Worth $12,000 to buy a Leica and two lenses?

[Gary A.]

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses. There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Unlike a Leica, a Rolex is a genuinely good watch. Totally inhouse right to the type of steel or gold. Right up there with Grand Seiko in terms of quality.

To me Leica and Rolex and very different in that many experts will place film Leicas, at or near the top in terms of quality. Most watch experts I read about do not endorse Rolex as the king of quality. Even though Leica has limited use (no very long, no very wide, no macro), it still maintains, in my opinion, an unreasonably high resale value ... as does Rolex. In that respect Rolex and Leica are similar. Yes, Rolex is a genuinely good watch, but it does not favorably compare in workmanship to other watchmakers.

 

[table1349]

"No matter how hard you hug your money, it never hugs back."
~ H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

If it makes you happy and spending that amount doesn't harm others they who cares what others think.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so for the op.. would I recommend a Leica...

Ummm, probably not. No, I don't own one. Of course that doesn't mean I can't "appreciate" or "understand" them. It's a camera. A fancy camera, sure.. but it's still just a camera. Nothing mystical about it. No reading of sacred scrolls required. It's just a nice camera.

So, in the 35 mm days having a camera that would last a decade or longer... well yes, that might be a good investment. In the digital era, no, not really. I really wouldn't want to be shooting a 2 mp sensor today, even if it was the finest 2 mp sensor ever crafted by man when it first came out.

As for build quality, well you can buy something like 5 or 6 replacements of some really tough, professional grade cameras for what it would cost you for one Leica. So not really seeing a value in that personally. Especially when you don't have to buy all of them up front. Buy a top of the line, professional grade camera today - use it for a few years, and when it finally gives out or you decide to replace it, buy the top of the line replacement. That way you stay current with the best technology.

As for image quality - sure, they have some really nice lenses. But as Derrel points out, the selection is pretty limited and your perspective choices will be pretty close to the same. You can get a lot more variety and thus a lot more artistic freedom going with a less limited system. Will the image quality be slightly but almost imperceptibly less using non-Leica glass? Ya, probably. Will anyone really be able to tell the difference? No, probably not.

Now if your a collector or are looking for your camera to be more than just a camera but a symbol of status, then yes, a Leica might make a good choice. But a working professional in the digital era? I think you get a lot more value for your money investing in a different system.

Just my 2 cents worth, YMMV

 

[table1349]

The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.

 

[jake337]

. . . these things go obsolete quickly. . .

Obsolete. I LMAO every time I see that said here on TPF.
One does not need the latest and greatest to make nice, even high quality, photographs.

And that's why a Nikon D3300 or D3400 and $1,500 in lenses could equal or better the $12,000 two-lens Leica kit. And why the $20 bottle of California wine can equal or better the $175 bottle of French wine.

Hahaha!

D3300 and $1,500 in lenses?

More like a used D90 and used 50mm f1.8D, lol.

 

[robbins.photo]

The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.

So if you can't man up and make a decision prior to shooting, this might be a viable option I guess. Ok, sure.. lol

 

[table1349]

The OP may or may not find this useful. Why I got rid of my photography gear.

So if you can't man up and make a decision prior to shooting, this might be a viable option I guess. Ok, sure.. lol

Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.

 

[robbins.photo]

Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.

I guess that could be.. but honestly I started rolling my eyes the minute he pulled out the references to feeding his soul. Ugh.

 

[table1349]

Perhaps, or perhaps as one ages and gains more insight into life as well as themselves one makes a change that is beneficial for them and their life style and choices.

I guess that could be.. but honestly I started rolling my eyes the minute he pulled out the references to feeding his soul. Ugh.

 

[chuasam]

I can't speak for plastic electronic digital cameras that will end up on the scrap pile in a couple years, but I love my M6. Like a Rolls Royce or Rolex, it may not make sense to the masses. There's better for shooting windsurfing, etc, just like there are better vehicles for mud bogging. If you can afford one, you deserve it. If not, enjoy what you have but there's no reason to trash what you will probably never understand & make yourself look like an ass in the process.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Unlike a Leica, a Rolex is a genuinely good watch. Totally inhouse right to the type of steel or gold. Right up there with Grand Seiko in terms of quality.

To me Leica and Rolex and very different in that many experts will place film Leicas, at or near the top in terms of quality. Most watch experts I read about do not endorse Rolex as the king of quality. Even though Leica has limited use (no very long, no very wide, no macro), it still maintains, in my opinion, an unreasonably high resale value ... as does Rolex. In that respect Rolex and Leica are similar. Yes, Rolex is a genuinely good watch, but it does not favorably compare in workmanship to other watchmakers.

Film Leica was great in its day. It allowed photographers to use a smaller format and still get great images. Leica bodies are overrated. The lenses are good but you can put a Leica lens on a Zorki and get the same image.

Rolex doesn't really have workmanship. Much of the production is done by robots and machines. They still make a very very good watch. Rolex is the king of quality (with Grand Seiko), they're not just High End. Mid-Range Luxury usually.

 

[devermb]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age: its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands. I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film? My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo. But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.

I continue to toy with the idea of getting the new Leica 10 with a 35mm and a 50mm lenses. Why? For its discrete size and high quality photos while on the road. But why should I get one if it will be succeeded by an M 11 on three years? Why would I spend $7,000 on a camera body that will be "obsolete" in three years? Would the difference in quality between the Leica 10 and the semi-imaginary "Leica 11" be so great as to make the Leica 10 really obsolete?

And besides, who uses Leica digital? Professionals? Street photogs? Effete people who can afford these $7,000 camera bodies?

 

[greybeard]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age: its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands. I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film? My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo. But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.

I continue to toy with the idea of getting the new Leica 10 with a 35mm and a 50mm lenses. Why? For its discrete size and high quality photos while on the road. But why should I get one if it will be succeeded by an M 11 on three years? Why would I spend $7,000 on a camera body that will be "obsolete" in three years? Would the difference in quality between the Leica 10 and the semi-imaginary "Leica 11" be so great as to make the Leica 10 really obsolete?

And besides, who uses Leica digital? Professionals? Street photogs? Effete people who can afford these $7,000 camera bodies?

I think you have pretty much answered your own question. Leica film cameras held their value because they were mechanically a shutter, a box to hold the film, a mechanism to wind the film, a mount to hold a spectacular lens, and a mechanism to focus the lens. All of these parts were assembled with the utmost precision. The only big difference between models was the metering system. Fast forward to today with digital being an emerging technology with huge improvements every 3 years or so and you have answered your question.

 

[table1349]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age: its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands. I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film? My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo. But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.

I continue to toy with the idea of getting the new Leica 10 with a 35mm and a 50mm lenses. Why? For its discrete size and high quality photos while on the road. But why should I get one if it will be succeeded by an M 11 on three years? Why would I spend $7,000 on a camera body that will be "obsolete" in three years? Would the difference in quality between the Leica 10 and the semi-imaginary "Leica 11" be so great as to make the Leica 10 really obsolete?

And besides, who uses Leica digital? Professionals? Street photogs? Effete people who can afford these $7,000 camera bodies?

What makes it obsolete in 3 years. Is you car obsolete now that it is not new. How about you house? Do you buy one every year so as to not have an obsolete house. New wardrobe yearly, new watch, etc.....etc.

A little story for you since you seem not to be able to decide.

“You’re Fixin’ To Mess Up” by Jerry Clower

“Just recently I had the privilege of doing a show at Samford University in Birmingham. Some of the young people there said, ‘Mr. Clower, what’s right and wrong?’ Tell us, we’re young people, tell us, what’s right and wrong.

Well you ask a pretty good question.

So I worked me up a rule of thumb I’d like to recommend to my own children, and to young people.

If you’re fixin’ to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication your fixin’ to mess up. I was getting ready for a date one night when I was a little ole boy. And I walked into the side room and I said, ‘Mama, is my shirt dirty?’ She said, ‘Son, if you’re in doubt, it’s dirty. Pull it off and getcha another.’ So if you’re fixin’ to do something, and you want to know if it’s right or not, number one: do you ask other people’s opinion about it?

Number two: do you argue with yourself? Man, I have spent a million miles on the highway arguing with Jerry about I oughta do a certain thing and I knew in my heart, I was lying. So if you’re arguin’ with yourself, pretty good indication you should not do it.

Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it? Had ya just as soon for somebody not see you doin’ what it is you’d done decided is alright for you to do?

And Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’? Alright, you’d done made up your mind: you’re gonna do it. The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can ya say ‘Lord, thank ya for providing this for me. And I some kinda thank ya, for fixin’ it where I can commit to what it is I’m doin.’?

What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can ya give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you better watch out…You’re fixin’ to mess up.”

 

[greybeard]

How about the Canon SL-1, the mini-dslr from the world's best-selling camera maker, and the two pancake primes, their 24mm f/2.8 and their 40mm f/2.8 lenses, for a small,light, discreet Leica-sized body and two autofocusing, through-the-lens viewing, smaller-than-Leica prime lenses, and then a small, light zoom, or a very fast-aperture 85/1.8, and then their 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM as your long-range lens?

And since you now have $9,000 left, why not pick up that amazing Sony zoom camera with the 1" sensor?

You are reading my mind: next question was: what compact high performing camera could I get: A while ago I was going between the Leica Q with a a 28mm summilux lense (Leica Q (Typ 116) Digital Camera (Black) 19000 B&H Photo Video) or the Sony mini camera with a 35 mm lense (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II Digital Camera DSCRX1RM2/B B&H Photo), but I want a 50 mm lens option.

I honestly think the 28mm fixed lens of the Leica is a BAD choice for much photography, unless you like that focal length a whole lot. And the same with an almost-$4,000 fixed-lens compact camera stuck with a 35mm fixed lens...neither of these qualify as high-performasnce to me, but more as HALO products, designed for that subset of people who are enchanted by lens f/stop...I've known many of these people over the past 30 years...they talk abou, "The f/1.4!", and "The f/1.7!" and the "f/1.2, the f/1.2!" and so on...seemingly unaware that wide aperture images have so,so little in-focus that many pictures look like mistakes to non-obsessed, regular people. I've grown tired of seeing one eyeball in-focus, and everything else OOF.

Yeah...a 50mm lens option would be nice. The full-sized sensor? I totally get that. But a FF sensor and one, fixed focal length, at the wide end of the spectrum? Seriously...I'd rather have an iPhone for that. Meaning being stuck with one semi-wide lens length on a smartphone camera.

$3800 to $4000 for ONE lens? No. Not versatile. LOUSY for portraits, lousy for distances over 12 feet. Everything with the Leica will look wide-angle. Everything with the Sony will be a pseudo-wide. The iPhone might even be superior in many situations, with the smaller sensor and shorter lens giving hyperfocal DOD in situations where that's a bonus.

Real photography is best with lenses of the appropriae focal lengths for the situation. Sometimes, that might be a 28, or 35mm lens, but could EASILY be a 50, or an 85, or a 135mm lens, or a 200mm, or a 300mm length. There is a very real reason that Leica rangefinder died off when quickly, after Nikon developed the F-system beginning in 1959. Being able to see through the lens is a big deal. So is lens intercahangeability to suit different conditions.

What most pokes through in the various exchanges I've had here is that complete reversal that Leica has undergone in the digital age: its film cameras last for decades because only the film needs to improve, but it's digital needs to change every three years or so because the sensor tech needs to stay superior or at least competitive with the other brands. I can't afford to shell out $7k every three years or so to get the latest Leica sensory tech in a new camera.

Has DSLR sensory technology gotten better than film? My first digital camera -- a Canon E20 I got in 2006, looks downright grainy now.

BTW, I spent more than $10k on two Otus lenses -- 55mm and 85mm, and they are so good that you touch the image and almost feel whatever is in the photo. But they are too heavy to carry outside my studio for a long time, so I am looking for something of this quality to carry around the world: light in weight, high quality, hence the research into Leica I am doing.

I continue to toy with the idea of getting the new Leica 10 with a 35mm and a 50mm lenses. Why? For its discrete size and high quality photos while on the road. But why should I get one if it will be succeeded by an M 11 on three years? Why would I spend $7,000 on a camera body that will be "obsolete" in three years? Would the difference in quality between the Leica 10 and the semi-imaginary "Leica 11" be so great as to make the Leica 10 really obsolete?

And besides, who uses Leica digital? Professionals? Street photogs? Effete people who can afford these $7,000 camera bodies?

What makes it obsolete in 3 years. Is you car obsolete now that it is not new. How about you house? Do you buy one every year so as to not have an obsolete house. New wardrobe yearly, new watch, etc.....etc.

A little story for you since you seem not to be able to decide.

“You’re Fixin’ To Mess Up” by Jerry Clower

“Just recently I had the privilege of doing a show at Samford University in Birmingham. Some of the young people there said, ‘Mr. Clower, what’s right and wrong?’ Tell us, we’re young people, tell us, what’s right and wrong.

Well you ask a pretty good question.

So I worked me up a rule of thumb I’d like to recommend to my own children, and to young people.

If you’re fixin’ to make a decision about what’s right and what’s wrong in your life, do you ask other people’s opinion about it? That’s a pretty good indication your fixin’ to mess up. I was getting ready for a date one night when I was a little ole boy. And I walked into the side room and I said, ‘Mama, is my shirt dirty?’ She said, ‘Son, if you’re in doubt, it’s dirty. Pull it off and getcha another.’ So if you’re fixin’ to do something, and you want to know if it’s right or not, number one: do you ask other people’s opinion about it?

Number two: do you argue with yourself? Man, I have spent a million miles on the highway arguing with Jerry about I oughta do a certain thing and I knew in my heart, I was lying. So if you’re arguin’ with yourself, pretty good indication you should not do it.

Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it? Had ya just as soon for somebody not see you doin’ what it is you’d done decided is alright for you to do?

And Number four: Can you give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’? Alright, you’d done made up your mind: you’re gonna do it. The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can ya say ‘Lord, thank ya for providing this for me. And I some kinda thank ya, for fixin’ it where I can commit to what it is I’m doin.’?

What is right or wrong? Do you ask other people? Do you argue with yourself? Do you feel uneasy when you do it? Can ya give thanks and say ‘Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.’? If you can’t, you better watch out…You’re fixin’ to mess up.”

Good grief, he is conflicted about dropping 12k on a camera system and is asking other shutter bugs what they think. Part of him loves the idea of "Leica" but another part of him can't justify the cost. This is not a life changing decision, unless he is going to charge it on a credit card at 35% interest or something like that.

 

[loonatic45414]

I think I'm staying with film for awhile. At least until the technology gets to the point where improvements are negligible from model to model. A lot like computers. Mine is 5 years old and I have no need to upgrade until I'm forced to by hardware manufacturers, internet security & software writers who no longer support my platform or keep me safe.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk