Rolex or M9?

[triciakennedy]

<p>Santa brought me a Rolex Yachtmaster. I will enjoy seeing it on my wrist every day from now on. Nice though the M9 would be, I could not wear it. I'm lucky enough to have a couple of great cameras (Canon 5Dii is one of them). I would challenge anyone to know if the final print came from an M9 or a 5Dii (or any other quality camera, for that matter) but the Rolex will endure over time and probably appreciate in value. As you guess, my vote goes to buying the Rolex, or, do as another poster has suggested and give the cash to charity. I'm guessing you already have a good camera(?) Good luck with your choice!</p>

[vitor]

<p>M9.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Happy New Year Travis. And everyone else.</p>

<p>First of all, Travis, I know you take pictures, but do you dive? If you don't dive you might ask yourself why you need a Submariner. I have a GMT Master II. It is very useful when I travel and when I have to contact friends around the world. It's a simple steel watch and does me good. I also have a few chronographs, which are also useful. I do not have an M9 yet. But that's a story for another time.</p>

<p>Back to you, Travis. If you do dive and even if you don't, a classy and practical alternative to the Submariner is the Breitling Super Ocean. It, like the Submariner, has chronometer status and it is about half the price of the Submariner. (Get the chronograph version; it's more fun.) In that way you can possibly have a super classy and practical watch and your M9. </p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>"The Rolex will only tell you what time it is right now, the M9 tell you of all the good times and bad times you've had for years to come..."</p>

<p>No contest, really. A luxury watch is a <em>possession</em>, a camera is a <em>tool to create</em>.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>A fine watch remains a fine watch your whole lifetime, and then carries on with the next generation. An M9 is a digital camera. No matter how well-made, it will be obsolete in a very short time. A cheap Timex will keep time just as well as the Rolex, and many cheaper digital cameras will take pictures as well as the M9... but given the prices of these luxury items, I would go with the watch.</p>

[dave_b15]

<blockquote>

<p>Wonder which will make me happier...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Either ... for about 3 days. Possessions are never the way to long term happiness.</p>

<p>If you want to spend the money, use the money and go on an adventure vacation with your current camera gear. <em>That</em> will make you happier for a little longer than just buying something.</p>

[nglester]

<p>ashamedly i have to say i'd go for a Rolex </p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>If you must have a new toy get the M9. Your Tag Heuer will keep time as well as a Rolex and will last longer than any of us. I bought my Tag in 1991 and have been quite astisfied with it. I have no use for status symbols and the Tag Heuer is simply a very good watch. If you have some M lenses the M9 would be a reasonable way to go.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>Get the M9 - Rolex watches are ugly!</p>

[ruslan]

<p>I don't care if someone wears Rolex, Breguet or Zenith watches. Moreover, now it is time of chinese imitations... I stopped to be brand-addicted and have no fetishes. As for the M9... I can afford one but what for? The photographer does take pictures - not the camera. It is the pleasure of the taking pictures prosess - not of the owing the camera. (For me) It is just a working tool in a long chain - computer, processing, sofware. And 99% of my friends do not know what the Leica is...They might be shocked by brand new Bentley Continental GT - M9, or... Mercedes Benz SLK 600, while the M9 would leave them disinteredted... That is ... it is not so much of a level or a status...Using, say, Canon EOS 5 Mk2 you may take very good pictures. If you want good A1 prints - Leica fails. Save. Go to the Pentax 645 D. I use a humble Olympus and I do not care of it - it is cheap. The lenses - it is matters. You might pick Pentax K-5 and 31mm and 77mm limited - I bet they can take camparable to Leica pictures... You might invest the money in shares (if you want to gain a profit in the future), read a book, travel, etc... If you want to be a part of Leica fan-club - go for the Leica, but it is digital. <br>

Now it is the time when all (especially electronuic devices) gets obsolete very quickly. <br>

Happy New Year!</p>

[options]

<p>Get both help the economy out of the slump.</p>

[astral]

<p>For the money, there are far, far better watches than a Rolex: for the money, there ain't many better Leica M digital cameras ;-)</p>

[rgerraty]

I wear the first watch I bought myself, a quartz Omega Seamaster with a small face to suit my tiny wrist. It didn't cost

much in 1986. I sometimes wear my grandfather's Cymaflex, a beautiful simple Swiss watch much favoured by GIs in

Europe after WWII. Not long ago I bought a beautiful, excruciatingly thin Skagen watch for not much money either. I

always thought I would one day want to have an heirloom grade of watch, but now I have two children I cannot justify

the expense. The nauseating magazine advertisements of one of the high end makers only confirms me in my current

view. Furthermore my idea of luxury nowadays is one I heard of long ago from a source I can no longer remember. It

is only the most satisfying luxury when no-one else knows of it. Like cashmere socks. If I had an expensive watch I

would want an obscure French brand in something as simple as my grandfather's watch. My view is partly my own

personality and partly the city I live in, capital of a state called Victoria. Understatement to a ridiculous extent is a

peculiar Australian trait, perhaps born of the early hardship of settling the place. In many parts of Asia, I understand,

ostentation serves an important social function which it may not be practical to avoid entirely. The Panerai I might want

on my wrist is a lot of model soldiers my son won't have. At least that's the way he'll look at it. A new M9 could be got

past him much more easily than the Rolex, but he would prefer I had neither. So a second hand M7 is most likely my

next Leica, but hopefully only after the Fuji X100.

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>Rolex or Leica???? Wow, why the decision, why not buy both? It's only money! Seriously, I've had 3 Rolex watches, an Air King, a Submariner and a Daytona. All great. None held time, not a one. Every one was solid, and withstood tons of physical abuse, but from day one, timewise, not that great. Have a Seiko Pilot 100 Chron, best watch ever, in every way imaginable. Cost me a whopping $80. Short of beating it with a ball peen hammer, it works. Now, an M9? C'mon, better cameras out there. Keep looking.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Who the hell needs a watch? That's why they make cell phones!</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i think the new shape of the Submariner is horrid! Investment wise however, the watch is going to hold up A LOT better than the digicam. I'd love an M9, but just can't justify losing so much money in depreciation.........$2300 for an M8 now! Usefulness, the M9 is going to give you more pleasure. The M9 is a prestigious camera also, the Rolex is not a prestigious watch....it's just a very nice sports watch. I'm sure that is a consideration for you, if it weren't, the decision would be an easy one for you to make. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Strange Thread. Don't buy either of those things unless you like getting fished. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I'd ask yourself why you want either first. My experiences with Leica (granted it was with film) is that the cameras themselves are nothing too special. The lenses are phenominal, but the cameras are just the multi-thousand-dollar price of admission to buying the lenses. I can honestly say that unless you're looking to impress people, I would see no reason to buy a Leica over a digital Mamiya. The Mamiya doesn't have lenses as nice, but the larger sensor more than makes up for the lesser lenses. Even in the pro world, you would regularly see Vogue and Rolling Stone shooters using RBs and RXs over Leica even for the 9x12 sized format. If you want speed, then you should use a D3s or 1D over the Leica anyway.</p>

<p>Even as a guy that sells Leica, I still feel that the only analytical reason to buy Leica (at least new) is to impress people. There are better cameras for the money. And if that's your goal, the Rolex will do a much better job.</p>

<p>Actually, you know what toy I would buy with the money? A used BMW Z series or Mazda Miata. You already have great gear (both watches and cameras), and unless you shoot professionally it's not worth a huge jump in price for a small jump in quality. But I think everyone with that amount of disposable income should own a roadster. It's fun as hell, and won't be as repetitive as another thing you (sort of) already own.</p>

<p>Or even a vacation. I like Scotland, but you could live in sub-continental Asia for months with that kind of cash. You'll take much better photos going someplace interesting than you will buying more cameras.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>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.</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>I hope Travis is just yanking our chain, here. I mean, seriously, do grown men really ask such questions? And of strangers? I think you guys have been had!</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

 

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Leslie, oh so true. Beautiful words. Happy New Year.</p>

<p>I'm happy with what I have.</p>

 

[halkar]

Wait for the digital Rolex :)

[eddymendoza]

<p>I bought a Tudor submariner in 1978-79? Paid $600 dollars back then. I was barely 18 years old but I bought what I could afford. Since then I've had many Rolex watches including a very fancy presidential which I rarely use instead I wear my Rolex look a like (Invicta) which weighs as much and feels just like a submariner but if I hit it against wall corners I don't freak out. I own many cameras but not one Leica, I'm working on that. I don't know anyone who has one so I can't ask to see some prints but I have heard many great things about their quality and exceptional picture taking ability. If you do end up getting one please post some images.<br>

Happy New Year to all and a prosperous one too!</p>

<p>Ed</p>

 

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>I'd buy the Rolex.</p>

<p>I already have an M9 ...</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I prefer Seikos.</p>

<p>There are quite a few interesting posts - Mukul made the best point: spend money on things which allow you to create.</p>

<p>Richard G, you and I are probably from the same town. I think I agree with what you're saying and I do partly agree, actually. Sometimes the opposite happens: ordinary things (however nice they actually are) get elevated to the status of excellence. Hence a specific Ford Falcon can fetch $750K, much more than a new Maserati Quattroporte. It's like double-think, valuing a common man's car over a foreign import, but making the point stronger by paying more than it's actually worth, just so people can wonder that you overlooked the cheaper import for the local one.</p>

<p>Leicas are not for showing off, they are lovely tools. Big DSLRs are for show-offs.</p>