raid
Dad Photographer
I could have switched to another camera system, but I am still staying with Leica. I will try to visit with the Leica CEO in the near future. I trust this company to provide us with excellent cameras and lenses.
______
Well-known
It's a good thing some of you people don't see it. Prices would be higher
Why would prices be higher?
______
Well-known
I think that many of us can switch to most any camera system we want but haven't because we like what we currently shoot, so I'm not sure what your point is. As has been pointed out by many, the high end Nikons and Canons are just as expensive as Leica, if not more so, and as much as you and the other Leica adherents would like to believe, it is not always about what one can and cannot afford. I hate to burst your bubble, but they are just not that exclusive, and not owning one (or more) is not evidence of blindness, penury, and jealousy.
I hope you enjoy your visit with Oliver Kaltner.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
What puzzles me is why it should jog the jealousy nerve on some people.
Those are the kind of people that agonize that they cannot afford a pair of Zai Spada for Antoine skis, a Trophy wife, or a Blancpain Millenium watch.
...
I would like to try out the other two as well, but no chance...
Try out a trophy wife?
What a thread! Personally I just used to go to Ken Hansen, and buy the Leica stuff that I needed.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
When Leica represented the zenith of contemporary camera technology, I think one could rightly argue they possessed good value for the money spent. When the M3 came out it was head and shoulders above the competition. Go back to the first post and read the author's observation about the matter.
Today their cameras, in some ways, are still exceptional, but they're now niche products - they're not really at the top of the pyramid in the same way the M3 was when it appeared, or the III was when it appeared. And in relative terms they're also more expensive. So the value for money isn't there in the way it had been.
Given Leica's reputation and perceived brand was built by those cameras, and their current products still trade on them (well the branding and marketing anyway) I can see how people who see Leica in that light, as the best, the most serious, might feel the current crop doesn't quite live up, or worse is trading too heavily on manufactured nostalgia and poseur-appeal with things like pre-brassed special editions, etc.
Well that makes two of us. I have no idea what you are even talking about at this point, but no matter, I no longer own any Leica cameras.
Well you are the one that replied to me with irrelevant links, so I think the blame lies squarely on you for that.
Oddly, most of the bitching seems to be coming from the fanboys. I don't understand why other people not liking something should lead to such hostile reactions. I want to see these people shaking their fists at the people who don't like the same ice cream flavors they do, or soiling their pants when they see somebody bought a car that's a different color than their own. I find some of these more extreme responses rather perplexing.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Live up to what? The gadget go round most of the DSLR and mirrorless world is on? As I have pointed out I have shot with almost every kind of camera both professional and personally and I choose Leica M. I can shoot with anything because my work pays for it all so I can pick tools that actually work for me. To me I don't want or need all the automation and all the stuff that is on most other makers cameras. I am not alone. Leica gives me what I need to create and gets out of my way. So the innovation Leica is now showing is the fact they are creating digital cameras like the MM that you can't get anywhere else. Last I looked they were the only dedicated B&W digital rangefinder. You don't see any innovation in that?
______
Well-known
So, if you sold all of your DSLR stuff last year and are now using Leica stuff, it sounds like you have been on the gadget-go-round for a long time and are just currently riding the Leica horse.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
My cameras all had over 150K on each and I was going to have to invest in new gear. I will shoot with these camera until they die. No need for an upgrade.
My newest lens before I made the switch was purchased in 2008. I still have my Canon F-1s and shot with Hasselblad for a couple of decades. So I wouldn't say I'm on the gadget go round.
______
Well-known
No, I suppose like most photographers your trip on the gadget-go-round didn't begin until you switched to digital, and that, although you may have bought your last lens in 2008, there were a few different bodies involved between 2008 and 2015. Frankly, I'm glad you found Leica when you did. You missed the issues with the M8 and M9. Going with Leica should make life much simpler for you going forward.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Remember that sentence I wrote about them making exceptional, but niche, products?
I can't fault people for spending their money on something with a little more general appeal. But obviously, I'm crazy, and jealous, and need to try out a trophy wife.
daveleo
what?
There are more negative personal comments flying around here than there are comments addressing the topic.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Eh? Obviously you never heard about Contessa and Contax cameras, that were both more advanced and better built than the Leicas of the time...
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Actually I had my old F-1s since the late 1970s and I bought both of my newer F-1s in 1983. Still have them. Had my 500 C/Ms for a couple of decades. One of my jobs supplied me with Nikon F-3s. Other jobs there were Leica's, large format Deardorff and Horsemans, Mamiya RB and RZs, Bronica's and many other cameras.
My clients pushed me into digital with my professional work and divorce, downsizing caused me to loose my home darkroom so I followed into digital with my personal work.
I bought new digital bodies in 2009 because the old ones all had well over 100K on them not because I wanted to. Started to experience issues that come with age. Never cared for any of them but needed them for work.
I do really like my Leica Ms though. They are the first digital cameras I have warmed up to. In fact I haven't liked cameras as much as I like my Leica Ms since getting my Hasselblads in the early 1980s.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Remember that sentence I wrote about them making exceptional, but niche, products?
I can't fault people for spending their money on something with a little more general appeal. But obviously, I'm crazy, and jealous, and need to try out a trophy wife.
I have never said any of that. Have I ever even once asked anyone what they shoot with? I really don't care what anyone else shoots with. To me what matters is what one can do with the tools as opposed to what tools they use. That's all that matters. If you get what matches your vision with Holgas rock on.
Marketing had nothing to do with why I bought Leica M.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Compare a 1954 Contax with a 1954 Leica M3, then tell me, with a straight face that the Contax is more advanced.
I suggest strongly, that people read posts before replying to them.
me said:
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Indeed -- I have no idea what you are saying, but at the time I did not realize it. It's all "pretended" to me.
No kidding -- but they are kind of vague and harmless for the most part.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It's pretty simple. I was asked by a forum member if I also commented in threads about special editions manufactured by companies other than Leica. Are you still following so far? I responded, asking if they would show me threads about special editions manufactured by companies other than Leica. Confused yet? You must be, because you then replied saying I should use google, and posted several links to sites which were neither threads on this forum, or even on any forum at all. And now you're trying to say it's my fault you responded to something you apparently didn't try to comprehend before responding. I can't help but think you're trolling here at this point if you still don't get it.
In review:
And then a string of posts from you about being confused.
Cheers.
user237428934
User deletion pending
You are not alone. You posted information about special models of other camera makers and the answers of the tunalegs member are really difficult to understand.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
The difference between an M240/262/-P etc and a 1DXII or a D5 is in their capabilities. Comparing the two based on professional work flow for 95% of the working professionals who make 100% of their income off photography will show that the CaNikon offerings are light years ahead of the M series cameras in every way. This argument would be valid if the discussion was based on whether a wealthy amatuer of any experience level should buy one or the other and doesn't make substantial income off of their photography work. Also, take into account the lenses. You can buy a handful of Canon L lenses or top end Nikon G lenses for the price of a 35mm Summilux.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I can tell you that I by far prefer the M 262 by far over any of the offerings by Nikon or Canon and I have been supporting my family with photography 100% for 3 decades now. I only shoot commercial/advertising no weddings or family portraits. I do not deal with the general public. Just finished an annual report shot entirely with Leica M digital. Also shot some 36 X 54 images for a large permanent display in one of my clients locations plus everything I have shot for clients for a bit over a year has been all Leica M.
Light years ahead? In all the bells and whistles maybe but those are things I don't want or need on a camera. I shot with 500C/Ms, large format and Canon F-1s, Nikon F-3s all manual, for a couple of decades and don't need or want most of the things that are so called light years ahead of Leica.
A great camera to me is a light tight box to hold light sensitive material. A lens to focus the image. A shutter to control the time the light is allowed to strike that light sensitive material. An aperture to control the amount of light allowed to strike that light sensitive material. And for me Leica is a design that gets out of my way and lets me create.
My MM is better in low light than a 5DII and in real applications my 262 is as good as a 5DII. That pretty much covers everything I shoot. And my 35 lux FLE was less expensive than my 200 2L and is a lot better glass than my 35L is. I also don't want or need auto focus, FPS, auto exposure and most of the things that are what many others look for in a camera. Nice to have a REAL alternative choice.
So if you like Nikon or Canon rock on. They are great cameras/tools for most but I never liked either of their digital offerings and have no regrets switching to Leica M. I do miss the service of CPS especially with the Itasca location.
Light years ahead? In all the bells and whistles maybe but those are things I don't want or need on a camera. I shot with 500C/Ms, large format and Canon F-1s, Nikon F-3s all manual, for a couple of decades and don't need or want most of the things that are so called light years ahead of Leica.
A great camera to me is a light tight box to hold light sensitive material. A lens to focus the image. A shutter to control the time the light is allowed to strike that light sensitive material. An aperture to control the amount of light allowed to strike that light sensitive material. And for me Leica is a design that gets out of my way and lets me create.
My MM is better in low light than a 5DII and in real applications my 262 is as good as a 5DII. That pretty much covers everything I shoot. And my 35 lux FLE was less expensive than my 200 2L and is a lot better glass than my 35L is. I also don't want or need auto focus, FPS, auto exposure and most of the things that are what many others look for in a camera. Nice to have a REAL alternative choice.
So if you like Nikon or Canon rock on. They are great cameras/tools for most but I never liked either of their digital offerings and have no regrets switching to Leica M. I do miss the service of CPS especially with the Itasca location.