Godfrey
Well-known member
Yup. One person made a little money on that O-series. And some collector really liked Leif's reputation.
Do you also play the lottery? I think it has better odds of a payoff. ;-)
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yup. One person made a little money on that O-series. And some collector really liked Leif's reputation.
I'll respectfully disagree with that strategy. I have never looked at the expense of buying a high end lens with any notion of whether it was going to be worth something in the future—I look at the expense of buying a high end lens in the context of what it is that I think the lens will do for my photography.Quite right - I have quite a lot of leica lenses, I bought them to take pictures with (okay Godfrey) . . . but I couldn't possibly have excused the expense without some idea that they would hold their value pretty well. ...
Not sure exactly which source provided you with his supposed "factual" information. Send me a link as I need a good laugh today. You are one of the few spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich. I'm not wealthy nor rich but yet I own some Leica gear. How on earth could this happen? Once again - if you think only the wealthy buy Leica, you have a lot to learn... Having said this - I know what you are about Vivek and you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.I can not be more serious. There was no need to be joking as it is a fact. If you deny it, perhaps you are living in Utopia.
Photography itself isn't for the poor. Leica certainly isn't for the lower income groups, even in the most affluent societies.
My first Leica purchase was in 1986...have been through and around the camera bodies and lenses too many times to count...I don't know about anybody else, but I don't buy camera equipment to be an "investment." I buy it to use in making photographs. If I'm a professional, I'm not 'investing' in camera equipment either, I'm purchasing capital goods (tools) for use in my business (and I depreciate them as such).
Does anyone on this photography forum 'invest' in camera equipment? Seems a very risky venture.
Gary,spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich.....you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.
Cost of ownership is something my accountant becomes concerned about, but more particularly when it comes to owning things that commit you to consumables and periodic expenditures (fuel, film, insurance, etc). ;-)Residual value is an important factor in the cost of ownership . ...
In all the years I worked with film Ms, the only real reasons to upgrade the body were caprice and whimsy. I mean, really, how big a difference is there between an M4-2 and an MP other than the obvious built-in meter and AE metering? And the fact that it's a couple of decades newer?Most of my Leica M glass will sell for more than I paid for it . So I don t mind having a few extra lenses...no so with my Leica bodies where we take a bath every time a new model is released .
Well, Godfrey - that's you - I do that as well . . . it's just that I don't ONLY do that!I'll respectfully disagree with that strategy. I have never looked at the expense of buying a high end lens with any notion of whether it was going to be worth something in the future—I look at the expense of buying a high end lens in the context of what it is that I think the lens will do for my photography.
I never said I was 'banking on it' - I just think that amongst the risks available today it's a decent one. Of course, if they do lose value then there are tax benefits as well.I only consider what the residual value of a lens might be after I'm done with it, find it in the way, and figure out what I can get for it when I off it on the market. Banking on the value to persist is foolish from an investment point of view, but by and large good equipment holds its value well as others value its functionality and quality.
Well, if you want make some characterization because you "know" something, you certainly are in that bubble.Not sure exactly which source provided you with his supposed "factual" information. Send me a link as I need a good laugh today. You are one of the few spreading false information that Leica is only for the rich. I'm not wealthy nor rich but yet I own some Leica gear. How on earth could this happen? Once again - if you think only the wealthy buy Leica, you have a lot to learn... Having said this - I know what you are about Vivek and you are likely just stirring the pot so to speak.
I've not purchased a Noctilux because a) I can't afford it, and b) I don't know really why I'd want one. I barely even use my Nokton 50/1.5 wide open. To carry a larger, heavier, far more expensive lens with no clear reason to ... na, not for me....
Back to my original point - the idea of buying a Leica 50 0.95 simply as a disposable is not really tenable for me(which, presumably, is why you haven't bought one). ...
1. 'Saving money' is not an option for the low income groups. They have none.People who save their money and/or make sacrifices in other area's to buy the goods. Not sure if you were joking or not but it is not only the rich who use Leica.... Although it still tends to be a strong (and untrue) stereotype.
It's difficult to predict these things but I have a feeling that the M10 will be nothing like the M9 in terms of sales – I think there will be significantly fewer upgraders and fewer new entrants into the M system. Leica no longer seems quite the flavour of the month that it seemed last year and I'm not sure the M10, whatever the specs, will be the sales 'game changer' that the M9 undoubtedly proved.The m10 will sell in droves, I fully expect 2 years worth of production to be essentially sold out...
...The M10 will bring more newbys, more sales, and a further tightening of the lens supply chain, I expect used prices will firm up then.
The real impact of the Nikon D800/E maybe that (1) it sucks both money and desire for the latest out of the advanced amateur segment and (2) it established a very high hurdle for the value proposition of an entire system .It's difficult to predict these things but I have a feeling that the M10 will be nothing like the M9 in terms of sales – I think there will be significantly fewer upgraders and fewer new entrants into the M system. Leica no longer seems quite the flavour of the month that it seemed last year and I'm not sure the M10, whatever the specs, will be the sales 'game changer' that the M9 undoubtedly proved.
This is only partially true!The real impact of the Nikon D800/E maybe that (1) it sucks both money and desire for the latest out of the advanced amateur segment and (2) it established a very high hurdle for the value proposition of an entire system .
In January its was the Sony Nex 7 ....in February it was the Fuji XPro 1 ..in March it was the D800 . Money aside ...it takes a heck of a lot of work to learn the different systems and make them second nature . Mix in that post processing is typically months behind and there is a big effort to absorb a new system .
I am as big a Leica M fan boy as you will find and I am having a hard time getting excited . If the ISO performance isn t great at 1600-3200 ..my transition maybe slow . Especially if they get up around $10K with pricing .
Agree completely that its unlikely that the M10 will be game changer that the M9 was.