Has Leica alienated photographers?

[raid]

It could be that the (new) China market for Leica allowed them or encouraged them to aim at ventures that have more to do with being a profitable company than being a cult company alone.

 

[rbsinto]

Leica appeals to everybody, but mostly to those who can afford them.

Please don't presume to speak for everyone.
In the 38 years that I have been photographing, I have never, ever had the slightest desire to own any Leica equipment, despite being able to afford it.
Whether or not they have alienated photographers is a question I am unable to answer, because I was, and still am basically indifferent to, and have no interest in, their equipment.

 

[photomoof]

Leica appeals to everybody, but mostly to those who can afford them.

As noted -- not to all of us. The black paint M6's I had were nice, but still did not hold a candle to a black paint Nikon S2. 🙂

 

[Contarama]

It could be that the (new) China market for Leica allowed them or encouraged them to aim at ventures that have more to do with being a profitable company than being a cult company alone.

a la Mercedes, Porsche, and BMW? 🙂

Luxury Goods. Swiss standard of living. We have made it!

 

[uhoh7]

As noted -- not to all of us. The black paint M6's I had were nice, but still did not hold a candle to a black paint Nikon S2. 🙂

I'm on a Nikon binge at the moment. I found a AIS EDIF 300/2.8 for 600 bucks and it is very very fun on the A7.mod. Handheld no problem. My best 200ish is the AIS 180/2.8 ED. I like the 55 micros alot, too. Now I have a AIS 500/4 on the way from japan.

But the famed 28/2 AIS I found dull and in general the leica glass, for me, is in another league entirely. From SEM 21 to APO 135, I never saw anything from Canikon I liked as much.

 

[lucasjld]

My first rangefinder was a Bessa R2M (i'm 24). Backpacked around Europe with it. Loved it.

I now work with weddings and always wanted a "digital Bessa". The only option: Leica M.
It is a bit annoying how "old" the sensor technology is, or how ****ty the M9 LCD is, but is the only company that makes the camera I want.

I sold my Sony A7s in Brazil (that I bought to use with my M-Mount lenses) and with not much more I got a used Leica M9-P. Couple months later I sold it in and bought a M240.

I just find obvious that any Leica camera now won't "last for decades". 10 years from now the A7S II ISO will be like "how ****ty is that?".

 

[Lss]

No need to declare absolute truths here, IMHO.

Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?

 

[Richard G]

To the OP: I think the answer is no.

 

[Michael Markey]

I just find obvious that any Leica camera now won't "last for decades".

Yes but for some reason people can`t seem to understand that and insist that the worth of a camera resides in its perceived longevity .

As regards cost ; the cost of running a horse in the UK is (at a minimum) 3-4 thousand pound a year or 5 to 6 thousand dollars.
That excludes tack and any vet fees.
I`ve excluded the cost of competing .

People pay that happily because they enjoy what they do.

For every well heeled owner there are those on min wage and some are on welfare.

A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.

I`m actually more curious as to why that should be so.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes but for some reason people can`t seem to understand that and insist that the worth of a camera resides in its perceived longevity .

As regards cost ; the cost of running a horse in the UK is (at a minimum) 3-4 thousand pound a year or 5 to 6 thousand dollars.
That excludes tack and any vet fees.
I`ve excluded the cost of competing .

People pay that happily because they enjoy what they do.

For every well heeled owner there are those on min wage and some are on welfare.

A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.

I`m actually more curious as to why that should be so.

Because I can't throw a saddle on my Leica?

Comparing my Leica to a horse makes as much sense as comparing it to my cats.

Comparing it to a Rolex watch is probably a bit more appropriate. If I spend the money for a Rolex and it keels over in 3 or 4 years then I believe I am entitled to feel cheated.

I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.

I am not rich, but for me it is not the money. I am spending that money for the reputation of robustness and longevity. I own an M3. I own an M-A. I own an M9. If Leica stays true to its heritage I should not have to replace any of them.

EDIT - Unless of course they are stolen or damaged beyond any hope of repair.

 

[Lss]

A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.

A lot of people complain about those costs. Mostly parents whose kids want a horse or at least to compete.

Horse meat is cheaper than beef, though. 😎

 

[:: Mark]

The price/performance/reliability for Leica is definitely not good compared to other contemporary cameras (and I do not see the point of inflation calculations - what matters is what alternatives are available today).

However, what is alienating to me is Leica's fixation on dubious special editions.

Leica's focus appears to be on fashionable repackaging of old or third party (Panasonic) technology in fancy boxes. This takes resource that could be used to improve functionality and reliability. I don't mean fancy video modes, but basic things such as the ability to re-calibrate the rangefinder without a service trip and providing a built-in diopter correction for the viewfinder (even my 35 year old Minolta XDs has this).

It is one thing to use an old quirky system, but if I am going to spend a lot of money on a new camera I want to put it in to a system where the manufacturer is focussed on making better cameras and lenses, and not distracted by 6-monthly releases of crocodile skinned pre-distressed fashion statements.

 

[Michael Markey]

Because I can't throw a saddle on my Leica?

Comparing my Leica to a horse makes as much sense as comparing it to my cats.

Comparing it to a Rolex watch is probably a bit more appropriate. If I spend the money for a Rolex and it keels over in 3 or 4 years then I believe I am entitled to feel cheated.

I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.

I am not rich, but for me it is not the money. I am spending that money for the reputation of robustness and longevity. I own an M3. I own an M-A. I own an M9. If Leica stays true to its heritage I should not have to replace any of them.

EDIT - Unless of course they are stolen or damaged beyond any hope of repair.

Yes ... agreed.
Perhaps not the best analogy .

Thinking about what you said I guess that the difference is that , I have never really bought into the longevity argument completely (if at all).

It was not a factor in my decision to buy the brand .

My only Leicas are a 1955 M3 and a 1960 M2.
Its remarkable that they are still ticking along after all this time but there is no expectation on my part that they will last for another fifty years.

They may well do but that`s not something I consider.

 

[photomoof]

I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.

Sadly I do believe Leica encouraged people to believe that by some mysterious magic they could ignore the reality of technology, and their Leica digital cameras would never become antique technology.

Fully digital equipment does not all wear out, in fact the fewer mechanical parts, the longer it may last. I have owned four iPhones, 3 iPods, none wore out. My original iPod from 2001 still works, it only has two moving parts. That digital Nikon you don't care about may last 30 years or more.

I have (until recently) owned Apple, SGI, and NeXT computers from the 80's, they all worked perfectly until I sold them all in 2003, when I moved my studio. Functioned exactly the same as the day they were new. But frankly compared to the newest Apple offerings they are ridiculously slow, and most were B&W, no color.

Leica may choose not to treat their cameras as disposable, but they will absolutely be eclipsed. Only the user can decide when they are "obsolete."

The computer that Berners-Lee at CERN used to "invent the internet" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpT3VVJbolM

Apple computer from 1976: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKiMPCRILpc

 

[David Murphy]

I was thinking today about the prices of Leica bodies and lenses today, and the amount of alternatives available that, when pixel comes to pixel, deliver the image.

In 1969, an M4 with a 35mm and 50mm sum micron set would set you back about $700. In today's dollars, about $4600.

The modern equivalent will cost you just under $12.000 at Adorama.

Leica relies today on a heritage built by working photographers of all different walks in order to sell what can only be understood as luxury products.

In doing so, I wonder if they've not completely alienated a generation of photographers who now turn to alternatives?

Interesting point, but I don't think Leica either alienated or particularly pleased any professional photographers then or now - maybe some amateurs. The de facto standard professional 35mm camera in 1969 was not the Leica M4, but the Nikon F (typically equipped with an eyelevel unmetered prism). A few less healed pros made do with Nikkormats or Pentax's. Most amateurs then wanted the F too (and many had to settle for a Nikkormat, which is why it was invented).

I don't know who the typical Leica buyer was in 1969, but I imagine he was typically a very well off person with very good taste - and perhaps even a decent photographer, but unlikely a working professional.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Let's not try to reason a simple opinion into extremes to prove its right or wrong, it's really not worth it. No need to declare absolute truths here, IMHO.

The question, as phrased, was "Has Leica alienated photographers", not "Has Leica alienated you personally."

As lss put it, "Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?

Hi,

To be fair/logical you'll have to specify the make and model of the fountain pen. Then we could compare it with a make and model(s) of Leica.

Point being we all know about Leicas as sold these days but the term "fountain pen" covers a multitude of sins; some cheap and practical and some not so cheap. As for the alternatives to fountain pens they are often dear and often don't always work straight away the second time you pick them up...

Regards, David

 

[Keith]

What other company has had the balls to produce a camera that costs close to ten grand and only shoots black and white!

Just sayin' ......... 😀

 

[David Hughes]

Why insulting? Wired just agreed with what everyone was saying, they were not in the least an original source.

We all got our information, and mis-information, from the press and interviews which to this day, seem self-serving on both sides. No way to know where the truth lies, and to top it off Lee never went to court.

This 2008 Wall Street Journal article has always seemed the most balanced to me. But it too, is not nuanced. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122152103387739231?mg=id-wsj

Why Lee was there at all, is the same question Steve Jobs must have wondered about John Scully.

Hmmmm, interesting, I wonder what his opinion of the Leica/Panasonic versions was... It really wound me up.

Regards, David

 

[jsrockit]

Leica may choose not to treat their cameras as disposable, but they will absolutely be eclipsed. Only the user can decide when they are "obsolete."

Truth in this for many things...