...and I want it to cost $1000

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Yes, but look where it got Fuji when they listened to photographers

Where did it get them?

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Where did it get them?

Well, I would have thought it was clear the X line was regarded as quite the success, and raised Fuji's professional/ semi-pro digital division from the ashes. Are there aspects of the success of this line you contend? Am curious more than anything, as I know you're an X-Pro owner.

[jsrockit]

Murchu, I guess what I mean is that Fujifilm X100 and X--Pro1 is a success amongst serious photographers, but not with consumers. Fuji is seemingly the exception, but they release tons of cheap consumer cameras every year. I always thought the X100 was partly a labor of love that just happen to exceed expectations and sell well. They didn't create it to cash in. I would imagine the success of the X100 and X-Pro1 is a drop in the bucket financially for a company of Fuji's size.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Murchu

In fairness, how do you know what has influenced camera designers. To be honest, personally if I was looking to make a better hammer, I would be looking at carpentry forums, so who is to say those looking to make better cameras do not look at camera forums.

Of course the rub in all this, is that I do not believe many camera makers are interested in making better cameras, and most are instead trapped in incremental design and production loops, and possibly the most imaginative thing they've accomplished is in selling dslrs to a much wider swath of the market than before.

Para. 1, yes, sure, consider any and all input; but equally, there's a difference between accepting input; rejecting nonsense; and designing a camera.

Para. 2, well, define 'better'. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that proportionately more SLRs were sold to 'keen amateurs'' than DSLRs, but again, I'd need to define 'keen amateur'.

Cheers,

R.

[Kent]

It's all about dreaming. Who said that dreaming includes any rationality?

We all have a certain limit when a price starts to "hurt". This limit depends on annual income, familiy situation, debts, running costs etc. etc.

If someone earns 1 Mio $ a year but lives a "normal" live, the price for a Leica M9 is easily paid.
If someone is out of work or works in a low-paid job with a familiy to feed, even US$ 100,- is a lot.

For me, personally, my "hurting limit" for a cam is at about US$1500,- and for a lens at about US$500,-. I could afford more, but I don't want to spend more. It would give me a bad feeling that I paid that much money for my personal hobby. I'd rather spend more money on holidays with my family.

I can dream about the perfect cam and dream that is is available for US$ 1000,-.

After all, it's all about dreaming.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Murchu, I guess what I mean is that Fujifilm X100 and X--Pro1 is a success amongst serious photographers, but not with consumers. Fuji is seemingly the exception, but they release tons of cheap consumer cameras every year. I always thought the X100 was partly a labor of love that just happen to exceed expectations and sell well. They didn't create it to cash in. I would imagine the success of the X100 and X-Pro1 is a drop in the bucket financially for a company of Fuji's size.

Perhaps. In any event, think the X series shows the benefit of passionate photographers input into the camera design process, and think it shows. That was really my original point, of the benefits to be seen by paying attention to photographers. Ricoh does similarly with their GR-D, from what I've seen, and feedback from their users is fed back into the process be it firmware or the design for the next model and it shows, even if something like the GR-D range is a niche product.

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Para. 1, yes, sure, consider any and all input; but equally, there's a difference between accepting input; rejecting nonsense; and designing a camera.

Para. 2, well, define 'better'. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that proportionately more SLRs were sold to 'keen amateurs'' than DSLRs, but again, I'd need to define 'keen amateur'.

Cheers,

R.

Agreed.

Well by 'better' I would mean cameras that fit users needs as best as possible, whatever those needs might be. Re: dslr's I see them to be more ubiquitous than I ever saw film slr's to be, at least that is my perception, and thus conclusion that Canon, Nikon, et al's most telling contribution to the camera landscape has been by broadening the market, and selling dslr's further and wider than before. 'Keen amateurs' would only be a subset of that market. As I say, just my own personal perception, but feel sales figures per year would back it up, when comparing the number of dslrs sold each year, versus the amount of film slr's sold per year in the past.

[V-12]

Originally Posted by krötenblender

I had many very good cameras for much less than $1000, including lenses.

The value of ones photography and his dedication to it is in no way connected to the price-tag of the equipment.

Agreed, hence my point that $50 for a Holga is money well spent for some people

[dave lackey]

Where is this thread headed? I am lost... But then, what's different about that on an everyday standpoint with me?

If we are talking about getting a dream camera, what's with the $1000 figure? Seems that more people than not, on RFF, piss away more money than that every year on rotating cameras and lenses for the next best thing.

I could be wrong, but it seems like the old argument about buying a car. My mentor in college drove a 1974 240D and I should have, really should have, absolutely! should have found the money to have bought one but I kept buying Toyotas, domestic sedans, station wagons, trucks, SUVs, and the such for family cars. They were cheaper and "just as good"....(my arse, in hindsight).

Dumb!!! I reasoned that I could not afford a $15000 Mercedes at the time but if I had bought one, drove it everywhere and kept it in mint condition all these years, I calculated the other day that I would be about $80,000 ahead with that money saved in a bank account somewhere. Plus, I would be driving a beautiful classic Mercedes to boot! Not to mention the ecological benefits of not replacing a car every year or two.

Cameras now are another commodity that has everyone buying the next best camera ever (again, my arse!) with all the gotta-have bells and whistles. All because of the idiocy of the electronics revolution...If that is what floats one's boat...fine with me. BTDT with Nikon DSLRS....for years.

But when someone continually flushes one's own money down the toilet every year or so when Nikon or whoever comes out with a new D-what the hell # is next,....there is no logic in wishing for $1000 dream camera except to feed the materialistic addiction, IMO. Dreaming is fine. Not necessarily money-smart.

If the image is the goal...it is really outrageous...just pick a camera you love and use it! If one cannot take great photos with what is available now, there is no hope one will ever be able to.

If the gear is the goal...dreaming of inexpensive dream cameras is akin to a well-known addiction, well beyond our fun-filled vintage camera GAS.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by dave lackey

Cameras now are another commodity that has everyone buying the next best camera ever (again, my arse!) with all the gotta-have bells and whistles. All because of the idiocy of the electronics revolution...If that is what floats one's boat...fine with me.

I'm not chasing bells and whistles... I'm chasing the lack of bells and whistles.

If the image is the goal...it is really outrageous...just pick a camera you love and use it!

I haven't completely fell in love with a digital camera. That is why I use four different ones. Together, they equal what I would love to have in one camera.

[JohnTF]

Roger, is this going to meld in to a previous thread -- discussing how good is good enough in equipment? If good enough falls below $1K, is that the answer?

I think I should sell some cameras, or I am in danger of having more cameras than images I would share.

As to having financial responsibilities beyond sufficient funds available for equipment, I suppose I could go back to my F2 and darkroom rather than neglecting serious obligations to people depending on me.

I know people who kind of dance from one camera to the next, trying to use the minimum cash to "surf" some dynamic cutting edge through sales and trades. It can take a lot of energy and effort that best might be spent elsewhere.

I also know someone who owns a couple of cars now, but has bought and sold perhaps 150 in the past 35 years.

Perhaps one should "lease" a system for three years, and move "up" to what ever is available at the time?

Regards, John

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by JohnTF

Perhaps one should "lease" a system for three years, and move "up" to what ever is available at the time?

Regards, John

Isn`t that what the pros do anyway? Just leasing or renting the required equipment (except for some very basic and essential outfit) to get the job done and then moving on?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

After four pages and 80 something posts, have you found an answer? If not, do you think you will?

Post 35 (krötenblender) is very persuasive: in our society everything has a price, and if you put a price-tag on your dream, it's one step closer to reality, regardless how ridiculous the price is.

Cheers,

R.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Post 35 (krötenblender) is very persuasive: in our society everything has a price, and if you put a price-tag on your dream, it's one step closer to reality, regardless how ridiculous the price is.

Cheers,

R.

For most things (and by things I mean things) that people dream about the price is the only thing that keeps them from making it a reality. It's the old 'if I won the lottery tomorrow' hypothesis. There are plenty of things people want that already exist, their dream is to be able to afford it.

So I think the $1000 is not really a price-tag people put on their dreams, it's a crucial part of the dream itself. Or let's put it this way. There's no point in fantasizing about your dream woman if, in the fantasy, she's not interested in you.

[Johann Espiritu]

I'd pay $1,000 if Voigtlander made their own version of a Tri-Elmar!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

For most things (and by things I mean things) that people dream about the price is the only thing that keeps them from making it a reality. It's the old 'if I won the lottery tomorrow' hypothesis. There are plenty of things people want that already exist, their dream is to be able to afford it.

So I think the $1000 is not really a price-tag people put on their dreams, it's a crucial part of the dream itself. Or let's put it this way. There's no point in fantasizing about your dream woman if, in the fantasy, she's not interested in you.

... unless that were the fantasy?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

For most things (and by things I mean things) that people dream about the price is the only thing that keeps them from making it a reality. It's the old 'if I won the lottery tomorrow' hypothesis. There are plenty of things people want that already exist, their dream is to be able to afford it.

So I think the $1000 is not really a price-tag people put on their dreams, it's a crucial part of the dream itself. Or let's put it this way. There's no point in fantasizing about your dream woman if, in the fantasy, she's not interested in you.

You are almost certainly correct: along with krötenblender, yours is one of the best hypotheses so far. Also, I particularly like the phrase "For most things (and by things I mean things)..."

All of which is an interesting illustration of the possibility of intelligent discourse and reflection on the internet, despite the general level of drivel.

Cheers,

R.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

For most things (and by things I mean things) that people dream about the price is the only thing that keeps them from making it a reality. It's the old 'if I won the lottery tomorrow' hypothesis. There are plenty of things people want that already exist, their dream is to be able to afford it.

So I think the $1000 is not really a price-tag people put on their dreams, it's a crucial part of the dream itself. Or let's put it this way. There's no point in fantasizing about your dream woman if, in the fantasy, she's not interested in you.

Very succinctly put

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

You'd probably have to tie the doors shut with light inextensible string...

It's an option only if I can get an all-new Hadrion collider for $500 that can fit in the laundry room.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

It's an option only if I can get an all-new Hadrion collider for $500 that can fit in the laundry room.

$500? Spendthrift!

Cheers,

R.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

So I think the $1000 is not really a price-tag people put on their dreams, it's a crucial part of the dream itself. Or let's put it this way. There's no point in fantasizing about your dream woman if, in the fantasy, she's not interested in you.

But there is: if in the fantasy you're not interested in her; and that can only drive her nuts, turning her interested in you.

If people are going to be imaginative, they should be imaginative about their imaginativeness. Otherwise, what is the point of imagining anything?

Either people do home renovations all the way or you have a pretty ugly-looking house: don't do it hass-alfed!

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

$500? Spendthrift!

I thought I was splurging. Electricity for a month costs less than a tenth of that. Why pay more for something a billionth-of-a-gazillionth's worth of energy?

[RBruceCR]

...but not your Low Light and Night Photography a practical handbook, by the way, great reading!

[jaredangle]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Why do people persist in putting fantasy price tags on dream cameras?

Most dream cameras could, in fact, be built as long as they don't break physical laws, i.e. you can't have an 18-200mm f/1 lens that's the size of a 50mm. The only real question is whether anyone can (or is prepared to) pay the millions that would be required in R&D.

But if you're going to put a fantasy price tag on a camera, why stick at $1000? Why not $100? Or $10? Or $1? Or free?

Cheers,

R.

I want to get a KEH bargain quality Leica M4-2, and I want it to be $1000... oh wait, that's what they are!

That's the only thing I want right now. Or an M6 TTL .85x at their going rate... $2500?

I'd be happy.

[JohnTF]

Sooner or later, you will discover ability, time and opportunity to capture/create a handsome image is the dream.

The device is somewhat incidental to that dream, and just as "Money Can't Buy You Love", it cannot buy you those above as well.

Regards, John