Lloyd wrote a letter to Leica AG...

[jaapv]

I know Pete personally, he tried the M9 for some of his White House but went back to his 5D-II for nearly all of it. Not sure who Thorsten is other than a guy I see posting on forum all about gear, Chris does use it, but then maybe paparrazzi work pays more than advertising and PJ...;-)

There are quite a few people who have loads of talent and who's style of shooting would benefit from an M9 but it is simply overpriced for many of us to build a real system with.

You have to get out and talk to people like we all did at Look3 this weekend, like famous Leica shooter Bill Allard using a GF-1 instead of an M9.

If Leica would have managed one more stop of noise reduction by going with a 12mp sensor instead of playing the megapixel game AND priced the M9 at around $5,000, that would have paid off huge, I might have got one.

I have two film M's I use for non-deadline PJ work and current book projects. I use great simple & small glass like the CV 28 3.5, 35/2 asph and a ZM 50/2 on my M3. What I want an M9 for, very discreet and quiet digital work with a semi-fast 35 often in light requiring ISO 3200, the X100 is doing a much better job. It is hitting the exposures, the color and especially the white balance out of the park so well that I really see no need for shooting raw with this camera.

Believe me, I wanted an M9 and thought back forth about what a great tool it would be for these types of shoots, but then the X100 came along and the resulting photographs fully extinguished that desire.

The photographs matter first and for most and a lot of the work I see coming from the M9 does not have any more impact than from people using a 5D, D700 or even an X100.

Several of the more iconic photographer in attendance this weekend commented on they thought it was ashame that instead of getting great R/F gear into the hands of the next wave of great PJ's by pricing it reasonably, Leica is going full steam ahead into the elitist non-photographer types hands by doing bling things like titanium versions and the new Hammertone version of the M9.

Until Leica does something about this, you are going to hear this from people and are going to have to read this along with all the praise out there.

Look at it from the business point of view - the pro market is a limited one, the money is to be made from the well-heeled amateur. A pro is nice for advertising the product, but not for selling it to...😱

 

[furcafe]

Well, pretty much anything pays more than PJ work these days. 🙁

It sounds like your complaints are mostly about the cost of the M9, rather than some of digilloyd's anti-RF points ("You can only focus in the middle & the framelines aren't perfect? What's up w/that?!"). On that I think we can all agree that the M9 is too expensive for most photographers, working or otherwise. Heck, I'm fortunate enough to afford 1 & still wish it cost less. I was @ Look3 & agree that a lot of people do see the X100 as an M9 substitute, but that doesn't mean they still don't wish they had an M9.

However, I think a lot of that high cost has to do w/2 things: (1) the higher unit cost for low quantity production by small manufacturers like Leica; & (2) the expense of manufacturing the traditional M series RF mechanism (even the Bessas, Hexar RF, & Zeiss Ikon, which are pretty close, but not quite as nice as the Ms, aren't exactly cheap). Even if Leica were able to somehow pull off an electronic "reboot" of (2), they would still have to deal w/(1). Sounds like a perfect market opportunity for 1 of the big Japanese manufacturers or for Leica to team up w/1 of them (even Fuji).

I know Pete personally, he tried the M9 for some of his White House but went back to his 5D-II for nearly all of it. Not sure who Thorsten is other than a guy I see posting on forum all about gear, Chris does use it, but then maybe paparrazzi work pays more than advertising and PJ...;-)

There are quite a few people who have loads of talent and who's style of shooting would benefit from an M9 but it is simply overpriced for many of us to build a real system with.

You have to get out and talk to people like we all did at Look3 this weekend, like famous Leica shooter Bill Allard using a GF-1 instead of an M9.

If Leica would have managed one more stop of noise reduction by going with a 12mp sensor instead of playing the megapixel game AND priced the M9 at around $5,000, that would have paid off huge, I might have got one.

I have two film M's I use for non-deadline PJ work and current book projects. I use great simple & small glass like the CV 28 3.5, 35/2 asph and a ZM 50/2 on my M3. What I want an M9 for, very discreet and quiet digital work with a semi-fast 35 often in light requiring ISO 3200, the X100 is doing a much better job. It is hitting the exposures, the color and especially the white balance out of the park so well that I really see no need for shooting raw with this camera.

Believe me, I wanted an M9 and thought back forth about what a great tool it would be for these types of shoots, but then the X100 came along and the resulting photographs fully extinguished that desire.

The photographs matter first and for most and a lot of the work I see coming from the M9 does not have any more impact than from people using a 5D, D700 or even an X100.

Several of the more iconic photographer in attendance this weekend commented on they thought it was ashame that instead of getting great R/F gear into the hands of the next wave of great PJ's by pricing it reasonably, Leica is going full steam ahead into the elitist non-photographer types hands by doing bling things like titanium versions and the new Hammertone version of the M9.

Until Leica does something about this, you are going to hear this from people and are going to have to read this along with all the praise out there.

 

[jaapv]

What do you expect? Some PJ beating the street shooting an M9 and a couple of Summiluxes and a Noctilux on a few thousand a month?🙄 He will count himself lucky to get a beatenup 1Dii from the pool.... Sure there are some high-profile pros that can afford anything Leica builds up to and including an S2 system. But those are more like amateurs in the sense that Ansel Adams and HCB were amateur professionals. Actually Leica are one of the most pro-oriented camera companies around from a sense of history, see their connection with Magnum etc.

 

[Keith]

So much for Seal - neither applies - and he's their "ambassador." 😀

A lot of "pros" I know shoot Canon (and use CPS) for sports - or shoot MF for high-end commercial work. For them, the M9 is a curiosity, but they mostly love it. MF rigs cost at least $10-20k if not double - or triple that, plus lenses.

But did they choose him ... or did he choose them? 😀

 

[braver]

Leica fails two of these standards.

By whose assessment exactly? Whose standards? Whose recommendation?

My point is this "pro" camera distinction only exists in marketing and on internet forums. Pro-ness cannot be determined in any objective sense and I doubt pros really care. Equipment selected by pros is usually the equipment that helps them do their work in a certain situation and that a brand will go to great lengths to support. Leica could do very well in that respect, I don't know.

Edit: Eh, I hate this routine. You cannot discuss a camera without someone bringing in pro argument. Gotta find the xkcd in which is described what happens next.

 

[jarski]

oh why Leica wont listen Internet crowds and open up new M-factory in China, oh whyyyy! 😛

 

[Lss]

what is it about the focusing? Is it a case of speed because of familiarity? I ask in the sense of real curiosity.

I bought my first rangefinder camera (Epson R-D1 which has the M-mount) in 2009 very much due to curiosity - without trying it and with practically zero experience with rangefinder cameras. Turns out I liked it, and it works better for me than any other system I have tried. So, it is not about familiarity for new users like me. But it is very much about speed.

The core of the M system user experience for me is the non-TTL framing and focusing: intuitive, quick and robust. While you can compare specs and draw some conclusions, the actual user experience is not a checklist that one can review for every system and conclude which is the best. You need to try a system to see if it works for you. Some of the many features that are often mentioned and contribute to the overall M system experience include the size and shape of the kit, the handling and the interface, trivial yet important features such as distance markings on the lenses, the quality of the lenses (not just the expensive Leica ones), etc. On the other hand, the system is a compromise in some other areas. If you shoot a lot of macro or tele, TTL is no doubt better. And if your photography requires using zooms, surely a Leica M is no great solution.

I think very few disagree about the Leica pricing, the M9 is very expensive. It is the only reason I don't have one myself. But if someone goes and puts 10 000 euro in my pocket today, I will probably have an M9 in my hands by the end of the week. Why? It is the best digital camera (and currently the only in production) for the system that best works for me. It is a simple game when you have no direct substitute. The price barrier is not relative to other gear that meet other needs, it is absolute. You pay or you don't use.

 

[sper]

the "bubble" has lasted quite some time now, Leica's been expensive since day one.

but keep on waiting 🙄

Lieca has nearly folded a few times, and they have never in their history been pricing their stuff like they do now. When they were a platform for journalism and were competing with Nikon they were only slightly more expensive. Only today do you see a $4k 28mm f2.

I'm fine with Leica being expensive, but when something starts being so expensive that people of even reasonable means who really love photography with all their being still can't afford it, it's pointless. Digital backs are expensive for good reason and really mostly purchased by rentals houses, not so for Leica gear.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

First of all Harley Davidsons are a joke to everyone.

"Everyone"? Is that, like, you know, "biggest joke ever"?

Seconly that's a bad analogy because Harley Davidson doesn't market themselves as a choice for race car drivers.

They market themselves to people who are on the road, just like Leica market themselves to people who take photos.

Leica DOES market their cameras as a choice for pros.

Yes. They market to pros who know what they're buying, not what they think they ought to be buying.

It's just sad that few pros can justify the working expensive of actually doing serious work with the M system.

It's sad that there are people who misunderstand their tools and blame the tool.

So what exactly are you talking about?

That it's, like, the biggest joke ever.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Lieca has nearly folded a few times, and they have never in their history been pricing their stuff like they do now.

Leica Camera Advertisement 1947 by sunivroc, on Flickr


$397.00 in 1947 = $3,900.00 - $4,414.00 in 2011 (according to The US Inflation Calculator or Tom's Inflation Calculator)

Never, like, ever.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well, pretty much anything pays more than PJ work these days. 🙁

It sounds like your complaints are mostly about the cost of the M9, rather than some of digilloyd's anti-RF points ("You can only focus in the middle & the framelines aren't perfect? What's up w/that?!").

To me, really, is like a "professional" writer complaining that a typewriter is just not up to par with Macrohard W0rd, because it does not do any spell-checking, once you type something it's for keeps --unless you use Liquid Paper, and that's just messy. What a joke that typewriter!

Or the "professional" writer that complains about Macrohard W0rd, because his typewriter doesn't need any electric power.

Or the other "professional" writer that complains that typing is inherently flawed because you just can't type onto his nicely-bound leather quarto book. Or the other "professional" that mocks the "amateur" because instead of a nice fountain pen, he uses a pencil (a pencil!! -- what is he, a sixth-grader?!)

The joke's on their ignorance of the case of "Apples vs. Tomatoes"

 

[sper]

Leica Camera Advertisement 1947 by sunivroc, on Flickr


$397.00 in 1947 = $3,900.00 - $4,414.00 in 2011 (according to The US Inflation Calculator or Tom's Inflation Calculator)

Never, like, ever.

If you could buy an M9 for $4,414 dollars with a lens well that's less than even I think it's worth. So yes I'm right, thank you for proving that.

 

[sper]

"Everyone"? Is that, like, you know, "biggest joke ever"?





They market themselves to people who are on the road, just like Leica market themselves to people who take photos.




Yes. They market to pros who know what they're buying, not what they think they ought to be buying.




It's sad that there are people who misunderstand their tools and blame the tool.




That it's, like, the biggest joke ever.

So wait, you're arguement against my statement that it's sad more pros can't afford an M9 is that people blame their tools for problems with their equipment. Your answer to my statement was apparently an answer to a different question?
And as for your Harley comments. Yes exactly, they do market to people who are on the road not race car drivers. Which is NOT what Leica does. Leica has a reputation for being the ultimate tool, the ultimate quality, the ultimate camera. If they don't live up to those standards well then they aught to be called out on it.

Nothing of what you said was much of an arguement at all.

And Harley Davidsons are still a joke.

 

[furcafe]

Apples to apples. The MP is priced @ $4995.

I agree w/the view that Leica's M line is too expensive for most photographers nowadays, but Leica has always been expensive, it's just that their Japanese competition got cheaper over time, mostly via electronics & mass production (as illustrated by the fact that Nikon's handmade S3 & SP reissues were sold @ Leica prices, & they lost money on each 1). Basically, Leica is a 1950s company competing in 2011 & the M10 is a modernized 1950s camera, more like the Porsche 911. While the innovations brought by Japanese industry have been a very good thing for photography: good (dare I say "pro"?) quality gear has never been better & cheaper, it hasn't been so good for Leica.

As I wrote before, I think Leicas are pricey not because they're marketing to a "luxury" demographic (though that is their current market), but because of their dedication to the mechanical/optical RF & small production levels. So digilloyd has a valid point that Leica embracing new technology would lower prices while adding features, but that's a separate matter from the virtues of the mechanical/optical RF.

If you could buy an M9 for $4,414 dollars with a lens well that's less than even I think it's worth. So yes I'm right, thank you for proving that.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you could buy an M9 for $4,414 dollars with a lens well that's less than even I think it's worth. So yes I'm right, thank you for proving that.

Sure, a digital camera costs as much to make as a film camera 🙄


So, let's look at a film camera... Leica MP for $4,995.00

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

So wait, you're arguement against my statement that it's sad more pros can't afford an M9 is that people blame their tools for problems with their equipment. Your answer to my statement was apparently an answer to a different question?

...I really don't know; maybe to you apples are indeed just like tomatoes. Who am I to judge philosophical tendencies.

And as for your Harley comments. Yes exactly, they do market to people who are on the road not race car drivers. Which is NOT what Leica does. Leica has a reputation for being the ultimate tool, the ultimate quality, the ultimate camera. If they don't live up to those standards well then they aught to be called out on it.

How can one argue with "ultimate" meaning just about anything? Like, ever.

Nothing of what you said was much of an arguement at all.

It is hard to argue against Truthiness.

And Harley Davidsons are still a joke.

Of course they are. To you.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

So digilloyd has a valid point that Leica embracing new technology would lower prices while adding features, but that's a separate matter from the virtues of the mechanical/optical RF.

Agreed. There are various valid points, but there are also other points which show misunderstandings and misconceptions on his part. You just can't compare a bread knife to a cheese knife, and then complain that the cheese knife has a huge design flaw because you can't cut bread just like with a bread knife, and bring up the fact that the cheese knife costs a lot more than the bread knife and by golly, by that virtue it ought to cut bread just like the bread knife.

It's like, the funniest joke ever. 🙄

 

[sper]

Sure, a digital camera costs as much to make as a film camera 🙄


So, let's look at a film camera... Leica MP for $4,995.00

Yes, which is more expensive than the camera you showed, and it doesn't even come with a lens like the camera you showed. So I'm still right.

BUT you're right we're not making the best comparisons. For that you should look at historical prices of lenses or cameras as compared to other cameras available at that time. You will see that though Leica was ofter more expensive it wasn't like...many many times more expensive the way it is now. A Leica m6 was about the same price of a Nikon F3 back in 1984.

 

[Sparrow]

I always thought it was the photographers job to get the best out of his equipment, rather than the equipment's job to be perfect for every bozo to use ... perhaps I'm wrong

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I always thought it was the photographers job to get the best out of his equipment, rather than the equipment's job to be perfect for every bozo to use ... perhaps I'm wrong

Me too. But, the democratic* rules of the Intertoobes have decided this is not the case.
















* as redefined by the Intertoobes