Starting to ponder liquidation for M-Milestone

Agreed with the SAVE approach...never sell any lenses or your old favorite bodies - you can only live to regret it. Put a small amount aside every month...
 
My Gandolfi 12x15 might make a reasonable sized dent in the M if I can get a press discount.

But after photokina, I increasingly suspect that for me, the future may be silver halide.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My Gandolfi 12x15 might make a reasonable sized dent in the M if I can get a press discount.

But after photokina, I increasingly suspect that for me, the future may be silver halide.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Newsflash!!!!! 😱 Did I read that correctly Roger? ... I'd be interested to hear your reasons for this train of thought.
 
Keith said:
Newsflash!!!!! 😱 Did I read that correctly Roger? ... I'd be interested to hear your reasons for this train of thought.
Click to expand...

(1) More interest from more people who are prepared to pay for information, instead of expecting everything to be free, and less competition. Bear in mind how I earn my living.

(2) With the exception of Leica, oversized, overcomplicated cameras (and yes, I probably will get the new M if I can afford it)

(3) A strong preference for shutter speed dials, aperture rings and manual focus and a strong dislike of touch-screens (akin to (1) again)

(4) Not exclusively digital.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'm honestly not that desperate for the M because it's more my emergency exit strategy if film gets too expensive for me to justify than an actual object of desire, so I'll keep shooting film while I save for it. Take some more hours at work, shoot more weddings, balance it all with student loan stuff. I figure it'll take me around 14-18 months if I don't get any more weddings, shorter if than that if I do. Might sell off my Canon gear near the end as a booster shot, pick up a voigtlander 25, a zeiss 50, and eventually a 90.

Of course, with that sort of timeline I'd probably end up holding out for the second M which would be just around the corner, a mere 18-30 months away from that previously mentioned 18 month mark 😛
 
raid said:
You will be replacing items that would have increased in value with an item that will decrease in value. This is a problem.
Click to expand...

Raid, but you recently bought a M8 and M9. You know these will go down too... but you sure will get enough enjoyment out of them to make the depreciation a non issue right?
 
I'm not so sure this One leica Camera and it being a Digital
is worth the Sacrifice

How can One know If this will be the 'Ultimate' Tool for You
as long as You realize the Risk and are willing to Gamble than Go for It

But to Me it's not worth doing
 
I'm done chasing the technology curve.

The new M just doesnt appeal to me. If and when I replace my m8 it'll be with an MM, but I see no need to pay a premium for one as an early adopter.

I was out this past weekend with an older photographer most here would know. He has been engaged in the same photo project for the last 40 years. Stunning stuff.

He was shooting with a beat up m4 he's used for 45 years. He simply isn't interested In anything else. He has thousands of rolls waiting to be developed and makes a point of knocking out 5 or so once a week. Talking to him brought me back to the simple joy of using a well loved camera and chasing images that arnt about the the latest look but rather simple expressions of vision.

It's a shame but I see this way of doing things as dying out. Cest la vie.

It also reinforced the belief that you should NEVER sell a film Leica. Ever.
 
Creative people tend to like new experiences and variety; that's why the one camera or one lens idea doesn't always work in the long run. You'll get bored and want a new experience or different look, ect.
 
steveyork said:
Creative people tend to like new experiences and variety; that's why the one camera or one lens idea doesn't always work in the long run. You'll get bored and want a new experience or different look, ect.
Click to expand...

I'd argue just the opposite: if your " creativity" depends upon your tools it isn't really creativity. it's gimmickry.

RobertFrank = 1 camera, 1 35mm lens, some Tri-X. with that combo he literally changed how subsequent generations think about what constitutes a photograph.
 
Teuthida said:
I'd argue just the opposite: if your " creativity" depends upon your tools it isn't really creativity. it's gimmickry.

RobertFrank = 1 camera, 1 35mm lens, some Tri-X. with that combo he literally changed how subsequent generations think about what constitutes a photograph.
Click to expand...

This is something that really distinguishes people - some like constant novelty in their tools, others bond with a tool and don't want to part with it.

This is a deep element of character, each orientation undoubtedly has plusses and minuses.

I think you need to recognize your "type" and stick to it, no matter what others say.

Randy
 
Yes, I like new toys.
Some new toys do nothing for me, so I just fondle them at the camera store.
Once in a while, I may buy a new toy, and the Milestone might be one that comes home with me.
But I do wish I could part with some of my old toys.

🙂

Vick
 
zauhar said:
This is something that really distinguishes people - some like constant novelty in their tools, others bond with a tool and don't want to part with it.

This is a deep element of character, each orientation undoubtedly has plusses and minuses.

I think you need to recognize your "type" and stick to it, no matter what others say.

Randy
Click to expand...

I agree Randy. On the surface, cameras are all the same. Aperture, shutter, capturing medium. It is not hard to translate this over a bunch of cameras once you know your stuff. However, there is something to be said about knowing a camera well enough to just use it without thinking... and that is where the one lens one camera philosophy comes into play. Being able to just know here you need to be to get the photo without bringing the camera to your eye, knowing how to change parameters without removing your eye from the VF, and being able to make split second decisions about exposure and focus based on feel.

None of the above matters unless one or the other isn't allowing you to make the photos you want to make. We are not all the same and what works for me might not work for another.
 
I was doing some inventory last night.

I hit about 5k with only a few LTMs and one M (cv 35/1.4)--just one body a good M6 I thought might be worth a grand or 900.

But fall is the worst time to liquidate 🙁

Better just put it on the card and then change my name 😉
 
Teuthida said:
I'd argue just the opposite: if your " creativity" depends upon your tools it isn't really creativity. it's gimmickry.

RobertFrank = 1 camera, 1 35mm lens, some Tri-X. with that combo he literally changed how subsequent generations think about what constitutes a photograph.
Click to expand...

It's not about creative being a substitute for 'gear head.' You've missed my point. It's about new experiences, expanding horizons, not doing the same thing.

Take your example -- Robert Frank. So he used one camera, but I bet he satisfied his lust for new experiences by traveling a lot. We all know he did; all over the country. Every creative person I know is like that, although they may express it in different ways.

The point is that having a new camera in the cupboard is a cheap and easy way to get some new experiences. Just like getting a different lens for your tried and true camera. If nothing else, if makes you see the world in a different light (no pun intended).

That's why (I believe) some photographers (esp. amateurs who don't make a living on their pictures) cycle through different equipment. They get something, use it (create the experience), and then if it works for them, they keep it, otherwise they pass it on to someone else.

It's also about a fundamental distinction between photographers. Some value only the final project; the picture. Others value not only the picture, but also the process of obtaining the image. And that process may include traveling, meeting people, or something simple as the use of a mechanical camera.
 
My recent move back into digital with the X100 and NEX-7 has shown me that I can adapt to a camera which lacks a rangefinder. Funny, but I've found myself, once again, shooting mostly film. You no longer need to spend $7000 to get a good camera, but good glass is a different thing. Of course, Fujifilm and Zeiss certainly seem to produce good glass value. Clearly, the M9 has depreciated, but most people can recover a majority of their initial purchase price. I can't say that for many of my digital cameras. Really, you should look at the cost to own and not just the purchase price. The Leica might just be a reasonable purchase. Now, you are back to the original problem... cash flow.. BTW.. At least with regards to the U.S. dollar, some camera bodies just might hold up better than cash under the mattress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom