Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have no idea how many pros used Leicas on a regular basis 30+ years ago. Thats the 1970s/1980s, the era when the SLR dominated the market. Leica R were good cameras but certainly only rarely used by pros. Most pros I knew then used Nikons for their main camera if they were doing news, event, or sports work, MF for portraiture, weddings, etc. a few folks doing theater and other work where noise was critical used Leica Ms.
I know that 10-15 years ago, the number of pros using Leica RFs dropped precipitously as pros were the early digital adopter community, for reasons of productivity and cost. There were no digital Ms until 2006-2007.
Since the M9 shipped in 2009, more and more pros are using Leica again. Same rise in pro Leica usage since the S2 system shipped too. Because these are high quality modern cameras that deliver the goods the way a pro needs in the modern world.
But the majority of Leica users have not been pros, except for maybe a small niche group doing a particular kind of reportage and editorial work in the 1930-1960 time period. I don't know why "pro use" is of any real concern to the largely amateur and fine art photographer community here on RFF.
G
Dunn
Well-known
That is true if you are buying the most expensive models. Even then, the technology far surpasses the Leica bodies. Leica still doesn't have a high-iso capable camera unless you count the Monochrom. And let's not forget the price tag on those Leica lenses compared to Nikons.
I can get two brand new Nikon D600's for the same price as one used M9 and maybe even have a little left over.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Leica X2 is a fine Leica camera. Here's what the JPEGs and raw files look like at ISO 12800, 6400, 3200...
For many of the photographers on this forum, who sing praise of their Leica M fitted with nothing but a 35mm lens nearly all the time, the X2 is a very high performance, digital Leica at much lower cost than the M.
G
thegman
Veteran
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Well, yes, new Leicas (not just digital either) are not within reach of most young people. However, if we're talking digital, then I'm not sure if young photographers are losing out on a lot by never using Leica, aside from maybe a used M8, or M9 in a few years.
Certainly, Leicas, including the digital ones are lovely cameras, but I'm not convinced my photography gained a great deal by having a couple of M3s, M6, MP, and IIIf. I gained a huge respect for the quality of engineering in those times, and how a 50 year old M3 makes a new Sony or whatever just look like disposable novelties.
I guess for some people a Leica inspires them to get out and take photographs, and maybe some people might miss that. For me, I don't think what I can do with a Leica. I think more about what I can do with a tripod, and the time to use it.
I won't worry too much about innovation. Leica has not innovated really since the first M camera. I say that as the greatest compliment, you've only got to look at the "innovation" in all technology to see we're going backward as much as we are forward, in my humble opinion. I feel that the desire to make something great has been replaced with the desire to make something that will obsolete the last thing and sell in it's place.
Dunn
Well-known
I was speaking only of the digital M's. But since you brought it up, I never understood why anyone would ever buy an X1/2 over a Fuji X100/s. To me, the Fuji's are pretty much superior in every way: built in hybrid viewfinder, faster aperture, lower price, files and high iso are just as amazing if not better.
dabick42
Well-known
We all know that Leica lost its professional market dominance in the mid 1960s to Nikon SLRs and Japanese innovation and electronic wizardry in the ensuing years has pre-empted, overshadowed and out-manoeuvred Leica ever since.
So who is buying new Leica cameras today and keeping Leica AG afloat ?
Who is buying into a time-expired legend that is painfully limited by DSLR standards and prohibitively expensive to boot ?
I'll hazard a guess and say wealthy Oriental and Middle Eastern collectors, gnarled veteran amateurs with a good-sized pension pot, and a smattering of monied RFF'ers eager to strut their stuff with the most famous brand name in photography (!).
And where am I with Leica ?
I'm in the gnarled veteran amateurs group, with a large cabinet full of film-eating Leica gear, none of it newer than 1976, and none of it bought new.
I guess I don't figure prominently in Leica AG's survival plans ... (!!)
So who is buying new Leica cameras today and keeping Leica AG afloat ?
Who is buying into a time-expired legend that is painfully limited by DSLR standards and prohibitively expensive to boot ?
I'll hazard a guess and say wealthy Oriental and Middle Eastern collectors, gnarled veteran amateurs with a good-sized pension pot, and a smattering of monied RFF'ers eager to strut their stuff with the most famous brand name in photography (!).
And where am I with Leica ?
I'm in the gnarled veteran amateurs group, with a large cabinet full of film-eating Leica gear, none of it newer than 1976, and none of it bought new.
I guess I don't figure prominently in Leica AG's survival plans ... (!!)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL ... that's grist for a different thread, don't you think?
I tried two of the Fujis, didn't like them, didn't like the raw files they made. The X2 is far nicer to use for me, produces nicer results. I like the optional viewfinders too, camera's more compact when I don't need one.
YMMV.
G
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
For as much as I like Leicas I feel that they are trying to do two things which cannot be done at the same time: to be up to date and on the top of IQ ranking and to please the fans of the old M system. If we have to believe technical articles lenses for the digital sensors have different requisites than lenses for film, still Leica seems to try to make special sensors to correct these problems instead of starting a completely new system. Also what was state of the art in the 30s and 40s (rangefinder) is not necessarily the best solution today in the age of focus peak and autofocus. I hope that eventually they will split the concepts keeping a M for those who want to use their old lenses and market as a luxury item and making a new system with the traditional Leica lens quality but the new technology, which actually is also cheaper. Maybe they could make the new system backward compatible like Canon and Nikon did but with the possibility of buying new digital lenses. This because to me it is a bit hard to understand how is it possible that you buy a wonderful Zeiss lens at 300 US$ less than the Leitz lens and Sony give you a full frame camera for free! 
(Yep, I am thinking RX1.)
GLF
(Yep, I am thinking RX1.)GLF
rlouzan
Well-known
Sometimes I wonder why Ansel Adams carried a heavy tripod and view camera .
.jody36
Well-known
I agree with bill.
icebear
Veteran
Hello Bill,
Leica M was never coming cheap. Nor will it ever be coming cheap. It is a top notch mechanical (since digital also opto-electronic) niche product. Quality has a price and small scale production with a lot of precision manual assembly by skilled workers doesn't help to make it cheaper. That's the Leica part.
To the consumer part:
It's just a matter of priorities in your life. Do you buy a new car every 2 or 3 years or do you drive around in a 12 year plus Camry that you bought used 8 years ago?
Since very few people make old fashioned largely manual photography a priority in their lives, they will not shell out money for a new Leica digital body. This is just the way it is.
How the marketing is perceived by folks with other priorities or how the target group ("poor" dentists & lawyers
) is seen by someone who would like to use an M9 or a MM is often topic of heated debate. For me it's just a matter of priorities and to preserve important moments can be done a LOT cheaper.
Any $200 P&S with scene mode can do this nowadays.
Kwesi
Well-known
Hi Bill, Thank you for starting this thread. I would like to make the observation that agreeing with Bill does not automatically mean that we are bashing Leica. There are those of us who became photographers through the use of film M bodies and lenses and hit the streets after looking through books by Friedlander, and so many others. We all owe a visual debt to Leica. We also owe it to ourselves to point out the fact that today's Leica has drawn its line in the sand and decided to become an unabashed luxury brand. It has placed itself out of reach of most serious students. I hope Fuji and others continue to step in and fill the void.
icebear
Veteran
As a serious student he or she should be serious about photography and not about gear.
The result does not depend on the type of tool being used.
Personal pleasure or preference using a certain type of tool is a different matter.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Nikon and Canon's top of the line pro bodies are about the same price as the Leica digital bodies. $7000-$8000. The difference is that Nikon and Canon sell, alongside the top-priced pro bodies, cheaper bodies like the Canon 5DmkIII that have basically the same sensor as the high-end bodies (same image quality) in a less fully featured body for people who need the high-end image quality but cannot afford a $7000 camera.
The lenses, too, are a lot less for Canon and Nikon.
Kwesi
Well-known
I agree. An M-E with a typ 240 sensor but no live view would be a welcome addition to the M line
mgilbuena
San Francisco Bay Area
Don't know about the rest of the folks here, but I have many personal photographic favorites that:
1> Are not in focus
2> Bear excessive grain due to push processing
3> Have motion blur
4> Use "inferior" optics
At the day's end, there are only several types of photographs that I expect to have sharp focus, zero grain and perfect optics: photos from space, landscapes and headshots.
For everything else, I believe the ability to stop a moment sans motion blur to be unnatural for the human experience. We do not possess the ability to recall things with absolute detail. I believe a photograph with so-called imperfections more closely aligns with my human experience.
I still want a digital sensor in the form of a film roll. It is important for the future of this planet to make as many reusable tools as possible; a walk through any flea market will have an astounding display of obsolete digital cameras that will probably never be resurrected and used again unlike film bodies.
If only manufacturers can work together to make the electronics replaceable without discarding the whole body -- this would be a positive step in making our consumer culture more environmentally friendly.
And please.. I really, really would welcome a digital film roll.
1> Are not in focus
2> Bear excessive grain due to push processing
3> Have motion blur
4> Use "inferior" optics
At the day's end, there are only several types of photographs that I expect to have sharp focus, zero grain and perfect optics: photos from space, landscapes and headshots.
For everything else, I believe the ability to stop a moment sans motion blur to be unnatural for the human experience. We do not possess the ability to recall things with absolute detail. I believe a photograph with so-called imperfections more closely aligns with my human experience.
I still want a digital sensor in the form of a film roll. It is important for the future of this planet to make as many reusable tools as possible; a walk through any flea market will have an astounding display of obsolete digital cameras that will probably never be resurrected and used again unlike film bodies.
If only manufacturers can work together to make the electronics replaceable without discarding the whole body -- this would be a positive step in making our consumer culture more environmentally friendly.
And please.. I really, really would welcome a digital film roll.
Pablito
coco frío
I agree, but I'm not particularly saddened. Folks today are just using the cameras they feel are best suited for the job; those are rarely Leicas. I have no sentimentality for the hardware, even though I used Leicas for many years.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Does it have to be digital M ??
Surprisingly, most young people are not snobbish about using film.
Most derisive comments came from older "all-knowing" category.
I just get a comment from a young student taking photo class in college, she said she started to get why people may enjoy film photography.
If she kept her part-time salary, she'll be able to afford a used but serviceable film M body in no time.
R
rpsawin
Guest
I found this article and it relates to the topic...
http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddes...2012/dec/28/leica-m-e-rangefinder-photography
http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddes...2012/dec/28/leica-m-e-rangefinder-photography
Richard G
Veteran
There are a lot of M9s out there in professional hands, sometimes the main work-horse, usually not. Some young people own them. There's the young lady at the Guardian and others who don't earn anything from photography. The cost of things is relative. Some people who really ought not to blow more than the cost of an M9 every few years on changing over their cars. To me the story of the last ten years in M mount is very nearly miraculous: the CV and Zeiss lenses and then the M8 and M9. Things have never been better.