Does quality beget snobbery?

steve garza said:
... I read threads from "snobbish" types who eschew the Leica because they can get performance almost as good from less expensive equipment ...
Click to expand...

If Leicas were demonstrably superior they would have remained the 35mm camera of choice for professional photographers. But the introduction of the Nikon F SLR in 1959 blew Leica away in that market. It was a design revolution with SLRs supplanting rangefinders among both pros and amateurs. Nikon bodies and Nikkor lenses were more than good enough for the pros, and much more versatile. Now Canon seems to be gaining on Nikon as the camera of choice for pros (in both film and digital cameras). Leicas are still of excellent quality and have undeniable mystique and appeal, but the company long ago lost the race in technological innovation and is struggling with a tiny customer base for its products. I view Leicas as very fine cameras ... just don't tell me they produce inherently better pictures than anything else out there.
 
doubs43 said:
Well, Joe, it could be that you're a guy on an unending quest for the perfect lens! Maybe the perfect outfit? I don't think you've found it yet! 😀

Walker
Click to expand...


dear lord walker, i hope that's not true!

choosing just one lens might put me over the edge, that might be true.

i am growing very fond of the look of the zm lenses. they are very sharp and give a clean image without being overly contrasty but more contrasty than the canon glass i was using before.

i am enjoying the 25 fov immensely but my head says that's too wide for an only lens. the 35 fov has been my main choice for a long time but i have learned to appreciate the 50 fov lately also and wonder if it's actually more versatile than the 35. the 90 i could live without but really like having it.

is there no hope for me walker?

joe
 
Oldprof said:
If Leicas were demonstrably superior they would have remained the 35mm camera of choice for professional photographers. But the introduction of the Nikon F SLR in 1959 blew Leica away in that market. It was a design revolution with SLRs supplanting rangefinders among both pros and amateurs. Nikon bodies and Nikkor lenses were more than good enough for the pros, and much more versatile. Now Canon seems to be gaining on Nikon as the camera of choice for pros (in both film and digital cameras). Leicas are still of excellent quality and have undeniable mystique and appeal, but the company long ago lost the race in technological innovation and is struggling with a tiny customer base for its products. I view Leicas as very fine cameras ... just don't tell me they produce inherently better pictures than anything else out there.
Click to expand...


But among RF's most would agree the Leica is superior in build quality, SLR's are like apples to oranges. I have both Leicas and Nikon F bodies, IMHO the Leica is better engineered compared to the F, though the F is almost bullet proof 🙂

Todd
 
Oldprof said:
If Leicas were demonstrably superior they would have remained the 35mm camera of choice for professional photographers.
Click to expand...
Careful, now: if good food were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the food of choice for professional food eaters.

If Macintosh were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the computer of choice for professional computer buyers.

If Platinum were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the metal of choice for metal professionals.

... I don't think I can agree with W-isms like that.

But back to the main question:

No. Quality does not beget "snobbery". Quality begets more quality.
 
back alley said:
dear lord walker, i hope that's not true!

choosing just one lens might put me over the edge, that might be true.

i am growing very fond of the look of the zm lenses. they are very sharp and give a clean image without being overly contrasty but more contrasty than the canon glass i was using before.

i am enjoying the 25 fov immensely but my head says that's too wide for an only lens. the 35 fov has been my main choice for a long time but i have learned to appreciate the 50 fov lately also and wonder if it's actually more versatile than the 35. the 90 i could live without but really like having it.

is there no hope for me walker?

joe
Click to expand...


Wellllll........ I dunno! 😀

I was, of course, teasing you about the number of different lenses you've bought and sold but the ZI may be exactly what you need. I like the description of sharp and gives a clear image without being overly contrasty. That's just what a lens should do so maybe you are there after all. But, don't ever let that 90mm go... that's one of the finest focal lengths you can possibly own. IMO, anyway. I also like 85mm, 100mm & 105mm...... all great focal lengths.

Walker
 
doubs43 said:
Snobbery is often the self-dilusional idea that others really care what you think. If you own a Leica and sneer at my Pentax, I don't really mind. If you own a Nikon and sneer at my Leica, I still don't care. You can sneer at my Prakticas too and I assure you I don't mind whatsoever.

BUT......... sneer at my mixed-breed dog and you'll have a problem! 😉

Walker
Click to expand...

A bit like Clint Eastwood's man with no name...

"Don't laugh at my mule."
 
There you go.....

There you go.....

Todd.Hanz said:
But among RF's most would agree the Leica is superior in build quality, SLR's are like apples to oranges. I have both Leicas and Nikon F bodies, IMHO the Leica is better engineered compared to the F, though the F is almost bullet proof 🙂

Todd
Click to expand...

You tell 'im Todd!!!!
 
Yes I think it does to some extent.

I have just decided not to use the Leica forum at photonet any more as there is a small minority of vocal members there (I must admit most are nice however) who I have found to have an agressive and uncivil attitude to anyone who "dares" to say anything they disagree with.

I have noticed quite a few incidents of flaming of the sort "What would YOU know I am more of an expert on Leica or on photography" or "Your photos are Cr#p and do not deserve to be on this site." Whether this is snobbery of the sort you asked about I am not sure, all I can say is that I find it unnecesssary and offensive - life is too short to have to suffer such people.
 
gabrielma said:
Careful, now: if good food were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the food of choice for professional food eaters.

If Macintosh were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the computer of choice for professional computer buyers.

If Platinum were demonstrably superior, it would have remained the metal of choice for metal professionals.

... I don't think I can agree with W-isms like that.

But back to the main question:

No. Quality does not beget "snobbery". Quality begets more quality.
Click to expand...

Go back to post #17 where Old Prof writes, " In cameras, cars, watches, and most other things I look for good quality, plus a good price-performance ratio." I think this is what Old Prof meant by "demonstrably superior".

What do you get for your money? Why does the Nikon F have titanium shutter curtains? Can you burn a hole in a Leica shutter curtain if you set it in the sun without a lens cap? Can you preview DOF with a Leica RF? Is it possible to knock a rangefinder out of calibration, shoot several rolls of film and later find out that all your photos are out of focus?

Just for grins I checked the MSRP on the following cameras published in the December 1968 annual camera review issue of Modern Photography.

Nikon F Photomic Tn (with built in meter) and 50mm f/1.4 $443
Leica M4 with 50mm f/1.4 Summilux $501

The M4 was only 13% more than the Nikon.


R.J.
 
Fedzilla_Bob said:
Oh for a time machine
Click to expand...

abduct.gif


You guys check out the camera stores while I go shopping for real estate in California.

jester.gif




R.J.
 
🙂 you think I would just go for a camera? No way man.

There's a girl I never said I'm sorry to and some stock that should have been sold, the funds moved to real estate in Northern VA.
 
Just to stir things up some more. I don't think it is so much the quality of the gear, I mean who doesn't want the best gear?

No it's not the quality of the gear, It's the size of your negatives that count 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob-F
Olive Repainted Leicas on eBay: How good is the paint job?
Replies
9
Views
524
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
Rogier
Does software make the difference?
Replies
6
Views
390
Jan makowski
J
C
Best Non-Leica LTM Rangefinder
Replies
12
Views
5K
wrs1145
wrs1145
L
Looking for a good vintage RF
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
santino
santino
lxforrest
Rewindpix Camera - sample photos
Replies
0
Views
306
lxforrest
lxforrest
Back
Top Bottom