Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,765   Posts: 1,484,079   Online: 947
      
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 143
  1. #71
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.
    For quality, the Leica and a few competitors were tops in 35mm. However, the economy of the 1930s and the scarcity of film during WWII make the half-frame Mercury almost viable. A Mercury II was my first venture into half-good 35mm photography in 1951. By then most people preferred the full frame Argus C3.

  2. #72
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,150
    Images
    210

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Leica is a fine camera, an outstanding tool particularly when you examine the performance of the lenses that are available for it, i certainly would own one under the right set of circumstances, but here's the but, gear doesn't make you money, clients do. The OP is wondering about the camera as an investment offsetting the amount of interest he would pay. I have no doubt collectors can get positive returns, but collecting as a business is a business like any other, and I doubt paying a high 12% monthly compounding interest rate in hopes of offsetting it with simple non compounding annual appreciation is a wise financial move. Even stellar appreciation would soon be a footnote in the world of compound interest. The OP should take note of the difference between them. If the camera doubled in value every year it would still fall behind. Many people think it is apples to apples. It isn't, not by a long shot. A pizza on a credit card can cost up to several hundred dollars. Why many are so blind to this I can't figure out.

    I have quite a few things that were chosen at a premium because I liked them, but I would never have undertaken debt to get them. Debt is a scourge, a slave maker. Credit card debt is the worst of the worst. The only thing more dangerous is borrowing money from a leg breaker.

    The key to my success was given to me by a very rich man when I was about 20 years old. I asked him what I should do to be financially successful. He looked me dead in the eye with a coldness I had never seen in him before. Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.
    Sounds like the pre-rich dad, poor dad advice

    Sadly I did some real estate investing in ...2003... Didn't work out so good for me... Lol

    That said I still agree. Some other good advice I was given.

    "When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall"


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #73
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,150
    Images
    210

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by cbphoto View Post
    Strongly disagree. Leicas are extremely durable, last a long time (like, generations) with occasional tune-ups, are available in user condition for non-insane prices, and the lenses are just beyond. Also, what other system outside of large format has usable, dedicated lenses dating back 80 years, covering just about any look you want - soft, vintage, ultra-modern, etc? Leicas are extremely practical - just because people collect them doesn't mean they are solely collectors' items!
    I think using the word "practical" very loosely, NOTHING that costs as much as a Leica compared to its other 35mm RF brethren can be considered practical. You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica. And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing.

    As was just said, I don't think that hanging a photo "shot on a Leica" will bring any more added value to the buyer. But what do I know, my next hanging show isn't till April...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I think using the word "practical" very loosely, NOTHING that costs as much as a Leica compared to its other 35mm RF brethren can be considered practical. You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica. And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing.

    As was just said, I don't think that hanging a photo "shot on a Leica" will bring any more added value to the buyer. But what do I know, my next hanging show isn't till April...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Resolving power is not an issue when describing any lens worth talking about. The contrast signature and other things like flare (or lack of) are more interesting and define the look of a lens, and are readily apparent in a print. That doesn't mean Leica is the only game in town - the look works for me. At one point I fell in love with modern Zeiss lenses and used those for while (selling my Leicas to pay for them), but I've reversed my taste since then and sold them all for Leicas again.

    In terms of the economic practicality, I don't think that is too big a deal either. Considering the resale value of even user Leica gear, it's all free if you eventually decide to sell it! And compared to any digital camera, used Leica gear is not that expensive, unless you want a Noctilux or something crazy like that. A user M2 and 35 pre-asph Summicron can be had for around $1500 if you look hard enough.
    Last edited by cbphoto; 01-03-2013 at 04:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #75
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,728
    Images
    336
    Charles Dickens - Micawber Principle
    "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    .... You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica.
    You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
    Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

    Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ... And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing...
    You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
    The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.
    Regards,
    Georg

  7. #77
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,150
    Images
    210

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
    Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

    Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.



    You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
    The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.
    I think burgers is a bad example, since I was talking about how the quality wasn't actually usable in the Leica so it's more like if you added that the proteins in the healthy food weren't digestible by humans..

    Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

    Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line. Sure in optimum NO BUDGET LIMITS circumstances sure, there may be slight advantage but real world application is much different. So you're paint for results you can't even fully take advantage of unless you're a millionaire ...

    Side note, there's a poster in another thread who asked a question and the result answer was instruction on optical printing and how to correct in that process, the STUDENT's reply was that he had planned to get into optical printing someday but since his school only used scanners that's all he had available, this is a school with a photography degree. Some don't even teach film anymore. So again real world application is much different than on paper statistics.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...
    Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

    Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line....
    The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
    The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

    When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
    Same with Leica.
    Regards,
    Georg

  9. #79
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,150
    Images
    210

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
    The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

    When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
    Same with Leica.
    Heh (in a fun non threatening sort of way, just a bit of needling...) I couldn't have said it better myself "you 'get it' or you don't.."

    (EDIT :Spelling)

    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #80
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.
    I agree with all the post, and I arrive to say that also regarding houses smart people earn interest instead of paying it.
    I mean that if people knew some financial mathematics they would easily understand that it is much cheaper to rent a house, and save and invest the difference between rent and mortgage, than paying a mortgage.

    I have actually put my house on sale. I will invest the sale proceed in shares, earning dividends (very easy to make 5% after taxes nowadays, I hope I sell my house before the next stock bubble). The dividends will pay for a nice rent on the outskirts of Rome, plus a comfortable "rent" living.

    Mortgages make people poor. Buy a house when you have the money to pay it cash, I say. A mortgage is a way to pay interest on a large capital. Saving is a way to earn interest. A mortgage instalment is much bigger than a rent for the same house if the market is in a normal state. The monthly difference, properly invested for the long term, will buy a house faster than the mortgage.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin