Has Leica alienated photographers?

[BlackXList]

I always say that you learn to see for the appropriate F/L. Having said that in all of my work in all he years I have been doing this 75 will cover the longest almost always. For many years with my DSLRs my longest was 85. In fact 60% maybe more I shoot with a 35mm lens.

Makes a lot of sense, thank you.

Personally it's very rare that I go beyond 100mm, but it was those outliers that I was curious about.

 

[BlackXList]

One other thought here is it the MM can't be compared to anything else made and for many, like me, a rangefinder best fits the way they see and work. I for one am glad they are a real alternatives to the one size fits all world of the cameras made by most today.

I'm a big guy 6'2" 250 lbs former Marine that lifted weights for a few decades (paying the price now ha Ha) and I have shot with large kits most of my career. 500 C/Ms and large format make most DSLRs seem small. I feel extremely liberated with the gear I now shoot with. BTW the M262 will give you images that compare to anything out there in a 135 format and I by far prefer the files I get from Leica cameras to both Nikon and Canon.

I have shot billboards, annual reports, all kinds of advertising with these cameras and being judged by other visual professionals so it's not like looking at 85kb compressed jpgs on a web site.

Value is using cameras that work with the way you work. To me thats value.
Maybe others compare cameras like they would a Chevy to a Ford and who has the most options. I tend to like the ones that have the least amount of stuff.

And that user experience that means a lot to you/the way you see and are comfortable working, is something that tips the scale in the value proposition towards Leica.

Like I said about the GR in another post, it's a camera that has a design credo of taking all but the essential out, and that's one of my favourite things about it. so I do get it, and there's something indescribable about a camera that feels like it gets out of the way when you're using it.

My whole "value proposition" argument is a balance of the cold hard specification, AND the user experience, and the weighting will be different for everyone.

For me personally, they're an absolute non starter, because they don't match up. I honestly don't think it's too much of a controversial statement to say that the number of working photographers using Leica vs other brands is much smaller.

The next question is "why?" and to me that's straight to the value proposition.

 

[BlackXList]

You make an interesting point which whilst it might appear on the surface to be valid needs significantly qualifying. I would suggest that its perceived value. Given that the very vast majority of people who own cameras probably rarely, if ever, use their cameras to their full capabilities much of the quibbling that goes on on camera forums is theoretical rather than actual. I've recently been able to play with a Sony A6000 which I have to say produces very nice images. In fact it probably produces images which would be genuinely acceptable to most (99+%) people.

So arguing over the alienation by high end camera manufacturers and values is pretty meaningless. If anyone is really, genuinely interested in image quality at the lowest price - ie real, absolute value - then there are far better alternatives than cameras at the higher end of the market. As it happens I use Leicas because I enjoy doing so and take better photographs with them as a result, and I see them as low depreciation gear. (I have made a living out of photography for the last 26 years as it happens too).

I suspect that threads like this have more to do with egos than actual alienation.....

That's part of what I was saying, value is a combination of personal values and financial value

the Leica Q is the only current product I'd be interested in.
My own personal take on it is....is it 8 times better than the GR? because I love what that camera does, it's phenomenally capable.
No, it's not, and therefore the value proposition is a non starter.

 

[BlackXList]

I was kind of hoping the airfrog would answer this.

I was tempted to say "walk." What I used to tell my students, who were on buying binges.

If an unusual project is planned by an art director equipment is often rented. I used to work in industrial film, where most of our projects used rental.

Hahaha I appreciate your answer, especially based on the fact that I'm absolutely horrible using zoom lenses, so I'm a strict adherent to the prime lens and walk school.

However we all know that focal length is not just about the reach of a lens, and given that RF's don't play well with long focal lengths, I was interested in how it was approached, because I'm always happy to learn.

 

[mpaniagua]

Geezwad = contraction of geezer (older in age, like myself) and wad of something or other

As in "I'm more of a tetched geezwad than a tetchy one, myself."

Translation: "I'm more touched than touchy", though I've been called both, and worse. Really.

I do like to make up words, like "jerknozzle".

I'm a writer - so take me to spelling court and sue.

Your responses are just more examples of why I post less and less on RF Forum. Say something fairly positive and you will be henpecked by sniffy would-be masters of nitpicking.

Laters, dude.

Sorry to heard you are a writer. Guaranty IS a perfectly correct word,while your makeup words isnt. To me, it sounds rude to correct someone out of ignorance, especially by someone that claims to be a writer, even worse if said person throws makeup words. Sorry butt your comments didnt sound positive at all.

Regards
Marcelo

 

[airfrogusmc]

And that user experience that means a lot to you/the way you see and are comfortable working, is something that tips the scale in the value proposition towards Leica.

Like I said about the GR in another post, it's a camera that has a design credo of taking all but the essential out, and that's one of my favourite things about it. so I do get it, and there's something indescribable about a camera that feels like it gets out of the way when you're using it.

My whole "value proposition" argument is a balance of the cold hard specification, AND the user experience, and the weighting will be different for everyone.

For me personally, they're an absolute non starter, because they don't match up. I honestly don't think it's too much of a controversial statement to say that the number of working photographers using Leica vs other brands is much smaller.

The next question is "why?" and to me that's straight to the value proposition.

I know that I do business differently, I see and work differently and I know Leica isn't the choice most pros make. To me that's a great thing.

In my opinion if you have cameras that do not match the way you see and work then you are not getting the work you are full capable of. Even though they might be inexpensive compared to others it's no bargain. Finding equipment that allows you to work at your fullest potential, no matter what the cost, is the real value. I am fortunate that my work pays for it all so I can buy and use exactly what I need. it just so happens to be Leica M at this point in time.

And did you want to know why I prefer Leica M? It's not all that complicated. First it's a true rangefinder. I like the way I can easily see and anticipate what is coming into the frame and leaving it and the camera is not blocking that process. After some time with one it helps in the intuitive nature of me seeing the moment. I also like the fact the shutter dial is on the top of the camera and the aperture ring in on the lens. I only shoot manual so it makes it easy and very effortless. Also I like lenses with really useful depth of field scales. They are very much an important part of the way I work. I also found focusing with a rangefinder to be rather effortless. The cameras are also smaller and a lot quieter that most DSLRs. Especially the ones in the Leica price bracket. The lenses are a fraction of the size of DSLR auto focus lenses and for the most part sharper and have a better overall look. Again that just depends on the lens but I am speaking in a generalization. The fact you can use almost the entire Leica lens library on one also is a plus. I shoot with Leica's that don't have video, a lot of automation, no EVF, because all of those things really, for me, defeat the reason for a rangefinder. If I were to shoot video for a client (which I wont) I would use a video camera and surely not a rangefinder. These reasons are all suggestive and many wouldn't pick a Leica for the very reasons I do. But the one thing that is for sure is if you need true digital rangefinder and especially one that only shoots B&W the options are limited to one.

 

[user237428934]

There is a distinction between guarantee and guaranty, look it up on the internet. But I'm a bit alienated by the language discussion here. A huge part of the forum is the group speaking EFL (english as foreign language). Do we really need the discussion that includes correction of spelling/grammar? Most of the time we know what others mean even with language mistakes.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

And it's guarantee, not guaranty.

Actually "guaranty" is correct if used as legal term or when referring to a document.

As tom.w.bn said, let's not go to word nitpicking, it is rude, this is an international site. International English in particular, should not be confused with native English, which is often out of sync with the more common international version.

 

[gb hill]

I don't believe Leica has alienated photographers at all. If you happen to be a photographer for Nat. Geo. Magnum, or the NFL you don't go buy a Canon Rebel XT. You pay a premium price for the best bodies, best & fastest lenses.

Leica is & always has been for most part geared toward artist like HCB, Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, Friedlander, & Ralph Gibson, just to name a vast few. If you want a Leica equivalent to a Canon Rebel you buy a Panasonic.

 

[zuiko85]

Well I feel alienated!
But I sent a letter.
"Dear Sirs;
Why don't you make a line of inexpensive lenses for all us po folks?"

They sent back a envelope with a bit of aluminum foil and a pin.

Now that's class.

 

[c.poulton]

...First it's a true rangefinder. I like the way I can easily see and anticipate what is coming into the frame and leaving it and the camera is not blocking that process. After some time with one it helps in the intuitive nature of me seeing the moment. I also like the fact the shutter dial is on the top of the camera and the aperture ring in on the lens. I only shoot manual so it makes it easy and very effortless. Also I like lenses with really useful depth of field scales. They are very much an important part of the way I work. I also found focusing with a rangefinder to be rather effortless. The cameras are also smaller and a lot quieter that most DSLRs. Especially the ones in the Leica price bracket. The lenses are a fraction of the size of DSLR auto focus lenses and for the most part sharper and have a better overall look. Again that just depends on the lens but I am speaking in a generalization. The fact you can use almost the entire Leica lens library on one also is a plus. I shoot with Leica's that don't have video, a lot of automation, no EVF, because all of those things really, for me, defeat the reason for a rangefinder. If I were to shoot video for a client (which I wont) I would use a video camera and surely not a rangefinder. These reasons are all suggestive and many wouldn't pick a Leica for the very reasons I do. But the one thing that is for sure is if you need true digital rangefinder and especially one that only shoots B&W the options are limited to one.

You've hit the nail on the head, at least for me, in why I use rangefinders, specifically Leica.

There is no way that I can afford any of the new Leica cameras, in fact I can't really afford any of the Leica cameras or lenses made in the last 50 years, BUT I can afford those cameras and lenses made earlier. So I currently own a IIIf and an M2 plus a small clutch of Leica lenses made in the early 1950's. (I also own a small selection of Voigtlander lenses, most obtained 2nd hand)

What am I trying to say? Well, I know that Leica is an expensive brand and unless I win the lottery I won't be buying anything new from them but that doesn't stop me from still owning and using Leica, it's just that I have to start from a lower rung so to speak. Leica don't alienate me as I've never been able to afford to buy new but I'm still a member of the 'club' even though I own equipment 60+ years old.

As for pro-use, I guess it all boils down to the right tool for the job to suit any particular photographers style. Each to their own. We shouldn't get worked up about this, really...

Regardless of what or however many special edition cameras Leica produces, we all know it's just to make them money, raise their profile and generate more sales of their regular line of cameras and lenses. It doesn't bother me. If it bothers others so much, well, there are many other camera manufacturers out there willing to sell to you....

Just my thoughts on this matter.

 

[BlackXList]

In my opinion if you have cameras that do not match the way you see and work then you are not getting the work you are full capable of. Even though they might be inexpensive compared to others it's no bargain. Finding equipment that allows you to work at your fullest potential, no matter what the cost, is the real value. I am fortunate that my work pays for it all so I can buy and use exactly what I need. it just so happens to be Leica M at this point in time.

This is the absolute heart of what I'm saying about the value proposition.

This emotional (not saying that in a negative way, just as opposed to purely technical) side of the equation is as important as the solely technical side.
I understand that, I feel that way about a number of things, even certain straps, they just work for me.

On a solely technical level, they are not competitive, and then you add in the difference between the likes of CPN Canon servicing (I haven't used Nikon's so I can't comment) and Leica servicing, and there's several strikes against them in the technical column

This sentence is the one that jumps out at me though, towards the crux of what I've been trying to get across

"I can buy and use exactly what I need. it just so happens to be Leica M at this point in time"

You've bought the tools to do the job the way you like to do it, in your case, and currently the rangefinder experience has at least as much value as any of the purely technical considerations. I completely support that, even in the phrasing though it's the correct tool to do the right job at the right time.

That's the crux of what I'm saying, and with no ill will whatsoever, Leica lag behind on the technical side, and that makes them less of an option to many photographers.

I'd like to see them competing, on the technical side as well as the user experience, and seeing what work people can do with them then.

 

[jaapv]

On a solely technical level, they are not competitive

Really? DXO has another opinion.:

Comparing the Leica SL with two rivals that are capable of delivering a similar-sized 16-bit TIFF file, the Sony A7 II and Nikon D750, the Leica performs very competitively.

 

[______]

On a solely technical level, they are not competitive

Really? DXO has another opinion.:

Comparing the Leica SL with two rivals that are capable of delivering a similar-sized 16-bit TIFF file, the Sony A7 II and Nikon D750, the Leica performs very competitively.

One would hope so. The Leica SL costs $7450; the Sony A7II and Nikon D750 are each under $1500. Talk about damning with faint praise.

 

[jaapv]

That is indeed a fact, but that is a matter of appreciation of the camera as a whole. I was responding to a false assertion. DXO is talking about sensor technology here.
In fact, comparing the graphs on the DXO site between the Nikon D810 and Leica SL is illuminating. Despite the MP difference the sensors are so close that it cannot make a real-world difference, which, I must admit, came as a surprise to me as well.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Leica-SL--Typ-601--versus-Nikon-D810___1058_963 (go to "measurements" and compare the five graphs)

 

[______]

That is indeed a fact, but that is a matter of appreciation of the camera as a whole. I was responding to a false assertion. DXO is talking about sensor technology here.

Well, if you derive comfort knowing your $7450 camera can hold its own with cameras costing $1500, your an easy man to please.

 

[airfrogusmc]

This is the absolute heart of what I'm saying about the value proposition.

This emotional (not saying that in a negative way, just as opposed to purely technical) side of the equation is as important as the solely technical side.
I understand that, I feel that way about a number of things, even certain straps, they just work for me.

On a solely technical level, they are not competitive, and then you add in the difference between the likes of CPN Canon servicing (I haven't used Nikon's so I can't comment) and Leica servicing, and there's several strikes against them in the technical column

This sentence is the one that jumps out at me though, towards the crux of what I've been trying to get across

"I can buy and use exactly what I need. it just so happens to be Leica M at this point in time"

You've bought the tools to do the job the way you like to do it, in your case, and currently the rangefinder experience has at least as much value as any of the purely technical considerations. I completely support that, even in the phrasing though it's the correct tool to do the right job at the right time.

That's the crux of what I'm saying, and with no ill will whatsoever, Leica lag behind on the technical side, and that makes them less of an option to many photographers.

I'd like to see them competing, on the technical side as well as the user experience, and seeing what work people can do with them then.

Well when you are talking B&W the old MM 18mp, because there is no color, is very comparable to a 36 MP camera. Ming Thein did a piece on that a few years back
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/27/leica-m-monochrom-vs-d800e/

And that's the original MM. The new one ever better if that's what you are looking for. I have no reason to upgrade because of all the stuff the new one has that I don't need or want and I find the original MM to be fully capable of handling all of my needs.

But to me that's all fine because anything over 18mps is plenty so then it gets to what best fits me.

Yes Leica's repair service here in the US is not good and something that Leica should seriously address. CPS is a great service. With them being local (Itasca) I would call and they would have loaner equipment waiting while I dropped off my repairs and the repairs would usually only take a couple of days.

 

[jaapv]

Well, if you derive comfort knowing your $7450 camera can hold its own with cameras costing $1500, your an easy man to please.

According to DXO those two cameras have the best 24 MP sensors on the market. What camera should it hold its own with then?
If a camera is just a sensor to you...
Put them side by side and you will see the price difference. If the total camera is of no interest to you, be happy and save thousands. :angel:

 

[BlackXList]

One would hope so. The Leica SL costs $7450; the Sony A7II and Nikon D750 are each under $1500. Talk about damning with faint praise.

And both cameras it's compared to are 2 years old by the time the SL came out.

So like I said then, they're at least a couple of years behind with each product.

And we're justifying the additional 5 grand by an oversized body (that Leica users tend to criticise in other cameras), and by getting rid of all the knobs and dials for a fancy interface, (which Leica users tend to criticise in other cameras...).

Yeah I can't be bothered with this nonsense being passed off as "appreciation for the camera as a whole" any more. Some people simply refuse to see what's in front of them.

airfrogmusic: I'm glad you've got what works for you, especially as I enjoy seeing your work with it.

 

[jaapv]

Be happy with your Sony or whatever. I don't grudge you your bliss. For me it is a decent backup camera, and the camera that I take on a daily basis is an M or Monochrom. I agree that the SL would not be my first choice, but for others it is. Happy New Year.:angel: