[Leica] Price of each M9 photo...

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

A digital camera is good enough for ten years as its good enough for its 
first year until you compare it with the results everyone else is getting 
from their vastly improved sensors and other electronic  components. This is 
used as a criticism of the digital workflow or system. "if digital was a 
worthwhile process you'd not need to buy a new camera every 4 years", said 
the guy who was trading cameras and not making images.
Every day in every way the camera companies are making digital cameras with 
improved components  better and better. 
They are not sitting on their hands but working double shifts... And this is 
a bad thing!? We should make apologies for them? To whom the camera 
collectors?
It's a bad thing if you think what makes you a photographer is your gear 
investment and your images have nothing to do with it.
Me I have no vital need to sell my digital cameras for what I bought them 
for years later as a validation of my photography workflow.
All what needs to happen is the images I've been making all that time 
continue to have value and will probably increase in value. And I think 
that?s happening. 
A DSLR is more than an SLR with a D in front of it. In many ways it?s a way 
more awesome of an image making tool than a 35mm film camera. It diminishes 
the need for medium format digital. A film shooter may mainly use 35mm but 
has a Rolleiflex or Pentax 67 not to far away. 
With digital we blow at least the so called full frame stuff up as big as 
the wall and it does not look like it's been stretched too thin at all.
You certainly don?t hear of people doing serious work now with a ten year 
old digital camera... long gone... half that.
As Rockwell the Nikon camera reviewer used to say: obsolete!
As Rabs the LUG writer guy used to say: paper weight!
A great time to be a photographer, said Rabs another time.

 
 

-- 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

?On 2/18/20, 6:11 AM, "LUG on behalf of Don Dory via LUG" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at 
leica-users.org> wrote:

    I'm glad that you could put a price on the usage of your M9.  Most of us
    remember when Leica's went up in value; I knew one gentleman that would 
buy
    two of everything leaving one in an unopened box.  After 5-10 years would
    sell the pristine one to pay for both.  Digital has pretty much ruined 
that
    as you called out.  I am waiting for the day when a body has enough
    technology to be good enough for ten years; 40+mp, built in IS, ISO good 
to
    50,000.  Surely that would be sufficient to be competitive for ten years.
    
    On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:20 AM Richard Man <richard at richardman.photo>
    wrote:
    
    > So I just sold my M9 with corroded sensor for $700 to someone who 
wants a
    > spare donor body when his m9 dies.
    >
    > I bought it for $5000, as a demo model, in Feb 2010. Just 10 years 
ago. So
    > cost per month is $36.
    >
    > I have taken just over 40,000 pics with it, so cost per image is 11 
cents.
    >
    > On average, I have taken 333 images per month, just over 11 images per 
day.
    >
    > As they say in the commercials, some images are priceless, to me. So 
well
    > worth it.
    >
    > --
    > "Some People Drive, We Are Driven"
    > https://richardman.photo
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Leica Users Group.
    > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
    >
    
    
    -- 
    Don
    don.dory at gmail.com
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information