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
giganova said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wasn't his family like filthy rich so that Bresson actually never had to work at all? I don't think he is such a good example ;)
 
giganova said:
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...
Click to expand...

Hi,

My turn to disagree. I wondered many years ago about price comparisons and searched long and hard for a job that hadn't changed over the years and so could be compared over the years. Eventually I decided that postmen were the only people with a job that hadn't changed.

So using my criteria a 1939 postman would have to spend 10 to 12 weeks' money before tax etc etc to get a Leica and that ain't cheap or affordable.

FWIW, doing the research I was told that a job as a postman was sought after in the 30's because of the T&C and a pension...

Regards, David
 
pgk said:
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?...
Click to expand...

That's the thing....

In the film era, you could pay the small premium for a Leica film body over something else and know that the "bite" might only happen perhaps once. The fact that the older digital bodies aren't being supported makes them a riskier 'investment' and throws that logic off.
 
kevin m said:
The fact that the older digital bodies aren't being supported makes them a riskier 'investment' and throws that logic off.
Click to expand...

That's for sure... but if you do get to use the digital body for a long time and you're prolific, you aren't paying for film.
 
photomoof said:
I am now getting old enough that people don't believe me about prices.

In 1970 I was offered $8000 a year for a full time teaching position at a prestigious university. At the time I was paying $100 a month for a 7 room apartment! The list goes on.

But I remember a Nikon F with a 50 was about $300, a Leica not much more, but thinking back, that was three month's rent.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I do know that feeling. I seldom use flash because I couldn't afford flash bulbs when I started and I was getting 6 or 7 pounds a week in a respectable, well paid job. And as for mortgage rates, I remember them hitting 12½% and then 15% for a month or two...

Regards, David
 
mlu19 said:
Which Leica digital cameras aren't being supported any more? M8?
Click to expand...


Depends on what you mean by support if you mean repairs that parts are available for or such things as a CLA then yes Leica still supports the M8 if you mean repairs requiring parts that are no longer available then possibly no.

Who here has sent an M8 into Leica to be repaired and been told a part was no longer available? Did Leica offer to sale you newer model at a lower cost since they couldn't repair your M8 or did they just tell you that you were out of luck?
 
For the OP, I don't believe Leica has alienated photographers. I think it makes certain things prohibitively expensive, but that is by design. A Ferrari has cachet because only so many of them are produced and only a small number can afford them.

So yes, many photographers are not buying Leicas and many are. I will never buy one but I wouldn't say it has alienated me :)


www.stillthrill.com
 
Filzkoeter said:
Wasn't his family like filthy rich so that Bresson actually never had to work at all? I don't think he is such a good example ;)
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. The fact that he had money at his disposal only means that matters of food, water, shelter, clothing and medical did not require his attention and efforts.

For Cartier-Bresson to hone his vision, develop his style, advance his photographic skills, get his work published and make a reputation for himself as a photographer required the same amount of effort as it did for any of his photographic peers of that era.

Some things simply cannot be bought with trust fund money.
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah, and no life... ;) Cameras aren't everything.
Click to expand...

But then neither is eating out, cable TV, new cars and going to bars. One man's treasure is another man's trash. I know a lot of photographers who drive beat up cars and own camera kits that are worth the cost of a new Toyota Camry. It all depends on what a person enjoys and wants in life.

Those who spend money on eating out, cable TV, new cars and going to bars have no room to be bitter over the fact that they don't own a Leica. If they would give up those things for a year or so and put the money towards a Leica, they would be able to afford one.

Unless you are a billionaire - and precious few of us are - you can't have everything that the endless platoons of marketing people say you can't live without.

JMHO.
 
noisycheese said:
I would have to disagree. The fact that he had money at his disposal only means that matters of food, water, shelter, clothing and medical did not require his attention and efforts.

For Cartier-Bresson to hone his vision, develop his style, advance his photographic skills, get his work published and make a reputation for himself as a photographer required the same amount of effort as it did for any of his photographic peers of that era.

Some things simply cannot be bought with trust fund money.
Click to expand...

Hi,

But - it's a big but - if he didn't have to work he'd have 8, 9 or 10 hours a day free to do what he liked. Even if he was a commercial photographer he'd still not be able to do what he wanted but would have to do what paid him...

Plus I vaguely recall he had a bloke developing and printing/enlarging for him. One less thing to worry about or learn.

Regards, David
 
leica alienating photographers because of price is as ludicrous as bugati alienating drivers. no one is entitled to anything. i happily use leica glass, but wouldnt buy a leica digital camera if it sold for the same price as a fuji. that is not because the companys 'philosophy' alienated me, its because i dont like that line of products. having been a participant on this forum for many years, i find the only thing 'alienating' about leica are the specific clique of end users who are obnoxiously myopic about the objective shortcomings of leica products. outside of that, the companys products, philosophy or pricing, how they market themselves or who they think of as their target consumer are all emotionally not relevent to me. they are what they are. i buy what i like when what i like comports with what i can afford. none of that is on anyone but me.
 
photomoof said:
What is this obsession a couple of the posters with not going out to restaurants and bars?

Not go to Max's Kansas City, The Odeon, The Racoon Lodge, Barnabus Rex, the Ocean Club, and Max Fish? And that is only one city!

Hoping to run into artists at the gym?
Click to expand...

Thing is a lot of time it isn't going out to eat at nice restaurants that eat up some peoples money its spending $5-10 each morning for a cup of coffee and pastry then another $7-15 each day for lunch which can add up to $200, $300 or more dollars a month.
So if you think about it one could still go out to eat at a very nice restaurant each week or a few times a month and still afford to buy a Leica digital M if they simply took coffee from home and brown bagged it for lunch each day.
The way I see it rather than thinking WOW I have to give up all these things to afford to own a digital M I think now if I just give up just 1 or 2 that really aren't that important to me then I'll be able to afford a digital M or maybe take a nice vacation some where each year.
 
Hi,

That's very true. Years ago I wondered where the money went when on holiday and so bought a walks book (long, thin accounts book) and noted every penny I spent and then studied it when I got home. I was amazed at how much went on nothing much. I guess it's useful to learn how things really are and then think them over and perhaps change a few...

Regards, David
 
bonatto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess it is about the same sacrifice to buy then and now, regardless of currency differences. The salary and so on was lower. Often only the dad in the family worked and so on. There are interviews with old Photographers talking about how expencive the Leica was. How HCB could afford one beeing a rich kid and so on. I may be wrong but a leica has never been "cheap".
 
Times have changed, for sure, and the dollar with it. Coming out of the Air Force in 1966, my starting pay as a technician at Boeing was $108/wk. My studio apartment was $89/mo, and Swanson TV dinners were 35¢.

Downtown Seattle, 1967 at Olympic Camera Center I bought a 1958 Leica M2 body for $150, still have it. For that body Olympic sold me a new v.1 35mm Summicron for $164.50. The next year I could afford a new 90mm Tele-Elmarit from the same store for $196. Still have these lenses too!

Those numbers seem low now, but multiply by 10 or so as I think the value of the dollar is down that much, or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom