You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant..... You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica.
... And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing...
You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.
Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.
You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.
...
Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?
Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line....
The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.
When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
Same with Leica.
Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.
I'm sure many will disagree, but in the 30's and 40's, if you were insistent on shooting the 35mm films of the day, a Leica would be the only way to go.. However, nowadays, a Leica is more jewelry than actual tool. Just my opinion.
In the jewelry category, try wearing a wide angles Rolleiflex, a normal Rolleiflex, and a telephoto Rolleiflex all at once when taking photographs.
Strongly disagree. Leicas are extremely durable, last a long time (like, generations) with occasional tune-ups, are available in user condition for non-insane prices, and the lenses are just beyond.
Your not going to make any money purchasing an item when it is already known as a collector's item. The people who make money anticipate what is going to become valuable. Not too many people have this skill.
I agree with all the post, and I arrive to say that also regarding houses smart people earn interest instead of paying it.
I mean that if people knew some financial mathematics they would easily understand that it is much cheaper to rent a house, and save and invest the difference between rent and mortgage, than paying a mortgage.
I have actually put my house on sale. I will invest the sale proceed in shares, earning dividends (very easy to make 5% after taxes nowadays, I hope I sell my house before the next stock bubble). The dividends will pay for a nice rent on the outskirts of Rome, plus a comfortable "rent" living.
Mortgages make people poor. Buy a house when you have the money to pay it cash, I say. A mortgage is a way to pay interest on a large capital. Saving is a way to earn interest. A mortgage instalment is much bigger than a rent for the same house if the market is in a normal state. The monthly difference, properly invested for the long term, will buy a house faster than the mortgage.
I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to rent something if the same size. It's just that most people don't have enough for a down payment. Also you can't "move around" too much.
Still it's foolish to pay rent when the money is going into the owners mortgage instead of just paying your own. The homeowners game is long term, you don't see the benefit until around the time you hit the 10 year mark, then you really start understanding the increase in value and actualizing the profit as real estate values increase over inflation.
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
The logic to buying any "luxury" good is this: if you "invest" up front in a better quality item, it will last you much longer than the cheaper item, and in that sense pay for itself by not having to be replaced as often. I state "luxury" in quotes because quality and luxury are not interchangeable, although the cost of quality often makes something otherwise utilitarian a luxury. I have a set of Calphalon pots and pans - I got them close to 20 years ago because they will in all likelihood be the last set I buy - I may add to the set from time to time, but I will never NEED to replace them. Before, I had some non-stick pots and pans that the coatings were wearing through every couple to three years and had to be thrown out. The same logic goes with cameras - Hasselblads are for most people truly luxury items, but first and foremost they are workmens' tools. A wedding pro who shoots 20+ weddings a year and several hundred portrait sittings will wear one out in a decade. The average user who buys one, though, will probably die with it still in good working order. Same goes with vintage Leicas (and standard production Leicas... the fancy-pants collector Leicas are just flat-out luxury goods and not really meant to be used), Rollei TLRs, and most view cameras. Stainless steel Rolexes and Omegas are in that same camp - rugged, accurate timepieces that will outlast the original owner. THAT is your investment - something you can buy once and use forever without having to replace it. That degree of "luxury" spending is entirely justifiable because it pays for itself over time.
I get my numbers from Financial Mathematics, a branch of mathematics, with its own inner financiary logic.
The mortgage payment is always composed of two parts: the interest part, and the capital restitution part. When you pay a house with a mortgage, you payback your capital AND you pay interest on the capital which you have not yet paid back.
If, on the other hand, you just save and invest, you will earn interest on your capital instead of paying it. The "interest" you pay is the rent. Rent is nothing more, in nuce, than the interest on the capital you rent (the house). In a normal house market interest on houses is somewhere around 3 percent of the value of the house.
In a normal mortgage you pay much more than 3% on the capital you borrow. 5% is a much more normal rate.
The "down" payment doesn't change the logic. If, instead of buying a house now (let's say $300,000 down payment and $300,000 mortgage) you just invest the $300,000 you have and you rent a house of a value of $600,000 you will find that you will more easily buy a house after X years (your mortgage duration) by saving rather than by buying on credit.
As a banal example, the case may be that the $300,000 invested can give you 5% after taxes while the rent of the house will cost you 3% of the $600,000 house. That means the interest on the "down" payment will actually pay most of the rent. You will "save" the amount you would have spent for your mortgage and invest that. The "non-mortgage" minus the "rent not paid by active interest" is the actually "capital building" you make every year. You earn interest every year on that.
The idea that real estate increases with time is a prejudice. Real estate can increase, decrease, or remain stable. That's like saying that paintings increase value over time, or porcelain. There is no guarantee that houses rise in value in real terms in the long term.
The capital you invest will typically grow more than inflation for sheer economic reasons (we exclude particular, anomalous situations).
Don't buy. Rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage.
Don't buy giving a "down" payment. Invest the "down" payment, rent, and save as if you had underwritten a mortgage (same logic applies).
Scott,
You are quite right, I agree the most economy can usually be found in the highest quality, however componding credit card interest on that quality item as the OP proposes makes that economy a moot point, just as it will handily obliterate any appreciation. Giving $8000 for a $2000 camera (or whatever) doesn't sound like a very good investment to me.
This doesn't always happen and may be an extreme example, but the increase in value of my last home completely paid for the principle and interest over the 9 years we lived there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?