"Nice composition, but there is something rather ironic about an apparent homeless man being shot with $16,000 worth of gear."
Jim
"+1 - I thought that myself...
Perhaps, shtarka1 gave him some money for the shot."
Jim,Andrew i certainly can understand the presumption behind your comments & i thank you for bringing them up. I document the Street's, good, bad & ugly. It's a controversial issue & no matter what i say or do people will make judgement without knowing my intentions or disposition.
Friday is the day of the week that i head into Boston for my Street shooting. I go with a buddy of mine & we walk for 3 or 4 hours & meet & shoot many different people. We see the same homeless people in there every week. We know a fair amount of them & actually enjoy talking to, listening to & learning from them. Great musicians, Intelligent,Factual Smart People! War Veterans & yes Mentally ill people as well. We feed them with bagels,coffee, juice, attention , kindness & respect. A photo is only taken with permission & is almost always allowed.
Like the Allman Brother's once said, Im No Angel, but my intentions on this subject are only to make a very small difference in someones life. I hope to put a book together about the homeless problem in Boston with all proceeds donated to the Pine Street Inn.
Thanks for letting me express my views. http://www.pinestreetinn.org/about_faq.php
denoir wrote:
That is indeed low. I think you could almost get that much by selling it to a camera store. We're not in a good position to sell gear here in Sweden - a very small market and higher prices than abroad.
When looking around at FS and Blocket, I think it's just a notch below normal prices.
Schönherrs didn't want them and explained that most people buying Zeiss in Sweden are motion picture shooters, and perhaps they are right.
The sad thing is that I love the lenses and I would never sell them if it wasn't for the money. On the other hand, I could always get them again if my income would magically increase.
Rajala Photo (in Stockholm) usually has a pile of ZM lenses in store and I've had very good experience with them when it comes to exchanging lenses. I've had focusing issues with two lenses - the 75 Summicron and the 35/2 Biogon and problems with an uneven focusing ring with the 25/2.8 Biogon. It took Leica a couple of tries but they fixed the 75 Cron in the end. Zeiss on the other hand fixed both lenses within a week (and it included completely rebuilding the focusing system of the 25/2.8) and it worked perfectly.
My "relation" with Rajala isn't very good. They are really bad when it comes to customer support, though I got my Nikkor 24-70 replaced right away when the zoom ring seized up after a week. They don't answer phonecalls or emails and their "stock" – as shown on the website – is in Finland!
I really don't want to send the camera and lens(es) away if I can avoid it. My camera budget is always sort of stretched and I'm also very impatient. But sure, if I find a ZM lens in a store and I can try it on the camera and confirm good accuracy (which is close to impossible with the crappy screen of the M8/M9), I'd buy it. The ZM 35/2.8 was just fantastic, when I nailed focus or stopped it down.
A lot of the attractiveness of the M9 comes from the form factor and the way it feels to use. You already have that part with the M8 which is indeed a good start. Good luck with the plan.
Yeah, that's why I can live with the terrible noise of the M8 for now. Compared to the D700 it's a complete joke at anything above ISO 320. But it's so much nicer to carry and use.
Enough talk! This one is from an hour ago. 1/8 second, Summicron 28/2 wide open and ISO 1250:
Seekuh, you pointed to a page, not a image. An image will end with a .jpg if it's a JPG, or some other 3 digit extension. That will render as an image then. You copied the page, not the "location"
Joakim, thanks Nice morning set Love that 50 Lux!
Martin, good luck with your decisions. Great shot! I really like the PP'ing.
Steve, great to see your take! I feel having a mission and purpose for shoots, gives so much more purpose and meaning. Look forward to your book!!
Seekuh, nice set! Great to see you on board
Paul, beautiful beach shot.
denoir wrote:
I absolutely detest filters and I don't use them. Let me put it this way: In a high end lens that uses exotic materials and sub-mm precision of alignment of elements, do you really think that adding a random glass element in front of it is a good idea?
I totaly agree with you. During my dslr days i never put a cheap glass in front of my lens. But i normally use a hood with dslr. With the M9, i prefer not using any hood so a filter for protection is necessary. I guess i'll get back to the habit of using those hoods that are just kept in the box. thanks.
nice skylark photo, unusual to see a 72 Skylark in Germany I would think... well it was nice before but now we can see it without going to photo site. deer and horses nice too.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Makten; that's why I decided to stay off the M9 until prices have dropped significantly. I just could not stomach the admission ticket. I saw a not too old M9 out for 40 000 SEK already and I think there will be a few ones going below the 35K mark soon enough. That's when they start to look interesting again, to me.
I don't think the M8/M9's will keep their value as well as the lenses do. It is not possible in the digital world.
EDIT: Denoir beat me to it.
This is the biggest problem for me. I would spend $20k on gear, if it's 17k on lenses and 3k on a body..but 7k for a body that drops like a rock, I can't justify it yet. Plus then even finding lenses. There are some m9’s for sale under $6k but then what..you sane a thousand dollars but have either no warranty or limited warranty..one repair wipes out the savings. Rally to make it worthwhile buying used it needs to be $4500 or less tbh, that won't happen til the m10 comes out.
I thought about such logic before I bought M9 and few lenses....
BUT, and this is a big but....(), I am too old to miss out the few years of my wonderful hobby, and guessing what's going to happen few years later....
Time is much more precious....
h00ligan wrote:
This is the biggest problem for me. I would spend $20k on gear, if it's 17k on lenses and 3k on a body..but 7k for a body that drops like a rock, I can't justify it yet. Plus then even finding lenses. There are some m9’s for sale under $6k but then what..you sane a thousand dollars but have either no warranty or limited warranty..one repair wipes out the savings. Rally to make it worthwhile buying used it needs to be $4500 or less tbh, that won't happen til the m10 comes out.
h00ligan wrote:
This is the biggest problem for me. I would spend $20k on gear, if it's 17k on lenses and 3k on a body..but 7k for a body that drops like a rock, I can't justify it yet. Plus then even finding lenses. There are some m9’s for sale under $6k but then what..you sane a thousand dollars but have either no warranty or limited warranty..one repair wipes out the savings. Rally to make it worthwhile buying used it needs to be $4500 or less tbh, that won't happen til the m10 comes out.
This is sort of funny, because even if I'm probably the least rich guy in this thread, I don't care at all about the resell value. When I eventually buy an M9, I must count on not getting any money back from it in the future.
I want it because I like it and I intend to use it til it fails one day. I bought my D700 new and now, three years later, being able to sell it at all is just a bonus. It's been really cheap in terms of cost per time even if I'd drop it on concrete tomorrow (no insurance).
The M9 is twice the price of what the D700 was back then, which still isn't very much money per month if I can use it as much as I want, and if I keep it for three years I could as well live with not getting it sold at all in the future.
$7000 over three years is $6.5 a day. And if you are lucky, you'll probably get at least $2500 back if you sell it then (like the M8 today).
