God's way of telling you that you have more money than common sense

[wolves3012]

I would have to visit your home, see what car you have purchased, what furniture you live with, what kind of architecture you live in, to understand why you think it is hideously ugly -- since I feel just the opposite. For all I know you live surrounded by objects I would find totally awful -- personally.

It is personal.

I have no car so you're stumped on that one and my tastes are eclectic. I ride a 31-year-old motorcycle, I use "old school" gadgets of various sorts but I also have up-to-date technology like a (relatively) new smartphone and my taste in the home is distinctly modern.

So, you might find it hard to make an assessment. However, we will have to disagree on the aesthetic appeal of this creation. As is often said, what a boring world it would be if our tastes were all the same.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

And mileycirusism, worried about that?

She's a Stalinist? 😱

 

[wolves3012]

What is Google?

( Response Sent Via US Postal Service )

A website that yields internet search results in return for whatever personal information it can glean, to be used (at least) to bombard you with targeted advertising for as long as possible.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Frankly if Leica was smart they would let Jony design a camera for the Apple store, and sell so many that the price would go from 7k to 3k, on all the digital bodies. Sell 20 million M cameras in a year and just watch the price drop. Continue to sell the Retro design in the Leica stores. Don't worry RFf Luddites, it will never happen.

I am far more interested in Leica's future -- than the idea that if Leica changes anything the world will end. . . .

Why not? We already have the ME. Why not the MA (M Apple)? An MA could be a camera that took an M-mount lens but was otherwise almost completely unergonomic and designed to sell (a) to hipsters and (b) to people who would put up a cheaper, nastier, less functional version of the ME. "Retro" is the wrong word. The key word is "functional". You could probably charge a modest premium (15-30%) for cameras that had usable controls.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Not at all. There are three separate arguments here, two logically unassailable and the third a matter of opinion.

First (and unassailable), merely because SOME derivative designs are good, it doesn't mean that ALL derivative designs are good. This is the classic omitted middle.

Which is why I said 'can' which means not necessarily.

You may not like this design, but it does have some innovative features but ultimately it is a prototype made to help people by the way of charity.

 

[BlackXList]

You might possibly too good a photographer -- to be wasting your time arguing on the side of the folks who have not figured out users are not supposed to turn it off, but put it to sleep and awaken it with the keyboard?

Steve just gave in on the iPhone because the press was out of control, and it cost him nothing. I have had two iPhone 4 phones, never an issue.

Thank you, I'll now shut up on the issue haha.

I do realize my tendency to get irritated by Apple products isn't one of my finest qualities.

The camera does raise one important quandary for it's eventual owner though, putting black tape on the red dot isn't going to make it stealthier

 

[Al Patterson]

Thank you, I'll now shut up on the issue haha.

I do realize my tendency to get irritated by Apple products isn't one of my finest qualities.

The camera does raise one important quandary for it's eventual owner though, putting black tape on the red dot isn't going to make it stealthier

I was wondering where one could acquire silver tape...

 

[Roger Hicks]

We have very different ideas about what is ergonomic. I spent a little time last week with an ME and was struck by how little I liked holding it. I did not find the software controls particularly functional -- I am so used to touch screens.

I guess I should have taken it home for a few days, might when I have more time to do it justice.

Obviously the Jony Ive design does not have Apple designed control software, bluetooth, or wifi, but the function appears to be standard ME, so I don't follow you. Hipsters buy film cameras.

Um... A shutter speed dial you have to poke and twist with the tip of your finger. We all know how quick, reliable and easy to use controls like that are, as compared with a simple, rotating, click-stopped dial. On a camera "cool" is the only excuse -- and to paraphrase Sir Terry Pratchett from memory, "cool" is one of those words used principally by those without enough brains to fill a tea spoon.

Hell, there are people on RFF who reckon that the oversize, hanging-over-the edge M5 dial is a vast improvement over the normal shutter speed dial. Would ANYONE pretend that the Ive speed dial is as good as either alternative?

To me. this is a perfect example of the kind of thing that gets "design" a bad name: taking a perfectly good product, and rendering it less usable in the name of an up-its-own-bum concept of "design" by coating it with an egocentric, brand-specific "design statement". The bloody red dot is bad enough, but it's modest perfection next to this.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

To me it's interesting that we are commenting on the design without any of us having our hands on the camera and putting a few films through it or taking some digital snaps. In my little world how the thing functions in use is a sign of good design. I've several thing that function well and yet look weird or even ugly to me but then I like symmetry. And I dislike USA spelling but that suggests to me that custom and familiarity are important.

FWIW, in terms of looking good and functioning well, the Olympus XA and XA2 take a lot of beating. I also like Davd Mellor cutlery in one or two designs...

Regards, David

 

[Photo_Smith]

"It's fer CHARIDEE" is not a universal get-out-of-jail-free card.

It's easy to imagine a "Charidee" auction that most of us would regard as immoral: selling the right, for example, to execute a (disputably) convicted criminal.

This is of course very different from anything of that kind. Even so, there must come a point when we say, "At what point is the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture even for charidee sufficiently disgusting that we voice our disapproval?"

Leica selling a camera for charity? No problem. Wonderful. Good on 'em. This travesty? Um...

ADDENDUM: Yes, it's got lots of paper/pixels/publicity. In that sense it's worked, whether we approve of it or not. This does not however mean we should shut down our critical faculties.

Cheers,

R.

I can't see what the link is between having two well known designers get together for a one off charity item and bidding for the right to convict a criminal or the shallow celebrity culture you so deride.

What makes this a 'disgusting travesty' as you put it?

I'm struggling to see the disgust, you're sounding like someone taking this way out of context.

The basic fact here is two well known industrial designers have given their time for free to design a camera, a known camera company will make a 'one off' for sale at auction for charity.

What is disgusting there? I can see many things worthy of disgust this is quite low of the disgustometer.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

What is disgusting there? I can see many things worthy of disgust this is quite low of the disgustometer.

I agree with you on that last statement. However, I think Roger is stating a general principle, that people who make a fuss about how much they're doing for charity, are rather tacky.

I've met a few very rich people over the years and some of them have given very large amounts to worthy causes. You wouldn't know it, though, because they either give anonymously or on condition that their, names aren't disclosed. I only know about it due to circumstances I can't disclose. To me, that's true charity.

Alexander Pope sums it up neatly: "Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame."

 

[Scrambler]

I'm suspicious that they won't have, but I still think that if this has a nearly free-spinning shutter dial the design would work. The recessed design would then stop you bumping it, but fingertip pressure would be enough to move it. And I presume that Leica have the shutter speed in the VF by now? (Just checked the manual - only in AE!?!) OK, so they would need a firmware upgrade to make a soft-touch dial more effective. But even so it would work if it was easy to change shutter speed with light pressure but had detents, something like a standard mouse wheel only horizontal.

Don't tell me nothing could be improved on the M3's ergonomics. I have sitting next to me a CLE, which has the same basic approach that the M5 does - an oversized shutter speed dial you can change with your right index finger. And I have a Hexar RF, with the shutter dial positioned for thumb adjustment. If the shutter dial on the LeicaPod an be moved with a fingertip alone, it will be more ergonomic than a standard M.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I can't see what the link is between having two well known designers get together for a one off charity item and bidding for the right to convict a criminal or the shallow celebrity culture you so deride.

What makes this a 'disgusting travesty' as you put it?

I'm struggling to see the disgust, you're sounding like someone taking this way out of context.

The basic fact here is two well known industrial designers have given their time for free to design a camera, a known camera company will make a 'one off' for sale at auction for charity.

What is disgusting there? I can see many things worthy of disgust this is quite low of the disgustometer.

Re-read what I wrote. The words "disgusting" and "travesty" were quite a long way apart, and referred to different things: ""At what point is the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture even for charidee sufficiently disgusting that we voice our disapproval?" The camera, I merely referred to as a travesty, not a disgusting one.

Sejanus.Aelianus has it right: it's a matter of principle, not of a camera that neither I nor anyone else here is likely to see, let alone to buy.

Addendum: for those who do not see what the principle is, and what I find disgusting, re-read the phrase "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".There is no need to say which things are more or less disgusting: merely that I find this disgusting. I could easily list a number of other things I find disgusting, several of which are related to the the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture, but I'd probably get thrown off the forum for stating forthright views about religion and politics.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Re-read what I wrote.

Addendum: for those who do not see what the principle is, and what I find disgusting, re-read the phrase "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".There is no need to say which things are more or less disgusting: merely that I find this disgusting. I could easily list a number of other things I find disgusting, several of which are related to the the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture, but I'd probably get thrown off the forum for stating forthright views about religion and politics.

Cheers,

R.

I read it many times and I feed your disgust un-warranted here. Famous people give to charity, that's not disgusting just tacky possibly.

People's overtly hostile reaction to the media circus surrounding this are certainly illuminating. I feel it's Jony Ive's links with Apple people are more disgusted with than this being a matter related to shallow 'celebrity culture' which this plainly isn't.
I think Miley Cyrus ebaying her old film camera is far worse than this.

Leica has often during its history released expensive models, famous designers and yes, even celebrities have donated to auctions for charity.

I find neither disgusting, mildly irritating or tacky sure disgusting I reserve for far worse thing that really effect peoples lives like chemical weapons.

If you want to spend lots of your time with those feelings of disgust pour them into something positive.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I read it many times and I feed your disgust isn't warranted here, Famous people give to charity, that's not disgusting just tacky possibly.

People's overt reactions to the media circus are certainly illuminating and I feel it's Jony Ive's links with Apple people are more disgusted with than this being a matter related to shallow 'celebrity culture' which this plainly isn't.
I think Miley Cyrus ebaying her old film camera is far worse than this.

You may have read it but you still haven't understood it. What I find disgusting is "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".

This is NOT the same thing as giving to charity, but depending on how you give to charity, you may still be playing a part in "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I respect the methods of Bill Gates much more than someone who transfers wealth in the dark.

...and I most definitely do not. Shall we agree to differ on this?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I abhor secret wealth and secret deals and power by the wealthy which affect all of us.

On that point, I am in total agreement with you.

 

[Photo_Smith]

You may have read it but you still haven't understood it. What I find disgusting is "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".

This is NOT the same thing as giving to charity, but depending on how you give to charity, you may still be playing a part in "the perpetuation of shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture".

Cheers,

R.

I read it understood it very well thanks!!
Furthermore the point of my post (which you didn't read) i disagree, this is nothing to do with the perpetuation of hallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture. (as you put it)

This is different, this is about two well known industrial designers and a camera company producing a one off for charity, sometimes well know people or celebrities do this kind of thing-give their time for charity (remember live aid).

At worst it's just a little tacky, heart in right place with it doing public image no harm in giving–hardly warrants such a negative reaction as we've seen here.

To rail against the 'junk culture' or celebrity is an easy way out to explain how you feel about the more complex issues this raises.

 

[Scrambler]

A local land developer here has donated millions to cancer research. I know because they renamed the cancer institute after him and there is a billboard on every road in to my city that tells me he's done it.

To me, that's advertising, not charity. He gains nothing if it's done without publicity. Not "secretly," just without getting his name up in lights. Political donations are another beast entirely.

Bill and Melinda Gate's foundation does good work, but given that Bill was recently in Australia to speak with our government, I don't think the public nature of the work has prevented political influence.

Anyway, lets stop talking about Bill Gates and get back to discussing whether it's crass to buy a borderline functional electronic device where a portion of the profits will go to charity...

 

[Roger Hicks]

I read it understood it very well thanks!!
Furthermore the point of my post (which you didn't read) i disagree, this is nothing to do with the perpetuation of hallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture. (as you put it)

This is different, this is about two well known industrial designers and a camera company producing a one off for charity, sometimes well know people or celebrities do this kind of thing-give their time for charity (remember live aid).

At worst it's just a little tacky, heart in right place with it doing public image no harm in giving–hardly warrants such a negative reaction as we've seen here.

To rail against the 'junk culture' or celebrity is an easy way out to explain how you feel about the more complex issues this raises.

It's not really worth arguing any further, except perhaps to point out that if you simply dismiss my view as "easy", you are perhaps not thinking very hard yourself.

Cheers,

R.