Emile de Leon
Well-known
Of course insurance makes sense..esp on an item of this cost..
So for full replacement cost..you pay whatever per year is that cost out of your own fat wallet..
if something happens to cam..you are relieved..if... they actually pay you back the full value..if..
But if something bad does not happen to cam..then this insurance cost...just adds even more costs to the initial expensive outlay...
And if the cam lasts 5 to 10 years..at whatever the charge is per year for insurance..
You do the math..
I just cant rationalize that..
Cam devalues..
Expenses escalate..esp in later years..when cam needs costly Leica repairs..
It doesnt add up to me..
Vince Lupo
Whatever
You could say that about anything you own - a $25,000 car, a $300,000 house, etc. You pay insurance, you might never need it (but you'll be glad that you do have it when you do need it). So what's the alternative? Don't buy insurance? Don't buy a car? Don't own a house? Hmm, come to think of it, owning either one of those doesn't make much financial sense either.....
I have insurance on all my equipment -- I can only think of a few instances in which I've ever had to file a claim (and it was never a problem working with my particular insurer, whether for a repair or a replacement), but it's peace of mind knowing I have it. I think to add the Monochrom to the policy was not much (I seem to think it was something like $50 per year), but in my case it's all part of running a business. In the end, we all make choices, and and I'm happy with mine, as you seem pleased with yours.
Clearly, from this entire discussion thread, the major thing that seems to be 'misunderstood' is the cost. Believe me, I wonder about it too!
I have insurance on all my equipment -- I can only think of a few instances in which I've ever had to file a claim (and it was never a problem working with my particular insurer, whether for a repair or a replacement), but it's peace of mind knowing I have it. I think to add the Monochrom to the policy was not much (I seem to think it was something like $50 per year), but in my case it's all part of running a business. In the end, we all make choices, and and I'm happy with mine, as you seem pleased with yours.
Clearly, from this entire discussion thread, the major thing that seems to be 'misunderstood' is the cost. Believe me, I wonder about it too!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Emile de Leon, I have to have liability insurance to work in some of the locations I work in and I can't risk loosing my cameras or computers without insurance.
And with your reasoning not to buy could be said for any camera. So don't buy anything.
And with your reasoning not to buy could be said for any camera. So don't buy anything.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Well I guess you are a pro..
So you can write it off..
So that's a no brainer...
But..
Its not about buying or not buying..
Its about how much you want to spend..over time..
For a B&W only cam....that will be outdated…and probably replaced by something else in a couple of years..and in five years....if it is even functional..or if they even make batteries or parts for it anymore at seven years....if you get my drift..
But..
Its an individual choice..
As is everything..
Pick your poison..
Pay the price of admission..
JPSuisse
Well-known
Here's my take on the MM without having tried it:
1.) I am not going to buy one, because I am happy shooting 100% film for BW.
2.) But, I applaud Leica for having made something so absolutely not main stream and NOT focus-grouped to death. This in and of itself makes me not at all negative towards the camera.
3.) The main downside for this camera would seem to be the high base ISO. I like shooting 50 and 25 ISO film sometime... I think probably to really to do the job right would require different sensor technology, which clearly would go beyond the scope of Leica's resources.
When they come out with the M240 with a frameline lever (for me more important that Live View), I will replace my M8 for a portion of my color work. (This is just to show that I am not anti-digital.)
John
1.) I am not going to buy one, because I am happy shooting 100% film for BW.
2.) But, I applaud Leica for having made something so absolutely not main stream and NOT focus-grouped to death. This in and of itself makes me not at all negative towards the camera.
3.) The main downside for this camera would seem to be the high base ISO. I like shooting 50 and 25 ISO film sometime... I think probably to really to do the job right would require different sensor technology, which clearly would go beyond the scope of Leica's resources.
When they come out with the M240 with a frameline lever (for me more important that Live View), I will replace my M8 for a portion of my color work. (This is just to show that I am not anti-digital.)
John
This issue of equipment cost raises irrational arguments, seems to me. People complain about the cost, as if it affected them personally. If something "costs too much" then don't buy it, and don't let it bother you.
If I can't afford to lose it, I figure I can't afford to buy it. And there's no point in criticizing others who do buy it... they have their own financial priorities, probably different from yours.
If you really want something, but it's beyond your means, that sets up internal tension, an inner conflict, which may be expressed in forum rants over expensive gear. Then we suffer an essentially pointless back-and-forth over it.
Things cost what they cost, don't sweat it. We can enjoy discussing attributes, features, and what results may be produced. Even wish-lists for when those lottery winnings come in.
If I can't afford to lose it, I figure I can't afford to buy it. And there's no point in criticizing others who do buy it... they have their own financial priorities, probably different from yours.
If you really want something, but it's beyond your means, that sets up internal tension, an inner conflict, which may be expressed in forum rants over expensive gear. Then we suffer an essentially pointless back-and-forth over it.
Things cost what they cost, don't sweat it. We can enjoy discussing attributes, features, and what results may be produced. Even wish-lists for when those lottery winnings come in.
Mcary
Well-known
This issue of equipment cost raises irrational arguments, seems to me. People complain about the cost, as if it affected them personally. If something "costs too much" then don't buy it, and don't let it bother you.
If I can't afford to lose it, I figure I can't afford to buy it. And there's no point in criticizing others who do buy it... they have their own financial priorities, probably different from yours.
If you really want something, but it's beyond your means, that sets up internal tension, an inner conflict, which may be expressed in forum rants over expensive gear. Then we suffer an essentially pointless back-and-forth over it.
Things cost what they cost, don't sweat it. We can enjoy discussing attributes, features, and what results may be produced. Even wish-lists for when those lottery winnings come in.
++++++++++++++1
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I print A3+ on Baryta and the results are -to my eye - sensational
ChrisN
Striving
Well said Doug. This sums up what we see way too much of on this forum.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
If it's a camera that matches my vision then it is worth every penny to me. And I have spent so much money buying things to settle over the years that I could have bought dozens of MMs. Now i buy equipment that matches the way I see and I don't buy all the stuff. I'm glad I own the MM and I didn't settle.
Richard G
Veteran
Well I think it is quite clear. It is the understood Monochrom, and has been from soon after its release. This understanding continues to increase.