sepiareverb
genius and moron
But when the Summarit line came out there was just as much complaining that Leica was going the other way and selling out. I don't get it. Profit is what allows innovation- here is a large influx of cash for Leica, obviously from folks who have the money to spend. 100 random owners weren't chosen and forced to buy these. So what if these lenses end up on collectors shelves if it allows for a year or two's worth of R&D? Like it or not collectors are probably a big part of why Leica still exists. If the company chooses to cater to this portion of their clientele every now and again more power to them.
Coyote
-
Ah! And I forgot to add: I don't even like the Noctilux!
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
I've lost track. Whom are we blaming, Leica or the collectors?
blw
Well-known
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It appears to be both. Cameras are fetish objects for some, tools for others. Why the big huff? If you want to shoot a Noctilux and can afford one go for it. If you can't afford one but really want one save up. If you want the fancy collectors item and can afford it go for it. If you can't afford the $16K Special Edition Noctilux but really want one sorry, they're gone. Why decry Leica for catering to their customers who will pay today? If you want a digital Leica there are several choices- Leica offers more digital cameras than film cameras. What don't they offer that is so necessary?
Last edited:
Coyote
-
Many have been been dispatched off to the Gulag, but not this splendid chap.
That is a certain sign of hope.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
:angel: Why do I feel doomed all of a sudden?? 
victoriapio
Well-known
They can sell twice that many collector Noctiluxes in Japan alone - let them make money, they can probably use it
However before I could no longer afford them - and I could no longer afford them after I got back into Leica RFers - I had a humidor full of luscious Cuban cigars (Can't tell you how I got them or I would have to kill you!). A humidor keeps cigars HUMID by putting distilled water in the sponge and the water puts humidity IN the box to keep cigars moist. Why on earth would you put a $5,000 lens in a humidor with unfinished wood instead of finished "jewelry" box with velour and silica gel is beyond me. Especially since they could spend a lot less on the box and still keep the same price, hence more money.
O.C.
However before I could no longer afford them - and I could no longer afford them after I got back into Leica RFers - I had a humidor full of luscious Cuban cigars (Can't tell you how I got them or I would have to kill you!). A humidor keeps cigars HUMID by putting distilled water in the sponge and the water puts humidity IN the box to keep cigars moist. Why on earth would you put a $5,000 lens in a humidor with unfinished wood instead of finished "jewelry" box with velour and silica gel is beyond me. Especially since they could spend a lot less on the box and still keep the same price, hence more money.
O.C.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I would doubt the case is a humidor, much more likely a humidity controlled cabinet?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yet another pointless 'bash Leica' thread.
All the lenses sold out within hours of their announcing the concept.
So? No-one was forced to buy them. We all have our own views on collectors and collecting. How much has this to do with our own photography? As long as Leica stays in business, making cameras and lenses I can USE, I don't care how they do it. Well, I do, but (for example) selling 'collector' lenses is a lot more morally supportable than. for example, being an arms dealer. and being an arms dealer is better than being someone who sells arms and creates wars to help sell them.
Does Leica make 'male jewellery'? Quite possibly. So does Rolex. A few years ago, I finally had enough money to buy a new Rolex. I decided not to, because it wasn't worth the money to me. I'd rather have a new Leica. So I'm still using the Omega Seamaster my father bought me for my 16th birthday.
Cheers,
R.
All the lenses sold out within hours of their announcing the concept.
So? No-one was forced to buy them. We all have our own views on collectors and collecting. How much has this to do with our own photography? As long as Leica stays in business, making cameras and lenses I can USE, I don't care how they do it. Well, I do, but (for example) selling 'collector' lenses is a lot more morally supportable than. for example, being an arms dealer. and being an arms dealer is better than being someone who sells arms and creates wars to help sell them.
Does Leica make 'male jewellery'? Quite possibly. So does Rolex. A few years ago, I finally had enough money to buy a new Rolex. I decided not to, because it wasn't worth the money to me. I'd rather have a new Leica. So I'm still using the Omega Seamaster my father bought me for my 16th birthday.
Cheers,
R.
Coyote
-
The only sane risposte to the OP along with sepiareverb's posts.
If more people could shut up here, more people just like Roger would come back.
There was quite a few of them, too.
Coyote
-
That's the best thing to do to those things - like blowing up Dinky toys with firecrackers when you're a kid!
Mr Coyote, nobody has to shut up. If you find no merit in a post, move along without littering it please. In that way we will not have to worry about others moving along with a lack of desire to see your offerings.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
With all due respect, doesn't it seem that plenty of shutting up has been done to Mr. Coyote by deleting his posts, and now by banning him? Just a question, not a threat. I find a lot more rancor is created when posts are deleted, especially when no place marker remains. Perhaps we need a 'Fights' forum where threads could just be moved when somebody speaks harshly. Then those offended by strong opinions can simply avoid them.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
However amusing it may personally be, I'll never ever understand the effort people expend on griping about the cost of a lens, as if to suggest that they are, for some reason, entitled for it to be affordable to them, or some other socio economic group other than the one it is currently affordable for. With the consistent outcry this group projects EVERY time the subject is brought up, it is my personal hope that leica makes more of these priced four times where they are at currently, just for entertainments sake. They'll all sell too. Righteous.
Its just a dumb lens thats no so much different than others priced extraordinarily less. You'd think more people would find humour instead of vitriol in that context.
Its just a dumb lens thats no so much different than others priced extraordinarily less. You'd think more people would find humour instead of vitriol in that context.
amateriat
We're all light!
I would argue, Roger, that you exhibit exquisite taste by way of having made this decision. (I still want another Speedmaster Pro, to replace my missing one from years back. Someday...)
I got over the "boutique division" of Leica some time ago. If it allows them to stick around and make the stuff real shooters can use, no problem from where I sit. But, besides the nice film stuff and the M8, I'd like Leica to take a hard look at the mistakes Sigma made with the DP-1 (see other thread), and try and come out with something along those lines that a lot of us here could get behind. Think about it: a Barnack for the 21st century. Makes me wanna holler...
- Barrett
tmfabian
I met a man once...
I don't see the big deal here...they stopped making the glass needed to make the lens some time back, these are the last 100 to ever be made with that formula. This is no different than editioned gallery prints, the first few are cheap and the last few are expensive as he!!. The only thing I'm cheesed about is that I wasn't smart enough to pick one up long ago when I had the chance.
I say good for leica for realizing that they could pull this off and make some much needed cash, who cares if many of us can't afford the thing....we all had the opportunity to pick them up when they were affordable.
I say good for leica for realizing that they could pull this off and make some much needed cash, who cares if many of us can't afford the thing....we all had the opportunity to pick them up when they were affordable.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not exactly. What I said about FSUs is that while they are cheap, you get what you pay for. With the Noctilux, I'm not so sure you do. But quite a few people waste (relatively) large sums in serial FSU buying, when if they spent the money in one lump, they could but one much better camera.
In other words, FSU cameras are a snare and a delusion for poor buyers (I speak from decades of experience of too little money and buying FSU cameras) whereas if you can afford a Noctilux it's either because you REALLY have a use for it, or you don't really care what it costs. It's not the same trap at all.
As an aside, a lovely quote from Dr. Kaufmann a few weeks ago. I told him how I'd bought my first Leica, a IIIa, almost 40 years ago. He replied, "Forty years ago, I couldn't afford a Leica!" The guy is a real enthusiast, and instantly likeable (it was the first time I'd met him).
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Fred,
Aaargh! Thanks for the (sort of) clarification: you clearly know more than I about this. And of course we can get into the rights of 'holders' and 'owners'. As you say, you'd need to see the original agreements (which are probably in German, which I can barely read) and be an expert in that rather arcane branch of law. In other words, no, I haven't the faintest idea.
To make life still more interesting, I remember hearing some time ago (can't recall whether it was a reasonably reliable source or not) that Dr. Kaufmann was looking at getting the 'Leitz' name back. Maybe if I see him at photokina I'll ask him.
Cheers,
Roger
Aaargh! Thanks for the (sort of) clarification: you clearly know more than I about this. And of course we can get into the rights of 'holders' and 'owners'. As you say, you'd need to see the original agreements (which are probably in German, which I can barely read) and be an expert in that rather arcane branch of law. In other words, no, I haven't the faintest idea.
To make life still more interesting, I remember hearing some time ago (can't recall whether it was a reasonably reliable source or not) that Dr. Kaufmann was looking at getting the 'Leitz' name back. Maybe if I see him at photokina I'll ask him.
Cheers,
Roger