50 dollars or even a hundred is peanuts compared to the cost of film and develompent only for shooting 4-5 rolls a month for a year.
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Adam Maas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Anybody else read >>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photograph >>> er/2009/05/a-leica-year.html >>> Mike Johnston's little ode to simplicity and the Leica as a teacher. >>> >>> I'm seriously thinking about giving the basic concept a try. Not with >>> a Leica though, but rather with either a Yashica FX-3 or Nikon FM2n >>> and a fast normal. I don't feel like paying the Leica tax and my FX-3 >>> in particular cost less than the eBay/Paypal transaction fees on even >>> a cheap M. >>> >> >> The follow-up piece is quite interesting too: >> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/why >> -it-has-to-be-a-leica.html >> >> The Leica 'tax' is a myth, as he points out. I have recently sold my M4-2 >> which I had for about 8-10 years for about the same money I paid for it. >> Admittedly I spent £150- on it a few years ago for a service, but for a 1968 >> camera it did pretty well. My E-1, on the other hand, is worth nothing now. >> >> The older photographers among us had little choice but to learn the way Mike >> suggests. My early photography was with an MX which I bought by not smoking >> for a year. I generally shot black & white and rarely had anything enlarged >> because I couldn't afford it - just the contact prints. I still have all the >> negs and contacts and there are probably hundreds of photos I should scan >> and enlarge. But I can't be arsed. >> >> Bob >> > > The Leica tax is not a myth. Even if you consider the capital > expenditures a wash, a comparable 35mm SLR of similar vintage to an M4 > will cost no more than $50 and is often available much cheaper than > that. In other words buying the SLR will cost you less than shipping, > fees and taxes on the Leica, which you won't recover when selling it. > Heck, my FX-3 cost me $5 out of pocket and $25 total (traded in a FR > on it, payed $20 for the FR, got $20 trade-in value). Even a Nikon F > can be had under $100. > > With very few exceptions, and nearly all of them fully-featured pro > bodies, 35mm SLR's are available for the price of beer. > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
