Has Leica alienated photographers?

[jaapv]

Perhaps one might reverse that sentiment by saying that its sad for Leica that young ambitious photographers are not using their [digital] cameras due to cost and reliability.

Some are using them, and they turn out to be quite reliable. Especially the M240 is bomb-proof. Cost - yes, but the sad thing is that Leicas are not expensive, they just cost a lot of money, which is something quite different.

 

[Hsg]

Some are using them, and they turn out to be quite reliable. Especially the M240 is bomb-proof. Cost - yes, but the sad thing is that Leicas are not expensive, they just cost a lot of money, which is something quite different.

Investing $10,000 for a camera and lens combo is affordable to a very tiny group.

 

[jaapv]

True - especially as it is about the worst investment one can make.
However, for a professional photographer it is quite a different story as deductibility against taxes and writeoff are important.

 

[Hsg]

True - especially as it is about the worst investment one can make.
However, for a professional photographer it is quite a different story as deductibility against taxes and writeoff are important.

Its a good investment with historical backing. Most of top photographers of film era shot Leica and still do like Alex Webb.

 

[jaapv]

A film Leica perhaps - but an investment that is worth 50% in three years time does not appear to be the correct road to riches.

 

[Hsg]

A film Leica perhaps - but an investment that is worth 50% in three years time does not appear to be the correct road to riches.

Artists are not good with money. They follow their heart.

 

[jsrockit]

There is nothing better in this world than spending the money you make on something you love. Cameras are not investments for most of us, but they are a damn fine way to spend your cash... unless you don't like photography.

 

[RObert Budding]

No need for Leica these days, unless you need an item to show off and to complement your expensive watch, fountain pen, bag and suit. Or maybe if you wanna impress people so you can sell them overpriced workshops. It used to be pros that inspired the 'hobby photographer' to buy Leica, it's the overpriced-workshop folk these days. Pros have moved away, I feel.

Photography wise, there's loads of alternatives that deliver the image just as good or better, with more durability and at a better price. I've taken to DSLRs, none of my clients ask for Leica shots or Leica quality (since it is indistinguishable anyway) and if a camera breaks down, I can at least afford to pick up a replacement while it's in for repair.


If one isn't alienated, it's probably because there is spare money to burn and the pros' requirements don't matter all that much.

Titanium and Ostrich skin is amazing with the right outfit!

 

[ian_watts]

You do realise that you use a sensor to scan your film?

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or are missing the point entirely?:bang: IMO (and that of others, including world renowned film directors and cinematographers) there is a distinct difference in the tonality and basic character (look, whatever you want to call it) of scanned film compared with a 'pure' digital workflow. Do you think I'd bother if I didn't think there was a positive difference? It is not as if it is still 2005 and the only option for using a Leica M 'digitally' is to scan film. Frankly, I find it a bit of a pain in the whatsit but the results are worth the effort and I truly wish I hadn't spent so much time over the years using the various M digitals. And, as sjones, pointed out a few posts back, it is not as if the negs are only good for scanning – the option of a 'pure' optical wet print remains for as long as I keep them archived. Truly best of both worlds.

 

[MP Guy]

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?

Its more than just pricing.

http://jorgetorralba.com/2014/11/22/ground-control-to-leica-where-is-your-mojo/

I wrote the above before the SL or Q were announced so some updates will be needed.

 

[jaapv]

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or are missing the point entirely?:bang: IMO (and that of others, including world renowned film directors and cinematographers) there is a distinct difference in the tonality and basic character (look, whatever you want to call it) of scanned film compared with a 'pure' digital workflow. Do you think I'd bother if I didn't think there was a positive difference? It is not as if it is still 2005 and the only option for using a Leica M 'digitally' is to scan film. Frankly, I find it a bit of a pain in the whatsit but the results are worth the effort and I truly wish I hadn't spent so much time over the years using the various M digitals. And, as sjones, pointed out a few posts back, it is not as if the negs are only good for scanning – the option of a 'pure' optical wet print remains for as long as I keep them archived. Truly best of both worlds.

I don't think I'm missing the point. Quite a lot gets lost in the scanning process. I find both wet prints and fully digital captures preferable over the hybrid way - loss of micro and macro contrast, colour balance problems, grain aliasing, moire,it all comes with scanning. And I doubt whether cinematography is comparable to photographic prints.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think I'm missing the point. Quite a lot gets lost in the scanning process. I find both wet prints and fully digital captures preferable over the hybrid way - loss of micro and macro contrast, colour balance problems, grain aliasing, moire,it all comes with scanning. And I doubt whether cinematography is comparable to photographic prints.

Same here.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jaapv]

Totally OT, Roger. May I add this link as a comment on your new article regarding your tongue-in-cheek remarks on Artist's Statements?




http://www.artybollocks.com/#abg_full

 

[ian_watts]

I don't think I'm missing the point. Quite a lot gets lost in the scanning process. I find both wet prints and fully digital captures preferable over the hybrid way - loss of micro and macro contrast, colour balance problems, grain aliasing, moire,it all comes with scanning. And I doubt whether cinematography is comparable to photographic prints.

I think you are missing the point. That is that I (and others) prefer the look of scanned film (the "hybrid" process) to "fully digital". Whether fully optical is even better (or less compromised) is beside the point. If you are after a certain look, you cannot "just as well use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit" – it doesn't work like that.

And why isn't cinematography comparable – it is, after all, a "hybrid" process (when film is used as the initial capture medium)? If there wasn't something to be gained from starting the process with film (which is what I am saying), directors and DPs certainly wouldn't bother doing so.

 

[photomoof]

DPs certainly wouldn't bother doing so.

Even with the horrors of "grain aliasing?"

 

[Mudman]

I use the M8 professionally. Just covered the local elections with it last night. 28mm f2 on the M8, 70-200 on my D3. Made for a nice kit. I'm put off by the high prices because I can't afford them new. Same for Nikon. I just wait for the latest and greatest to roll of the shelf, and then buy the model or two older. Let someone else take the resale hit. The M9 is getting to the point where I can afford one for work, and it's very tempting.

 

[sjones]

...I (and others) prefer the look of scanned film (the "hybrid" process) to "fully digital". Whether fully optical is even better (or less compromised) is beside the point. If you are after a certain look, you cannot "just as well use a sensor in the first place and cut out the film bit" – it doesn't work like that...

Yeah, for my demands and expectations, a scanned negative picks up enough of the tonal characteristics and grain of the film that, despite whatever loss in comparison to a pure darkroom process, is still preferable over a digital camera’s output. Again, this is just a point in general with numerous exceptions here and there; and of course, it’s subjective.

Would I prefer a silver halide over a scanned negative on a computer monitor; absolutely…I’d prefer an inkjet over a monitor. But if I were to make inkjet prints, as I have done in the past, I would generally prefer a scanned negative as the source. It’s just a subtle preference, and one that in the greater scheme of things is unlikely to make or break a photo.

Reprints of older photography books are now incorporating scanned negatives, and I haven’t heard too much outrage or claims of horrifying image quality. Some might not like it, but again, this only underscores the subjectivity of it all.

The point being, and trying to keep on topic, is that I would not place a universal no or yes on scanning.

if one wants a Leica but cannot afford the digital variety, keeping the hybrid option open could possibly be a worthwhile thought for at least some people on this site; obviously not for others. For me, using an M2 provides other benefits outside the issue of image rendering, and I’m glad that I switched to film despite initial reservations.

Anyway, have yet to be repulsed by Nick Brandt’s hybrid process…

 

[honozooloo]

Granted, those ridiculous celebrity-endorsed brassed up cameras, Hermes leather-clad special editions, and boxed sets costing more than some new cars that Leica's been producing as of late are totally indefensible. Yes, some of Leica's products are shamelessly, obscenely overpriced status symbols.

But as far as the issue of the increase in price for Leica's "normal" gear goes, well...let's look at another camera brand as a frame of reference:

The original Nikon F retailed at $183 in 1963 if purchased with a standard prism and the 50mm f/2 lens. According to an online currency converter I found, that's $1,413 in today's dollars.

So, Nikon's latest and greatest in 1963 cost about $1400 in today's money. In comparison, Nikon's current rangetopping D4s with a 50mm 1.8 costs about $5700 ($5500 for the D4s, $200 or so for the 50). That's an increase in cost of almost exactly 4x.

To compare all of that to bonatto's original argument, if the M3 +50mm costs $4600 in today's money, and a modern equivalent M240 and 50mm costs about $12k, that means Leica's modern top of the line only costs 2.6x as much as it's top of the line circa 1969.

Yes, Leica's gear is expensive. Even in 1969, the M3 was comparatively expensive. What I found interesting about this is that while Leica's prices have only about tripled, it would appear that the "affordable" everyman's brand, Nikon, has quadrupled in price, relatively speaking.

I'm not saying that Leica's cameras and lenses aren't ridiculously expensive, and that the extreme cost isn't alienating, because hells yes I wouldn't blame anyone for a second if they told me they were "over" Leica as a brand and they cited cost as the reason. But...perhaps some of the stratospheric Leica prices are simply natural increases in cost that have come with technological advances and increased precision in manufacturing which have been adopted by ALL camera manufacturers. And hey, it would seem that companies like Nikon have actually increased the cost of their cameras even more dramatically in the last 40 years than Leica has. Consider the fact that most Japanese manufacturers' factories are not in first-world countries like Leica's are and the issue gets even more interesting once you start comparing things like the economies of scale at Nikon vs. Leica volumes of production, and the drastically lower overhead in Thailand vs. Germany.

 

[uhoh7]

I use the M8 professionally. Just covered the local elections with it last night. 28mm f2 on the M8, 70-200 on my D3. Made for a nice kit. I'm put off by the high prices because I can't afford them new. Same for Nikon. I just wait for the latest and greatest to roll of the shelf, and then buy the model or two older. Let someone else take the resale hit. The M9 is getting to the point where I can afford one for work, and it's very tempting.

There it is in a nutshell.

When the M8 and M9 first came out, there was some reason to cry. Only the RD-1 was an alternative. But today M9 is down to 2300ish, and M8 sometimes cheaper than M6. M240=3800.

People say the prices are too high new, and they are for me too, but Leica cannot meet demand as it is. I'm pretty sure there is alot more margin in the A7r2 than any Leica.

Sure, the M8 and M9 do not like ISO over 800. Neither do film cameras, and I don't hear much complaint about it. If you forget the pixel hype and study the ingredients of a nice digital file, the M8 and M9, for many, are very very nice.

Most importantly all the LTM and M lenses, except a very few, love those cameras. Bottomline: who complains about the price of a camera they don't want?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Granted, those ridiculous celebrity-endorsed brassed up cameras, Hermes leather-clad special editions, and boxed sets costing more than some new cars that Leica's been producing as of late are totally indefensible. Yes, some of Leica's products are shamelessly, obscenely overpriced status symbols.

But as far as the issue of the increase in price for Leica's "normal" gear goes, well...let's look at another camera brand as a frame of reference:

The original Nikon F retailed at $183 in 1963 if purchased with a standard prism and the 50mm f/2 lens. According to an online currency converter I found, that's $1,413 in today's dollars.

So, Nikon's latest and greatest in 1963 cost about $1400 in today's money. In comparison, Nikon's current rangetopping D4s with a 50mm 1.8 costs about $5700 ($5500 for the D4s, $200 or so for the 50). That's an increase in cost of almost exactly 4x.

To compare all of that to bonatto's original argument, if the M3 +50mm costs $4600 in today's money, and a modern equivalent M240 and 50mm costs about $12k, that means Leica's modern top of the line only costs 2.6x as much as it's top of the line circa 1969.

Yes, Leica's gear is expensive. Even in 1969, the M3 was comparatively expensive. What I found interesting about this is that while Leica's prices have only about tripled, it would appear that the "affordable" everyman's brand, Nikon, has quadrupled in price, relatively speaking.

I'm not saying that Leica's cameras and lenses aren't ridiculously expensive, and that the extreme cost isn't alienating, because hells yes I wouldn't blame anyone for a second if they told me they were "over" Leica as a brand and they cited cost as the reason. But...perhaps some of the stratospheric Leica prices are simply natural increases in cost that have come with technological advances and increased precision in manufacturing which have been adopted by ALL camera manufacturers. And hey, it would seem that companies like Nikon have actually increased the cost of their cameras even more dramatically in the last 40 years than Leica has. Consider the fact that most Japanese manufacturers' factories are not in first-world countries like Leica's are and the issue gets even more interesting once you start comparing things like the economies of scale at Nikon vs. Leica volumes of production, and the drastically lower overhead in Thailand vs. Germany.

While I completely agree with your price comparison arguments, I simply cannot understand the highlight. Against what or whom do these prices have to be defended?

As for "obscene", I'd say that buying another camera for the fun of it is significantly less "obscene" than buying a second home just for vacations when others are homeless, and a very great deal less "obscene" than currency trading.

You can dismiss this as "whataboutery" if you like (as in "What about..."), but obscenity is in the eye of the beholder, and in the grand scale of things, ten or twenty thousand on a fancy camera just doesn't look especially "obscene" to me. Silly, perhaps. More than I can afford, certainly. But "obscene"? Hardly.

Cheers,

R.