why do you care...

[jamiewakeham]

Hmm. I swear by my Le Creuset kit, and the one book I'd save from the house when it was burning down would be my partner's 30-yr-old battered copy of Elizabeth David's French Provincial cooking.

Ponders: is there a higher percentage of Le Creuset use on this board than in the general populace, as has been suggested about (for example) mechanical watches?

Cheers
Jamie

ps no kids, so the M3 is written into my will to go to my god-daughter...

 

[Roger Hicks]

My wife and I buy almst everything to last. Why do otherwise? Our Land Rover is 35 years old. I've only had it 6 but the new galvanized chassis will see me out. I've had my BMW R100RS for 25 years.

The last new Leica I bought before I got the MP was my M4P in about '81. I'm still using it. Likewise the first Billingham bags we bought, though one of them is pretty much worn out.

We have Le Creuset pans, and a frying pan that belonged to my wife's grandparents in the late 19th century. The oldest kitchen knife I use, I bought around 40 years ago. We eat with late 19th century sterling (family heirloom again). My watch (Omega Seamaster) was a present from my father in 1966.

On a lesser scale, Mephisto boots & shoes are 2x-4x the price of cheap ones but last a lot better. Leatherman beats cheap Chinese imitations. And so forth.

I read many years ago that one reason the rich are rich is that they don't waste money. Well, I'm not rich, but as I own my own house, car, etc., without debt, I can live surprisingly comfortably on astonishingly little.

Edit: perhas the difference is that mostly I buy things to use, not for the sake of possessing them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I have a friend who has an old 1960's Mercedes Benz which is 100% mechanical and I'm sure will outlast any new computerized equivalent available today.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

My elderly parents recently bought a new bed and mattress.

The salesman tried to sell them an alternative with a 25 year guarantee.

They told him firmly they did not need a 25 year guarantee.

 

[oftheherd]

I guess it is my age, that I was taught to buy good products, even if they cost a little more, because they would last. Anything old I have may indeed require periodic service, but it will continue to last. And digital to the contrary, it still hasn't been overtaken by anything better. That isn't to say I am against digital. It has its place, and over time it will get to a point where it can be assumed the important part, its ability to take photos will reach a point where improvements are minimal. That happened with film and I am sure it will happen with digital.

More to your point, I like the craftsmanship in older cameras. I still like film. But I don't really get uptight about it.

 

[bsdunek]

My Wife and I grew up with parents that lived through the Depression. They never threw anything away if there was even a chance it could have some use some day. Guess that rubbed off on us!
That said, I love my old cameras from the 1949 (as close as I can tell) Rollieflex to my 1970 Nikon. They feel solid in my hands, work smoothly, and still take sharp photos. Sort of goes along with my 1948 Farmall M my Dad bought new, 1950 Cessna 170 he bought new, some 40's pocket knives, and other things.
I'm currently doing a repair job on my Wifes 1930's waffle maker that belonged to her Grandmother - because it just needs a little TLC to last another 75 years.
I wasn't aware of the vintage type shaving equipment - got to look into that! 😎

 

[jolefler]

My Barnacks are...

My Barnacks are...

the cameras my Father wanted, but couldn't afford. He "made do" with a Speed Graphic for his wedding work (Dad's pretty smart, huh?).

He's in a home now. I take my cameras to visit him. He examines them carefully and states EVERY time (Alzheimer's)....."You need bigger negs." 😱

He sold the Speed before I was of age to appreciate it. I'd like my son to have my screw mounts passed on to him in WORKING condition as I doubt he'll be able to buy anything as durable, well machined and widely acclaimed at that time.

 

[micromontenegro]

I've been using my Contax for over 30 years. Before me, my dad used it for some 25 years. I plan to keep on using it until health decrees otherwise.
I also plan to keep my Land Rover (which is 36 years old), and in fact I need to find another one, as my daugthers have a disagreement as to who will get it when I give it up. If I ever needed a replacement for either Contax or Land Rover, I don´t think I would accept a lesser item.

 

[thawkins]

Most of my mechanical based things are old as there dem hills..... digital is like a rotating door

That is the best discription I have yet heard of digital. Like one of the other respondents, I also wear an Omega Seamaster watch I bought in 1968. That same year I purchased my first 35mm camera a Kodak Retina 1a. Six years later I purchased an SRT 101 to celebrate the birth of our first daughter. Now each camera has been CLAed twice since purchase and gets regular use photographing our granddaughters. I am 58 and just added an M3 to my stable and I think all three of them will last my life time.

Tom

 

[literiter]

we seem obsessed with having a camera that will last 50 years.

i don't get it.

joe

The obsession, seems to be having a camera that won't last 50 years. Our society obsesses to obtain the latest and trendiest products, regardless of their ultimate utility.

Many of us have older cameras because we are not obsessed with owning the newer trendier products.

If we really cared about the product of photography, the image, the choice of camera would be irrelevant.

Many great works were created on older tools: Many great books were created by the pen and typewriter. Many great photographs predate digital. Many great images are still created by artists useing tools whose design predate history.

 

[rbiemer]

If a camera will still work well in 50 years, then it ought to work well the next time one uses it--or, if a camera is reliable enough to still work in 2058, then reliability becomes one less thing to fret over.
Rob

 

[sircarl]

Who wouldn't want something -- whether it's a camera, a watch, a car, whatever -- that lasts a long time? But longevity almost always comes at a price, often a very hefty one, as Leicas prove. Each one of us has to decide for himself whether that's a price worth paying. I'm in Joe's camp on this. For me, longevity is way down on my list of priorities in choosing a camera. I recently bought a Zeiss Ikon, despite all the carping about its allegedly "cheap build" I read about here and elsewhere, because it has other features I really want in a camera. If it lasts me, say, 10 years without needing a major repair, I'll be very happy. And if it breaks down totally I'll just buy another one, and still have spent far less than an Energizer Bunny Leica would have cost me.

 

[ferider]

I don't really care about longevity. For any camera, car, etc. this will depend
mostly on how I treat it, not on what brand I use. When its broken and
I care it can most likely be fixed.

That my favorite car and rangefinder are exactly my age though is fun.

 

[Rafael]

That my favorite car and rangefinder are exactly my age though is fun.

Leica M3 and Mercedes 300SL? 😎

 

[BillBingham2]

For me it's two things.

First I like tools to become invisible to me when I use them. I want to concentrate on the task at hand, not the tool. Manual cameras can do that for me very easily. With automatic cameras I have to think about is the exposure and focus locked where I want it when the moment comes.

Second is that I want to be able to depend on the the tool. Not that it will never break, but that it will not break from regular use. And when it does break I can get it repaired. Buying everything new has fueled the US economy way too long, I do not like it. Why should I have to buy a whole new system of lenses and flashes when a camera body dies.

I'd love to do the same with cars, but I live in the rust belt and have very little time. An old Renault 17 G would be a lot more fun to drive then my Fit, but then my Fit is a lot safer for the kids in back. Perhaps a 16 would have more room......

B2 (;->

 

[Gumby]

...razors?

Worrying is a neurotic tendency that I tend not to have, but I am a bit concerned over razors and razor blades. Double-edge blades give the next best shave to a real straight razor. The blades are readily available but the holders are not. Hmmm, what's a guy to do?

 

[Tuolumne]

I think most people use longevity as a proxy for quality. It's one easy way to quantify that elusive concept.

/T

 

[kevin m]

It's all about "the love."

It doesn't matter what the thing is, I can walk into a room and see "the love" and I think many people here can, too.

Like the saying goes, it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Early Leica M's have the love; M6's, not as much; Bessa R's, next to nothing, and my Canon Elan 7, none at all.

"The love" is the quality that makes you act in ways that might defy fiscal sense: Taking that ratty old Danish Modern sofa with clean lines home, stripping it, repairing the solid hardwood frame and having it reupholstered; buying a 50's vintage BMW twin and spending a year restoring it just because the sight of Glasurit black enamel, chrome, stainless steel and aluminum all together looks so freakin' cool - that, and it ticks like a timepiece while it idles; doing a month-long internet search for someone who can repair a 50's vintage Sunbeam toaster just because, well, it still lowers the bread automatically after 50 years of use and it's chrome plating makes modern imitations look like....imitations.

It's the above and beyond. The little bit of extra that can be brought back to life and somehow compels you to make the effort.

That's why I care. 🙂

 

[wgerrard]

Your GF has Le Creuset too, eh? Good on her. (

Le Creuset is actually an example of an expensive traditional product that, with proper care, will last forever, a-n-d that generally delivers better performance than its competitors. (For those who avoid the kitchen, Le Creuset is a line of enamel-coated cast iron cookware.)

So, it makes sense to buy Le Creuset if you can afford it, if you will take care of it, and if you will use it often enough.

It makes little sense to buy Le Creuset if you don't cook and will just let it sit on a shelf waiting for you to admire it.

I think the same can be said of cameras or any similar product. If an actual correlation between reputation, price and performance exists, it's rational to care about the quality. If not, then maybe something else is driving the impulse to acquire.