Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] full time photogs
From: Tarek Charara <tarek.charara@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:19:34 +0200

I don't know the situation in the USA, but here in France, from what I know,
the "PRO's" get special deals from all the big names. I don't know about
Nikon or Canon, but Leica gives a 15% rebate when you are a pro. Concerning
the expensiveness of Leica, trust me, it's worth every penny! When I sold my
M4 and 5 lenses in 1997, I hardly lost 20% of the initial price I paid (I
calculated with the inflation). OK, not all of the stuff was new, but
consider that I used the stuff for more than ten years. I can tell you that
none of the gear I have used over the years, in all the formats I used (135,
120 up to 8x10'') had as much value when I sold the stuff. OK, maybe the
8x10 Cambo, I think I even made money with this one :-)

I have seen REAL user Leicas (brass, almost no more paint) that still
functioned without the viewfinder glass (broken by a schrapnel), I had
lenses (M&R) fall on concrete floor and still function... I remember a
friend switching from F1's to a couple of T90's. When they needed servicing,
he just threw them away and bought new ones. That's expensive too...

Most of the reporters I saw while shooting the chinese new year, carried
very expensive Canon and Nikon gear (high end stuff) about the same prices
as the M and more expensive than the R. Besides that, a couple of these pros
had a nice little M6 too...

IMHO Leica is very high value for my money and that's the least I want for
my work...

Tarek


le 08.04.2002 21:49, Photo Phreak à leicam4pro@yahoo.com a écrit :

> 
> --- Tarek Charara <tarek.charara@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> What are you trying to prove? I must have missed the
>> initial post...
> ============================================================
> 1.  That very few on the LUG are professional
> photographers.
> 
> 2.  That most working photographers must use less expensive
> equipment because they are not paid well enough to amortize
> anything as expensive as Leica.  This is meant for those
> whose employer does not furnish their gear.
> 
>   While in Viet Nam I carried cameras that I could afford
> to lose to dirt, humidity, damage or theft.  My military
> pay was only $225.00 a month at its highest level. (1969)
> That was about the price of an M4 body or a Nikon FTn with
> 50mm f/1.4.
> 
>  Larry Burrows told me his Leicas were sent to Hong Kong
> for a complete stripdown and cleaning on a MONTHLY basis.
> He was carrying five Leicas and two Nikons on the day I met
> him.  I am also sure that because of his fame and
> "connections" he received his equipment for much lower
> prices than you or I would have been offered.
> 
>   One friend was carrying a FTn and 50~300 zoom when they
> drove into an ambush.  He dove into a ditch full of water,
> mud, algae and probably shit RATHER THAN GET SHOT.  I will
> leave the shape of the camera and lens to your imagination.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html