Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jan 11, 2014, at 9:32 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > If one is going to shoot 36 or 72 pictures this week than fine. Film or > digital not much of a difference. But if like many people shooting digital > opens you up to shooting intensively hundreds of shots per week or more > then > there is a big difference on a number of levels. Cost being one of the > first > ones. And dare I say quality of final final output because that's for sure > the other one. > And this is where we get the "shooting too many pictures being sloppy > technique" baloney gets put in. and that's pure garbage. There is no such > thing as "over shooting". In film days I always bought film by the brick > and shot film by the brick. Assuming I had money. And not everybody's got > money all the time. We always told ourselves and our clients "film is > cheap" > and that was of course a bit of BS. shoot more, you are bound to get some better images, of course those who pride themselves for shooting "only 6 or 10 pics" , won't know this.... s > > > On 1/11/14 9:42 PM, "Jim Shulman" <jshulman at judgecrater.com> wrote: > >> A little blow-dry on the curtains and it's just fine <g>. I've even shot >> in a-la-mode with that camera (when a frozen yogurt collapses on the top >> plate and lens). >> >>> From period ads I've seen (and from the Montgomery Ward photography >> catalogs), the M3/collapsible Summicron combination was about $425-450, or >> roughly $3800 in current money--which means the M9/50mm Summicron combo of >> 2014 is about four times as expensive as the '50s counterpart. >> >> If the person wanted a new Leica, but couldn't swing the M3's price, there >> was always the IIIf/DA or IIIg, at about 60% of the M3's price. >> >> Also consider that in those days it was four DM to the dollar, which made >> a lot of high quality German products attractive buys in the US. >> >> Back to negative scanning. >> >> Jim >> >> PS. Personally, if I only shot with a 50mm lens I'd have purchased a new >> Kodak Retina IIIc, with combined fv/rf, f2 Schneider lens, lever advance, >> built-in meter and folding front for about $150-175 brand new. I've owned >> a number of these since the 1970s, and they are great performers that are >> built like tanks. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org] On >> Behalf Of >> Ken Carney >> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:02 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] The Real Cost of Leicas >> >> That is one tough M3. OK, an M today costs about $7,000. The M3 was >> introduced in 1954. $7,000 today equals $807 in 1954, based on the CPI. >> I think the M3 with a 50 Summicron sold new for about $500 in 1954. What >> does it mean? I don't know. As Doug pointed out comparing film to >> digital is like comparing watermelons to adverbs. >> >> Ken >> >> On 1/11/2014 6:02 PM, Jim Shulman wrote: >>> Why not just grab an affordable Leica and shoot pictures? I did >>> today--shot a roll of Neopan 400 with my M3/Summilux 50, which is drying >>> now in the shower stall. If we had as many picture posts as we do >>> discussions on Leica prices and market behavior, the LUG gallery would >>> overload a server. >>> >>> Jim Shulman >>> Wynnewood, PA >>> Whose subjects show more spherical aberrations than his lenses. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org >>> [mailto:lug-bounces+jshulman=judgecrater.com at leica-users.org] On >>> Behalf >> Of >>> Mark Rabiner >>> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:30 PM >>> To: Leica Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] The Real Cost of Leicas >>> >>> Exactly how I feel about it. As it happens to be true as the nose on >> your >>> face. >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/14 12:56 PM, "Paul Roark" <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For business, it's really >>>> a question of return on investment. In that respect, digital has >>>> increased the cost of my "hobby," but it has lowered my "cost of >>>> business" (due to huge productivity gains). >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> www.PaulRoark.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> Photographer >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information