Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Expensive Cameras
Old 12-15-2018   #1
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,171
Expensive Cameras

What makes an expensive camera worth it? Medium format cameras are expensive in part because they have expensive sensors. Bigger is better and costs more to produce, especially when you are trying to avoid dead pixels. But, in the end, the improvement in image quality is worth it to some photographers.

What about cell phones? For many that is their camera of choice. Are they getting their money’s worth when they buy a $1000 phone. It is a camera that is always with you and always ready to shoot. Does that make it worth it?

A current digital Leica M is going to cost somewhere between $5,500 and $8,000 with its more popular lenses ranging between $1,800 and $6,600. And yet, DxO mark gives the M10 a score of 86 (102 is their current high score) and describes its quality of its full frame sensor as similar to the best APS-C chips. But for a photographer moving from film Leicas, does the lens compatibility with his old lenses and the operating simplicity make it worthwhile?

All of this is complicated by the introduction of a great many less expensive, main stream digital cameras that deliver technically excellent results. Maybe what we looking at in these expensive cameras is a uniqueness, the fact that they are very different from the main stream. I really don’t know, but would love to know what you think about expensive cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #2
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is online now
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,922
If you look at 35/fullframe and APS format SLRs and Mirrorless systems, the main difference between a cheap model and expensive model is not image quality. It is build quality. The expensive ones are made of metal and are weather sealed to keep out rain and dust. Cheap models are plastic and not sealed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #3
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,436
"If you look at 35/fullframe and APS format SLRs and Mirrorless systems, the main difference between a cheap model and expensive model is not image quality. It is build quality. The expensive ones are made of metal and are weather sealed to keep out rain and dust. Cheap models are plastic and not sealed." (Chris Crawford)

Yes I agree. On a few occasions I have bought cheap model cameras deliberately because they are cheap - knowing that their build quality is "poorer" but that in most other respects their performance may be identical to dearer models.

A case in point is the Sony NEX F3 which I bought more or less as a back up to my Sony NEX 7. OK, the 7 is a slightly later model with a larger capacity sensor so the two are not in that respect identical but they are similar and they certainly both produce excellent images. The NEX 7 cost me exactly double what I paid for the F3 due to its metal build quality dials and EVF. I have to say the "cheap" F3 is never the less an excellent shooter - especially with a top mounted accessory EVF added. And I think it handles poor lighting and high ISO even better than the 7.

But as my main camera I will often prefer a pro model if I can get it as they tend to be tougher and also have nicer handling (e/g extra buttons and dials that do stufff which otherwise would require a trip to the camera's menu).

But in many respects I have to admit that cheaper models are often not the inferior cameras that the purveyors of the most expensive models would have you believe. And its been this way for many years. I like to tell a story about the old "pre Spotmatic" cameras - their early ones without meter which were lovely cameras across the range and the first to put Pentax cameras in the hands of millions of people.

The S1 model was Asahi Pentax's top of range at one time but Pentax decided that they needed a cheaper model to fit that part of the market. The following quote describes how they did it.

"The Asahi Pentax S1A was Asahi Pentax’s attempt to make a consumer-level version of their S, S2, S1 & S3 professional SLR range in 1963. Their rather counter-productive way of accomplishing this was to remove the mark for the 1/1000 shutter speed (it’s still there, it’s just not marked, you just dial one past 1/500)."

In other words the cheap model and the expensive model were in effect identical cameras with identical capabilities. You could still use the S1A at 1/1000th - you just had to know to turn the dial to the unmarked position and shoot away.

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/...-hidden-depths

So camera makers have been pulling this one ever since there have been cameras. And I for one am happy about that as it means I can get a lot of camera for less money if I am savvy. But as I say for the most part I prefer to have some top of range expensive kit too. Just because....................
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #4
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,683
Someone told me,'buy a cheap box but use expensive lenses.' He may have been right as long as the company doesn't 'delete' mounts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #5
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,440
In my experience, buying decisions for amateurs are mostly made on emotion, while buying decisions for professionals are made on utility. Amateurs and professionals can each buy expensive cameras, but for different reasons. A professional usually values ergonomics, reliability, compatibility and whether IQ meets client expectations. It's worth it if it meets those requirements. Cost is a small consideration.

To an amateur, an expensive camera is worth it if they want it badly enough. Motivations vary from wanting to own what they perceive as the best or desiring a particular camera, and everything in between.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #6
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Someone told me,'buy a cheap box but use expensive lenses.' He may have been right as long as the company doesn't 'delete' mounts.
Wait, what? Dammit.

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #7
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,100
I agree with Lynn. Emotion plays a big part in the choice of us amateurs. But that is not without merit. I still shoot film and passed on getting a Phase One back for my Hasselblad chiefly because it was too heavy and not square format. The digital Leicas, M9-P and M Monochrom kept me out of the X-Pro 1 and the first two lenses and the later iterations up the XT 2 etc. I just have my X100 in Fuji. And I have stayed out of the upgrade cycle of M240 and M10. And all my original lenses work with my now 6 year old M9 and 5 year old MM. both have or will have new sensors funded by Leica. Overall, to me, it has been well worth it.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #8
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
I don't have the kind of money y'all seem to have. That's the name of that tune.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #9
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,248
I was very disappointed by the high price tag when the Df was introduced. I had to wait a couple years in order to snag one at half price. Maybe it is the specialty thing.

The D700 cannibalising the D3 is a good story about form and function and cult cameras.

How about pioneer expensive cameras such as the rd1? Innovative expensive when new and still expensive. What a camera.

I wish M8/M9 did video.
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #10
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,501
To a certain extent less is more. Expensive. For all items of conspicuous consumption: cameras, hifi, cars; you name it. There is a threshold of what you actually get, in terms of features, and what you don't get, in terms of brand/exclusivity that meet at a similar price point for different products- say Leica M vs Nikon dslr. One has a ton of features and the other is reassuringly expensive (in the language of British Airways selling seats on the Concorde). How you see yourself determines what you "need". Savy consumer (but professional, of course) comparing feature after feature to determine value? Or the purist who mustn't be bogged down so are willing to pay more for the "freedom" of less? Of course, someone could be both...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #11
phaedrus
Registered User
 
phaedrus is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
What makes an expensive camera worth it?
--snip-- Maybe what we looking at in these expensive cameras is a uniqueness, the fact that they are very different from the main stream.
Spot on! And that's the modus operandi in Leica's attractive (to me) offerings. The M line being the only digital rangefinder cameras available new, within it the Monochrom being one of the few cameras with a monchrom sensor. And the -D cameras leaving off the rear screen. Those that speak to me are leaving something out that can get in your way when you photograph. Less is more and worth more.
__________________
I've got two sites on the internet that you might want to see.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #12
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,100
The Leica Q is going well because it fits a recognised need of experienced photographers. Look up Mike Johnston the Online Photographer’s “Letter to George.” He amusingly enumerates the significant opportunity and dollar cost of graduating slowly through numerous rigs until eventually you get a good body with a good prime lens.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2018   #13
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
 
Sumarongi's Avatar
 
Sumarongi is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
What makes an expensive camera worth it? Medium format cameras are expensive in part because they have expensive sensors. Bigger is better and costs more to produce, especially when you are trying to avoid dead pixels. But, in the end, the improvement in image quality is worth it to some photographers.
[...]
All of this is complicated by [...]
I really don’t know, but would love to know what you think about expensive cameras.
«I think complexity is mostly sort of crummy stuff that is there because it's too expensive to change the interface.»
Jaron Lanier
__________________
**Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.** (Daniel Bell Heuer's Law.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #14
pgk
Registered User
 
pgk is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 232
If you look at the history of photography I think that you will find that cameras and lenses are probably cheaper now than they have ever been, especially if you factor the cost of film into the equation. The differential of 'quality' of image output between high cost cameras and low cost ones has narrowed though. Some expensive cameras do offer greater longevity (shutters are more robust) and so on, so to some extent cost over time depends on need or heavy usage. Cost is not as simple as up front price of a camera body anymore.

Needs and want come into the equation too - as has been mentioned. The emotive desire for specific, expensive equipment is almost certainly vastly underestimated .....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #15
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgk View Post
If you look at the history of photography I think that you will find that cameras and lenses are probably cheaper now than they have ever been, especially if you factor the cost of film into the equation. The differential of 'quality' of image output between high cost cameras and low cost ones has narrowed though. Some expensive cameras do offer greater longevity (shutters are more robust) and so on, so to some extent cost over time depends on need or heavy usage. Cost is not as simple as up front price of a camera body anymore.

Needs and want come into the equation too - as has been mentioned. The emotive desire for specific, expensive equipment is almost certainly vastly underestimated .....
Additional to quality, the price of "uniqueness" has been mentioned by Bill and others. This takes many guises - a rare camera desirable to collectors or a sign or wealth and prestige as PGK says, but it can also be a needed tool...

I've just spent £450 ($570) on an old 45-85mm Pentax 645 lens and a tilt-shift adapter, as I need that for a project. Neither is especially common, nor are their alternatives, and this is reflected in the price I paid.
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #16
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,100
The Leica Monochrom, the original, is unnecessary. No question about that. And maybe it is now redundant. But the CCD sensor and its mid-tone subtlety, its amazing capacity to lift the shadows without much noise and the fine detail obtained all result in something that for its time was unique and in the view of many users, still is. It is a palm-held full frame digital that allows shooting on the street at 1600 ISO and f5.6 at 1/1000 with a 28 and no compromise in image quality. You can crop out almost 90% of your original frame and still have a printable shot at small or moderate size. The iPhone cannot do that. Some equipment inspires you to try things or look at things you might not otherwise attend to. This is one of the most important aspects of medium format and large format photography, for instance. The M10 quicker wake from sleep and external ISO dial are improvements that for some are worth having. Expensive is relative. I just traded in my ailing seven year old car on a three year old car for not much more than the cost of an M10-P. My immediate colleagues spend 5-10 times that on a car, or more. I love the new car and don't want anything 'better' and I love my two old Leica digitals. Am I extravagant? I don't think so, but it is certainly possible to be more frugal than I am. I didn't need to be and would be the worse off for missing the fun and education I've had.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #17
Wouter2
Registered User
 
Wouter2 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 32
Image quality does come into the picture for me. As you grow as an - amateur - photographer, you come to demand more in terms of IQ, both from yourself as from the equipment that is your tool. This comes with a pricetag. Currently, I'm on the fence of buying an as new rx1, after having gone through fuji x100, Coolpix A and Ricoh GRD cameras. I'm attracted by fullframe, depth of field control, sonnar rendering and build quality. The rx1 is a huge financial stretch for me, even so, I believe it will deliver pics beyond the threshold of these other, also excellent, cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #18
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 763
"The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell." ― Confucius... to be honest it sounds more like a fortune cookie quote but it highlights my point.

Some brands understand and try to get it right, some are just in it for the money, and in most cases there is an overlap... the former approach can sometimes jell in a specific product while the latter has nice, even useful bells & whistles... When it all comes together, it's worth a look see even if it costs a little more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,201
Based on what I see here and especially at LUF, Leica is predominantly purchased for pleasure. PJ is next to gone these days.
News agencies asking for mobile phone shots from witnesses. If it is accepted by them and viewers, it means quality is enough.

Who and why is purchasing dMF cameras, I don't know. Even if those are now less than Leica in price I don't see many threads on forums...

I don't see professionals on all kind of events and on assignments with fancy mirrorless, most of the time they are using DSLRs and large zooms. And who knows how much some of them have to spend on the lights.

Major camera purchases are done by amateurs. DXo or whatever this bunch of gearheads is called might give Leica zero score. It means absolutely nothing. Leica gives highest score on prestige meter. And most likely on pleasure to own. To me Fuji, Sony, Panasinic and else are ugly box makers. Every time I hold them in my hands, it feels dirt cheap. My apologies for HOP.

For pleasure I use Leica, for 100% warranted results I'm using old, not so much expensive DSLRs. My professional grade DSLR lenses leaves Leica glass in dust, BTW.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #20
kshapero
Press the Shutter
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 69
Posts: 9,786
I like buying a $2000 camera when it is used and fully operational at about $1200. Add the needed lens and away I go.
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #21
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Build quality (= reliability and durability). Optical quality, though this is easy to overstate: as I say in The Quality Plateau, "Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera."

And never neglect either novelty -- anyone for a Tessina? -- or the sheer, mostly pernicious power of advertising and consumerism.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #22
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,665
Comparable cameras seem to cost the same regardless of brand, the result of competition, so if you are buying based on features, price really doesn't figure in the equation. Leica is of course an outlier.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #23
Saul
fighting inertia
 
Saul's Avatar
 
Saul is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
I don't have the kind of money y'all seem to have. That's the name of that tune.
(Lyrics by Jason and the Nashville Scorchers): "Well, if money talks, I wish it'd speak to me because I need the conversation it's plain to see."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #24
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 1,067
I'll chime in as I just spent some hard earned money to buy a Sony A7 Mark III body.

Over the past couple of weeks I've been debating on upgrading my Sony A7 and have considered some cameras

Leica M10
Leica M10-D
Fuji GFX 50R
Fuji X-T3
Sony A7R Mark III
Sony A7 Mark III
Sony A7R Mark II

Ultimately, I decided to go with the Sony A7 Mark III as I deemed it had the best bang for the buck with its improved battery life, AF and silent shutter mode.
Plus this way I didn't have to sell my Sony prime native lenses which are more than enough for my need.
The Fuji X-T3 and both A7R Mark II and III were next close and the Fuji GFX and Leica M cameras last because of their high entry price point.

The 42MP FF and 50MP MF sensors were enticing and I can see myself getting either A7R II or III down the road but looking at my LR catalog and going through some past photos, 24MP FF is more than enough for my travel and landscape photography need.
I've read other photographers opinion on why they think 42+ MP is the way to go and I don't fully agree with them.
Most believe that High MP allows them to just crop later on post requiring them only to bring 2-3 lenses.
The other point is that for a majority of hobby/enthusiast photographers, a good photo is only made when sharp corner to corner photo is taken.
I understand both points and I can see them useful for landscape photography that have already mastered their craft and composition but not so much for casual photographers.

Regarding cell phones, I have no problem upgrading it every other year as you have to also think that these devices are just not phones, they are basically our computer now a days. Because of my work in IT, I spend as much time on my cellphone as on my desktop or laptop. Battery life degrades over time and computing power and resources requirements increases over time.
Now, if I was retired and was photographing with a camera only, then I wouldn't see the need of upgrading my phone often.
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #25
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
. . . The other point is that for a majority of hobby/enthusiast photographers, a good photo is only made when sharp corner to corner photo is taken.. . .
Indeed. Heaven forfend that ideas or vision should matter, next to corner-to-corner sharpness.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #26
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,360
Style, class and hype are what makes an expensive camera worth it. Like a Konica Big Mini for USD 275 Or said M10.

I think that while Taemo's assessment of 'a good photograph' might be true for hobbyist and enthusiast photographers, in general 'a good photograph' to most viewers means emotion. They want to see someone or something they feel related to and couldn't care less about color rendering, composition, sharpness etc. For the rest of them, it's about prospect: they either look good in the picture, or they can make themselves look good showing them to co-workers and bosses or to friends and relatives.
Camera brand and price have nothing to do with those aspects.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #27
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul View Post
(Lyrics by Jason and the Nashville Scorchers): "Well, if money talks, I wish it'd speak to me because I need the conversation it's plain to see."
I'm not without funds. I am simply not willing to spend incredible amounts of money on camera gear for the sake of I don't know what.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #28
JeffS7444
Registered User
 
JeffS7444 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 168
These are luxury products: They are capable of taking good quality photographs, but their real aim is to make us feel good about ourselves, and as such, no one really cares that the DxO scores can be matched for far less money.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #29
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,560
The problem with chasing those scores, which by the way do not count for actual usability, is as consumers you will never catch up. There will always be a latest and greatest. The point should be finding equipment that best matches the way you see and work because believe me the M 10 is perfectly capable of capturing my vision. The real key is seeing.

My Leica color M digitals are the tools I choose for my pro work because they do match the way I see and work. Nothing luxury about that. My go to camera for my personal work is still the original MM. None of those cameras my M 10s or the MM in any way limit me. In fact I would say they are cameras that just get out of my way and let me create.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #30
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,036
Over-analysis of the cost of cameras, just like in every other thing, is mostly a waste of one's time and energy.

There are plenty of nice cameras in the world. Some work better than others, some have better lenses than others, some are better made than others, and of course some are more expensive than others. I prefer to concentrate on what works best for me, what lenses image the way I want, and what is put together well so it's durable and reliable. Whatever price is required to obtain those three things is what I pay, presuming I can afford it.

Obviously, there are many that are out of my reach due to price. I'm fine with that, and celebrate for those folks who are lucky and wealthy enough to enjoy them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #31
kshapero
Press the Shutter
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 69
Posts: 9,786
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Build quality (= reliability and durability).

And never neglect either novelty -- anyone for a Tessina? -- or the sheer, mostly pernicious power of advertising and consumerism.

Cheers,

R.
My My that Tessina is amazing!!
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #32
colker
-
 
colker is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 763
Buy the camera you need. Rationalize..
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #33
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by colker View Post
Buy the camera you need. Rationalize..
:%s/need/want/g

Fixed that for you.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #34
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,477
Get the cheap camera, then you can blame your bad pictures on it rather than your skill. That's my story.......
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #35
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
If you look at 35/fullframe and APS format SLRs and Mirrorless systems, the main difference between a cheap model and expensive model is not image quality. It is build quality.
There's also megapixels, the current mega-mega-pixel cameras adds to the price. (I'm very happy with 24 MPx.)

Also features, like image stabilization, sensor shift, better flash systems.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nikon DX Fisheye, photos in this Flickr album.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #36
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,328
One more comment: Playing at the state of the art is expensive.

Whatever newly introduced hot digital item that has you salivating now will be only half as expensive in 18-36 months. Ditto for golf clubs. You delay getting any benefits of the new features, and you lose the prestige of having the latest, but it's a lot less expensive to buy one generation behind the bleeding edge.

That would be, for example, the A6000, the A7ii, or the D600 today.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nikon DX Fisheye, photos in this Flickr album.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #37
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Build quality (= reliability and durability).
In that context the build quality of digital Leicas is not very good at all.
But they are so nice in hand they feel like they are high quality pieces, however misleading that may be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #38
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,560
I have had a lot less problems with my Leicas than had with my Canons even with the sensor replacement. I had a complete shutter failure with a fairly new Canon when I was shooting for NATO in Chicago in 2012. I had a 1SsMKII show up to me from CPS DOA. I had Canon DSLRs for over a decade. I do miss CPS but I do not miss the Canons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #39
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
One more comment: Playing at the state of the art is expensive.

Whatever newly introduced hot digital item that has you salivating now will be only half as expensive in 18-36 months. Ditto for golf clubs. You delay getting any benefits of the new features, and you lose the prestige of having the latest, but it's a lot less expensive to buy one generation behind the bleeding edge.

That would be, for example, the A6000, the A7ii, or the D600 today.
Add the A7RII to that list as well. 2015 it was $3200, can purchase it new today for $1600 and that will include $100 or so of accessories.(4 tb drive, or a Thinktank camera bag + memory card)

And it is still one of the best sensors out there. Add the Techart Pro adapter and use all your existing RF lenses on the Sony with Auto Focus.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2018   #40
Saul
fighting inertia
 
Saul's Avatar
 
Saul is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
I'm not without funds. I am simply not willing to spend incredible amounts of money on camera gear for the sake of I don't know what.
I hear you on that. My actual needs are met and it's always about improving the vision and lighting for me.

But I just love those lyrics!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:10.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.