Has Leica alienated photographers?

Has Leica alienated photographers?

  • Yes, I feel alienated by Leica's High Prices

    Votes: 170 38.1%

  • Maybe, sometimes yes, sometimes no

    Votes: 86 19.3%

  • No, I want Leica quality and that means Leica prices

    Votes: 122 27.4%

  • YES, I am alienated by Leica targeting bling marketing (late poll addition)

    Votes: 68 15.2%
  • Total voters
    446
I find Leicas to be fairly priced. The M line are limited production, unique cameras. There is no one else making rangefinder cameras anymore, so if you want one, you've got to pay the going rate. What's wrong with that, in the end?
 
oldwino: EXACTLY! Nothing wrong with this picture. Couldn't agree more. But in truth, I thought they were over-priced, too... until I looked seriously and found that I could get a film Leica and some Zeiss ZM lenses and even some Leica old glass and be perfectly happy, shoot some amazing pictures (to me at least) and satisfy myself. Did I drop some $'s? Compared to what? Sony, Canon, Nikon aren't exactly giving their good stuff away either. But if you choose wisely... you can find a way. And then you find another way... and first thing you know... you got all this stuff and have to start foisting it on others. Some hobbies are more expensive than others. Golf, sailing, tennis, hunting... etc. "You pays your money and you step up or you don't."
 
Compare the prices for the top-drawer Nikon or Canon cameras. You will find the same pricing. It is only the user preference. You get what you pay for. Cliché but also truism, no?

Cordialmente,

Mme, O.
 
c.poulton said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
Dear Christian,

YES!

There's a good piece in the Observer today about Magnum's 70th birthday and the relationship between art, reportage and money.

I really don't care what cameras other people use, as long as I like the pictures. In fact I don't really care about their pictures, either: I don't have to look at them, after all. There are some I just don't "get", like toy cameras, but why should I care about that? A few (a very few) good photographers are happy with them, and that's fine.

The people who annoy me are the ones who are constantly trying to ram their choices down your throat. It's rather like the old joke, "How do you tell if someone's a vegan? -- Don't worry, they'll tell you." Of course not all vegans are like that; nor are Leica users; nor are Diana/ Holga/ Lomo users. But the ones that are, can be pretty wearing.

The ones who annoy me even more are those who constantly whine and snivel about Leicas. All right. Either they don't like 'em or they can't afford 'em (though as you say, they are more affordable than most people think). Why do they think anyone cares? They're only bloody cameras, after all.

From Leicaphilia on my site:

... neither the uncritical Leicaphile nor the equally uncritical Leicaphobe can expect many people to agree with them. Fortunately there is a middle ground. It is this: if a Leica suits the way you work, it is a very nice camera. If it doesn't, it's a waste of money. Of course, you can say this about pretty much any other camera ever made.

Cheers,

R.
 
All my life I've used Nikons, mainly out of inertia, and I've built up a collection of Nikon rangefinders. I recently bought a Leica 4-P because it was there and used it for the first time on the weekend, photographing a Hare Krishna group. So much easier to rapidly focus and compose with the Leica. I may become a closet Leicaphile.
 
TerryMcC said:
. . . mainly out of inertia . . .
Click to expand...
Dear Terry,

I am firmly convinced that this accounts for almost 50% or so of the users of ANY marque. The other 50% or so are often such awful photographers that they are convinced that a new camera (better still, a new marque) will magically transform them into photographic geniuses.

Of course there is the remaining tiny percentage who try a new camera and recognize that it is ideal for them, as I did with Leicas in about 1969 and Nikons in about 1973, and you just have with the M4-P.

Cheers,

R.
 
Terry: As a new convert myself, I'd agree that RF focus is a snap compared to endless tweaks on a Sony with 5X and 12X magnification. That said, there are some downsides, but for me, the RF advantage WITH film is the whole way shooting becomes a mental exercise emphasizing the photographer's intention... 'cause if you don't have that baby, you got nothing.
 
I never know what to do with threads like this one. Making equivalences based on inflation only completely ignores the ways in which both photographic gear, the uses of photography, and consumer spending have changed in the last fifteen years or so (to say nothing of over the last 100), and not all those trends cut in the same direction. The Leica camera made in 1960 was not a disposable consumer good, as nearly all digital cameras are now designed to be. So you spent $X with the thought that that machine would be with you a good long while. I have had most of my M film bodies for decades at this point, and several of them had decades of service on 'em when I purchased them. I expect most of them to still be functioning when I shuffle off this mortal coil. So: Leica's core business model was one that was rooted squarely in the first third of the 20th century of building a high-quality mechanical device, designed to be purchased once, repaired periodically and kept in service indefinitely.

Now all cameras are designed to be replaced every three to five years (oversimplification for illustration purposes. If you are still hacking away with your D100, good for you, but you don't represent the general consumer. The "typical" camera is now a phone with a mayfly's half-life (to mix metaphors)), and thus Leica's original business model no longer works. So they had two choices: Raise prices on small numbers of units sold, or lower prices on massive numbers of units` sold. Or go out of business (third choice, I suppose). They were never (never) going to compete with even the smaller camera companies like Nikon for units sold. Yup. I said "smaller." Nikon's a pip-squeek compared to Canon, Sony or any of the koretsu with large numbers of affiliates. So, Leica built a luxury brand instead, or capitalized on their veblen-good reputation, in order to stay in business.

They didn't do it to hurt anyone's feelings, or to create "alienation" (if a camera company even has that particular super-power . . .). That's just a by-product of the fact that a $12,000 hobby-purchase is out of reach for most of us, and we don't like having our noses rubbed in it.

BTW: If you add all the money that you have spent on mobile phones, cameras, computers for image processing, and software over the past ten years, what number to you get (or in what range are you)? Just curious, as it seems like $12,000 might be in the ball park. Also now we have "service fees" (internet "service", Photoshop "service", phone "service" etc. etc.) that for many of us are no less baked-in to the cost of this hobby than the cost of film, paper and development was (although they are much lower).

Anybody feeling less alienated now? I am donning my asbestos skivvies and hiding under the desk with a box of cookies. Bottom line: don't look to a manufacturer of things to be the custodian of your "alienation" -- to steal a line: keep pressing that shutter button; it'll come unstuck.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I never know what to do with threads like this one. Making equivalences based on inflation only completely ignores the ways in which both photographic gear, the uses of photography, and consumer spending have changed in the last fifteen years or so (to say nothing of over the last 100), and not all those trends cut in the same direction. The Leica camera made in 1960 was not a disposable consumer good, as nearly all digital cameras are now designed to be. So you spent $X with the thought that that machine would be with you a good long while. I have had most of my M film bodies for decades at this point, and several of them had decades of service on 'em when I purchased them. I expect most of them to still be functioning when I shuffle off this mortal coil. So: Leica's core business model was one that was rooted squarely in the first third of the 20th century of building a high-quality mechanical device, designed to be purchased once, repaired periodically and kept in service indefinitely.

Now all cameras are designed to be replaced every three to five years (oversimplification for illustration purposes. If you are still hacking away with your D100, good for you, but you don't represent the general consumer. The "typical" camera is now a phone with a mayfly's half-life (to mix metaphors)), and thus Leica's original business model no longer works. So they had two choices: Raise prices on small numbers of units sold, or lower prices on massive numbers of units` sold. Or go out of business (third choice, I suppose). They were never (never) going to compete with even the smaller camera companies like Nikon for units sold. Yup. I said "smaller." Nikon's a pip-squeek compared to Canon, Sony or any of the koretsu with large numbers of affiliates. So, Leica built a luxury brand instead, or capitalized on their veblen-good reputation, in order to stay in business.

They didn't do it to hurt anyone's feelings, or to create "alienation" (if a camera company even has that particular super-power . . .). That's just a by-product of the fact that a $12,000 hobby-purchase is out of reach for most of us, and we don't like having our noses rubbed in it.

BTW: If you add all the money that you have spent on mobile phones, cameras, computers for image processing, and software over the past ten years, what number to you get (or in what range are you)? Just curious, as it seems like $12,000 might be in the ball park. Also now we have "service fees" (internet "service", Photoshop "service", phone "service" etc. etc.) that for many of us are no less baked-in to the cost of this hobby than the cost of film, paper and development was (although they are much lower).

Anybody feeling less alienated now? I am donning my asbestos skivvies and hiding under the desk with a box of cookies. Bottom line: don't look to a manufacturer of things to be the custodian of your "alienation" -- to steal a line: keep pressing that shutter button; it'll come unstuck.
Click to expand...

+1.

And the current three film M Leicas M7, MP and M-A are indeed very cheap cameras: Because you can use them for decades!!
If you take just a bit care of them, you can use them for 50, 60 or more years.
Outstanding value for money.
Outstanding price-performance ratio.
What you pay for them per year is simply negligible.

Cheers, Jan
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I never know what to do with threads like this one. Making equivalences based on inflation only completely ignores the ways in which both photographic gear, the uses of photography, and consumer spending have changed in the last fifteen years or so (to say nothing of over the last 100), and not all those trends cut in the same direction. The Leica camera made in 1960 was not a disposable consumer good, as nearly all digital cameras are now designed to be. So you spent $X with the thought that that machine would be with you a good long while. I have had most of my M film bodies for decades at this point, and several of them had decades of service on 'em when I purchased them. I expect most of them to still be functioning when I shuffle off this mortal coil. So: Leica's core business model was one that was rooted squarely in the first third of the 20th century of building a high-quality mechanical device, designed to be purchased once, repaired periodically and kept in service indefinitely.

Now all cameras are designed to be replaced every three to five years (oversimplification for illustration purposes. If you are still hacking away with your D100, good for you, but you don't represent the general consumer. The "typical" camera is now a phone with a mayfly's half-life (to mix metaphors)), and thus Leica's original business model no longer works. So they had two choices: Raise prices on small numbers of units sold, or lower prices on massive numbers of units` sold. Or go out of business (third choice, I suppose). They were never (never) going to compete with even the smaller camera companies like Nikon for units sold. Yup. I said "smaller." Nikon's a pip-squeek compared to Canon, Sony or any of the koretsu with large numbers of affiliates. So, Leica built a luxury brand instead, or capitalized on their veblen-good reputation, in order to stay in business.

They didn't do it to hurt anyone's feelings, or to create "alienation" (if a camera company even has that particular super-power . . .). That's just a by-product of the fact that a $12,000 hobby-purchase is out of reach for most of us, and we don't like having our noses rubbed in it.

BTW: If you add all the money that you have spent on mobile phones, cameras, computers for image processing, and software over the past ten years, what number to you get (or in what range are you)? Just curious, as it seems like $12,000 might be in the ball park. Also now we have "service fees" (internet "service", Photoshop "service", phone "service" etc. etc.) that for many of us are no less baked-in to the cost of this hobby than the cost of film, paper and development was (although they are much lower).

Anybody feeling less alienated now? I am donning my asbestos skivvies and hiding under the desk with a box of cookies. Bottom line: don't look to a manufacturer of things to be the custodian of your "alienation" -- to steal a line: keep pressing that shutter button; it'll come unstuck.
Click to expand...
Well said, Sir.
 
i think the alienation has more to with comparative costs of contemporaneous cameras and how that has changed over time, not so much how "photographic gear, the uses of photography, and consumer spending have changed in the last fifteen years or so." whereas once in the past, a nikon f and a leica m3 were about the same price, a nikon d810 and a leica m10 are now quite different. if nikon switched places with leica and was still making a digital camera that looked like the original f and cost $6.6k, while leica made a full frame fuji x-pro2, people would be alienated from nikon.

the decision to become a luxury brand has real economic and social implications, and it's valid to have grievances about how a corporation decided to stay in business. it's a question of access. in the film era, a street or documentary photographer had better access to rangefinder cameras, the ideal tool for such work. now, access to their digital equivalents is now worse, riddled with new compromises. this affects who works with the gear, which affects what photos get taken. these evolutionary changes will be clearer in retrospect, though the changes in the demographics of leica users are immediately apparent.
 
But are the more a luxury brand now when they are about the same price as the Nicanon 1DX Mk VI or whatever they are now? I said this earlier I remember when an M was double the price of a Nikon F or a Canon F-1.
 
aizan said:
the decision to become a luxury brand has real economic and social implications, and it's valid to have grievances about how a corporation decided to stay in business. it's a question of access.
Click to expand...

Hmm. This is a very different perspective than the one I have. I don't accept the premise that a small camera company's branding decision has economic or social implications of any magnitude.

I don't believe that it is valid to have a grievance against a corporation for the reasons at issue here. It is only valid to have a grievance against a company if they owe you a duty in the first place. So: do we all have a valid grievance against BP for spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico? Yes. We all live on one small planet and share certain of its common resources, so BP owes a duty to each of us to run its businesses in a way that doesn't ruin things for all. Do we have a valid grievance against a camera company because of a branding decision? I don't think so.

Or perhaps what you are saying is that one has a right to use particular photo equipment? . . . I don't want to set up a straw man here, but I just don't think that is so. One may have a desire, or an emotional attachment, for a particular thing. But the leap to a "right" that might give rise to the entitlement you suggest is difficult to see.

Part of my problem with your argument, aizen, is that I just can't imagine how the world would look if your points were actually correct. A camera company, or any company, can injure me with their pricing strategy? My reaction to that idea is that I am not that fragile. So no: not "valid," in the sense of being the basis for making any generally applicable rule or policy based on a potential consumer's emotional state. This isn't life-saving medicine. It is camera. And at the end of the day, very little rides on it.

[Edit: an interesting thought experiment occurred to me about your post aizen. If Leica called you up and offered to give you a free camera and lens, without changing their pricing strategy in any other way, would you still feel alienated? If your answer is, "no I would go out and shoot pictures," then I think that at the end of the day you would have to agree with my point. If your answer is, "I would never accept a free camera and lens from such alienating scoundrels," then I would concede that you had the courage of your convictions, but I would also call Leica and tell them that they could send the free kit to me, as I have no such scruples.]
 
Chris101 said:
A Nikon D5 and a Leica M10 cost about the same. Has Nikon alienated photographers?
Click to expand...

if you want to compare the leica m10 ($6600) to a nikon d5 ($5700) instead of the d810, which i think is more appropriate, consider the price of nikon f motor drives. the F250 250-exposure drive was $449.50 in 1962. does anyone know the original price of the F36?
 
I'm seeing $6496.95 for a Nikon D5. It is considered the flagship model for Nikon dslr cameras (and I would love to be able to afford one.) If we consider the M10 to be Leica's flagship M, it's about 100 bucks more. The M-P is about $400 more.

If we are gonna whine about the increasing cost of digital cameras in general, that's a different argument than Leica alienating folks with elite pricing and marketing.
 
Comparing Leica flagships with Canon/Nikon flagships as if it's like with like has to be the funniest thing I've read in a while.

If you need the RF experience, then Leica is the only game in town, I get that, the Stockholm Syndrome is what blows me away much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom