Comment in DXO Comments re: Leica M Digital

He have some points. How many times have you seen anybody here at rff admit that they bought a leica due to its lux appeal?
 
Posted by Joe Blow:

"Let's face it: Leica's have become jewelry for camera fondlers and status seeking gearheads. If you disagree, just take a trip to rangefinderforum.com and partake of the inanity re: Leica. You'll find a dedicated group of lawyers/dentists/corporate hacks who once took an Intro to Photography class in college and have convinced themselves they could be the second coming of HCB if only someone would recognize their genius, which they attempt to document by posting pictures of their cats taken with the most expensive "glass.":eek::)
Click to expand...
Full marks for trolling, I guess, but to do it right he really should have posted it here on RFF.

Funny thing is, I've been hanging around RFF for a while, on and off, and I really haven't seen much of the stereotype Mr Blow promulgates. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong threads.

But even if he were right, then so what? I've met one person "in the wild", as it were, who was pretty close to that stereotype. I was on a photography course with a retired doctor who had a full Leica S system, an M9 plus lenses as well as a Nikon 800E with a whole bunch of lenses and he'd brought the lot with him and was carting them all around with him (perhaps as some form of cardiovascular exercise). Despite this, he seemed to have no idea of which system to use for what purpose, what lens to use for a particular result and more-or-less couldn't distinguish the shutter speed dial from the aperture ring.

Stereotype confirmed! And yet ... he seemed a pretty decent guy who really was interested in and trying to learn about photography. He wasn't trying to show off, he was trying to get better. Who among us, if we're honest, could say that they would have resisted the lure of the "gear makes the photo" fallacy while learning - if we had (by my standards) an apparently unlimited budget? I might have made that kind of expensive mistake. The only reason I didn't make a more expensive mistake (in proportion to my limited means) was that I didn't actually have the means, so had to think rather than simply buy (though Lord knows I've bought enough).

I suspect that if he follows through on his learning he'll end up a decent enough photographer. With some really, really cool gear.

...Mike
 
MichaelToye said:
'Arguments' like that should be challenged with, "So, what small full frame camera with superior image quality should I buy with the 10K burning a hole in my pocket?"

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I hate to state the obvious but the word 'superior' in your post is what actually starts a lot of this nonsense!
 
Maybe I should wear my Leica instead of my watch. It tells time as well, and looks fine as a jewelry! Haha..
 
L Collins said:
Posted by Joe Blow:

"Let's face it: Leica's have become jewelry for camera fondlers and status seeking gearheads. If you disagree, just take a trip to rangefinderforum.com and partake of the inanity re: Leica. You'll find a dedicated group of lawyers/dentists/corporate hacks who once took an Intro to Photography class in college and have convinced themselves they could be the second coming of HCB if only someone would recognize their genius, which they attempt to document by posting pictures of their cats taken with the most expensive "glass.":eek::)

It's the functional equivalent of collecting Patek Phillippe watches. If your goal is to own a time piece that keeps accurate time, then a quartz Seiko will do that much better while the Patek will need to be rewound and adjusted for time every few days. But a Patek is so much better at projecting status and fine taste, which, of course, is the real reason people buy them. Which is all well and good, but don't attempt to convince other's of your choice based on it's perceived superiority of performance, because then you'll have to lapse into all sorts of disengenuous reasons why you prefer what is ultimately just a marker of status.

Was this always so? No. Leica film cameras remain wonderful mechanical instruments capable of outlasting your grandchildren, and the optics are almost uniformly excellent. But the mistake is to extrapolate the dated concepts of the film age to the digital era. I have no problem if you want to spend $8k on a digital camera. Just don't try to explain to me it's worth to you based on its performance, because that's not what you're paying for, and you know it. Your paying for perceived status, period. At least be honest about it."

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Congratulations to him. He was able to take every stereotype about Leica users and make a few paragraphs. He's definitely superior to us. :bang:

It's easy to think the way he does if you don't care for rangefinders or digital. But explaining the reasons why people USE a digital Leica to make photos would go right over this tool's head. Plus, he posts at an even lamer place than he is dissing.
 
It is fun that we need to copy a comment from another forum so we have something to complain about....... not that we care what these low life thinks about our camera choices.
 
I wonder what DXO Comments is. What pleases me most is how little is known of what really happens here. Our wonderful Gallery and weekly Gallery picks clearly remain unknown. I am sorry for the dentists though. My Dad was a dentist. He had a very nice OM kit, most of which I now have. I'm the only Leica user in my small photographic group, but conveniently there is one dentist amongst us to cop the bullets.

I gave up my accurate digital watches for a Swiss automatic of under $1k, because I hate having a watch that needs a battery change. It usually has me risking my grandfather's Swiss watch (not Patek Philippe) as a daily user until I can get somewhere for a new battery.

I think the ranter is sincere and genuinely believes that there just isn't any rational justification for using a digital Leica, not knowing of the AA filter issues, the small full-frame size body, or even why full frame matters. And he couldn't know about the compact lenses either. Someone like the D3 owning pro over 50 who spied my chrome M9-P, hoping it was only an M2, lamenting the weight of her Nikon kit strapped to her back, would probably be the only sort who could get through to him.
 
Keith said:
I hate to state the obvious but the word 'superior' in your post is what actually starts a lot of this nonsense!
Click to expand...

I could use any number of synonyms but, personally, I wanted smaller than a DSLR and better image quality than I was used to. I have that in my MM and I would not have it with a x100s/OMD EM-5, which is all the camera the critics are saying we need?

They might have less angst if they simply got out there and took photographs. That's what I do.

Michael
 
although credit to the op for finding this and encouraging to discuss but i have a feeling we are just feeding the trolls. we all have different reasons for being on this forum and we don't really need to justify it to anyone else.
 
Keith said:
I hate to state the obvious but the word 'superior' in your post is what actually starts a lot of this nonsense!
Click to expand...

because a 5dc is in the same realm as the 240?

Keith, just so you know, the m9 with a good lens was demonstrably better than a 3dx with one. go look at the lenstip testing and you'll see a 50 cron v5 on an m9 demolish a 3dx with a 50/2 MP at mid distance. they provide mtf50s and, better, full resolution samples.

lenstip did not test many Leica lenses. I think they did a v5 cron, the 28 cron and the 75 apo-cron. system resolution of these lenses on the m9 was the best they had ever tested in those focal lengths.

the dxo commentators are the sorts of dbags who talk up the gt-r on forums because of some irrelevant specs. yet, funny enough, people who can actually afford that kind of car buy porsches, a "status indicator" car, in far greater numbers. either you believe they are all fools asking to be parted with their money or you believe the people who havent driven either are idiots.
 
redisburning said:
because a 5dc is in the same realm as the 240?

Keith, just so you know, the m9 with a good lens was demonstrably better than a 3dx with one. go look at the lenstip testing and you'll see a 50 cron v5 on an m9 demolish a 3dx with a 50/2 MP at mid distance. they provide mtf50s and, better, full resolution samples.

lenstip did not test many Leica lenses. I think they did a v5 cron, the 28 cron and the 75 apo-cron. system resolution of these lenses on the m9 was the best they had ever tested in those focal lengths.

the dxo commentators are the sorts of dbags who talk up the gt-r on forums because of some irrelevant specs. yet, funny enough, people who can actually afford that kind of car buy porsches, a "status indicator" car, in far greater numbers. either you believe they are all fools asking to be parted with their money or you believe the people who havent driven either are idiots.
Click to expand...



I see your point but the effect of what I was referring to is the same as standing in the carpark next to your Porsche and yelling out ... "Hey I drive this because it's superior!" It may well be true but it doesn't stop the people around you who drive Toyotas and Mazdas from thinking you're an idiot with too much money.

It's human nature IMO.
 
MichaelToye said:
I could use any number of synonyms but, personally, I wanted smaller than a DSLR and better image quality than I was used to. I have that in my MM and I would not have it with a x100s/OMD EM-5, which is all the camera the critics are saying we need?

They might have less angst if they simply got out there and took photographs. That's what I do.

Michael
Click to expand...

Yes you could have, but you chose to use "superior" and are now equating that to your own personal choice ... in the same way this Blow chap is doing in his comments.
 
The problem is that you have a brand who's whole identity is based on 'superiority' and charges accordingly, but then doesn't really measure up when it comes to reliablity or performance. What do you expect?

Lots of photographers want to use Leica equipement even with the drawbacks people kvetch about, but they get priced out by the luxury business model. Of course this pisses people off. It pisses people off even more when you dedicate your whole working life to the art and, because of the cost, use Nikon or Canon gear even if you want to use a Leica, and then have to see some investment banker walking around Manhattan with the camera you've always dreamed of. And what's worse that same guy who doesn't know an F stop from an A** hole tries to explain to you some mysticism about the "Leica magic."

Yeah it's nobody elses business what you spend your money on sure, but this guy isn't really completley off the mark. Case in point, Leica x Vario.

Also most threads with too much Leica criticism get deleted on RFF so I don't expect this one to last either.
 
Lets be fair now, we wouldnt buy something over everything else because its worse, or mediocre. We buy something (anything) because we feel its superior to the other brands.

Not only in electronics, I choose which brand of paper I buy, wchich shirt I buy etc, because I feel the said item is superior in total overall compared to other brands in its class/type.

I bet Joe Blow would say his camera is superior, because it infact is, to him.

Same goes for then pair of shoes Im wearing right now. Its superior to whatever this guy next to me is wearing - because I feel good in it.

The magic word is: PERSONAL CHOICE is always superior to whatever whoever is saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom