corposant wrote:
Isn't the point of owning $10,000 worth of camera equipment actually using it?
You use it within reason, and while you may be wealthy enough to not worry about $10k, its a pretty large sum of money for me and not an amount I could just go out and replace at the drop of a hat.
I certainly took my Leica plenty of places but there were also times where I thought given its value, and not wanting to worry about it, I left it safely at home.
Just common sense really. If you had a $100k car would you maybe think twice about where you parked it vs a $10k used Honda ?? Maybe not drive it on a snowy day when theres bound to be tons of fender benders ?
You don't have to keep it in the garage under a tarp, but I wouldn't go leave it parked overnight outside a bar in a bad part of town either.
Having an option of a less valuable or more "disposable" camera makes sense to me. That way I can balance my desire to get a shot with the level of risk I want to take with my gear.
I am not suggesting that having an M9 or an X100 means that you should be doing anything reckless with it like taping it to your forehead while bungee jumping or putting it on your helmet to skateboard through a flash mob. However if somebody is willing to part with some good money for photographic equipment, I figure it's kind of useless if it sits at home while they fret about the possibility of it breaking.
I am not suggesting that having an M9 or an X100 means that you should be doing anything reckless with it like taping it to your forehead while bungee jumping or putting it on your helmet to skateboard through a flash mob. However if somebody is willing to part with some good money for photographic equipment, I figure it's kind of useless if it sits at home while they fret about the possibility of it breaking.
Who said anything about letting it sit at home all the time ?
I'm simply saying that its nice to have an option off a less expensive camera. How is this concept so hard for you guys to understand ?
Do you perhaps just like to argue silly points online or something
I'm sure you've probably got a nice suit or pair of shoes right ??
Would you wear that to any and all places you go ? No, you have other clothes that you'd probably wear when things might get muddy etc.
Its just common sense and a stupid argument.
Do you really live your life driving a $100K sports car to go pick up the groceries, and wear a $3k Tom Ford suit on a rafting trip ?
Do you put on a $1500 Omega watch when your doing yardwork ?
Its just stupid to argue that someone would.
"Oh, well why would you buy an expensive watch if your not going to wear all the time....."
And what good is that insurance going to do for you when your 50 Lux that you waited 9 months for is gone and even though you've got an insurance check you can't buy another lens ?
Because you suggest being an idiot and taking it river rafting and lost it overboard your now going to miss the next 9 months or more of enjoying that lens because you didn't have the common sense to take a different camera
Why not leave the Leica at home in such a situation and take something replaceable like a p&s even ? If it goes overboard no big deal, your out a few hundred bucks, less than the deductible on the policy. Then you've got your nice camera to use the rest of the time in normal shooting situations.
Insurance is there to cover lose when accidents happen, not as a license to take stupid risk that defy the laws of common sense.
Do you drive like an idiot when its icey or rainy out just because your car is insured
Hey, I'm just happy you sold me the M9, Jeff . And....I am thinking about the X100 for the few times when I don't want to take $10,000 with me.....even though I have insurance
My point, to reiterate, is that "no, you wouldn't wear your $3k suit to go rafting" (i.e. "you wouldn't bring your M9 bungee jumping)."
Maybe I should phrase this differently. If I spent $10k on camera equipment and didn't use it at least XX% of the time, I would consider it a waste of money, especially if I were worried about it breaking. Now, XX for me would be at least 85%, maybe more. For some people who have plenty of cash, that could be 50%. For collectors, it could be 5%.
By the way, in LA, people do drive far more expensive cars to get groceries and wear far more expensive watches to go to the gym. Those are lifestyle choices. They are not "wrong," even if they seem silly to you.
Im sorry mills art, while I think you have a point, you are making very faulty analogies.
I wouldn't wear a $50 suit river rafting. I wouldn't wear my best dress shoes to play tennis.
Those are bad analogies. I get what you are saying but worry of loss or theft is not a reason for me to leave good gear. If I had a m9 and noctilux, it would be insured and I'd take it places. I, at least, can seldom plan the times I need the best gear possible as the things I see happen spontaneously.
Nobody here is suggesting you take it rafting, but taking the fuji in that regard would be silly too...one would take a camera with water housing, or a rubberized camera.
Again, I get your point..but if you want to make analogies, please keep them within reason.
Its not just the noise but the dynamic and tonal range still seem to be there at ISO 3200. Dare I say I think it might be better at high ISO than my full frame A850.
The RAW files from the X100 are fantastic to work with. For the harsh kind of PP that I want to apply (like above), they hold up better than the files from my D700, at least below ISO 1600. But, they lack some "bite". Maybe it's the lens; I don't know.
. And....I am thinking about the X100 for the few times when I don't want to take $10,000 with me.....even though I have insurance
