dmr
Registered Abuser
Uh, the Olympus Stylus *IS* a film camera.
True, and a good example of reductio ad absurdum.
Pico
-
True, and a good example of reductio ad absurdum.
Maybe not so reductive.
I'm guessing that more Leicas are bought as 'jewelry/signs of wealth, than other marques.
And for narsuitus, the Holga GN (glass lens) produces surprisingly good results when used with it's 6x4.5 masque, or cropped to 5x5. (The lens was probably designed to cover only the old 4x4 format).
The Stylus Epic (Mju II in old europe) has a amazing 35mm fixed length lens.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why are you guessing that? Who would a wealthy Leica buyer be trying to impress? Other rich people? Poor people who can't afford Leicas? And why?
My own belief (based on knowing a few rich Leica owners, and on reasonably reliable second-hand knowledge of other rich people who use Leicas) is that rich people buy them for the same reason as the rest of us: because they believe them to be good cameras.
Rich Leica buyers may or may not be good photographers, but that's equally true of Holga users or indeed of buyers of any other sort of camera. If 'good' photographers only bought one sort of camera, there'd be unanimity about which is the 'best' camera. That fact that there is no such unanimity is something of a clue.
Cheers,
R.
When I said 'guessing' I really mean something like 'supposing' or 'estimating'
Where I live is many monuments and things that bring in many tourists, and this is what I have experienced: It's the husband who parades like a peacock with a Leica and his wife and children sharing a disposable camera for taking the souveneer shots. I see similar things frequently.
Me, I only use wrist loops or nothing on my Leica and other range-finders. When I don't have the camera in the hand I put it in the bag or pocket.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Supposing, estimating or guessing, the question still remains: who are they trying to impress? And why? And how?
No-one denies that complete idiots sometimes buy Leicas. Other complete idiots buy Canons with huge zooms. Yet other complete idiots buy Holgas.
The only difference between the different varieties of idiot is how much money they spend. I'd be half inclined to say that camera which sells in the largest numbers to idiots is the Lomo, which is staggeringly high priced for a plastic camera that is little more than a toy, and which is bought by people for whom being a Lomographer is more important than being a photographer. Even so, (1) there are some good Lomographers and (2) how they spend their money is their choice.
As for how you carry your camera, I like to have mine to hand for taking pictures. You can't take pictures with the camera in a bag or a pocket, so with few exceptions (mainly, cameras that are always used on a tripod) my cameras are always on neck-straps. Does that mean I'm 'parading like a peacock'?
Cheers,
R.
dmr
Registered Abuser
It's my perception that those who use a camera to impress are more likely to show off the Latest And Greatest<tm> DSLR with that huge flame-thrower lens, rather than a Leica RF.
Of course, LOL, a few years back there was this photo making the rounds of a certain celebutante sporting a Leica and "shooting" with the lens cap on.
Roger.
I am not a psychologist so I can't answer your questions.
You are troubled by this subject or making an argument, so I will leave the subject.
I am not a psychologist so I can't answer your questions.
You are troubled by this subject or making an argument, so I will leave the subject.
bigeye
Well-known
If talking about creative or artistic images, the creative nature of photography can live without much of the technical aspect, but the reverse is not so.
This creative process vs. the technical machinations of art is a funny bit. The 'work' in photography is creating a good image and the easy part is shopping for gear.
Interestingly, nearly everyone polled has chosen QI over IQ, yet 99% of the content of the forum - one of the best photography - is dedicated to the technical aspects. (The poorly "Technique" section only gets a new post every few of days.)
- Charlie
This creative process vs. the technical machinations of art is a funny bit. The 'work' in photography is creating a good image and the easy part is shopping for gear.
Interestingly, nearly everyone polled has chosen QI over IQ, yet 99% of the content of the forum - one of the best photography - is dedicated to the technical aspects. (The poorly "Technique" section only gets a new post every few of days.)
- Charlie
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm just intrigued by your assumption. You are far from alone in making it, but I have yet to see any basis for it: most people, when you ask them why they are making this assumption, respond much like you. I've long wondered why.
Cheers,
R.
j j
Well-known
My Contax is jewelry to me. I parade it around town on its neck strap for all to see. No one looks, cares, notices or is impressed (ever, apart from the moment I bought it when a bloke from Japan walked in the shop, beamed excitedly, pointed and exclaimed "CONTAX" in a loud voice). In my mind I am a peacock, but to everyone else I am cryptic like a quail.
EDIT: oh yeah, the image quality suits me fine, but I wish it had more inspired composition.
EDIT: oh yeah, the image quality suits me fine, but I wish it had more inspired composition.
PKR
Veteran
Roger;
Years ago I photographed Jimmy Smith (musician). I was using M4s at the time. I was hired by his agent. He looked at the gear and said "I'm a Hasselblad man". I was never paid for the work.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Good points, Charlie...
About the last one, I also thought something was wrong with the votation... I thought people preferring option 2 were not voting... But now I think in a different way: now I think the votes are meaning most people on RFF really know that the rest of the things are a lot more decisive to an image than gear or brand... Leica users included of course... The truth is no member has said "you must use Leica exclusively" nor "of course Leica images are in general better photographs than those made with any other brand", so honestly I think our Leica users are real photographers using and enjoying great cameras... Just that... I think no one here uses Leicas to impress, but for the quality of the equipment and the results...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Sine
Phil Orchard
It's so easy to fall into the GAS trap, we've all been there at one point or another (most of all me). There's a law of diminishing returns when you have to spend an exponentially increasing amount of money to get the next step up in IQ. To me, a camera is a means to an image. I only want it to work, and capture the image when I tell it to. I won't deny that I'd love to have a Leica, but I can't afford one as a student, so for now I can sit here and chuckle at those waxing poetic about "the magic of a Summicron".
On the other hand, some gear is so cheap and poorly suited to the photographer that it begins to hinder the task. Most cheap P&S models these days suffer from fatal shutter lag. They might otherwise be fine for street photography, but the decisive moment isn't going to wait 1-2 seconds for your camera to think about the proper exposure. By then, it'll be gone. That's why I stick with manual focus cameras.
Anecdotally, Hasselblad has probably inspired more snob appeal and douchebaggery than any brand in all of photography. Leica seems genuinely humble by comparison!
On the other hand, some gear is so cheap and poorly suited to the photographer that it begins to hinder the task. Most cheap P&S models these days suffer from fatal shutter lag. They might otherwise be fine for street photography, but the decisive moment isn't going to wait 1-2 seconds for your camera to think about the proper exposure. By then, it'll be gone. That's why I stick with manual focus cameras.
Anecdotally, Hasselblad has probably inspired more snob appeal and douchebaggery than any brand in all of photography. Leica seems genuinely humble by comparison!
tlitody
Well-known
once again I ask you to define image quality. If you can't do that then the premise of your poll is garbage.
I will not be forced into the argument by your antagonistic attitude.
Only this: I did not say 'assumption'. I related what I have seen so many times. Real life experiences.
If you never noticed this yourself then perhaps you are in the forrest and cannot see the trees.
Ciao,
BD.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Not my words but Spyro's from this thread ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1319519&postcount=30 ) back in May - all of it relevant (and I agree with it 100%) but specifically the bolded section relates to Juan's poll:
Cheers,
Dave
Spyro said:
Cheers,
Dave
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You've clearly never seen me being antagonistic.
As I say, I'm interested, and I get very few answers.
Everyone I've ever met who bought a Leica (or Leicas, plural) bought it/them for one of two reasons: to take pictures, or as a collector. This is born out by the Leica dealers I know. Many will cheerfully admit that they have on occasion sold cameras to truly rotten photographers, but have been understandably disinclined to discourage them from spending large sums of money. They have, however, sometimes discouraged them from buying cameras they can't use, and have steered them towards autofocus and auto-exposure (the M7 helped with the latter).
I don't think this puts me in any forest. You are making assumptions (your original word was 'guess' -- unwarranted, I believe, no matter what your terminology) on the basis of casual observation. I've gone a little deeper in to it, and on the basis of what I've learnt, I believe you're wrong. I've had plenty of time to look at the sort of prejudice you express: I've been using Leicas since 1969; M-series since 1973; and I bought my first new M lens in the late 1970s. My Leicas have been a part of my earning a living for 30+ years. Of course I could be wrong too. I just wanted to find out the basis of your views.
Similar prejudices used to apply to Linhofs. I once talked to Linhof UK about this, maybe 25 years ago, and in those days they reckoned that their cameras sold about 50/50 to professionals and amateurs. Needless to say, some of those amateurs were very good. And some were rubbish (at least as photographers).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
the term 'idiot' gets tossed around here a little too frequently.
how exactly does one determine that the fella in his tilly hat is an 'idiot' or only interested in 'strutting'? are there body movements, ticks and that sort of thing that gives it away? how is one to know said 'peacock' isn't actually a very rabid photographer with boatloads of talent? is there a uniform one needs to wear to separate oneself?
perhaps one day you see me walking down the promenade at Niagra falls. around my neck is a leica and on my feet are sandals. some flower shorts and a bit of a strut as i am with my wife who i happen to think is the cats meow (thus the strut). do i fall into the 'idiot' category?
people make decisions based on infinite amounts of input and circumstance that quite frankly most of us are not privy to. the jump to 'idiot' or 'fool' is, well, idiotic.
how exactly does one determine that the fella in his tilly hat is an 'idiot' or only interested in 'strutting'? are there body movements, ticks and that sort of thing that gives it away? how is one to know said 'peacock' isn't actually a very rabid photographer with boatloads of talent? is there a uniform one needs to wear to separate oneself?
perhaps one day you see me walking down the promenade at Niagra falls. around my neck is a leica and on my feet are sandals. some flower shorts and a bit of a strut as i am with my wife who i happen to think is the cats meow (thus the strut). do i fall into the 'idiot' category?
people make decisions based on infinite amounts of input and circumstance that quite frankly most of us are not privy to. the jump to 'idiot' or 'fool' is, well, idiotic.