon Fe/50mm.
 
rxmd said:
Of course the notion of "best value for money" is subjective. You're really discussing trivialities here. Look at it in terms of marginal cost: the "best value for money" is that item where the marginal cost of getting something that corresponds better to what I want rises above the threshold of what I'm willing to pay for it. You can buy and use something "better", but since it will cost more than what you're willing to pay, it represents less value for money, while it may not do so for your neighbour.

This is really a statement of the obvious and essentially you are all saying the same. I wonder how there ever could be any doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Trivialities? On RFF? Surely not!

An awful lot of people, however, do seem to believe that their personal choice is the only rational choice for everyone at all times. Others seem to believe that even if they have not made the best choice themselves, somehow there is an absolute 'best choice' or 'best value for money' out there.

All I was trying to do was to encourage a few more people to think about the idea of 'value for money'. Sometimes, stating the obvious is a good way to do this.

Cheers,

R.
 
My view on this is simple, "Long after price is forgotten, quality remains."

Although in today's WalMart world fewer and fewer people understand quality.
 
Hello Roger,

Roger Hicks said:
All I was trying to do was to encourage a few more people to think about the idea of 'value for money'. Sometimes, stating the obvious is a good way to do this.
Click to expand...

The obvious? But here you say that you 'increasingly doubt it'.

Roger Hicks said:
Is there any such thing as 'best value for money'?
Increasingly, I doubt that there is.
Click to expand...

Was this then a 'dirty black protestant lie' (sic) ?
Or merely a simple 'untruth' in order to provoke a debate?
 
Boots said:
Hello Roger,



The obvious? But here you say that you 'increasingly doubt it'.



Was this then a 'dirty black protestant lie' (sic) ?
Or merely a simple 'untruth' in order to provoke a debate?
Click to expand...

Eh?

'The obvious' to me is that 'best value for money' is personal, and limited in time even then, so trying to tell someone else what is 'best value for money' is at best of limited value.

What were you trying to say?

Cheers,

R.
 
johnastovall said:
Although in today's WalMart world fewer and fewer people understand quality.
Click to expand...

I don't like cultural pessimism, it's too easy to lean back and say that everything used to be better in the past. In your sentence, complement "understand" by "or can afford", and figure in survivor bias - people used to buy cheap rubbish in the past as well, we just tend to forget that because the rubbish doesn't survive. Suddenly you will find that the world is more or less like it used to be.
 
Roger
The price difference between a brandnew MP and a M4P is around 2000€ without lenses.
You once talked about advising a new photog to buy the MP if he/she could afford it
so to you it is better value for money to pay 2000€ more for a brandnew camera with a meter than a used M4P without a meter. Hmm If I had 4000€ I could get the MP and a 35mm f/1,4 sumilux or the M4P + sumilux + 2000€ worth extras (lens or whatever, maybe a CLA).
What do you get in a MP that is worth more than 2000€ over the M4P (how much is a CLA anyway?)
Best regards
 
"Best Bang for the bucks" as they say over here! It all depends on what you are doing with the equipment. If you are putting food on the table, wine in the glasses and a roof over your head - your criterias are different than that of an "amateur" (which means "for the love of it" and it is not a derogatery term in my book). When you are shooting commercially, you have to target the equipment to the tasks and, in the "real" world - the client could not care less what you use, only what he gets from you.
You also have the advantage of being able to write-off equipment/film etc on your taxes - comes in handy occasionally.
Some jobs in my past - i had clients specify 120 chromes, but the job were such that only really 35 was feasible (climbing high structures, crawling through equipment or shooting in "toxic" environments). The saviour was to shoot 35, have the shots blown up to 6x9 cm "trannies" and present them nicely in mounts. The client was none the wiser and I could still walk afterwards.
There are times when you have to "buy the best" for a job. Aerial "photogrammetry" requires lenses that meet certain specifications by governments and agencies - and those lenses are not cheap nor are the cameras - but you charged accordingly. My rule of thumb tended to be - 3-4 jobs should pay for the most expensive piece of equipment used.
Today, the lifecycle of equipment is shorter - clients wants BIG files (which usually is reproduced as dinky little 2x3" shots!!!! They also want it NOW -instant feedback etc. This means that you really have to have top equipment for downloading, "massaging" and transfering images. This is not cheap - and the "generation" is about 12-18 month - after which you probably have to buy another system.
The time of a couple of M's, three to four lenses and a bag full of Tri X is more or less over.
All of this notwithstanding - today, when I "play" with equipment, rather than make money with it - I have more stuff now then before!!!!!
 
How many Leica users remember the millions of complaints about the "glare" that was created when Leica tried to save money. You know the almost white center that glared over so you could not almost focus....did anyone stand up and say this was better value money ?? No...and the cost kept climbing ever higher....but finally the design was changed. If you offer a product that has a problem or delivers a inferior techincal platform...it is NOT a better value for the money. Case Closed.

A good case in point is the lack of sales for the Cheaper line of "new" Summarit lenses...do you see people beating a path to the Leica dealer to trade in a ASPH lens...NO. Because even though they cost less...they do not deliver "better value for the money"! no value added.

Now as the M9 saga unfolds..and the many unseen issues rise to the surface. Just like the "perfect M8" as it was promoted on it's release. We will see a whole new "spin" cycle. Leica will push and promote photographers who shoot with the S2 and M9...big time. Those who do no switch over will be forgotten. The M7 will die as will the MP as products of a bygone age. The quality of the M9 will not surpass the even an M3, shooting with the same lens, at the same ISO !! SO there is not a better value for the money.
 
larmarv916 said:
Now as the M9 saga unfolds..
Click to expand...

It does? How?

larmarv916 said:
and the many unseen issues rise to the surface.
Click to expand...


I didn't know it was already sold, shipped and already used four days after its official announcement. Those people discovering the "unseen issues" must be gods.


larmarv916 said:
Just like the "perfect M8" as it was promoted on it's release.
Click to expand...

On it is release? C'est uncroyable toute cette m3rd! q'on trouvent dans l'Internet!
 
larmarv916 said:
A good case in point is the lack of sales for the Cheaper line of "new" Summarit lenses...do you see people beating a path to the Leica dealer to trade in a ASPH lens...NO. Because even though they cost less...they do not deliver "better value for the money"! no value added.
Click to expand...


I don't see many people trading in their Ferrari for a Camry, either. That doesn't mean the Camry isn't a good value for the money.
 
this thread has made me really think about why i have brought an FSU? after all i would never buy an american or english car for `value for money' american because GM planed them to be obsolete and english , well there was no planning they just were obsolete,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom