mlu19
Established
+1 on Kent's answer. If you're not a target, why feel alienated?
DougFord
on the good foot
Alienated?...never more than the day I learned that Leica would not be releasing a shoehorn.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Leica has always been a brand for the "top 10.000", for wealthy parts of society - or for some kinds of professionals who accepted the prices as part of the game. There is no doubt about that.
Some photographers bought Leica gear without being rich or professional. Those guys have saved their money for a while to fulfill their dream.
In former days a Leica has set you back for about the double amount of an average wage. Today, it's perhaps four times as much.
But the reason for that it that the wealth gap between rich and poor has widened considerably. Rich persons still can afford the Leica price. Just for the "regular" guy those items have moved far out of reach. You need much longer when you save for a Leica.
Now, has Leica alienated photographers? No.
They perhaps have alienated the average earner. But those have never been Leica's target group.
I have never bought any Leica item new. All the Leica things I own, I have bought used. And I was able to because the rich Leica fans buy new thing more often now and thus generate an affordable used gear market.
I cannot speak for all nations of the world, but I would hazard a guess that if you live in the U.S. and are in the middle or upper half of the middle class economic strata ( http://twocents.lifehacker.com/the-salary-required-to-be-middle-class-in-every-state-1695393156 ), you can probably afford a Leica, if you really want one and make it a priority. Priced at $5200 USD, the Leica M Typ 262 recently made that even more doable.
Many middle class people in the U.S. have motorcycles, power boats, extensive woodworking shops, ultralight aircraft, vintage cars, small private airplanes, RVs, four wheelers, etc. Anyone who has the ability to own any of these discretionary expenditure possessions could easily afford a Leica M and a lens or two - if that was their priority.
Being bitter at Leica because of the prices of their cameras is counterproductive; it is a waste of time. I like sports cars; I don't waste my time hating Lamborghini because I can't afford a http://www.lamborghini.com/en/models/veneno-roadster/overview/
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. In fact a lot of people could afford a Leica if they wanted one badly enough. It's the price of surprisingly few decent restaurant meals, for example. But a lot of people seem to think that in some strange way they deserve a Leica.
Cheers,
R.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think it's wrong to call literally anyone a poser if they actually use their camera with pleasure. Dentists included. Just because you don't like the personal style of somebody on the street doesn't mean that they aren't using their stuff in earnest.
As somebody who is both an amateur and a Leica enthusiast, I have at least once sold all my gear because I felt as though I had too much money sunk into what, ultimately, is a hobby. I've got a middle-class salary, two teenage kids, and a limited amount of disposable income. But what happened was, I explored other options and found photography wasn't as much fun for me anymore. So I've returned to a small Leica kit.
Regardless of its past, or the historical makeup of its user base, Leica is, in today's camera market, unique. They are making something quite different from other manufacturers' products. Their stuff looks, feels, and operates differently from the norm, and so don't they benefit from the economies of scale that larger companies do. Their manufacturing largely takes place in a country where manufacturing is expensive, and I presume they sink more money into design than other firms.
They've also done more experimenting, iterating, and diversifying in the past decade than they have at any time in their history, and there's a case to be made that, just in the past few years, they've been more innovative than any other camera company.
There ought to be room in the world for a small electronics and optics firm that makes weird stuff in small numbers, for people with particular taste. The photography world would be more boring without them.
Agreed.
As somebody who is both an amateur and a Leica enthusiast, I have at least once sold all my gear because I felt as though I had too much money sunk into what, ultimately, is a hobby. I've got a middle-class salary, two teenage kids, and a limited amount of disposable income. But what happened was, I explored other options and found photography wasn't as much fun for me anymore. So I've returned to a small Leica kit.
Regardless of its past, or the historical makeup of its user base, Leica is, in today's camera market, unique. They are making something quite different from other manufacturers' products. Their stuff looks, feels, and operates differently from the norm, and so don't they benefit from the economies of scale that larger companies do. Their manufacturing largely takes place in a country where manufacturing is expensive, and I presume they sink more money into design than other firms.
They've also done more experimenting, iterating, and diversifying in the past decade than they have at any time in their history, and there's a case to be made that, just in the past few years, they've been more innovative than any other camera company.
There ought to be room in the world for a small electronics and optics firm that makes weird stuff in small numbers, for people with particular taste. The photography world would be more boring without them.
Agreed.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Absolutely.
And in fact photography in general is not expensive compared to say cycling. Really good bicycles have gone from $300 when I was first riding in the '70s to $5000 and up today, and many of us, who are serious about cycling, own several. Long cycling adventures cost for travel, clothes, food etc. And serious cycling is a cheap hobby, compared to say skiing, and don't even mention owning a sailboat.
But like Leica photography, one can buy an inexpensive bicycle for under $500 and have a lot of fun.
While it is seldom discussed as an option, owing a beater M3, and having framed prints occasionally made at a store like Adorama, is really very cheap, low commitment, and VERY enjoyable.
I have never pursued photography as a hobby, but have many friends who do. It is a real bargain, gets you out for exercise, encourages travel and exploration, produces images which are often meaningful to friends and family, and lets one debate on the RFF.
Owning a nice camera is a pleasure. Let's get real, Leica use is available at all levels of income.
furcafe
Veteran
Moreover, the USD has been relatively strong against the Euro recently & folks in the U.S. can pay significantly less by simply ordering from European retailers (I recently did this to save on a M Monochrom).
Of course, this doesn't make up for the price difference between Leica & the Japanese brands, which is the main thing people are complaining about.
Of course, this doesn't make up for the price difference between Leica & the Japanese brands, which is the main thing people are complaining about.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Wanting a Leica is one thing. Deserving a Leica is another matter entirely.
At the end of the day, the reality of the situation is this: A person deserves a Leica if they can pay for it; if they can't, they don't. Self entitlement is irrelevant.
(By the way: I don't deserve the Lamborghini I made reference to in post 261 and I'm not butt-hurt about it
)
David Hughes
David Hughes
No!
I can't afford or, perhaps, justify spending the money on, a lot of things.
That doesn't mean I don't deserve them. Owning them isn't an honour, neither is being rich. Mostly they come about accidentally.
Regards, David
I can't afford or, perhaps, justify spending the money on, a lot of things.
That doesn't mean I don't deserve them. Owning them isn't an honour, neither is being rich. Mostly they come about accidentally.
Regards, David
pgk
Well-known
When both were in production (2006) a Canon 1DS Mk2 cost more than a Leica M8 new - compare the used prices today and you will find that, despite all its flaws, the M8 still retains a higher value (about double at least) than the Canon 1DS Mk2. Neither cameras are now fully supported by their manufacturers in that no rear screens are available for the M8 and many parts are unavailable for the 1DS2. Which represents better long term value? As far as I can tell this trend is continuing. Expensive is not merely a reflection of high initial cost. And Leica lenses do retain their value well (some even appreciate). Although not investments for the most part, well cared for Leica M equipment at least is no more expensive to own than many other manufacturers. As for their other digital products only time will tell, but they are more 'consumer' orientated and take the high depreciation of similar 'consumer' goods with a potentially similarly limited lifetime.
I don't understand this desire to discuss alienation. I simply don't buy things I don't like and don't go around complaining about them on forums on which they are featured.
I don't understand this desire to discuss alienation. I simply don't buy things I don't like and don't go around complaining about them on forums on which they are featured.
Mcary
Well-known
Once had another photographer who was using Canon gear and driving a H2 Hummer ask me how I could afford Leica....I replied that I saved up and bought used. Was think to myself, simple I don't own a vehicle that cost 50K
x-ray
Veteran
Take a look at this
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/census-poverty-income/
The median income in the US has stagnate for a few years and is now less than in 1999. The median for a family is just over $53,600. Try supporting a family on that. Your numbers are based on someone's opinion of what middle class is. These numbers are the average income for all families per the census bureau. Spend 10% or more of your families income on a toy, I don't think so.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
The very concept of anyone deserving a Leica is meaningless. So yes, it does mean that you don't deserve one, because nobody does.
Then again, the same would be true of any other camera for anyone except an utterly brilliant photographer who by common assent would benefit from a better camera because he/she would use it to create great art.
I completely agree about the role of accident/luck, though.
Cheers,
R.
Vics
Veteran
I was surprised to see a thread devoted to the tightness of the focusing ring on the APO Summicron 50mm. More than one owner chimed in.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
I do not live in a cave, I do not make fire. I eat as a civilized single man does in NYC, at restaurants.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Lucky for you, but that gets old!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First extract: precisely my point in my previous post. YOU are hooked in YOUR cultural BS -- a "culture" on which many can't even afford the kind of medical care you boasted about receiving, never mind a Leica.
Second extract: rubbish. Among you and your over-privileged friends, maybe (though I doubt it, even there).
You are making wild and worthless generalizations.
R.
giganova
Well-known
That's actually not true. A Leica body in 1928 cost $88 in the US, which is about $1,200 in today's 2015 Dollars. For may decades, regular people could afford a Leica if they had a regular job. Things changed after WWII when labor costs in Germany went up drastically and people could afford luxury items again. That's where Leica's sales strategy changed. Cartier-Bresson bought his first Leica in 1931, not because it was a luxury item but because it was the most practical camera he could find in a camera store in Marseille. Even being out of job (he recovered from backwater fever at that time), he could afford it.
giganova
Well-known
In your opinion, people like me who make their own fire on the stove in our little rented caves must be neanderthals. I'm sure Oskar Barnack, a working man, would say "No soup for you!"