Wow! This is insane price on Ebay.

I think Tex would say:

"Whoa! Fifty-five G's for a camera collection? I'll just print out the pictures and hang them on my wall for nothing. My ancient Polaroid does just fine.

Hey, maybe it's worth somethig. Maybe I should give this guy a call."

Looks like this guy is selling his whole collection. I personally only see the value for a colelctor, becuase those cameras are too old to be worth that kind of money for practical use considering every model is superseeded... and you could probably spend a good $10,000 on a single camera with enough attachments and accessories to perform the tasks of all cameras combined.

-Cub. =o)

I don't understand why but Leica cameras are worth a fortune. The photo magazines suggest rich people with nothing better to do buy them ,even though there are better models on the market, and again old film cameras and lenses are worth more second hand than current ones. I have no idea why, so I guess I can see why this collection would be worth a lot to some people.

And they'd make great props to hire out for movies and the like.

Or maybe the quality of image has a certain character to it that the people want. Like black and white movies: the images are obviously not as crisp as modern day images, but they still have personality...

real cameras are still apparently better than digital - apparently you can see when you look at people's eyes and the way the camera takes the pics or something. God knows.

I heard that in order for a digital photo to record at the resolution of the human eye, a single image would be like 1.2 TB.

Anyone else hear that?

Eh, overpriced Eurotrash nonsense those are. My Nikkon is one of the best SLRs I've ever bought. Paid $100 for it and it does professional photos. You should only pay less than $1000 for a "good" professional camera.

In the end though, its the photographer's skills not the bloody camera.

mr_cyberpunk wrote: In the end though, its the photographer's skills not the bloody camera.

True... a master craftsman never blame's his tools.

Also, David... that's an interesting bit of trivia, and it sounds about right to me... but of course the main difference between how a human eye represents light and imagery compared to gitial cameras is we don't use pixels or dots of colour. The human eye works very similar to the analogue camera, where the light is beamed directy into an interpreter (in this case, film tock versus the Macula) and projected in our brain without using per pixel colour information. Where as, becuase digital cameras represent image on a per pixel basis, there will never be such things as a perfect circle... in fact, it's acary to think that no matter how advanced technology gets, there will never be such thing as a perfect circle in the compuer world.

-Cub. =o)

Disposabl3 FILM camera. 10 bucks. And my pictures rock socks. I pity you guys.

Demonlawyer wrote:I don't understand why but Leica cameras are worth a fortune. The photo magazines suggest rich people with nothing better to do buy them ,even though there are better models on the market, and again old film cameras and lenses are worth more second hand than current ones. I have no idea why, so I guess I can see why this collection would be worth a lot to some people.

And they'd make great props to hire out for movies and the like.

Honest, I'm not trying to be critical, but I was wondering if you've ever used a Leica. I own a 1952 Leica that works as well today as it did 50 years ago. Hard to say that about any of today's cameras. It's also the quietest 35MM I've ever used. Don't know what it's worth today; never checked it out.