I understand those feelings in myself, and I attribute it to the fact that knowledge of one’s own subconscious heuristics doesn’t really actually diminish them, it just gives you a chance to behave with conscious awareness of them.
2 Likes
And I don’t think it’s really a “mental weakness” as such… but I’m glad I don’t really covet much in the way of unobtainable luxuries. I mean, I like old cars, but I don’t think I’ll ever really understand why one of these things here:
…sold for three and a half million dollars two years ago.
It’s a forty-five-year-old Plymouth. Not a Bugatti or anything particularly exotic. Not the fastest muscle car ever built, nor the weirdest, nor the prettiest. Since it’s a convertible with a stick shift and the big Hemi engine, it’s quite rare (the only '71 Hemi Cuda so equipped still extant, apparently), but any schmuck could have ordered one from their Plymouth dealer that year, and it would have cost $4,174 plus tax. But nobody wanted 'em then. And now people will pay millions to drive around looking like Nash Bridges.
I guess we all have our passions that compel us to throw reason aside from time to time. But sometimes, in some circumstances with some people, it seems like such a spectacular loss of reason!
Leicas can be beautiful cameras (but so are a lot of cameras… including ones that are a fraction of the price). The KE-7A is rare (they do turn up from time to time) but my understanding though is that it is just the military version of the M4-2 which can, when absolutely mint with a lens, go for around $1500. So in terms of use this one, in particular, there is no way this thing can be anything but a rich person’s shelf queen.
1 Like
But couldn’t you just reprogram the engine to emit less under test conditions?
1 Like
2 Likes
<twitch... twitch... twitch...>
3 Likes
No I agree. It’s not weakness, but it’s irrational. And we like to see ourselves as rational entities. Once we admit we aren’t then we’re tumbling down the rabbit hole!
That looks like a sweet ride but at $3.5M I think it physically embodies the law of diminishing returns…
2 Likes
Good lord, if that was my job I think I’d commit suicide. Can you imagine doing nothing but polishing blocks of aluminum for 8 hours a day?
Oh yeah. For the same price, you could buy one hundred of these:
And every last one of them will go faster, ride smoother, be less leaky, require less maintenance, use less gas, emit fewer emissions, and be much safer. But that’s the irrationality of such passions. Nobody spends that much on a purple convertible because it’s purple and a convertible, nor because it’s a Plymouth, nor because it’s a 1971 model, and if you really love the 426 Hemi engine, you can get one in good running shape for an eighth the cost. No, it’s the combination of those factors, the fact that it’s THE 1971 Hemi Cuda convertible with the four-speed stick. And anyway it’s way out of reach of actual Mopar enthusiasts; it’s far too valuable to drive anymore, and will only ever be traded back and forth as investment property, like an empty beachfront condo. Still, even the drivable ones are mostly too expensive for most people to enjoy. It’s nuts.
1 Like
A car like that deserves better photographs.
It has exactly the same performance as the 1.33l Toyota iQ. I have one of these - it is a fun city car that goes from 0-100mph (where legal) almost as smoothly as an electric car - no gears. Aston originally targeted a price of £20000, not too horrendous with the added goodies. But it actually sold at £32000, which was more than the supercharged racing iQ cost in Japan, and had no performance gains. I had much rather have a car made in a top quality Japanese factory than one assembled in low volume in the UK.
However, it turned out Aston owners were rational, and they only sold 150 of the things, which are now keeping their price extremely well. Aston lost a lot of money on the deal, seemingly because they were unable to get the price down to saleable levels. Were those buyers the irrational ones or were they the canny ones?
Yep.
I had the opportunity last year to drive a '58 Corvette for a couple of days (this was not a jewel box auction car, half the fiberglass was replacement and the engine was a new-manufacture 350).
Although it was a lot of fun to cruise it on the interstate and Main Street, I’m convinced that my 1999 Maxima SE (best car I ever owned) would have easily beat it point to point on any even slightly curvy road. Most muscle cars (with the possible exception of the Cobra) seem to have handled pretty much like pigs compared to even the more mundane current wheels.
What they have that most cameras made today don’t have:
A dial on the top to select shutter speed.
A ring on the lens to select aperture.
A ring on the lens to focus.
Three basic controls to do everything you need to take a picture, which enable me to recall the muscle memory of twenty years’ 35mm picture taking.
Give me that in a modern camera at a reasonable price and I’ll be happy.
Might I suggest something from Fuji, mayhaps? An x100t or similar? Or, if you’d rather a non-fixed lens, the x pro2?
Lovely, lovely cameras.
I’ve been talking myself out of a small fixed lens Fuji for months.
Likewise, any modern DSLR has the features you’re taking about.
Nice looking cameras, but way overpriced IMO.
Right now I’m using two Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies with adapters to fit all my old Minolta and Pentax glass.
Fuji X70? Still has the things you’re looking for, and costs ~$700. About as good as you’re going to do with that.
Are we really writing about “too expensive” in a thread about a camera with a asking price of $43k?
& @robulus - if $3.5M has the relative value of $3.50, it’s not nuts it’s… trivial. If you’ll make that much back in a month or so even, is it still a big expense?
With unchecked capitalism, all things are relative - and “toys” like this are just that, toys. Something trivial to distract yourself from the emptiness all that money doesn’t seem to fill.
Hashtag latestagecapitalism
1 Like
Leica has released a low priced camera-- the m Typ 262.
1 Like
