Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Lenses and Images

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

money burning a hole in your pocket? here's a solution. M9 + Noctilux
Old 01-29-2010   #1
robklurfield
eclipse
 
robklurfield's Avatar
 
robklurfield is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 7,866
money burning a hole in your pocket? here's a solution. M9 + Noctilux

got some wiggle room on the visa or mastercard balance or wanna raise the limit on your amex? here's the ticket:

http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Ultimate-Lei...item3a573cb2fa

clearly not for the financially faint of heart.
__________________
rob klurfield
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertklurfield

blog: http://hemi-sphericalaberration.blogspot.com/

google +: gplus.to/robklurfield

"I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
outside of a small circle of friends." - Phil Ochs

"His photos are saturated with obviousness, mental inertia, clichés and bad jokes." -http://www.500letters.org/form_15.php



I point. I shoot. sometimes, I focus first.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #2
Paddy C
Unused film collector
 
Paddy C is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Too far north for my liking
Posts: 851
I cannot imagine walking around with $18K dangling from my neck.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #3
-doomed-
film is exciting
 
-doomed-'s Avatar
 
-doomed- is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 797
Ill take two....

If money was no object.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #4
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 9,767
Where are those zero APR deals when you need them.

Perhaps a Bankster is finally in trouble and is not getting bailed out by the government.

Where's my bonus? If I had one perhaps I would do the BIN.

Calzone
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #5
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,972
I can still live with my M3 and the ol' 1/50 "non asph" but I also don't have that burning hole issue...
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #6
denmark.yuzon
Streetographer
 
denmark.yuzon's Avatar
 
denmark.yuzon is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
Posts: 204
$18k?? you could probably send thousands of children here in the philippines to school with that kind of money... thats about Ph Peso 837,424.30... Lol
__________________

Any fool knows that bravado is always a cover-up for insecurity. - Bobby Darin
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #7
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
A fraction of the price of a Ferrari, and half the price of even a modest boat. Why do so many people have so much of a problem with Leicas? Because they're smaller than Ferraris or boats? Offer me a Ferrari, a boat and a Leica, to use not to sell, and it's a dead easy choice for me.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #8
Andy Kibber
Registered User
 
Andy Kibber's Avatar
 
Andy Kibber is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A fraction of the price of a Ferrari, and half the price of even a modest boat.
You can't take pictures with a Ferrari or a boat and you don't use a camera for transportation.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #9
Jaans
Registered User
 
Jaans is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 362
I wonder how many rolls of TRI-X, Neopan 1600 and Fuji 400H that I could buy with that money?? I would imagine that I would need an extra fridge just to store all of that film, so perhaps it wouldn't be such a good move^^
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #10
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Kibber View Post
You can't take pictures with a Ferrari or a boat and you don't use a camera for transportation.
Quite. But if you're going to spend money on a hobby, that observation is completely irrelevant. As is the observation that you can't take pictures with a set of golf clubs or a complicated-movement watch.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #11
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
and half the price of even a modest boat.
I'll have you know its about twice what I recently paid for my very modest boat! (but your point is valid)
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #12
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy C View Post
I cannot imagine walking around with $18K dangling from my neck.
I have. Work bought it. Digital cameras used to be expensive.

Some of them still are:

http://www.adorama.com/HSCF39MSH2K.h...26480769190063

But you can get it for Monochrome and Infrared.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-29-2010 at 14:25.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #13
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A fraction of the price of a Ferrari, and half the price of even a modest boat. Why do so many people have so much of a problem with Leicas? Because they're smaller than Ferraris or boats? Offer me a Ferrari, a boat and a Leica, to use not to sell, and it's a dead easy choice for me.

Cheers,

R.

The perceived value just isn't there for a lot of people Roger ... why can't you just accept that and stop defending what is an overpriced product in a lot of people's minds by constantly comparing it to genuine luxury items that are in a totally different realm.

No driver needs a Ferrari (F1 excepted ) but a lot of photographers would like to have access to a better priced digital rangefinder for reasons other than having their egos massaged by owning what is perceived as being exclusive and 'the best' ... and priced accordingly!

YMMV of course and we know it does ... so I've probably totally wasted my time by typing this!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #14
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
The perceived value just isn't there for a lot of people Roger ... why can't you just accept that and stop defending what is an overpriced product in a lot of people's minds by constantly comparing it to genuine luxury items that are in a totally different realm.

No driver needs a Ferrari (F1 excepted ) but a lot of photographers would like to have access to a better priced digital rangefinder for reasons other than having their egos massaged by owning what is perceived as being exclusive and 'the best' ... and priced accordingly!

YMMV of course and we know it does ... so I've probably totally wasted my time by typing this!
Dear Keith,

You have. It IS a luxury product. If people can't get their heads around this, it's their problem, not mine or Leica's.

Mephisto shoes are a luxury product too, at several times the price of cheap ones. Or vintage Bollinger at several times the price of Spanish Cava. Or a Rolls Royce at several times the price of a Ford. And yet, they are a pair of shoes, a bottle of fizz and a motor car. You don't want an MP or M7? Buy a ZI or a Bessa. You don't want an M9? Buy.... um...

It's nothing to do with having your ego massaged. It's what it costs. PERCEIVED value is meaningless, because it depends on who's perceiving. To me, the perceived value of a Ferrari is less than my old Land Rover: I don't want to spend that much on buying and maintaining a motor car, and if someone gave me a Ferrari tomorrow, I'd sell it. Unlike an M9.

No-one has a divine right to buy whatever they like, at whatever price they like.

Cheers,

R.

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 01-29-2010 at 14:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #15
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,152
yes but we spend so much time on our feet and poor footwear can lead to other health issues that spending $200-300 for shoes doesn't faze me if they're going to allow me to get from a-b-c-d in comfort and will last more than a few years.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #16
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsgrunt View Post
yes but we spend so much time on our feet and poor footwear can lead to other health issues that spending $200-300 for shoes doesn't faze me if they're going to allow me to get from a-b-c-d in comfort and will last more than a few years.
Exactly. And if a camera will give me the pictures I want, I feel the same way. I wear Mephisto walking boots at about $350 a pair. I buy most of my other clothes in chain-stores, because I don't care about clothes as long as they're comfortable and hardwearing.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #17
bradfordco
Registered User
 
bradfordco is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13
I had an M6 TTL and a noctilux in 2004; had about $4,800 in both . . . only one person ever stopped me and knew what I had dangaling around my neck.

A couple of my friends went to a local camera store and asked to see a Leica - the salesman didn't know what they were talking about.

Oh if only there was one more real estate boom, I promise to only buy Leica's
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #18
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,554
I absolutely live in these ... $89.00 and I get about five years out of a pair.

I have two pairs of course ... one pair for gardening, work etc and another for going out in!





And of course they can be ellegant as well as functional!


__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #19
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,152
right on Keith. after years of Blundstones, I'm now a Redback booter. Got my last few pairs at Rays Camping in Melbourne, a fine place for those with camping GAS.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I absolutely live in these ... $89.00 and I get about five years out of a pair.

I have two pairs of course ... one pair for gardening, work etc and another for going out in!
Dear Keith,

And?

First, a lot depends on what fits. I had a marvellous pair of shoes I bought in a German cheapo-market for 12€ or so. I bought them as a laugh: they were red suède. I wore them until they fell to pieces, and they were sublimely comfortable. Most shoes I buy aren't, so it's cheaper to buy one pair of well-fitting, long-lasting boots than lots of cheaper pairs.

Second, this still doesn't address the question of luxuries. What have you against luxury goods? For that matter, how do you define luxury goods? And why shouldn't a camera manufacturer make a luxury camera?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #21
alan davus
Registered User
 
alan davus's Avatar
 
alan davus is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: happy valley S. Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 757
Yes Keith, Redbacks are a mighty fine pair of work boots (I prefer Rossi's myself) but for stepping out it's got to be R.M. Williams, $350 for sure but they'll last a lifetime.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #22
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,152
and their moleskin pants
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #23
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsgrunt View Post
right on Keith. after years of Blundstones, I'm now a Redback booter. Got my last few pairs at Rays Camping in Melbourne, a fine place for those with camping GAS.

Blunnies used to be OK then I found that they were falling apart after a year or so of hard wear ... apparently manufacturing went off shore or so I heard which probably expains it ... they used to be made in Tasmania!

I'm so proud and happy to meet another dedicated Redback wearer!

I love the page on the 'Redback' site with the little spider chasing your cursor around the page when you move it! http://www.redback.net.au/index.html it's brilliant!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr

Last edited by Keith : 01-29-2010 at 15:35.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #24
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Keith,

And?

First, a lot depends on what fits. I had a marvellous pair of shoes I bought in a German cheapo-market for 12€ or so. I bought them as a laugh: they were red suède. I wore them until they fell to pieces, and they were sublimely comfortable. Most shoes I buy aren't, so it's cheaper to buy one pair of well-fitting, long-lasting boots than lots of cheaper pairs.

Second, this still doesn't address the question of luxuries. What have you against luxury goods? For that matter, how do you define luxury goods? And why shouldn't a camera manufacturer make a luxury camera?

Cheers,

R.

What defines luxury goods?

Well that's an easy question Roger ... anything I can't afford but would own if I got the chance!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #25
snausages
Registered User
 
snausages's Avatar
 
snausages is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A fraction of the price of a Ferrari, and half the price of even a modest boat. Why do so many people have so much of a problem with Leicas? Because they're smaller than Ferraris or boats? Offer me a Ferrari, a boat and a Leica, to use not to sell, and it's a dead easy choice for me.

Cheers,

R.
Good point Roger. Yachts and Ferraris are also unnecessarily ostentatious.

I don't think the problem is with Leica. It's with certain products Leica offers. In fact, it's not a 'problem' at all. It's just that some people, many of them Leica users, think it's kind of funny to spend $18,000 on a camera and a lens.

I'm sure there are many fishermen that bristle when a yacht steers through their waters...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #26
Andy Kibber
Registered User
 
Andy Kibber's Avatar
 
Andy Kibber is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 712
I'm thinking about getting into space travel as a hobby. Kinda pricey though. Or maybe dirt collecting. I'll get some really expensive rare dirt and keep it in a jar on my mantel.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #27
snausages
Registered User
 
snausages's Avatar
 
snausages is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
All of the above said, I do think the M9 and the Noctilux are amazing tools and I applaud the engineers who make such incredible stuff and I'm thankful for the people who have the money to buy it all now so that it keeps getting made and can one day trickle down to me at an affordable price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #28
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,477
$18,000 is a lot... but will it make me a better photographer???
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #29
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by snausages View Post
Good point Roger. Yachts and Ferraris are also unnecessarily ostentatious.

I don't think the problem is with Leica. It's with certain products Leica offers. In fact, it's not a 'problem' at all. It's just that some people, many of them Leica users, think it's kind of funny to spend $18,000 on a camera and a lens.

I'm sure there are many fishermen that bristle when a yacht steers through their waters...
Not funny. Not even ostentatious: how many people are going to notice? I just wish I could afford to do it.

There's an old Soviet-era joke about a genie that offers a wish each to an Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian. Change the nationalities if you think it's unnecessarily stereotypical or racist.

The Englishman says, "My boss has a brand-new Rolls Royce. I want a brand new Rolls Royce." The genie snaps his fingers, and there it is.

The Frenchman says, "My boss has a beautiful teenage mistress. I want a beautiful teenage mistress." The genie snaps his fingers, and there she is.

The Russian says, "My neighbour has a goat. Kill my neighbour's goat...."

Cheers,

R.

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 01-29-2010 at 16:06.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #30
snausages
Registered User
 
snausages's Avatar
 
snausages is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
But, Roger, I don't think it can be reduced to sour grapes. Even if I could afford an M9 + Noctilux, I wouldn't buy it at this price. The thought makes me a bit sick. There are many people who can afford luxury items who do not buy luxury items. And not because they're cheap people.

(That's a solid joke. And my grandparents were all Russians.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by snausages View Post
But, Roger, I don't think it can be reduced to sour grapes. Even if I could afford an M9 + Noctilux, I wouldn't buy it at this price. The thought makes me a bit sick. There are many people who can afford luxury items who do not buy luxury items. And not because they're cheap people.

(That's a solid joke. And my grandparents were all Russians.)
Dunno. I can't afford a Rolls Royce, so I don't know if they're worth the money. But I've had a few friends who've bought them.

I could buy a bottle of vintage Bollinger tomorrow, but it would be a big chunk of a week's groceries (for a modest vintage) and I'm not devoted enough to vintage Bollinger to spend the money.

Leicas are in between: expensive, bit not unimaginable. If I had 10x as much money in the bank, $18K would be not that much of a problem, but I'd still think twice. If I had 100x as much, I wouldn't need to think twice.

None of us can judge another's priorities. To me, an $18,000 motor car (and a $3000 camera) is more of an extravagance than an $18,000 camera + lens (and a $3000 motor car).

Glad you liked the joke.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #32
-doomed-
film is exciting
 
-doomed-'s Avatar
 
-doomed- is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 797
I'm not damning the camera , if I could afford it I would buy it without thinking about it. All I can say is one day maybe I can afford one . I should finish college first and get a non-retail crappy paycheck to crappy paycheck gig. Ive got a few more years , and maybe the M9 will drop in price if something like the M10 comes out. Until then I can only hope I can afford one while continuing to use my M3 and IIIf and whatever film I happen to enjoy as time wears on.

It's easy to complain something is overpriced when one cannot afford it , its even easier to just use whats available until something better can be attained.

Still , Id take two if money were no object , one in each color.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #33
Sh00ter
shooting is a virtue
 
Sh00ter is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: MA
Posts: 16
I'd rather shoot an M3 with a 50mm 'cron on it. Seriously. Thank god the idiots priced the M9+50mm/0.95 to be more expensive. Maybe people will begin dumping their collection of film M's into the used market to afford an M9, making the M3 a better deal for me.
__________________
Hexar AF

Last edited by Sh00ter : 01-29-2010 at 17:55.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2010   #34
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiquark View Post
$18,000 is a lot... but will it make me a better photographer???
No, that big blurry lens will make you a WORSE photographer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #35
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 1,066
We're at the universal discrepancy between those who may be the best users of an object not necessarily being the ones who can afford it.

There are plenty of great drivers driving modest cars when they have the ability to use a Ferrari for what it is capable of but can't because they happen to be, say, teachers or nurses rather than merchant bankers or property tycoons.

Likewise many very able photographers who use this site and produce magnificent work do truly understand what a combination of M9 + Noctilux is capable of yet will never have an opportunity to use them. When it is perceived that some of the people who may purchase these objects buy them as a trophy object then that does frustrate.

It's a human condition to both desire the best and to be unable to reach it.

However, I do think cameras are relatively inexpensive, even Leicas. My main pasttime is sailing and I know people who will happily spend a lot on a set of racing sails only to throw them away after a couple of years use. The cost of mooring even a modest boat on the south coast of the UK, say a 36fter, is many thousands of pounds a year - so a one-off cost to buy a top-quality item with no running costs to speak of, plus a substantial retained value on the second-hand market, makes cameras relatively small beer, providing of course one has the spare cash up front to purchase them. I know all too well many of us do not.
__________________
Austerby

Last edited by Austerby : 01-30-2010 at 02:52.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #36
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austerby View Post
We're at the universal discrepancy between those who may be the best users of an object not necessarily being the ones who can afford it.

There are plenty of great drivers driving modest cars when they have the ability to use a Ferrari for what it is capable of but can't because they happen to be, say, teachers or nurses rather than merchant bankers or property tycoons.

Likewise many very able photographers who use this site and produce magnificent work do truly understand what a combination of M9 + Noctilux is capable of yet will never have an opportunity to use them. When it is perceived that some of the people who may purchase these objects buy them as a trophy object then that does frustrate.

It's a human condition to both desire the best and to be unable to reach it.

However, I do think cameras are relatively inexpensive, even Leicas. My main pasttime is sailing and I know people who will happily spend a lot on a set of racing sails only to throw them away after a couple of years use. The cost of mooring even a modest boat on the south coast of the UK, say a 36fter, is many thousands of pounds a year - so a one-off cost to buy a top-quality item with no running costs to speak of, plus a substantial retained value on the second-hand market, makes cameras relatively small beer, providing of course one has the spare cash up front to purchase them. I know all too well many of us do not.
Perfectly expressed.

Many people think I'm richer than I am because I live well.

But I'm typing this in an unheated (and essentially unheatable) room. I have a blanket around my shoulders to keep warm. I'm wearing patched jeans (501s, admittedly) and a 3-year-old supermarket sweatshirt over a T-shirt I bought 15 years ago. I have lots of old T-shirts, and I don't stop wearing them until they go into the rag-bag. I'm just about to go upstairs to an (unheated) attic converted to a studio and take pictures with my M9 and Visoflex III.

On the other hand, the kitchen (next door to this) has an Italian tile floor with $1000 worth of tiles on it (admittedly laid by Frances), two ovens, five gas rings, Dualit toaster, etc., and electric heating, and the séjour (next door on the other side) has a log fire.

Compared with most hobbies, photography is cheap, and compared with many hobbies, the equipment is cheap too -- even the expensive equipment, like Leicas. The great thing is that if you can't afford a Leica, you can still produce excellent pictures with cheaper cameras. Technically, they may even be better: I'd back my KowaSix against my MP any day. But I like the MP better.

Frighteningly many people have an 'eat the rich' mentality, where anyone who can afford more than they can is automatically demonized. Worse still, they do not reflect that even if you're not rich, you make choices. Fitted kitchens, new clothes, eating out -- or a Leica.

Of course there are many who can afford no such luxuries. I know. I was one of them for decades. But by a combination of luck and judgement -- and I wouldn't discount the importance of either -- I now live quite well, on less than the national average wage in the UK.

"Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord."

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #37
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
The 50/0.95 Noctilux is bordering on the very-low production, specialty items that you deal with in the scientific/technical market. For home use, it would be out of the question. For technical use, I would not hesitate to order one if I needed it. I've used a $200 Canon 50/0.95 lens on a $25,000 sensor. I could get a C-Mount adapter for it. It is center-sharp, enough for the resolution of the sensor. First thing the engineer for the project asked was "Do you have two of these?" A $10K lens on a $25K sensor would not be a problem.

I guess some people buy these things for fun, and that is using expendable income. Others use it to meet requirements, and then it is cost of doing business. That lens is much cheaper than having one custom made, which runs at least $40,000. I have some of those.

If I were rich, I'd buy Roger an M9.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #38
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,628
I'd have the new Noct 0.95 in a heartbeat if I was rolling in money. Why not?

Would have been quite handy on a few occasions actually... Still, I soldier on without one

I am actually seriously tempted by the 24 lux asph after being driven mad by low shutter speeds and dingy interiors. It'd be worth selling up some of my other kit to help finance, because it would do more for me that that other kit has done in the last few years.

I bet plenty of people have $10K+ of misc kit they do not really use, or money spend on digital cameras that have been outdated and sold on for nought or put on a shelf... or given to the kid. All a person need have done is to stay out of the digital recolution for the last 6-7 years and they would not be far off being able to get a new Noct assuming they otherwise would have messed with A3 printers, DXX cameras, new digi ready fast lenses, new Apple computer, PS editions etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #39
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
I'd have the new Noct 0.95 in a heartbeat if I was rolling in money. Why not?
Oh, maybe because the 1.1 Nokton is a better lens at a small fraction of the price? It's certainly a better lens by my standards. The last thing I want in a lens is "character."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2010   #40
Michael Da Re
Registered User
 
Michael Da Re is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 240
Just curious since this camera and lens is listed as used what would it cost brand new for the same setup?

Michael
  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 19:18.


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.