Comment in DXO Comments re: Leica M Digital

In the early 70s I worked in a little camera store in a mall near a rich suburb. One day I complained to the owner about the types who came in to buy every new thing, but could barely rewind their own film. His response was that but for those people, none of us who really used our cameras could afford them, because the market would be so small that the cameras would have to cost much more.

So I don't complain about those people, nor about the ones who think they're photographers who couldn't shoot their way out of a paper bag, but who are the ones keeping film in production. :)

Keep firing away, boys!
 
…more to the point, of course, are all the RFF folks who have shoot Canonets, beat-to-hell M4-2s and M2s, Electra 35s, Rollei 35s, XA-1s… and make terrific pictures with them.
 
I have been a lurker in this forum for a long time and I fully disagree with the comments in the original post.

The stereotype of a typical rangefinderforum member as a middle-aged guy, past his prime who uses photography gear sort of like comfort food is completely incorrect and inspired by jealousy.
 
I'm not a doctor or a lawyer. Nor do I have such an income. I love my cats and all new lenses get their initiation by snapping some nice portraits of them. I find them entertaining, engaging subjects. However, I do try to keep the sharing to a minimum. I own a few film Leicas. If you saw me out and about with one of them, you would not think, "bling" or "jewelry". I don't have the dress and demeanor needed for that, and rarely hang out where the luxury crowd are found. I do shoot a lot of film.

Now, I don't have a digital Leica, and I think this is where the OP has a small, but valid point. Leica continues to shift its market targeting to the luxury crowd. While the M9 is clearly a practical tool for real photography, it is pushed to this market, and the remaining Leica line up are undoubtedly geared toward this market. No need to rehash the discussion we saw after the new "Mini M" was revealed. I'm just not seeing as much serious photography related activity from Leica as in the past.

But, there is no other alternative for the digital camera I have yet to buy -- I want it to have a full frame sensor. RF styled body, and interchangeable lenses (must somehow accept M mount). Only the M9 variants offer this feature set, so I'm stuck saving my hard-earned cash for one. However, I do wonder, could this camera, with this set of features, be offered for less? Are the manufacturing costs really high enough to warrant the price tag on the M9s? I'm just wondering...considering Leica's increased luxury market emphasis. Am I bad? Should I just not question, sell the car, and get that camera?
 
rfaspen said:
I'm not a doctor or a lawyer. Nor do I have such an income. I love my cats and all new lenses get their initiation by snapping some nice portraits of them. I find them entertaining, engaging subjects. However, I do try to keep the sharing to a minimum. I own a few film Leicas. If you saw me out and about with one of them, you would not think, "bling" or "jewelry". I don't have the dress and demeanor needed for that, and rarely hang out where the luxury crowd are found. I do shoot a lot of film.

Now, I don't have a digital Leica, and I think this is where the OP has a small, but valid point. Leica continues to shift its market targeting to the luxury crowd. While the M9 is clearly a practical tool for real photography, it is pushed to this market, and the remaining Leica line up are undoubtedly geared toward this market. No need to rehash the discussion we saw after the new "Mini M" was revealed. I'm just not seeing as much serious photography related activity from Leica as in the past.

But, there is no other alternative for the digital camera I have yet to buy -- I want it to have a full frame sensor. RF styled body, and interchangeable lenses (must somehow accept M mount). Only the M9 variants offer this feature set, so I'm stuck saving my hard-earned cash for one. However, I do wonder, could this camera, with this set of features, be offered for less? Are the manufacturing costs really high enough to warrant the price tag on the M9s? I'm just wondering...considering Leica's increased luxury market emphasis. Am I bad? Should I just not question, sell the car, and get that camera?
Click to expand...

From the looks of it Leica used off the shelf parts to build the M9. It was probably extremely cheap to produce vs other built from the ground up camreas. The assembly was probably expensive. The screen was a D80 screen, and the sensor was just a bigger version of the M8 sensor. Look at the M8 screen, their source no longer makes them, now they don't have them. It was probably super cheap to produce. Digital Bolex is doing the same thing with a Kodak produced sensor and they're saying it's extremely cheap for that reason.
 
The most expensive cost would be RnD, and then marketing. Also they are not as mass produced as Japanese dSLRs, where we all know the equation of higher production means lower costs.

Endorsements then also comes in, they have this and that event with celebrities and well known photogs which means it costs money.

Plus, they are opening stores here and there.

All THAT, makes an M camera expensive (plus brand management).

Its all the same with watches, a swiss-eta based watch like Hublot costs much more than an in-house movement Rolex.

Another example, Rolls Royce and a Honda.

Yet another example, Brioni suits, and Zara.

If you count pound for pound in terms of materials ALONE, no, the M cameras would probably cost less than half at what they are selling. If I sell my M240 as scrap, would you reckon I'd get anything more than say compared to 10 grams of gold? Probably not.
 
Shade said:
The most expensive cost would be RnD, and then marketing. Also they are not as mass produced as Japanese dSLRs, where we all know the equation of higher production means lower costs.

Endorsements then also comes in, they have this and that event with celebrities and well known photogs which means it costs money.

Plus, they are opening stores here and there.

All THAT, makes an M camera expensive (plus brand management).

Its all the same with watches, a swiss-eta based watch like Hublot costs much more than an in-house movement Rolex.

Another example, Rolls Royce and a Honda.

Yet another example, Brioni suits, and Zara.

If you count pound for pound in terms of materials ALONE, no, the M cameras would probably cost less than half at what they are selling. If I sell my M240 as scrap, would you reckon I'd get anything more than say compared to 10 grams of gold? Probably not.
Click to expand...

This.

For me the M240 is the only digital M they've so far made that's worth even considering vs alternatives. The M9 made a nice file but couldn't keep up with even film, unless we're purely talking resolution (which is a boring conversation). Still though, I shoot professionally. If I'm dropping that scratch on a camera I want it to be as reliable as the D3S. It may be! Lets hope it is. However, The 8 and 9 we'ren't there. And if in a couple years Fuji or Sony has a full frame camera that can take M lenses, well...yeah. As for the mojo and magic, well I can get that from my SX-70, my Bolex, my 8x10 view camera, my speed graphic, hell even my Zeiss 50mm that I can use on my lovingly restored Nikon FE. All of the above cameras bought for less than $800 or so each. Actually most of them for less than $500. So for me it's always like, what are you buying into? Leica ain't your loving wife and worth the diamond ring. If she's not giving back what you're putting in....

I'm all for brands having exclusive halo products that are expensive. Nikon with the D4, Canon with the 4k gear now. Leica just wants to remain exclusive so they don't make something for the middle range photographer. What they DO make for their idea of the middle range photographer is the X Vario and the X2, both of which...c'mon what a joke. If the M-E was 2.5k it would be part of my system.
 
Did you see how he misspelt Philippe? I have observed previously how high the standard of written English is here. Really remarkable for an internet forum. Maybe it's the obsessionality. You hardly ever see 'lense' here.

He holds up RFF as the garrison of moneyed, smug mediocrity, with us all clutching our Leicas, but the irony is we don't all have Leicas, we don't all even have rangefinders: there is an SLR and a TLR forum. And we are a lot of young people, even the Leica users. And, as I said before, there is a lot of stunning photography here. The diversity of RFF is a great strength. There is no condescending Barnack push, chipping away at the noveau M users. The non-Leica M lenses are celebrated as much as the Leica lenses, and even the M Monochrom threads are troll free and much-enjoyed, because of the photography. I sit on the sidelines of that and have rationalized my inability to join, thankful I have an M9, and admire the Hasselblads in the classifieds which almost used the money for the M9 and later I'll finish the roll in the Rolleiflex I would never have bought, for not so much, if I hadn't learnt about them here. We are like a diversified portfolio or a polyglot city with a trading port and mountains near the sea. Why, even one of our most respected members quite happily outed himself as a dentist.
 
For me, the irony is that when I had a cat, I found her to be a charming and ever amusing companion. I took many pictures of her with a film Nikon and 50mm 1.8 lens. A pedestrian camera system, but it took great pictures.

Now that I have an M7 and Summicrons, I no longer have a cat. I do have a couple of toddlers though. They don't seem too impressed with the blinginess of the Leica system.
 
Robert, wait till they're four. The first photo my daughter took was when she was four, with my M6 and a 35 Summicron: a picture of me. She framed the thing perfectly with the house and the fence making a very pleasing composition. More to the point, she has been an inexhaustible subject of my favourite photos before then and since. She now has an F3. I am shooting more cats, but not my own.
 
Richard G said:
Did you see how he misspelt Philippe? I have observed previously how high the standard of written English is here. Really remarkable for an internet forum. Maybe it's the obsessionality. You hardly ever see 'lense' here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Never trust the opinion of someone who uses an apostrophe to pluralize a word. Leicas, not Leica's.
 
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."
Click to expand...


Hmmm, yep, I am one of those "hacks" who took the intro to photography class in college and I really like Leica cat shots. But almost every Leica and Hasselblad lens and camera I bought in college (with $ I earned working as a roughneck offshore during summer and Christmas vacations) was worth about twice what I paid for it when I eventually sold it 4 or 5 years later. i learned at that early age I just couldn't afford to buy cheap gear.

I'd love to see some of Mr. Blow's photos to find out what real photographers can do.:cool:


Edit: I just thought about what I wrote and how it might be construed to seem I'm putting down less expensive gear. I'm not. I've seen many beautiful images taken with all kinds of gear that's not Leica, and many which are much better than anything I've done. My only point is that sometimes it's more economical to spend a bit more if possible to buy certain things that are in demand and which are increasing in value.
 
Richard G - Yes, I agree - let them get started early. I wanted to give my son an Olympus 3MP digital camera to get started with when he was 3, but my wife said "no". The camera is worthless anyway on the resale market, and so why not? I'm not using it.

I do have a couple of Argus film cameras for the kids to learn photography on when the time comes.
 
brusby said:
Edit: I just thought about what I wrote and how it might be construed to seem I'm putting down less expensive gear. I'm not. I've seen many beautiful images taken with all kinds of gear that's not Leica, and many which are much better than anything I've done. My only point is that sometimes it's more economical to spend a bit more if possible to buy certain things that are in demand and which are increasing in value.
Click to expand...

And there's Mike Johnston's wonderful 'letter to George' (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html) on The Online Photographer site. The dollar and opportunity cost of second rate gear doubles your overall expenditure and makes you unhappy and unsettled on the long road to a high quality full frame body with a couple of good prime lenses. This was another of my rationalizations for buying an M9. I nearly bought a second hand Hasselblad, and then would have got the X-Pro 1 and two lenses. And a third lens. And one or two more when they released them. Instead I bought an M9. Full stop. I didn't need the X-Pro 1 system anymore and already had a stable of Leica and Zeiss lenses. And I will stick with the M9 for as long as it lasts, which I also think is likely to be a long time. And the money I've blown, I am saving on film and processing, over a thousand already I think, and it's a lot less than the money I blew in one day of depreciation buying a new car.
 
Another storm in a tea-cup.

- I like cats and regularly take pictures of them. Fur rendering is an excellent test ;)
- I have nothing against dentists and am happy to pay my dentist for the excellent job he does keeping me and my families teeth in order (I don't think he has any interest in photography though)
- I am eternally grateful for the great work doctors do. I am amazed any of them have the time for photography as a hobby. It must be hard for them to find the time.
- I like the finer things in life. I probably spend more than I should on those things, but life is short.
- So far Leica cameras and lenses have actually cost me very little. Yes, the acquisition cost can be high, but so far I have got back what I paid for those items I have sold. Talking analogue items here, digital has a different trajectory.
- I am glad if these first world problems were my only problems
- there is rightly I think a general malaise felt in society in this time where many feel capitalism has reached a point where it has outlived its usefulness. In many countries society does seem to be polarising and wealth distribution is increasingly inequitable. However I feel the wrong targets are being picked on and an irrational mob mentality is developing. I think there is a yearning for a better way, but needless conflict is not the answer.
- oh, I like camera bags and straps a little bit too much, especially nice soft leather :)
 
Funny that we feel the need to respond to those parade-rainers. That's what they take pleasure from.
 
As much as I like Leicas I have to agree with some of the points in the original post, I dont see them anymore as cameras for working pros (there are exceptions of course) but what people do with there own money is not my business. Maybe the 240 will change all this, but I doubt it I think Leica is definitely focused in the luxury goods market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom