Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. 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/