rj Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I agree with Bob above. I read all these posts about leicas costing so much more, attacking leica for being expensive, attacking leica users as being pretty much pompus asses and I just think to myself, why do you care so much about other peoples motives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 ....until <i>they're</i> dead, too. <p> What was that bible verse, "...meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Please excuse me for answering my own question, but it is why wars are always fought, greed, anger and stupidity. Can't we just apologise to them and declare it all a horrible mistake? Then we can use all the cash it will cost to keep occupying them and give it to them to rebuild their country with, and using their own construction companies, not Dick Cheney's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Oops, I was responding to Ray's earlier post. Really, you want to bitch about what people spend, go to the EOS forum and tell 'em your 10d is just as good as their 1ds MkII so 'they must be crazy to spend that kinda dough.' Except that you wouldn't do that, because in our culture, technology is 'good' and requires no justification, whereas any other interest must be rationalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 By being patient (and not too fussy about the cosmetics) I have gotten some fine Leica equipment for much less than I'd have paid if I was the impulsive sort. I got an R8 and 28-70, 70-210, 50 Cron and 90 Cron for less than $2000 earlier this year. A small-town store was ready to wholesale them for $1800 and the owner was happy to get another $200 for the stuff that had been sitting for a couple of years without a taker. The whole shebang cost me about what a demo R9 body alone would run. I picked up a mid-80s 50 Summilux-M with perfect glass and only a very little outer wear for around $600. I wouldn't have even entertained the idea of paying $1000 or more for the "latest" one with the 46mm filter, let alone $2500 for the ASPH version. But I know for a fact there are lots of people for whom $4000 equates to $4 in my economic scale. And I thank my lucky stars they're out there, because those bargains have to come from someone cavalier about their money. Does owing a (even) $600 50/1.4 lens make me a better photographer than a $60 50/1.4 lens? My answer to that question would be "why is that important to you, I didn't spend your money did I?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Jesus! OK, you guys win. I am sorry for questioning what people spend their money on. I get like this every now and then. Didn't you see my post about the M6 Classic, or was it deleted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 The best bodies and lenses from Canon or Nikon are going to set you back thousands of dollars also; I don't think there's much difference in price when you're talking about gear of similar quality. There are several people on this forum who've spent far more money on their non-Leica gear than have most of the Leica users they criticize as spendy prestige-seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 like who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Holy mackerel! I have issues with money, I guess. So there! Anyway, I like being in the consumer society, because a lot of people do make impulse buys, thinking they will be happy if only the have (fill in the blank), and then when they find out that X item does not bestow happiness or greatness on them they abandon it for Item Y. Then I can score item X, and probaly Y too a bit later for a pittance. Hey, the more people buying expensive Leica gear the better. It will keep the elves in Wetzlar, or Solms busy, pumping out their wonderful treasures, and I can grab them when they are dumped for the latest model. It works for me. Hence, I retract my original statement. I now say, why don't more people buy expensive Leica gear? If you have not done so yet, now may be the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I have spent more on my pentax gear than my leica gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 i've found that spending the money i would have spent on gear on things like printing, film and flights, far more rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I have more money in Canon EF lenses than my Leica stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 i was hoping beau could enlighten us, since he apparently knows everyones finances here...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_holland1 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Hi Claude, I've had a leica M for around 3 years, an M6 TTL which just recently I?ve added an MP, and an ASPH 35/2 & Voit 15/4. When I first started taking photos with the M6 TTL I was ashamed that I had spent so much on it, my friends would ask what the camera was and when I told them, they hadn't a clue. So when they asked how much it cost, and I gave them the astounding price, just for the body (!), they were stunned. They laughed, how could something that was so basic be so expensive, I tried to explain about the build quality and that the optics of the lenses were second to none, and, and, ahhh.... but they smiled and we then spoke of other things, probably the weather as we're English. But over the last 3 years my mates have hardly seen me without it, they are all use to taking charge of it when I go to the toilette in a restaurant or look after it when I get a little too pi??ed. I use it, a lot, my M6 TTL which I?m about to sell is lovingly used, it doesn't have the plastic on its bottom plate, I?ve had the red spot changed for the limited black one, the white 'LEICA M6' is black, its almost invisible. Its because of this that when you step out of a crowd and take a photo, every one looks at it as a little old camera, its not going to go flash, werr, clunk and shout 'I'M HUGE!', you can easily ignore it. People don't feel threatened by it; they don't even hear it click. So in this world of wall to wall digital, they don't really take it seriously, which in turn does affect the final image, and so surely that?s the point, the photo, the moment. I've gone off on one, sorry, the point is, I don't get distracted by the camera, as a result I have seen a massive improvement in my photos. Friends and family see the results, as the images flick up on my laptop as the screen saver, people actually now ask me for copies; well actually the first thing they ask is who took those. So many things these days are quantified, dpi, MHz, bit depth and so on but the lens quality coupled with the handling of the body does result in something unique. I'm very lucky to be able to afford one but I do think it has been worth the expense. Last thing, Claude didn't you appreciate the camera or find that the way you took photos was very different to any other camera? oh and whta sort of photography do you use the camera for? Kind Regards, Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_portera Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 After buying a lot of lenses Ive realized that I work best with a normal lens (wich for me is a 50mm). Even in other formats, a normal is all that I need. I have other lenses and will porbably buy a 35mm for my M6, but I could get along with just a 50mm. If I had known this years ago I could have saved quite a bit of money. As for Leica glass, Yes its top notch. I have a 50mm Summicron, bought a year or two ago and it is great, my other two lenses are Voigtlanders (21 and 90) and they serve me very well, albeit slower than the equivilant leica glass. I shoot mostly larger formats these days and I have some good 4x5 lenses that cost much less than Leica lenses. I also have an F100 with 5 lenses that only gets use for paying jobs. I simply can not afford to buy new Leica glass! Just some random thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Paul. I checked your snaps and the girl photographed while loving snow storm is absolutely awesome. Great picture IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 "I sold the bunch, unable to reconcile myself to the cost" "I would need to take a huge hell of a lot of pictures to feel like I was getting my money's worth" Claude, this "justification" of a leica purchase is at the root of the problem here. "Justification" of a Holga is easy, however at the end of the day, it may not do the job! Most people buy what makes the most sense for them. People also buy products that are more expensive because of reasons that possibly only they can relate to. I would say that anyone who tries to "justify" every purchase, not only to themselves but everyone else, has lost sight of what is important......in this case just making images that they enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claude_batmanghelidj Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Paul, to answer your question, I suffer from a rare disorder known as Camera consumeritis. I don't think I have ever owned a camera long enough to really get to know it. I have taken some really nice pics, especially with my Bronica, which I have owned the longest, but I have never given Leica a chance (or the Nikon F3, FM, FE, FE2, Contax RTS, Contax G1, G2, Mamiya 6, Fuji 645, Moskva, 8008s, N90s, Canon A2, 630, F1n, Ae-1, Minolta XG-M, Yashica FX3, Nikon FA, F, F2, OM-1, 2, 4, and the list goes on). I am a wizard at scoring deals, and the wheeling and dealing, buying and selling, gets in the way of taking pictures. From here on out, it is over. I am clean and sober, and no more consumer binges! I now have the M4 and the SL, and the Bronnie, so they will be the cameras I use for film from here on out, plain and simple. So check back with me in a few years. I can answer you better then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Claude, there's a major flaw in your analogy to Cartier-Bresson & Capa: when they were shooting w/those old Leicas & Contaxes they were using the highest-tech cameras of their time, not trying to live the "simple life." Accounting for inflation, etc., a new Leica or Contax body w/50mm f/2 "high speed" lens (especially the Contax as it was a higher-end system) back in the 1930s-50s cost roughly $2000-3000 today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Claude, trying to argue with Grant is like trying to explain to somebody why they shouldn't be pissing into the wind. If they can't see it all over their own face don't concern yourself with it. The rest of us can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 <i>"i was hoping beau could enlighten us, since he apparently knows everyones finances here...?"</i><p>Well Grant, just to throw out two names: Al Feng and Scott Eaton. Both of them have advertised their ownership of state-of-the-art DSLRs and pro-level lenses. Meanwhile, they ridicule certain Leica users here who, I happen to know personally, own one decades-old body and a couple lenses.<p>Whether or not you know someone's finances, you can do the math -- the price of a 10-D and an "L" lens buys a fair amount of older Leica gear, does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Scott's just as attached and enamored with the name Nikon as anyone I know here is with Leica.<p>"...does it not?"<p>Cross examination time there Beau? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richie chishty Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well....another very loooooooooooooooooooooong thread with no photos! Let me see if I can do anything to change that! :-)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 <Why do people pay so much for Leica Lenses?> To get to the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 What's a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now