Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Leica hasn't alienated me -- on the contrary, how cool is a company that makes digital cameras that only do B/W or have no LCD screen?
They cost more than I am willing to spend on any camera, but that's my attitude and not their fault.
They cost more than I am willing to spend on any camera, but that's my attitude and not their fault.
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
If we are talking about M mount Rangefinders, it is really a choice. as mentioned by many, photographers left RF to SLR back in the days. We see to some degrees DSLR users are moving to mirrorless today. Not sure Leica alienated them but rather photographers pick a different tools.
I swear by OVF but don't deny EVF where I can see the result without having to 'imagine it'. Call it lazy but it is effective. The current generation that grow up using cellphones will probably find EVF even more at home and who knows if they will do away with VF in the next 10/20 years when they are able to show on the back LCD in full color even in strong sun light.
back on topic, how many film rangefinder leica sells annually back in say 70's versus the digital ones they sell today? I think that will paint a better picture on whether they alienated anyone.
As far as price people out, that is subjective to individual. Leica has always been expensive, I don't think that's news. For some of my friend who gets a new cell phone every 6 months or someone who gets a new iphone every year, over the course of 6 years they could have bought a m9 or 2? But they dont think chasing that new cell phone tech is expensive... Or my friend who's into cars who buy and sell on craiglist then put work and money into parts, easily spend enough to buy a few M bodies and several lenses.
Like many have said, they all take pictures and you pick the camera you want to use and pay the price you think is fair for the tool. No point in criticize other people's choice or even justify your tool of choice versus theirs.
I swear by OVF but don't deny EVF where I can see the result without having to 'imagine it'. Call it lazy but it is effective. The current generation that grow up using cellphones will probably find EVF even more at home and who knows if they will do away with VF in the next 10/20 years when they are able to show on the back LCD in full color even in strong sun light.
back on topic, how many film rangefinder leica sells annually back in say 70's versus the digital ones they sell today? I think that will paint a better picture on whether they alienated anyone.
As far as price people out, that is subjective to individual. Leica has always been expensive, I don't think that's news. For some of my friend who gets a new cell phone every 6 months or someone who gets a new iphone every year, over the course of 6 years they could have bought a m9 or 2? But they dont think chasing that new cell phone tech is expensive... Or my friend who's into cars who buy and sell on craiglist then put work and money into parts, easily spend enough to buy a few M bodies and several lenses.
Like many have said, they all take pictures and you pick the camera you want to use and pay the price you think is fair for the tool. No point in criticize other people's choice or even justify your tool of choice versus theirs.
willie_901
Veteran
Practically all ....
pechelman
resu deretsiger
I always thought it was partly\mostly intentional of Leica to alienate people so as to keep up the appearance and brand recognition of being a "luxury camera" with "exclusive clientele". Whatever that means. Maybe Lenny Kravitz or Brad Pitt can fill us in 
That aside, I really dont care about any of that, nor even really the image quality (good or bad), and old tech. To me, growing up with other film rangefinders (yashica gsn, various medium formats, etc) and very recently getting back into photography with the digital "rangefinder" fuji's, did nothing more than reaffirm all I wanted was a real rangefinder.
Like any camera, the 240 has its quirks and shortcomings, but it certainly is a very fun and engaging camera to use, for me. When I go out for "results" shooting under pressure, such as going on a big trip with a tight schedule, I'll generally grab the fujis because of the WYSIWYG of the EVF's and generally faster operation, but when I go out to just enjoy the physical act of photography, there's no question in what I take. That's not to say I can't get results with the Leica, it just saves me a few seconds when I hit the play button on the back, change a setting I have assigned to a function key, or when I need to keep things lightweight.
Any digi camera will have a shortened lifespan compared to a film camera, and I really dont think that's a totally fair comparison. However, of all the companies\cameras out there, I might have the most confidence in being able to get a totally new sensor installed in my M240, in 15 years, than anything else out there. Granted it has had its share of issues, but it does sound like there will be a good amount of support for the M9 sensor for a digital camera thats now already 6+ years old. I really cant think of too many other things in the electronics\computing\hardware side of things that has that sort of support, certainly not even Apple feels the same way about their things.
That aside, I really dont care about any of that, nor even really the image quality (good or bad), and old tech. To me, growing up with other film rangefinders (yashica gsn, various medium formats, etc) and very recently getting back into photography with the digital "rangefinder" fuji's, did nothing more than reaffirm all I wanted was a real rangefinder.
Like any camera, the 240 has its quirks and shortcomings, but it certainly is a very fun and engaging camera to use, for me. When I go out for "results" shooting under pressure, such as going on a big trip with a tight schedule, I'll generally grab the fujis because of the WYSIWYG of the EVF's and generally faster operation, but when I go out to just enjoy the physical act of photography, there's no question in what I take. That's not to say I can't get results with the Leica, it just saves me a few seconds when I hit the play button on the back, change a setting I have assigned to a function key, or when I need to keep things lightweight.
Any digi camera will have a shortened lifespan compared to a film camera, and I really dont think that's a totally fair comparison. However, of all the companies\cameras out there, I might have the most confidence in being able to get a totally new sensor installed in my M240, in 15 years, than anything else out there. Granted it has had its share of issues, but it does sound like there will be a good amount of support for the M9 sensor for a digital camera thats now already 6+ years old. I really cant think of too many other things in the electronics\computing\hardware side of things that has that sort of support, certainly not even Apple feels the same way about their things.
willie_901
Veteran
Quite true if, and only if, one is seriously involved in computer gaming.
Otherwise this is an out-of-date conclusion.
mlu19
Established
+1 pechelman
Let's hope Leica would never start selling at Walmart.com like today's Apple. Leica is a status symbol to me, in history and now. We buy into the brand.
I'm still waiting for OP to define his term of 'photographers'.
Let's hope Leica would never start selling at Walmart.com like today's Apple. Leica is a status symbol to me, in history and now. We buy into the brand.
I'm still waiting for OP to define his term of 'photographers'.
lucasjld
Member
I do find alienating the other Leica cameras though, those compact rebranded cameras or Leica M special editions.
What the hell is Leica M Kravitz? Or that Panasonic stuff? Just like Hasselblad.
Also, comparing to a Rolex? It's "just" a watch.
Leica went digital. And in the digital world of photography, every year we have new ISO performance, megapixels, "backlight" stuff, processing etc.
What the hell is Leica M Kravitz? Or that Panasonic stuff? Just like Hasselblad.
Also, comparing to a Rolex? It's "just" a watch.
Leica went digital. And in the digital world of photography, every year we have new ISO performance, megapixels, "backlight" stuff, processing etc.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Leica can do whatever they feel is right for them and so can I. I don't see the problem.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Wait until you see rappers hangin Leicas around their necks in their videos...
Then you are really gonna see the prices skyrocket...hahaha!
Then you are really gonna see the prices skyrocket...hahaha!
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
That old Mac Pro is much slower than a new, inexpensive iMac. Things change fast. You have just not seen fast video on a 5k iMac.
You might be right about the PC laptop, the Mac only does not run old-fashioned inventory programs (used by small grocery stores and the like), many large businesses now have modern apps running on Apple iPads. Although a lot of those older PC apps, even at mom and pop stores are now on Windows tablets.
Hsg
who dares wins
The hardware inside a digital Leica camera and the software running it are the same as any other digital camera, the only difference is the outer shell.
Is the outer shell in a Leica really worth that extra money?
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
BlackXList
Well-known
In terms of the M platform, they're pretty much the only game in town, so they can almost operate how they like.
Although I'm curious to know what impact the Sony's have had.
But the M's aren't the only cameras they make, and with the other stuff, they do actually have to compete, and I don't really think they do. The Medium format stuff is being hassled by the likes of Pentax, and the Q (the only one I'm really interested in) comes in a couple of years after Sony's full frame compacts, and after the 28mm fanatics have bought Ricoh GRs (I know there's a sensor size difference, but there's also a £3500 difference too).
The M's cater to a specific group of people who choose to work that way. The rest of their range has to stack up against the stuff that photographers use to get the job done, and I don't think they do, even if only in terms of price.
Although I'm curious to know what impact the Sony's have had.
But the M's aren't the only cameras they make, and with the other stuff, they do actually have to compete, and I don't really think they do. The Medium format stuff is being hassled by the likes of Pentax, and the Q (the only one I'm really interested in) comes in a couple of years after Sony's full frame compacts, and after the 28mm fanatics have bought Ricoh GRs (I know there's a sensor size difference, but there's also a £3500 difference too).
The M's cater to a specific group of people who choose to work that way. The rest of their range has to stack up against the stuff that photographers use to get the job done, and I don't think they do, even if only in terms of price.
uhoh7
Veteran
The regard for Leica M cameras among professionals is quite high at the moment.
It doesn't mean they are suited to every task.
But the money factor is a doorway to all sorts of bizarre takes. I am a member over at Mflenses. You should have seen the furor when I bought a 28 cron and showed it to them a few years ago. But the truth is gradually sinking in. They still hate the prices, but no longer deny the quality.
It doesn't mean they are suited to every task.
But the money factor is a doorway to all sorts of bizarre takes. I am a member over at Mflenses. You should have seen the furor when I bought a 28 cron and showed it to them a few years ago. But the truth is gradually sinking in. They still hate the prices, but no longer deny the quality.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
As a hobbyist, my last new Leica camera purchase was in 1985 (M6 & 35 'cron v.4). Shortly thereafter, purchased a 90 Tele-Elmarit 'thin' at a local/regional department store with a photo dept. (crazy! I know) - the 90 was either $280 or $380. Since then, I've been retrograding: purchased used in mint condition - M2, Summaron, IIIf-RD, Summitar and various accessories, viewfinders. Couldn't be happier. Their new offerings are interesting but don't attract me much - but I wish them well.
They also make superb binos - glorious to look through. Purchased new in the '90's an 8x32 Trinovid and 10x25 BCA Trinovid. The 10's are great for concerts.
I still own all.
They also make superb binos - glorious to look through. Purchased new in the '90's an 8x32 Trinovid and 10x25 BCA Trinovid. The 10's are great for concerts.
I still own all.
David Murphy
Veteran
...........LOL!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' .........
awilder
Alan Wilder
I no longer shoot with Leica M after moving from film to digital. Looking back, besides initial ridiculously high cost outlay, my biggest gripe was that they needed more frequent routine servicing than I ever had to do non-Leica cameras. Insult to injury! Besides the added expense, turnaround wasn't exactly quick given the relatively few service techs I would trust to do the job right the first time. To fair, I did find their early SLRs like the SL to be rugged and reliable requiring no more service than my Nikons.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
It's all relevant - everything costs more these days. Why? the value of the dollar is in the toilet. Compare the price of a gallon of gasoline in 1967 to 2015. Like everything else, gasoline is a commodity; its price is an indicator of the relative value of the dollar (or whatever national currency you are looking at).
Regarding those who rage against Leica because of the cost of M lenses and bodies - do they rage against Ferrari because Ferrari automobiles are not being sold at the same price as Toyota Corollas?
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
It's all relevant - everything costs more these days. Why? the value of the dollar is in the toilet. Compare the price of a gallon of gasoline in 1967 to 2015. Like everything else, gasoline is a commodity; its price is an indicator of the relative value of the dollar (or whatever national currency you are looking at).
Regarding those who rage against Leica because of the cost of M lenses and bodies - do they rage against Ferrari because Ferrari automobiles are not being sold at the same price as Toyota Corollas?
1967 was the height of the "gas wars" in the US, I bought gas as low as 19 cents that year in the midwest, but the published averages were under 50 cents until the Arab Oil Embargo raised prices to 55 cents. Oil was about $12 a barrel.
At today's price of about $2.30 per gallon it is currently a bargain, it really should be about 2.50