OK... how would you spend $7000?

Gareth,

That looks pretty good though maybe I'd go with the Nikon's 14-24 and pick up the items from FM used to save some bucks and still meet the $7K limit. Guess I'm just not a fan of generic lenses...though the sigma 12-24 seems to be pretty good.

Used D700's with very few shutter actuations now pushing very close to $2K!

The 80-200 is indeed quite the bargain lens in price but the IQ is wonderful...some even "prefer" it to the results from the 70-200. No VR and depending upon which used one maybe no AFS either.

I would think (never used one yet) that the D700 should be able to push the 80-200 non-AFS versions pretty well!

Dan

On a cost basis, it doesn't make sense.

If you've ever driven one, you know why people who can afford them, buy them. Sweet, utterly sweet.

I'd take the Leica!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's full frame, unmatched optics,don't have to work for bokeh!
Glad you asked.

--
Reto

How to spend 7000,- on a new E-System?

Very Simple:

1) New E3, 12-60 and grip Kit: 2100,- Euro

2) 50-200 F2,8-3,5 SWD: 1400,- Euro

3) 7-14mm F3: 1700,- Euro

4) 50mm Macro: 550,- Euro

5) EC 14 450,- Euro

Total: 6200,-

Now on Top: Flash and small stuff like Battery's, Fast-Carger, CF UDMA 300X Cards and those 7000,- Euro are gone.

Timi
--
iThink, therefore iMac

Given those two options, make mine an M9. There really is no question. Sure had I made my living from photography I'd probably chose differently, but since I'm not the Leice is a clear winner for me.

I think of the E-3 as being too big.
Might even pass on the E-30 for now, and pick up an extra lens...
but then, I'm not one of those that picked Canikony

Given unlimited funds, I'd probably get something FF... or maybe MF, but I suspect such equipment would only get used for special projects.
Really, what I have inow is working for me, don't need to go for anything fancy

(OK, I'd like a 300mm and EC-20, I'm sure that would totally blow away my 600mm mirror... and yet, my 70-300 would still get the most use)

--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/

Adorama Prices

e3 $1200
14-35mm f2 $1900
150mm f2 $2150
25mm f1.4 $900
fl50 $390

Total $6540

Add a camera bag, tripod, memory card, and other small accessories
--
learning about photography

Elvis
Vienna, Virginia

Marty4650 said:

... is it "bashing" to raise the cost/befit question about a Leica?

Click to expand...

But that wasn't the question you raised was it?
You gave us $7000 and asked what would you do.

Free money! Sure if it isn't my money I'd happily spend it on a $7000 Leica even if that cannot do as much as an E3.

It is a very different question from, "You have $7k of your money. What would you spend it on if you were starting from scratch and could only by one of these two?"

Simply, if I had $70k of my own and could afford a Ferrari, I'd still not be buying one. If I was given $70k with the condition that I spent it on a Ferrari or three Fiat Puntos well guess what...

Marty4650 said:

I probably wrote 10 times that the M9 is an extrodinary camera. But the reality is it is fairly limted and hugely expensive. This isn't bashing. It's reality.

Click to expand...

This is true. No one denied it. It is limited. It is hugely expensive. If I had free money I'd buy because I want it.

Marty4650 said:

Perhaps not for those who have unlimited funds, but for most.

Click to expand...

That was the premise though - you essentially gave us all unlimited funds (or at least $7k) and asked what we'd do!

Now if you asked if it were MY $7k which would I rather buy ... well I'll stick to the answer in this thread - it is pretty close to reality.

If you asked "Is this Leica worth $7k to you ?" No.

Which is also a different question from -

"Do you think this Leica is worth $7k?" Also no but for a different set of reasons.

Cheers,
-G.

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

James Pilcher said:

Funny, I never go to the Leica forum and bash Olympus. Or Canon. Or Ricoh. Or Red. It never occurs to me to do such a thing. I'm curious why it has become good sport here, much like going to the county dump and shooting various animals while they rummage through the trash.

Click to expand...

Jim,

If you noticed - it didn't quite work out the way the OP intended.

I'm sure you could poll all here for a Leica cost/benefit analysis here but its sort of pointless because most of us cannot afford the cost, and many are not familiar with the benefits.

More to the point, most of us are sick of it with the Oly gear in the same situation with people pointing out that APS-C cameras are around the same cost, but in their opinion, have more benefit because they can shoot at ISO 2500 or have the new uber whatchamacallthingywotsitgigydoodad. All that matters is the end result so why would I ever get something else!

Sigh. It is completely moronic. Red cardigans are on sale half off and keep you as warm as blue cardigans so why would you ever want to buy a blue cardigan? Same answer...

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

Dan said:

Gareth,

That looks pretty good though maybe I'd go with the Nikon's 14-24 and pick up the items from FM used to save some bucks and still meet the $7K limit. Guess I'm just not a fan of generic lenses...though the sigma 12-24 seems to be pretty good.

Click to expand...

Cr@p wide open, but its ok when you stop down, but for ultrawide, you're nearly always stopping down anyway so its a moot point 99% of the time. Especially with the ISO performance of the D700 sensor. Sometimes I think I should get the 14-24, but in all honestly, the times I've needed that much width, I've always been able to get the Sigma to deliver the goods and I bet at the apertures I'm shooting, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The very rare occasions that I do need to shoot wide angle at a wider aperture (for shutter speed), then I have the 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina, which its a cracker. Ive tested it against the 11-22 zuiko and there is nothing between those lenses sharpness wise, which is saying something if you know how good a wideangle the 11-22 is.

Dan said:

Used D700's with very few shutter actuations now pushing very close to $2K!

The 80-200 is indeed quite the bargain lens in price but the IQ is wonderful...some even "prefer" it to the results from the 70-200. No VR and depending upon which used one maybe no AFS either.

Click to expand...

I now have two 80-200 lenses. The first one I bought new which is the 'current' twin ring AFD model. I was very pleased with the results. A really great lens. I bought it over the 70-200VR because of the better coverage on FF as its an older film body design. Then I came across one of the oldest push pull versions in excellent condition in a local shop. I thought it would be a good idea to get a spare just as a backup. When I gave it a good testing though, dear god ... this older lens is just freaking incredible! Its even better than my original version. There is hardly any image degradation wide open at ALL the focal lengths. Bizarrely, this has now become the main lens, even though I don't like a few things about its construction, such as no IF and I'm not as keen on the push pull action compared to the silky smooth one finger zoom of the twin ring version. But the IQ is simply jaw droppingly good.

Dan said:

I would think (never used one yet) that the D700 should be able to push the 80-200 non-AFS versions pretty well!

Click to expand...

Nowhere near as fast (or smooth or silent) as an AFS lens, but it works. I'd have to do a side by side comparison, but my gut feeling is that even the slower push pull version is still faster than my 50-200 oly though. (but its fairly 'clunky' in having to twirl all that heavy glass around).

Big Ga said:

Plus you can throw in an SB900 for under $500 and still have change for 70 big macs ....

Click to expand...

You forgot to throw in the cost of the by-pass surgery following all those big Macs!

--
Make it a Great day!

Not directed at any given post, just musing...

Does the cost/benefit make sense? Hard to say. Depends on your value system. But it's conceivable the M9 is extremely reliable and delivers superb image quality and it allows the owner to shoot with their arsenal of delicious primes. In every endeavor, there are those who are willing to spend considerable money in the quest for perfection. Then again, everyone has their own definition of what perfection is.

Would I be foolish to spend $7000 on an M9? Yes, I wouldn't spend enough time with it or spend enough money on lenses and accessories to fully appreciate it. But I can still admire it!

TrapperJohn said:

On a cost basis, it doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

It makes complete sense! The aerodynamics, design and the engine are quite simply amazing! These cars use titanium, carbon fiber and ever gold!

TrapperJohn said:

If you've ever driven one, you know why people who can afford them, buy them. Sweet, utterly sweet.

Click to expand...

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
--
Follow me on Twitter: rssarma

Olympus enthusiasts from NYC Metro, join UKPSG:
http://snipurl.com/crc3n

rssarma said:

James Pilcher said:

Make no mistake, [Leica bashing] is the OP's single intent. Far too much brand bashing has invaded this forum.

Click to expand...

Don't take it personally, the discretionary nature of the internet is what makes it it's biggest asset....just a suggestion

Click to expand...

Nothing personal about this one. It doesn't keep me up nights or send me to the analyst. It is rather disappointing when I step back and look at what small minds can accomplish.

Did you know, 50% of all people are below average intelligence?

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado

...those who will protect their own while dismissing or attacking all others. You see, true fanboys are ultimately insecure about their own decisions. They must justify their decisions publicly, feeling they have made an important point by doing so and convincing themselves of their genius in the process.

Marty4650 said:

I really wonder who the real fanboys are......

Click to expand...

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado

Big Ga said:

Dan said:

Gareth,

That looks pretty good though maybe I'd go with the Nikon's 14-24 and pick up the items from FM used to save some bucks and still meet the $7K limit. Guess I'm just not a fan of generic lenses...though the sigma 12-24 seems to be pretty good.

Click to expand...

Cr@p wide open, but its ok when you stop down, but for ultrawide, you're nearly always stopping down anyway so its a moot point 99% of the time.

Click to expand...

well if you have to stop it down to F11, and its beginning to go soft at F16
i dont know that isnt a small consideration

Big Ga said:

The very rare occasions that I do need to shoot wide angle at a wider aperture (for shutter speed), then I have the 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina, which its a cracker. Ive tested it against the 11-22 zuiko and there is nothing between those lenses sharpness wise, which is saying something if you know how good a wideangle the 11-22 is.

Click to expand...

i think you forgot to mention that the tokina 11-16 is for APSC, and when you use it on FF it looks like this





and so on until you zoom to 15 and 16mm
where it is very sharp indeed, and easily outperforms Canons UWA,
not that there is a great accomplishment there...





i mean, why fanny about with this stuff
just get Nikons 14-24

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

dovi said:

http://idleicarefundplease.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/150/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

rssarma said:

It makes complete sense! The aerodynamics, design and the engine are quite simply amazing! These cars use titanium, carbon fiber and ever gold!

Click to expand...

Oh come on Raj - makes no difference with the speed limits... aerodynamics.. in NYC traffic...

Well ok it does make a difference. The Ferrari will guzzle your fuel faster. And bottom out at every multi-story car park. And be more likely to get keyed as I recall from my last NYC trip (maybe that was a Lambo but whatever)

That value of a thing isn't the point of this thread or the last one ...

Why is it so wrong to get something you want, regardless of its value for money. I really do not see why this bothers people. It isn't bourgeoisie when people get $2.99 laundry detergent that is identical to to $1.29 laundry detergent but has a brand name behind it.

If you think something is overpriced and isn't good value for money then don't buy it. If you cannot afford it, then the point is moot.

Cheers,
-G.

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

TrapperJohn said:

On a cost basis, it doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

That depends on who you want to impress or how fast you want to drive.

For me tho, it wouldn't make sence at any price, but suppose if I could afford care and feeding of one, I'd have a different lifestyle anyway.
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/