charjohncarter
Veteran
And there is the rub, as someone said. The theory of Thorstein Veblen actually is opposite of the Leica of today. i.e. Veblen said: first the item is for dilettantes, and then the masses want it so the price comes down (but maybe still high), and now the masses can look like a dilettante. That is the workings of conspicuous consumption.
rlouzan
Well-known
leicapixie
Well-known
i personally think that with Digital, many things, concepts and beliefs are much changed. i am 69 and simply adore the revolution.
The Leica M or the DSLR are no longer needed or required for a photographer. It matters not if one is starting or slowly ending. The CRF is really an anachronism. i love my Leica-M. i would not recommend it to a starting photographer esp. in photojournalism. The bodies and esp. the lenses are way too expensive. The DSLR represents the 60's. The big Canon/Nikon lenses are too of a past age.i know those reading will differ most angrily. That is your view, this is mine.i still use my Nikon-F system.
Photography 'now' is being made with small cameras, phone cameras and pads. Immediate results on the internet. Yes! Many images are trivial. Yet as one looks at new shooters with so many views, it becomes apparent about the really good and wide variety and quality of the work.
The glass plate users viewed the Leica in 1925 with same hostility.
The 60's saw the coming Japanese storm of SLR. The Nikon-F probably destroyed the German photographic industry. What was left was the "walking wounded". I am glad Leica has somehow survived.
Will a young photographer somehow "miss the experience" in their portfolio?
Maybe, maybe not. The Public wants instant imaging. The days of using film, processing and printing simply no longer happen. Film is used but scanned. The film is now digital. Why not use digital all the way. Yes there are some faults in digital. Forgotten by film users are the dust, hairs , blemishes in the emulsions, liquids and on scanners.
The last 4 years working almost only with point and shoot cameras, i have developed a new style, a new vision. i don't use a frame and carefully focus a rfdr square. Many old photographers also didn't. They guessed the distance, pointed the camera and pressed the button. The way most Leica shooters use their camera is more like shooting an 8x10.
More than likely this post will be deleted. It is my opinion. It is based on looking at photos, surfing Internet and seeing as many books/portfolios as possible. i guess for many old pros like myself, the hard knocks we received in our experience, are no longer required.
The Leica M or the DSLR are no longer needed or required for a photographer. It matters not if one is starting or slowly ending. The CRF is really an anachronism. i love my Leica-M. i would not recommend it to a starting photographer esp. in photojournalism. The bodies and esp. the lenses are way too expensive. The DSLR represents the 60's. The big Canon/Nikon lenses are too of a past age.i know those reading will differ most angrily. That is your view, this is mine.i still use my Nikon-F system.
Photography 'now' is being made with small cameras, phone cameras and pads. Immediate results on the internet. Yes! Many images are trivial. Yet as one looks at new shooters with so many views, it becomes apparent about the really good and wide variety and quality of the work.
The glass plate users viewed the Leica in 1925 with same hostility.
The 60's saw the coming Japanese storm of SLR. The Nikon-F probably destroyed the German photographic industry. What was left was the "walking wounded". I am glad Leica has somehow survived.
Will a young photographer somehow "miss the experience" in their portfolio?
Maybe, maybe not. The Public wants instant imaging. The days of using film, processing and printing simply no longer happen. Film is used but scanned. The film is now digital. Why not use digital all the way. Yes there are some faults in digital. Forgotten by film users are the dust, hairs , blemishes in the emulsions, liquids and on scanners.
The last 4 years working almost only with point and shoot cameras, i have developed a new style, a new vision. i don't use a frame and carefully focus a rfdr square. Many old photographers also didn't. They guessed the distance, pointed the camera and pressed the button. The way most Leica shooters use their camera is more like shooting an 8x10.
More than likely this post will be deleted. It is my opinion. It is based on looking at photos, surfing Internet and seeing as many books/portfolios as possible. i guess for many old pros like myself, the hard knocks we received in our experience, are no longer required.
tempest68
Established
I think there is somewhat of a car analogy here. Makes like Canon, Nikon, etc are like Chevrolet and Leica is more like Porsche. What I'm getting at is there are some brands that make entry-level cameras or cars up to higher-end models (Rebel up through 1D or Cruze up through Corvette), and nothing but upper-level products from other brands. Some people may want to buy a high-end camera, but can only afford an entry-level model right now. But the brand that sells at all entry points sets up to possibly have a repeat buyer if the person can afford a better model later on. But other brands insist you must be willing to buy in to an upper model at an upper price. Nothing wrong with that, except that as the person that started at an entry-level and later can afford an upper-level may have brand loyalty/familiarity keeping them from wanting to switch brands.
And another factor is that decades ago Leica was probably the best choice for capturing high-quality images using a relatively small camera body that offered interchangeable lenses. But in the last year especially, cameras like the Olympus OM-D or Fujifilm X-Pro are also small cameras with interchangeable lenses that can produce high-quality photographs while offering autofocus and smaller prices vs. the Leica.
I respect where Leica has been in the past and what they are trying to do today. But as was already mentioned, some form of entry-level models to entice prospective buyers to buy into the system would be the best way to garner more interest in the high-end line. I'm not saying it has to be Leica to do it. If CV would dip it's toes into the field with a $1500-$2000 USD digital APS-C M mount body, I think we'd have a better path for folks without deep pockets to consider dipping their toes in the pool. And maybe over time they'd strive to save up for the good stuff down the road.
That's my $0.02.
And another factor is that decades ago Leica was probably the best choice for capturing high-quality images using a relatively small camera body that offered interchangeable lenses. But in the last year especially, cameras like the Olympus OM-D or Fujifilm X-Pro are also small cameras with interchangeable lenses that can produce high-quality photographs while offering autofocus and smaller prices vs. the Leica.
I respect where Leica has been in the past and what they are trying to do today. But as was already mentioned, some form of entry-level models to entice prospective buyers to buy into the system would be the best way to garner more interest in the high-end line. I'm not saying it has to be Leica to do it. If CV would dip it's toes into the field with a $1500-$2000 USD digital APS-C M mount body, I think we'd have a better path for folks without deep pockets to consider dipping their toes in the pool. And maybe over time they'd strive to save up for the good stuff down the road.
That's my $0.02.