Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted I remember buying my first new Nikon F in 1968. With a 50mm 1.4 the price was an outrageous $300 plus . I was making about $450 a month at the newspaper. These days that translates into paying $5000 for an M8(sans lens) for the photographers making 7 grand a month. Dentists, doctors, landed gentry and stockbrokers aside, not many LUGGERS shoot that kind of business. Sure the M6 fantastic machine but I fail to see it as a viable pro tool. Can it work well in the hands of a pro? Of course it can. Can any number of less expensive digitals on the market do as well? I'd make a bet they can and do on a regular basis. About the only viable argument which might justify one is lens compatibility. Now, where did I put my 21mm ASPH (now 27mm) lens which cost enough on its own? Years back I was quite taken with some of the new Canon gear. (A-1s) Nikon was just releasing th F3s and many were problematic. I tried the Canons and liked them. Dumped all my F2s and re-outfitted. Later, was covering a NASA thing which had to be gotten. Raining like a SOB and nothing to do but grin and bear it. While anticipating the (routine) Astronaut walkout I looked down and saw the lights blinking on my A-1s. One of the three bodies worked and the other two went belly up. Repaired later but not much help for my agency looking for astronaut images. Perhaps we'll know better after the new users start telling their tales?. I am not saying the M8 is a dog, or if it is, it's a well-pedigreed one.. I will say if images are your end goal a Pentax K1000 in the right hands would produce what you need. :-) Walt Ted Grant wrote: > Walt Johnson offered: > Subject: Re: [Leica] 2500 ISO > >>>> I absolutely couldn't agree with you more about these new M8's. If >>> >> someone could show me a real advantage to $5000 cameras maybe.<<<< > > > Hi Walt, > Yeah it's expensive, but slip back a few years.... maybe late '50's > early '60 and buying a Leica was considered.... "Holy Cow you paid > what for that little thing?" attitude amongst the press guys I worked > with. > > But I had to have one, then another and another as my tools making my > assignment ratio climb like crazy. And I had lots of economic > arguments about spending money for bodies and lenses, but! I began to > shoot better photographs, see differently and shot where others feared > to shoot without blasting a twinkie light or two. > > As often as I've had to swallow hard at the Leica price on many > occasions, it's always been the "value of the tool" and not what it > cost. It's what it allowed me to do that counted, period. > > Yep 5 grand will buy you a lot of tri-x. But if you don't have the > right tools at hand that allow you to shoot what motivates you, then > the film is a throw away. No? > > And like you I can't imagine wrecking an M8 as I too would cry all the > way to the repair shop, bank, and pharmacist. Or maybe that should > be... Bank, repair shop and padded cell! ;-) > > ted > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >