PDA

View Full Version : Putting a price on pleasure


Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 00:41
A lot of arguments about film and digital centre on cost: cameras, film, processing. Shouldn't they centre on pleasure instead? On how much do you enjoy doing something? And on what your priorities are? Some people have new fitted kitchens every few years, or buy 'designer label' clothes: the price even of an M9 is soon reached. I just don't like using DSLRs. I do it for business, not pleasure. The M9 is different. So is the MP.

Of course, my preferences are not the only possibility. Others prefer DSLRs, or LF, or MF, or whatever. Even FSU cameras. But we're back into pleasure here. The supposed versatility of a DSLR leaves me unmoved. I'm not talking about what the camera does in theoretical terms. I'm talking about what it does for me.

Admittedly, this argument reduces to "I like it, and that's all that matters." But some people seem to think "I like it [or dislike it], therefore everyone else should" while others seem to think that it's all a matter of cost or versatility.

In other words, while you can't really put a price on pleasure, or quantify it, you can sometimes begin to communicate it to others, in the hope that they may enjoy the same things.

Contrariwise, you can sometimes begin to explain why you think some things are overrated, and perhaps not quite as wonderful as their proponents maintain, in the hope that others may avoid disappointment.

Cheers,

R.

Chriscrawfordphoto
07-18-2011, 00:53
You can put a price on it when you cannot afford it, period. An M9 costs more money than I have any possibility of having. I was able this year to save a few thousand dollars, but my old car that I have had for a decade is dead, so I just bought a newer, functional car. Where I live, there is no public transit and a car is a requirement to live. My car won't bring me pleasure like an M9 would, but I needed the car, and I do not need an M9.

Steinberg2010
07-18-2011, 00:54
I wonder though if part of that is to do with the ongoing costs of film cameras. Purchasing chemistry, film stock etc. makes it a constant and nagging issue. I much prefer using my Nikon FM compared to my D1x, however, there are times when it's nice to know that the D1x costs me pretty much nothing to shoot.

I wouldn't try and impinge my views on anyone, however, I'm having a whale of a time getting into wet-printing which obviously my D1x isn't very handy for...

~S

hxpham
07-18-2011, 00:55
For me, I don't enjoy photography. Anything to do with a camera is just work I need to do to get a pleasing photograph. On the other hand, I appreciate solid, well designed and rugged tools. I don't care for manual focusing or the feel of rotating aperture rings and watching the image come into focus... and on the other hand I dislike cameras with unorganized, deep menu systems (I'm neither in the Leica crowd nor the techy crowd). I've found that for me, the Nikon Dx/Dxxx and Canon 1D/1Ds line work the best, with a compromise between direct access to functions, rugged build, and just enough automation.

I guess I want rugged, practical/logical simplicity, not pure simplicity. Something with smart technological innovations that make shooting more efficient. For example, being able to both see the current shutter speed, aperture, meter, and iso at both the top of the camera and through the viewfinder.

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 00:59
You can put a price on it when you cannot afford it, period. An M9 costs more money than I have any possibility of having. I was able this year to save a few thousand dollars, but my old car that I have had for a decade is dead, so I just bought a newer, functional car. Where I live, there is no public transit and a car is a requirement to live. My car won't bring me pleasure like an M9 would, but I needed the car, and I do not need an M9.

Dear Chris,

That's a sort of binary price, though, isn't it? Either you can afford it, or you can't. I'm talking about stuff you can afford, for a given value of 'can afford'. I get more pleasure from my Pentax SV (free) and 50/1.4 Super-Takumar (ten pounds) than from any DSLR I've ever handled, except the Leica S2, which I can't afford...

Cheers,

R.

thegman
07-18-2011, 01:00
Could not agree more with this. I find it odd how some people justify their purchases with technical reasons etc. when as a hobbyist, none of those reasons tend to matter, as we're all just doing this for fun anyway.

I feel the same way about DSLRs, and digital in general, but my logical side would like to enjoy digital for all the things it's so good at (not having to change film for different ISO, being a main one for me). But the side of me that enjoys photography knows I would not want to use such a camera if I got one.

For me, as a pure hobbyist, with no pretensions of being anything else, it's ALL about the enjoyment, I make very few technical decision when getting cameras now, I just get the one I want. I've stopped worrying about "Can I really live with just scale focus?" and now just think that millions of people coped just fine with scale focus.

Or with aperture priority, or indeed having a meter at all, I think the same, millions of others coped perfectly, why can't I? And that means I end up getting cameras I really want, and not get ones which are a collection of features which I think I need.

So yes, for me, it's about pleasure, I don't shoot enough film for the cost to be an issue, and I'm happy to reduce the argument to "I like it, and that's all that matters".

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 01:06
I guess I want rugged, practical/logical simplicity, not pure simplicity. Something with smart technological innovations that make shooting more efficient. For example, being able to both see the current shutter speed, aperture, meter, and iso at both the top of the camera and through the viewfinder.

This is of course a prize example of preferences and mind-set. For me, autofocus and the like don't make shooting 'more efficient', and certainly aren't 'practical/logical'. The most recent 'smart technological innovation' I value highly (not counting digital) is through-lens metering.

You've also well illustrated my point by making a cogent argument for what you like, and what suits you. Any intelligent reader can now reflect upon whether they prefer your world-picture or mine. Both are equally valid, but each is likely to appeal to a very different sort of person.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 01:08
Could not agree more with this. I find it odd how some people justify their purchases with technical reasons etc. when as a hobbyist, none of those reasons tend to matter, as we're all just doing this for fun anyway.

I feel the same way about DSLRs, and digital in general, but my logical side would like to enjoy digital for all the things it's so good at (not having to change film for different ISO, being a main one for me). But the side of me that enjoys photography knows I would not want to use such a camera if I got one.

For me, as a pure hobbyist, with no pretensions of being anything else, it's ALL about the enjoyment, I make very few technical decision when getting cameras now, I just get the one I want. I've stopped worrying about "Can I really live with just scale focus?" and now just think that millions of people coped just fine with scale focus.

Or with aperture priority, or indeed having a meter at all, I think the same, millions of others coped perfectly, why can't I? And that means I end up getting cameras I really want, and not get ones which are a collection of features which I think I need.

So yes, for me, it's about pleasure, I don't shoot enough film for the cost to be an issue, and I'm happy to reduce the argument to "I like it, and that's all that matters".

Beautifully phrased!

Cheers,

R.

mfogiel
07-18-2011, 01:28
There is definitely a lot of pleasure in the photo taking process, when it is done with the tools one enjoys to use. I have one digital SLR camera, which I deeply dislike to use, and it only gets action once a year or so. For the rest, my only camera that does not feel good to me, is the Bessa R4A, and only mainly because of its silly back tilt when it is hanging around my neck. I do not find shooting film overly expensive. My freezer is full of film that I buy in large quantities from Freestyle or Maco, and the best films (Arista Premium 400, Rollei Retro 100) are actually the cheapest. For the rest, the cameras and lenses I have bought, although some of them reasonably expensive, are all delivering very pleasant shooting experiences, and I have noticed, that recently they have actually started to appreciate in value. While my Leicas and ZI are great, I find that in MF the experience gets further enhanced by slowing down the process. Shooting the street with a Rolleiflex is quite something, the same goes without saying, when I use a tripod and one of my Hasselblads in the landscape. Even developing with proper steel tanks and Hewes no hassle reels feels distinctly better than using plastic equipment. All these items have this extra something included in the price, that in my mind, makes the expense absolutely worthwhile.

jawarden
07-18-2011, 02:34
As a film shooter I think photography is a really cheap date.

You have to buy film and chemicals and stuff, but still the time you spend photographing and in the darkroom, if compared to dinner and a movie (or whatever other entertainment that costs something) is minor. It's an inexpensive hobby relative to others if you can control your urges for more gear, etc.

theno23
07-18-2011, 03:46
Cost is a factor for me.

I cut down on my film shooting because I bought an M9, and the per-roll cost of shooting film, in many situations is too great to justify shooting it much. The cost of buying and developing film in the UK has been rising steadily.

I slightly prefer my M6 to my M9, but I really don't like dealing with film post exposure. The development and scanning process holds no joy for me at all, though the end results can be very pleasing.

I guess it all depends what parts of the photographic process you enjoy, and what parts you regard as just necessary. People are often happy to spend money to reduce the effort of the parts that they think of as "work", be that focusing, development, printing, or whatever.

nobbylon
07-18-2011, 04:05
Contrariwise, you can sometimes begin to explain why you think some things are overrated, and perhaps not quite as wonderful as their proponents maintain, in the hope that others may avoid disappointment.

Cheers,

R.

Exactly what I've tried to do regarding the M9 and MP Roger.
IMHO two of the most over hyped, over rated and over priced cameras out there. I've had both and sold both. However people continue to buy them, continue to believe in some cases that having them improves their picture taking. Maybe they are just bought to improve on the picture taking experience, who knows?
My personal enjoyment is on 2 levels. The first is from taking what I and others consider to be a nice picture. The easier this is made by using Digital, Film, A/F etc means more time I have for doing other things I enjoy.
The second is from an appreciation of mechanical, electrical, precision, gear head mentality which is present in a lot of my interests. Automotive, Aeronautical, watch making, motorcycles etc.
I can understand why people buy M9's. For users of M cameras it's the only full frame option. Others buy simply because they think they are buying the best.
The MP is a different thing altogether. Most I believe are sold by good marketing and internet folklore because it definately doesn't have anything to do with performance. An M6 will do exactly the same job.
Why does anyone have one? Because they can afford it? because it feels different when taking pictures? I have a feeling that if people were honest with themselves we would hear something like you suggest. Because they wanted one. Nothing wrong with that however everytime I hear someone harp on about smoothness, stealth, brass this and non plastic that, I know that they are trying to justify one thing, price.
Why do I like F series Nikons? because they do what I want I suppose without fuss. They take knocks well, resist weather and.....and this is an important one for non millionaires, I'm not worried where I take them.
Only recently there was a thread about a chap who didn't want to go on a trip with his M9 for fear of dropping or scratching it and to me that's pointless and I would love to know how many people actually leave their expensive Leicas or Nikons or whatever at home for the same reasons. Few will admit it.

Jamie123
07-18-2011, 04:25
A lot of arguments about film and digital centre on cost: cameras, film, processing. Shouldn't they centre on pleasure instead? On how much do you enjoy doing something? And on what your priorities are? Some people have new fitted kitchens every few years, or buy 'designer label' clothes: the price even of an M9 is soon reached. I just don't like using DSLRs. I do it for business, not pleasure. The M9 is different. So is the MP.

Of course, my preferences are not the only possibility. Others prefer DSLRs, or LF, or MF, or whatever. Even FSU cameras. But we're back into pleasure here. The supposed versatility of a DSLR leaves me unmoved. I'm not talking about what the camera does in theoretical terms. I'm talking about what it does for me.

Admittedly, this argument reduces to "I like it, and that's all that matters." But some people seem to think "I like it [or dislike it], therefore everyone else should" while others seem to think that it's all a matter of cost or versatility.

In other words, while you can't really put a price on pleasure, or quantify it, you can sometimes begin to communicate it to others, in the hope that they may enjoy the same things.

Contrariwise, you can sometimes begin to explain why you think some things are overrated, and perhaps not quite as wonderful as their proponents maintain, in the hope that others may avoid disappointment.

Cheers,

R.

I fully agree with most of what you're saying. Especially the part about DSLRs. I have a DSLR and use it a lot for work but it doesn't give me pleasure, not like the other (fully mechanical) cameras I have. (Although, sometimes that's a good thing as the pleasure of using something can cloud my judgment on whether the results I'm getting are any good.)

However, what you're neglecting in your reasoning is that most people, unless they have a lot of money, have a very hard time spending lots of money for pure pleasure. Hedonism is reserved for the wealthy. The rest of us try to find sensible reasons for our big purchases, trying to find justifications for why something is a good buy and something else isn't. And when we find reasons and justifications for our purchases we, of course, think that they are at least in part objective and that people who do not agree with them are either unreasonable or just wealthy hedonists :)

Michael Markey
07-18-2011, 04:30
"All this to love and rapture`s due;
Must we not pay a debt to pleasure too ?.

John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680)

jawarden
07-18-2011, 04:35
Cost is a factor for me.

I cut down on my film shooting because I bought an M9, and the per-roll cost of shooting film, in many situations is too great to justify shooting it much. The cost of buying and developing film in the UK has been rising steadily.

I slightly prefer my M6 to my M9


I'm trying to reconcile being price sensitive on one hand, and owning both an M6 and M9 in the other. :-)

Seriously though I know our friends in the UK have a whole 'nother price issue than people in the states, and you guys pay a lot.

Cheers,

Jeff

rodt16s
07-18-2011, 05:12
It's difficult to buy grin factor... whether it's taking a corner perfectly on your favourite motorbike, that memorable golf shot or a perfect pic taken with your go to lens (the same pic taken with a different lens has you wishing you'd used your favourite one)... so I don't think you can put a price on that kind of pleasure.

kshapero
07-18-2011, 05:55
"All this to love and rapture`s due;
Must we not pay a debt to pleasure too ?.

John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680)And only lived 33 years, tsk.

Michael Markey
07-18-2011, 06:03
Indeed so.
The pleasure got him in the end.

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 06:04
Thanks to everyone for thoughtful replies. A few further thought in response:

I guess it all depends what parts of the photographic process you enjoy, and what parts you regard as just necessary. People are often happy to spend money to reduce the effort of the parts that they think of as "work", be that focusing, development, printing, or whatever.

Exactly. And, for me, there's the added dimension of 'work' as illustration of articles, etc., versus shooting purely for pleasure.

Pleasure is a very tricky word, specially when words like paying and price is used along with it

I wondered how long it would be before that one came up! You are of course quite right.

Exactly what I've tried to do regarding the M9 and MP Roger.
IMHO two of the most over hyped, over rated and over priced cameras out there.

. . .

I can understand why people buy M9's. For users of M cameras it's the only full frame option. Others buy simply because they think they are buying the best.
The MP is a different thing altogether. Most I believe are sold by good marketing and internet folklore because it definately doesn't have anything to do with performance. An M6 will do exactly the same job.
. . .

Why do I like F series Nikons? because they do what I want I suppose without fuss. They take knocks well, resist weather and.....and this is an important one for non millionaires, I'm not worried where I take them.
Only recently there was a thread about a chap who didn't want to go on a trip with his M9 for fear of dropping or scratching it and to me that's pointless and I would love to know how many people actually leave their expensive Leicas or Nikons or whatever at home for the same reasons. Few will admit it.

Paras 1 and 2: You've nailed it for the M9: no choice. As for the MP, it is a slightly better camera than the M6, mostly for the non-flare finder and I like the black paint. "M6 will do the same job" is as big a rationalization for not buying one as all the blather about smoothness, brass, etc., is for buying one. Besides, doesn't the M6 have the same finder as the M4-P? MUCH nicer 75mm frames on the MP than the M4-P.

Ultimately, though, it came down to this. When the M6 came out, I couldn't afford one, and either by reason or emotion persuaded myself that the M4-P and M2 were 'just as good' (the latter is better in some ways). By the time I could afford another new(ish) Leica, the MP was out and I like it a lot more than the M6.

Paras 3 and 4: I share your love of Fs (I have five) but years ago I decided that if I had to worry about where I take my Leicas (within reason) I wouldn't buy 'em. 'Within reason' simply because if there are too many drug addicts and pimps around, I don't want any grief.

However, what you're neglecting in your reasoning is that most people, unless they have a lot of money, have a very hard time spending lots of money for pure pleasure. Hedonism is reserved for the wealthy. The rest of us try to find sensible reasons for our big purchases, trying to find justifications for why something is a good buy and something else isn't. And when we find reasons and justifications for our purchases we, of course, think that they are at least in part objective and that people who do not agree with them are either unreasonable or just wealthy hedonists

No, I'm not neglecting it at all, though perhaps I should have stressed exactly the point you make: that we are rational people while he is a rich twit with more money than sense. In other words, the 'reasons' people give are mostly rationalizations at best, and often, not even that.

Cheers,

R.

ferider
07-18-2011, 06:05
Dear Roger,

it gets even more subjective when your price for the pleasure is not the same as somebody else's.

For example, if I remember right, you received an M9 for testing, kept it a few months and then bought it at a heavy discount. Having to pay full price for an unseen camera, somebody else might not enjoy it as much and buy a kitchen, car, or digital Nikon with several lenses instead.

Roland.

jsrockit
07-18-2011, 06:05
A lot of arguments about film and digital centre on cost: cameras, film, processing. Shouldn't they centre on pleasure instead? On how much do you enjoy doing something? And on what your priorities are?

Yes, I believe it to be true... which is why I finally bought the M9. It gives me more pleasure than any other camera and if I have to work all day to get cash, then I'm going to spend it on something I really enjoy. That said, I don't have a house, car, wife, or kids...

Sparrow
07-18-2011, 06:07
Indeed so.
The pleasure got him in the end.

... was it very costly?

rxmd
07-18-2011, 06:17
... was it very costly?

Looks like it, but he apparently did get what he paid for.

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 06:22
Dear Roger,

it gets even more subjective when your price for the pleasure is not the same as somebody else's.

For example, if I remember right, you received an M9 for testing, kept it a few months and then bought it at a heavy discount. Having to pay full price for an unseen camera, somebody else might not enjoy it as much and buy a kitchen, car, or digital Nikon with several lenses instead.

Roland.

Dear Roland,

Actually, it was over a year before I finally paid for it, though 'heavy discount' is a subject open to discussion.

You are absolutely right about buying unseen cameras, which is why I've never done it. But then, I've very seldom tested an unseen camera, either. I don't really want to waste my time piddling around with a camera about which I can find nothing nice to say. It's all very well to say, "This is good for A,B and C, but its faults are D, E and F," but "Its faults outweigh its virtues by so far as to make it unusable" is not really much of a review -- the more so as another reviewer, with different preferences, probably can find somtthing nice to say about it. A totally negative review will appeal to a few 'sour grapes' types, but otherwise, it's not much fun to read, and besides, you'll probably never get another camera for review from that manufacturer. This may not worry me personally but the magazines are often weaker-willed.

You're not really right about the prices, though. Either you can afford something (with or without a discount) or you can't. Of course 'afford' is a weasel word. I couldn't 'afford' to keep the Contax kit I borrowed a few years back, even with the discount, but then, I already had a Nikon outfit that would do nine-tenths or more of what the Contaxes did, plus a lot more than just three lenses. If I'd really needed an SLR outfit, or if I hadn't already a 35/1.4 for my Leicas, I could have 'afforded' the Contax outfit. And what I can 'afford' (even with a discount) may be a lot less than someone else can 'afford', simply because their income is much higher. There are some things I would buy, even at very high prices, if I had the money, and others I wouldn't. Leicas are among the former (which I can afford sometimes), and so are Lobb boots (which I can't afford -- we're talking Leica money here). Ferraris are among the latter.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm taking it for granted that you can 'afford' this, that or the other camera, and merely pointing out (as others have grasped) that there's an awful lot of rationalization involved in camera purchase, much of it somewhat shaky.

Cheers,

R.

rdeleskie
07-18-2011, 06:35
Roger, I agree entirely with your original statement. RFF isn't a really a professional forum and I think it's fair to say most of us are here to discuss our personal or amateur (in the original sense of the word) photography and photographic experiences. In that context, I think pleasure is key. For example, encouraging an amateur to choose the equipment they feel they would most enjoy using seems at least as important as discussing the "value proposition" of different options. Within one's budget of course.

Worth adding that for some people, identifying and choosing the most fully-featured value proposition (for example) is pleasurable. To each their own.

Steve M.
07-18-2011, 07:05
I agree. Whatever does it for you, then that's your thing. Sometimes people come off like they want you to agree w/ them, but that's just human nature. We all want to be right, whatever that may mean. As far as the cost vs pleasure, well, if someone can afford something, then it isn't an issue. But I still feel that people should have strongly felt views about their passions.

Sorta off base here, but I was at a coffeeteria recently and saw some neat plants I wanted to photograph. Ack, I forgot the camera, so I picked up my pencil and made some quick sketches, something I haven't done in a long time. A funny thing happened....when I stopped "correcting" (w/o practice, my sketches were basically one correction after another) I realized where I was. When I was sketching and looking at the plant, I was somewhere else. Gone. Just into the activity I guess, and that's something I miss from my photography. It doesn't work the same because it's much more analytical. So now I'm going to be going out more w/o a camera and try some more sketching because I really enjoyed that. It made me realize that drawing and photography are two totally different things, and I'm putting myself into a corner just doing one.

FrankS
07-18-2011, 07:21
I agree. Whatever does it for you, then that's your thing. Sometimes people come off like they want you to agree w/ them, but that's just human nature. We all want to be right, whatever that may mean. As far as the cost vs pleasure, well, if someone can afford something, then it isn't an issue. But I still feel that people should have strongly felt views about their passions.

Sorta off base here, but I was at a coffeeteria recently and saw some neat plants I wanted to photograph. Ack, I forgot the camera, so I picked up my pencil and made some quick sketches, something I haven't done in a long time. A funny thing happened....when I stopped "correcting" (w/o practice, my sketches were basically one correction after another) I realized where I was. When I was sketching and looking at the plant, I was somewhere else. Gone. Just into the activity I guess, and that's something I miss from my photography. It doesn't work the same because it's much more analytical. So now I'm going to be going out more w/o a camera and try some more sketching because I really enjoyed that. It made me realize that drawing and photography are two totally different things, and I'm putting myself into a corner just doing one.

Getting in the zone, and being in the moment: this is what I (do) get from photography. It's like a decompression, or a mental holiday. It feels good and it feels like a healthy thing to do. That's why I love it.

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 07:27
The point made by Steve and Frank is sort of what I was getting at. It's not exactly that time and stress cease to exist, especially when you're shooting fast (or indeed trying to get a sketch right). It's just that you tend to lose track of time. The same thing sometimes happens to me when I'm writing; again, even though it's not always easy. Among the things I can (partly) buy, that's worth a lot to me. I say '(partly)' because you only buy the tools, not what you do with them, but using the right tool makes it easier.

Cheers,

R.

Jamie123
07-18-2011, 07:37
However, what you're neglecting in your reasoning is that most people, unless they have a lot of money, have a very hard time spending lots of money for pure pleasure. Hedonism is reserved for the wealthy. The rest of us try to find sensible reasons for our big purchases, trying to find justifications for why something is a good buy and something else isn't. And when we find reasons and justifications for our purchases we, of course, think that they are at least in part objective and that people who do not agree with them are either unreasonable or just wealthy hedonists

No, I'm not neglecting it at all, though perhaps I should have stressed exactly the point you make: that we are rational people while he is a rich twit with more money than sense. In other words, the 'reasons' people give are mostly rationalizations at best, and often, not even that.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to (sarcastically) stress. Once you try to rationalize your own guilty pleasures you start projecting those rationalizations unto others and if they don't agree then something must be wrong with them.

Jamie123
07-18-2011, 07:44
I think main reason people tend to justify their purchases with practicality, not pleasure, is that the latter implies luxury. Many people are offended if you classify an M9 as a luxury item, which, in my opinon, it obviously is. As if luxury excluded practicality.

rayfoxlee
07-18-2011, 07:54
I had always (well, nearly always) wanted a Leica and without seeking one out, an M2 came my way that started me on a journey. After the pleasure of holding the holy grail of RFs came the less pleasurable part – dealing with the idiosyncratic loading and getting used to a clip-on meter. Pleasure? Yes, but heavily discounted by the quirks. The results from the lenses just about tipped the balance back to a ‘plus’.

The more recent M7 is far more of a pleasure (despite the cost) – and what is most important is the pleasure of being able to work far more quickly with AE, when needed. Add in the quality of the results again from those lenses and the M7 scores many more points than the M2 IMO. Unobtrusive, quick to use and great lenses make the kit a joy to use.

DSLR – after the initial wow factor, came the size and bulk, slow autofocus and menus downsides. But the results can’t really be faulted for a 10 mp camera, so used for the right work, the results deliver the pleasure factor.

The LX3 p&s. A big grin factor for this on the grounds of size and portability a, yes, image quality if sensible expectations are adopted. A pleasure? – you bet.

At the end of the day, I guess I get pleasure from knowing that I can pick the kit that will cope with what I like to shoot, be it B&W street photography (M7), colour (DSLR) or happy snaps (LX3). I feel very fortunate.

A watch maker recently described owning a quality mechanical watch as a visceral pleasure. The M7 has that too.;)

Ray

shadowfox
07-18-2011, 08:07
A different take if I may,
pleasure is only one side effect of the main goal, that is self-expression and self-actualization (borrowing Abraham Maslow's concept and terminology).

Each of us has the need be the best we can be and become. And one of the ways to fulfill this need is through a lifelong pursuit, which I think of as a hobby but with a *whole lot* of effort and dedication.

Photography is such a pursuit for me. It's beyond hobby, it's personal, and it allows me to stretch my mind and vision the way exercising stretches our muscles and joints. The results are the same: strength and flexibility.

Defined as such, the price is less of a problem. Two points of control governs the expenses:

1) The upper limit defined by what I need to fulfill the more basic needs (the term "basic" here does not indicate the level of importance or priority)

2) The concept of "afford" vs "justify" as in: "I can afford that M9, but there is no way I can justify it because I can satisfy everything I want to do in photography with one-tenth the cost"

Gabriel M.A.
07-18-2011, 08:27
Some people take pleasure on just looking at comparing price tags. And it's free!

Of course, there will always be the odd-ball who thinks that would think that price tags are overrated (well, I'd think that odd-ball would either have lots of homes in various continents and a very diversified investment portfolio, or is a buddhist with some issues to resolve).

What is silly, of course, is calling things silly just because you don't agree with them. I'm sure that some would think that me having just typed that is silly...because they don't agree with that. :)


People just need to get a hobby, methinks. Photography would be a nice one :cool: Or if they already do that "professionally", maybe they could look into Karaoke; there's always a good source of alcohol around, and who would complain about that? :D

Oh, wait, I've encountered my share of alcohol fascists. Scratch that.


Like Rodney "Not Martin Luther" King once asked, "can we get along?"

dave lackey
07-18-2011, 10:21
"All this to love and rapture`s due;
Must we not pay a debt to pleasure too ?.

John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680)


The average life expectancy in the 17th century was only 35. So, he must have lived a full and happy life until he died at age 33. Shame he didn't have an M9...:)

Michael Markey
07-18-2011, 10:52
I never knew it was that short.
Wilmot was an English lyric poet, satirist ,courtier ,rake and libertine .
He would have no hesitation about an M9 because at an early age he decided to live for the moment and insisted that that was "all that heaven will allow" although I think Bruce Springsteen borrowed that line .
He was however always aware that there may be a price to pay .
In his case it was drink and syphilis so perhaps he should have bought that 17C M9 :).

Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 11:15
The average life expectancy in the 17th century was only 35. So, he must have lived a full and happy life until he died at age 33. Shame he didn't have an M9...:)
Dear Dave,

Except that it was dragged down by infant mortality and untreatable diseases such as the pox. If you didn't die young of disease, old age was much the same as it is now, and had always been: "In the days of our years there are threescore years and ten." (Psalm 90 v. 10, I think)

Cheers,

R.

rogerzilla
07-18-2011, 11:48
I do like using the Leicas. I never liked using my MF SLR kit and I really hated the few AF SLRs I've picked up. I don't like using digital cameras either, because there's no finality about clicking the shutter and the pictures are just too close to reality (like live broadcast TV compared to a movie).

I hate any kind of automation. It never works 100% of the time. Sometimes it doesn't even work 10% of the time. It's cheaper to build a load of menu options into a camera than it is to make good lenses, so we get all this rubbish we don't need. Face detection is the ultimate example of this; how are you supposed to compose a decent picture if you need the camera to choose and focus on the subject? It's only a matter of time before they make a motorised tripod mount which automatically observes the rule of thirds.