[Leica] Equipment "Investment" (was M9's Available)

[passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)]

Mark

You like your lenses very fine but you've been buying your paintbrushes
broad as Hyundai Sonatas. I would guess there are at this moment about 25-30
regular chatters on the LUG and more than half of these are professionals or
very serious amateurs from what I can tell, and another quarter are just
below that, and only a few come even close to the type you describe. And not
that close either since the type you describe has every single attribute you
dislike whereas most of us only have one or two.

When you take a photograph you examine it on many many complex levels to
make sure it is adequately representing the truth about the world. You make
tiny adjustments to be sure. Truth demands such subtlety. Your verbal
descriptions of people, however, show you doing none of that work.

Although I'll grant you this: if I were on a discussion group of fellow
professional and near-professional writers (thank god we don't do that) with
some amateurs scattered about as well, ninety-five percent of them would
drive me insane. Their every notion about what writing is and what it
entails would be so inadequate that I'd constantly be through the roof. So I
sympathize.

V


On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at 
rabinergroup.com>wrote:

> > The one argument I always use (and recently used to help convince a
> > friend to buy into a D700) is to think of a camera as an investment.
> > Traditionally, we think of a camera purchase only in terms of capital
> > gains (buy for $7,000, sell for a loss).  But the reality, is that every
> > photograph is a dividend and whether financial (sell the photographs) or
> > sentimental, it has utility.
> >
> > Using Frank's assumptions, we might buy an M9 in October for $6,160 (
> > $7,000 * 1.1 * 0.80), for a savings of $840 over buying one
> > immediately.  Except, consider the stream of dividends we'd be making
> > between now and then.
> >
> > The hypothetical question: would you permanently erase all of your
> > images taken in the last 6 months in return for $840?  Do you have
> > growing kids?  Go to special events? That makes the images even more
> > priceless.
> >
> > (Of course, this is not a perfectly fair proposition because of
> > substitution (we all own cameras, and would be making images with our
> > next best gear.) )
> >
> > But the dividend rationale has brought me back to the buying counter for
> > 20 years.
> >
> > -rei
>
>
> -  for many on the photo lists the actual practice of photography has a
> very
> low priority. Photography is about the accumulation, temporary adoration
> and
> trading of equipment. So the gear may as well be gold coins and you're
> telling them they don't get to play Tiddlywinks with them for a few months.
> The bottom line is not image making.
> It's :
> 1. acquiring the camera.
> You get to say you have it.
> 2. selling the cameras.
> You get to say you had it.
> Without of course first putting a verbal smear on it to justify the sale.
> 3. rinse  and repeat.
>
> Rei you talk about image making lost they don't know what the hell you are
> talking about. There is little "body of work"  development going on.
> Nobodies working on their portfolio.
> Seven grand of course puts a monkey wrench in the whole system as that's a
> non standard of the portion of our total net worth that were willing to tie
> up on a camera body with a lens on it.  Non liquid assets of any other
> name.
>
> So we're reduced to comparing toy cameras  on the LUG. Pretending they have
> real meaning or value in photographic image making today.
> With any luck the M9s will be appealing directly to PJ's and have less MP's
> and higher ISO's and a lower price point.
> Like five grand usd.
>
> Lots of those would be exchanging hands back and forth.
>
>
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>