Raising funds, yes. Letting go of raised funds, tough.

[Steve M.]

Attachment is known to be the cause of great suffering in many spiritual traditions. Happiness comes from letting go of things, including their results. You have summarized the essence of Zen, so listen well to what you said about getting, then letting go. It's something that affects all living beings every day on all levels.

My personal advice (don't you just love unsolicited advice?) is, don't do it. That is a lot of money in my world. You could get a really, really good camera (an M8 is capable of beautiful shots, and no one, including yourself probably, is gonna know the difference in pics between it and an M10). It's just a case of newer camera, full frame, all that vs used. Even the old, by digital standards, Epson R-D1 cameras took great shots, especially in B&W. The image quality is always controlled by the thing looking through the viewfinder, not the camera :]

You could free up a lot of money if you went with something less costly, and have a lot of fun playing w/ the cost savings. Besides, you never know if it may be needed for an out of the blue health event later, a quick trip to Hawaii, all manner of things.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Seriously, as Helen suggests, get one for a week from LensRentals.

That cured me of lust for the (other hot brand) instead of (the one I was using). Really, just took a few days of shooting, and it was clear what I wanted.

In your case it might be the M10. Or it might not.

I vote for informed judgement for decisions-making.

Good luck! (p.s. Enjoyed your postcard!)

 

[taemo]

My final take on this is if you're having second guesses on the M10, then it is not for you.

If you do end up picking one up, you may actually enjoy and justify the cost but on the back of your mind will always be the hefty price tag, wondering if you could have used it for something else.

from how I see it anything over $2000 could have been put down on a really nice vacation.
I already have good cameras that takes the shot, I just need to go out and use them.

If you're not in a rush then either buy a M240 or wait for 2-4 years when the price of the M10 goes down to 3000-4000$

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

One more:

Buying new gear, especially a brand change, is like finding a mate.

There's a reason why we date and pair up for a while before getting married: Sometimes the one that looks so attractive from a distance winds up not being the right match.

Try it out. If you fall in love with it, then it's right for you. But, you may find incompatibility or just simply you may be unimpressed.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[KM-25]

I went through this when I bought my Hasselblad CFV50c digital back for my V system, at $10,000 it was not a "Buy it Now" button kind of decision. I tested the thing out on demo for over a week and then came to a decision that it would be a good move business wise.

Sure, I could have gotten away with not getting it but then I would use my V system less when I needed to shoot digital. The digital back makes it easy to justify leaving the Nikons at home and having the freedom to shoot both film and digital on the same body.

With the M10 it is a bit different, it's not a landmark move like the digi back was and I would not be gaining a whole lot in image quality in the big picture. Add to that the M240 is about as solid a Leica as I have ever used and it puts the logic of it all into question.

I guess if I have a question for the OP, it would be when are you expecting to get the M10, because as it is right now, places like Tamarkin are months out from filling orders, I am somewhere around #100 so I might not even get one until the late Fall at this rate.

 

[kxl]

Thanks everyone - as Helen and the good Colonel suggested, renting one for a week may be the best option for me at this point to see if the M10 really is for me. At the very least it will temporarily satiate the gear lust.

 

[Godfrey]

Attachment is known to be the cause of great suffering in many spiritual traditions. Happiness comes from letting go of things, including their results. You have summarized the essence of Zen, so listen well to what you said about getting, then letting go. It's something that affects all living beings every day on all levels.

My personal advice (don't you just love unsolicited advice?) is, don't do it. That is a lot of money in my world. You could get a really, really good camera (an M8 is capable of beautiful shots, and no one, including yourself probably, is gonna know the difference in pics between it and an M10). It's just a case of newer camera, full frame, all that vs used. Even the old, by digital standards, Epson R-D1 cameras took great shots, especially in B&W. The image quality is always controlled by the thing looking through the viewfinder, not the camera :]

You could free up a lot of money if you went with something less costly, and have a lot of fun playing w/ the cost savings. Besides, you never know if it may be needed for an out of the blue health event later, a quick trip to Hawaii, all manner of things.

So you're saying "don't be attached to things, stay attached to money."
To me, that's a pretty specious way of life.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Hmmmm, tough call
The Mind can be a tricky little Devil... well at least mine, lol

I , like You have a similar dilemma
Been lusting for a Leica Q or M240
(No interest in M10)
But if 'Reality' speaks then. I am quite content with Film
and if I pursue the Digi path
I am sure a Sony A7 (something) would suit me Fine
Love what You and 'Kuan' here on Rff do with it 😉

I think if You want to spoil yourself and truly think it's for You
Then Rent it for a day, use it madly, make your decision


Life is short.., your heart or is it Gut probably really knows which way to go

Helen, my dear, I think you would love an M-D typ 262. 😀

G

 

[benlees]

So you're saying "don't be attached to things, stay attached to money."
To me, that's a pretty specious way of life.

G

Actually, he is saying desire is always there; it won't be satisfied, so why spend all that money on something fleeting? You can temporarily satisfy it with another less costly alternative because the desire is just desire; could be for brand x, or for brand z.

 

[cz23]

...I am sure a Sony A7 (something) would suit me Fine....

I have a hard time picturing you with one of those newfangled Sony gadgets.

John

 

[Benjamin Marks]

If you are having trouble letting go of the cash, then it is an indication that the camera may just not be worth it to you. Nothing wrong with that. You should pay attention to the feeling. You have a couple of options.

1) wait seven years. It is an age and a half, but used versions of your object of desire will have declined in value enough that you can afford it. Probably. Look at prices of used M8's.
2) Check to see whether your $7K camera is a "game changer." Chances are it is not. The cameras we have been using for the last five or six years are all good enough. Look at the current Fuji TX2. Great camera. An improvement over the TX-1? Indubitably. A "game changing" amount better? Not to my eye. True of the M10? Your call.
3) Check your vitals. You got food? Housing? Kid's have shoes? How much do you spend on entertainment in a year? If this new camera is not your livelihood, then it is an entertainment expense. Got your vitals covered? Spend and smile.

 

[Godfrey]

Actually, he is saying desire is always there; it won't be satisfied, so why spend all that money on something fleeting? You can temporarily satisfy it with another less costly alternative because the desire is just desire; could be for brand x, or for brand z.

So you're saying, "Why not spend your money for several less expensive things—that are just as fleeting—rather than for the one you want which is expensive?"

This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. I don't consider my desire for a couple of nice things that I want and use to be wasted money, and a couple of nice things that I want and which satisfy me are a lot less fleeting than spending money on a trip or paying for health expenses, which two things are in completely different categories.

Health expenses are part of my assumed "necessity" expenditures. I put money into health insurance every month, regardless of whether I use it or not, to protect myself from catastrophic health expense needs; my luxury camera budget doesn't begin until that is paid. In the past three years it has paid off as I had no less than eight hospital operations/procedures in 2015/2016. If I hadn't planned ahead and invested in good health care insurance, I would have been out of pocket by two orders of magnitude more than the $5000 annual out of pocket limits my health care provided.

A trip to somewhere every year is a luxury expense on the same order as buying a camera. I'm planning this year for my trip to visit friends in the UK. That will cost me $3000-5000, depending on how long and what else I do. Of course, once home, I'll have some nice memories and pictures of the trip for the future... the trip itself will be a blip in time, barely 6% of this one year in duration most likely (three weeks). The Leica camera I bring along has been with me since either July of last year or November of the year before, and will be with me for at least some years after the trip is mostly forgotten, producing photographs at my whim. Which is more fleeting?

If you want to promote 'not being attached to material things' (which I do find a good state of mind, personally), then you don't buy an things that you don't use, don't want, or that don't satisfy you. And you don't care if the the things you do buy lose value and are discarded after some time, or if you sell them to enjoy something else. If you can't afford them, you don't buy them; they are niceties that you can take or leave, not essentials to gnaw away at your spirit.

If my home was flooded and my cameras destroyed, I'd be out some money. So be it. More importantly, I'd be missing the tools I use to make my photographs, which are important to me if no one else. I'd either buy the same cameras again when I could afford it, or not. That's what 'not being attached to material things' implies, not hoarding money or buying less expensive things because it's some kind of 'immoral' or otherwise bad to spend money on nice things.

I spend my money when I need to and when what I'm spending it on, be it cheap or expensive, lasting or fleeting, satisfies my needs, desires, and makes me happy. That's why I worked to earn the money; I have no attachment to it emotionally. I spend my money to facilitate the doing which is the focus of my life and worth expending money on.

It's all so much simpler than this gnashing of teeth and anxious examination of rationale makes it. If you want that $6500 camera enough, and you can afford it, you buy it. If you cannot afford it, or you don't want it that much, you don't. Period.

G

 

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Actually, he is saying desire is always there; it won't be satisfied, so why spend all that money on something fleeting? You can temporarily satisfy it with another less costly alternative because the desire is just desire; could be for brand x, or for brand z.

So you're saying, "Why not spend your money for several less expensive things—that are just as fleeting—rather than for the one you want which is expensive?"


G

Actually he did not say that at all. You did.

 

[benlees]

So you're saying, "Why not spend your money for several less expensive things—that are just as fleeting—rather than for the one you want which is expensive?"

G

The crux of the matter "the one you want". This is the part that is fleeting. There will always be "the one you want"

The OP is questioning their own desire in relation to their own $$. If they want to ride on the merry go 'round, no problem. They could it for less and have less guilt (which they themselves brought up) which might increase pleasure, long term. This whole thread exists because for him it is not cut and dried.

No one is telling him how to spend his money, or yours for that matter.

 

[Godfrey]

Actually he did not say that at all. You did.

It's my summary of what was said, in simple, clearer words.

The crux of the matter "the one you want". This is the part that is fleeting. There will always be "the one you want"

The OP is questioning their own desire in relation to their own $$. If they want to ride on the merry go 'round, no problem. They could it for less and have less guilt (which they themselves brought up) which might increase pleasure, long term. This whole thread exists because for him it is not cut and dried.

No one is telling him how to spend his money, or yours for that matter.

Sure. So let him decide.

G

 

[kxl]

Actually, he is saying desire is always there; it won't be satisfied, so why spend all that money on something fleeting? You can temporarily satisfy it with another less costly alternative because the desire is just desire; could be for brand x, or for brand z.

So while the desire could be fleeting, that desire is for an M10. A less expensive alternative does not sate the desire for an M10. For me, spending less money on an alternative is less satisfying than spending a lot of money on the one that I really want.

I may just have to accept that $6500 is beyond what I am willing to spend for a single piece of camera gear at this time....

 

[aizan]

wouldn't this all be so much easier if there were sumptuary laws that banned you from doing such a thing in the first place?

 

[Keith]

It took me nearly a year to decide to get my 240 and even now when someone asks what it cost me ... I get evasive and my feet shuffle a lot. lol 😀 That said I have no regrets but do think it shouldn't have cost quite what it did.

My advice to you is just get it because you 'want' it ... and don't think to hard about it because you will never justify it ... but you'll certainly enjoy it. 🙂

 

[KM-25]

A less expensive alternative does not sate the desire for an M10. For me, spending less money on an alternative is less satisfying than spending a lot of money on the one that I really want.

Have you even tried an M240?

The shutter is a bit quieter for starters. Maybe give some thought as to why I might just stick with the M240 if money is nearly never an object, especially when these purchases are tax deductions.

Quiet shutter, incredible battery life, same MP count as the M10, red frame line option which I always use in light below EV 6 just to name a few.

I pound tens of thousands of frames a year through my M240 and it is as reliable as any digital camera I have used in the past 23 years.

I'd say your options are pretty darn good right now, a great new camera in the M10 for a no joke price of $6,770 ( body+ spare battery ) or a camera that is 90% of the M10 with spare batteries for around $3,000.

Rejoice man, digital Leica cameras are now mature products and finally have used prices that reflect that.

 

[xavyr]

Aspiring Leica owner says:
everyone is invited back to the thread when the M11 is announced.