rosenmj Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <p>Jewelry is jewelry, flip a coin. for what it's worth the M9 is slightly more useful than a Rolex.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euripides_smalls Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <p>In the current (and what I believe will be a permanent) phase of our economy, yours is indeed a wonderful 'problem' to have.<br> I believe that you knew exactly what decision you would make, long before posting to this forum. However, it's a fun question, so I'll play along.<br> I'd choose the watch; all day, every day.<br> My thought process runs like this: I agree, that a $300 watch will keep time as well or better than a Rolex, and yet a $300 or even a $600 dollar body will be unlikely to support lenses with the IQ anywhere in the ballpark of a Leica. I also agree about the whole, "creating images/memories for a lifetime and all that.<br> However,<br> I enjoy photography as much as anyone, and I know that even today in 2011, masterful photographers are, and have been documenting their lives, events, and indulging in their avocations with everything from i-phones and point & shoots to manual focus SLR's that are 30 and 40 years old. You can capture the exact same 'memories' and document your existence just as well with a circa 1985 SLR as you can with a Leica M whatever.<br> If 100 people view a 16x20 image, I don't think that 5 could tell you whether it was shot with a Leica M9 or a Pentax LX (with a Pentax lens).<br> Fine watches are routinely handed down for generations. And Rolex is more of a 'prestige' brand, than a fine timepiece. The average person has never even heard of the brands of truly high end watches. Regardless though, 50+ years from now, your grandchild will be wearing your Rolex when your Leica is in a landfill.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euripides_smalls Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <p>In the current (and what I believe will be a permanent) phase of our economy, yours is indeed a wonderful 'problem' to have.<br> I believe that you knew exactly what decision you would make, long before posting to this forum. However, it's a fun question, so I'll play along.<br> I'd choose the watch; all day, every day.<br> My thought process runs like this: I agree, that a $300 watch will keep time as well or better than a Rolex, and yet a $300 or even a $600 dollar body will be unlikely to support lenses with the IQ anywhere in the ballpark of a Leica. I also agree about the whole, "creating images/memories for a lifetime and all that.<br> However,<br> I enjoy photography as much as anyone, and I know that even today in 2011, masterful photographers are, and have been documenting their lives, events, and indulging in their avocations with everything from i-phones and point & shoots to manual focus SLR's that are 30 and 40 years old. You can capture the exact same 'memories' and document your existence just as well with a circa 1985 SLR as you can with a Leica M whatever.<br> If 100 people view a 16x20 image, I don't think that 5 could tell you whether it was shot with a Leica M9 or a Pentax LX (with a Pentax lens).<br> Fine watches are routinely handed down for generations. And Rolex is more of a 'prestige' brand, than a fine timepiece. The average person has never even heard of the brands of truly high end watches. Regardless though, 50+ years from now, your grandchild will be wearing your Rolex when your Leica is in a landfill.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euripides_smalls Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <p>In the current (and what I believe will be a permanent) phase of our economy, yours is indeed a wonderful 'problem' to have.<br> I believe that you knew exactly what decision you would make, long before posting to this forum. However, it's a fun question, so I'll play along.<br> I'd choose the watch; all day, every day.<br> My thought process runs like this: I agree, that a $300 watch will keep time as well or better than a Rolex, and yet a $300 or even a $600 dollar body will be unlikely to support lenses with the IQ anywhere in the ballpark of a Leica. I also agree about the whole, "creating images/memories for a lifetime and all that.<br> However,<br> I enjoy photography as much as anyone, and I know that even today in 2011, masterful photographers are, and have been documenting their lives, events, and indulging in their avocations with everything from i-phones and point & shoots to manual focus SLR's that are 30 and 40 years old. You can capture the exact same 'memories' and document your existence just as well with a circa 1985 SLR as you can with a Leica M whatever.<br> If 100 people view a 16x20 image, I don't think that 5 could tell you whether it was shot with a Leica M9 or a Pentax LX (with a Pentax lens).<br> Fine watches are routinely handed down for generations. And Rolex is more of a 'prestige' brand, than a fine timepiece. The average person has never even heard of the brands of truly high end watches. Regardless though, 50+ years from now, your grandchild will be wearing your Rolex when your Leica is in a landfill.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david j.lee Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <p>Now that you mention that, Euripides, I remember reading in Eric Clapton's Autobiography that of all the money he spent in all those years,in any number of things, the only good investment was his Patek Philippe watches.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_murphy_photography Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p><em>I'm appalled at how many of the responses are juvenile and contain no factual information or constructive helpful information.........</em></p> </blockquote> <p>You mean kind of like yours Richard? What advice did yours contain? You don't even cite examples of these "juvenile posts" you are so quick to point out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>Funny question... with what most of us have in invested in photographic gear over the years, we could all be wearing Rolex as an alternative. Most of us don't.</p> <p>To me, a fine watch is something of personal value, maybe what a fine ring or necklace is to a lady. It's not if you can buy 3 of them or more, but if you save up to get that one watch you really want, I'd go for it. My father bought a Rolex Oyster or something more than 40 years ago. It has been serviced 1 or 2 times, still running perfectly. And today my brother is wearing it, every day. The Exacta Varex my father bought some years before is sitting somewhere in a box. At the time, with lenses it cost about as much as the Rolex. To my brother, the Rolex is more than just a fine watch, it's the watch he took over from my father.</p> <p>To me, a camera, even an M9, is a tool. I use my D300, love my M2, Rolleiflex and Sinar f, but in the end they are just tools you have to know how to use. The pictures I take will be the things that last (in my familiy, that is), but the cameras will only be hardware, probably bound to end up on some auction site once I'll be gone.</p> <p>So it's just two indipendent decisions: do you NEED an M9 for specific photographic purposes, AND do you WANT the Rolex for your personal satisfaction? You'll probably get both, over time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakan_arli Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>Buy both ... Instead Sub, I would buy a date-just and buying new has never been my thing.. buy a second hand M9 ... 3000USD for a datejust + 6000USD for used M9= 9000USD you would be the happiest man alive....................</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_harries Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf_rainer_schmalfuss Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>A Rolex watch fits much better with a hot Porsche car, and not with an already technical outdated Leica M9. With an lousy M9 camera you cannot impress any women!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>'Fine watches are routinely handed down for generations. And Rolex is more of a 'prestige' brand, than a fine timepiece. The average person has never even heard of the brands of truly high end watches. Regardless though, 50+ years from now, your grandchild will be wearing your Rolex when your Leica is in a landfill.'</p> <p>I wonder. Looks like wristwaches are going the way of 35mm cameras:</p> <p>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/tech/main2488301.shtml<br> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11634105</p> <p>They will still be valued as heirlooms, or course, but probably kept in the same drawer as Grandad's pocket watch and the family Kodachromes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
httpphoto.netsharedco Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>I purchased my Rolex GMT Master in St Thomas VI in 1968 for +/- $250 (worth in the vicinity of $3000 today) and have been wearing it every day since. I wonder what the M9 will be worth in 40 years.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>Funny topic.<br /> From my point of view, a Leica M9 will really get you to another level. The Rolex will probably make you look more elegant, maybe.<br /> Certainly a M9 in good hands tell me <em>way more</em> than a Rolex... but it`s me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p><em>Buy your wife and kid some gifts and take off to your favorite destination just to photograph. Possessions don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things...However, your loved ones and a little time to do your things do matter very much.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I have just read the whole thread. What an useful answer, sincerely. Thanks Leslie.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>Well, Travis enjoy your Submariner. You'll find uses for that lovely green dial. If ever you need advice on chronographs let me know. The M9 will still be there next year.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 <p>I don't suppose posting a "which one to buy?(of anything)" in the leica forum is considered gloating. No you wouldn't be condemned for thinking so. The guy who thinks I am gloating(check back thread) has 3 scanners. Why? Couldn't decide? Must be tough for you having to buy 3 times.<br> Definitely not my intention (to gloat). Yes I am definitely lucky to be in a position to choose but I did work my ass off these few years...and had been holding back buying the m8 and m9 last few years..sort of like watch them fly pass. Just because someone else is unemployed elsewhere in this world has nothing to do with me. I gotta live my life too, right? When the time comes if I have to choose between rent and food, I'll choose food.;)<br> I thank you members here for the incredible life experince, as you can see too many have had Rolexes and other well made chronos. They are just that, quality timepieces for keeps and to pass down..and that's what I am hoping for. But I have a daughter, so I may get her a lady's piece one day.<br> M9, well..wouldn't change the way I see things through a camera. But definitely will make my summilux blossom if attached on.<br> Ocnce again, thank you fellows. Enjoy your new year!</p> <p>Alex, I don't dive but may do so when I have the Sub.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbg32 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <p>The M9 has a built in clock. Just take a picture when you need to know what time it is. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <p>I bought my Rolex in 1985 ( someone thought it was a bi-centenial watch... red and blue bezel) and just now bought the M9 to replace my 1972 M4... get the M9. My Seiko keeps better time. Now I feel I am doing photography again. I've had a Canon5d for a long time and it's good, but this is an adventure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <p>I bought my Rolex in 1985 ( someone thought it was a bi-centenial watch... red and blue bezel) and just now bought the M9 to replace my 1972 M4... get the M9. My Seiko keeps better time. Now I feel I am doing photography again. I've had a Canon5d for a long time and it's good, but this is an adventure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <p>I bought my Rolex in 1985 ( someone thought it was a bi-centenial watch... red and blue bezel) and just now bought the M9 to replace my 1972 M4... get the M9. My Seiko keeps better time. Now I feel I am doing photography again. I've had a Canon5d for a long time and it's good, but this is an adventure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 <p>I bought my Rolex in 1985 ( someone thought it was a bi-centenial watch... red and blue bezel) and just now bought the M9 to replace my 1972 M4... get the M9. My Seiko keeps better time. Now I feel I am doing photography again. I've had a Canon5d for a long time and it's good, but this is an adventure.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 jim,thats 4 rolexes :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 <p>Rolex is a better buy</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 <p>Rolex is a better buy</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 <p>Travis, enjoy the Submariner. You work hard for your money and you deserve it, and, at some time, the M9 if you will still want it.</p> <p>I wonder if anyone has seen analogies between Rolex and rangefinders and film.</p> <p>When Seiko came out with the first quartz watch in the 1960s it was a huge punch to the mechanical watch industry, mainly in Switzerland. The first quartz watch was expensive but soon quartz watches became far cheaper than mechanical watches. The also kept time better. You would think that mechanical watches would have died but instead they made a comeback. There are many reason for that, which I'll forego here. The point is that the rangefinder camera has rebounded after being eclipsed by the SLR for decades. I predict film will also make a comeback some day.<br> The Submariner is a nice watch aesthetically and it will never need a new battery. That's a small plus for ecology.</p> 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