semi-ambivalent
Little to say
The explorative nature (and value) of art varies inversely with the quantity of money involved. This is partially why making art is still so human but the business of Art is devoid of almost everything human but ego. There are exceptions of course, but time alone will sort those out. Until then the gallery owners expect to dress in Chanel and drink Clicquot, and thank you for your purchase, you very wise person you.
And thank you for the link to the Twitter feed, seriously. It's nice to be reminded of how empty twitter is. People with little to say having people with little to say say something for them.
I'll have to re-watch The Truman Show,
s-a
Pete B
Well-known
I prefer to think that Leica has been on a development project that we can all contribute to SHOULD WE WISH TO. The M-P seems pretty well sorted and the Q is getting rave reviews. Many of those who bash Leica are those who'd like one but can't afford one and thus claim Leica users are elitist. Well, it's a pretty small company producing some industry leading equipment that costs a fortune to develop. I can't justify paying new prices but I can help those who do and wish to upgrade to the latest offerings by buying second hand. If you want a full frame digital rangefinder then you need to stump up the cash because it's a niche product. There may be the occasional lens that out performs a Leica lens but it will be a bigger lens. A Leica Q and a Leica M with a 50 lux asph or summicron is potentially a great setup and compact.
Pete
Pete
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
No, not at all. Believe it or not I do like to occasionally check up on things to see if I need to change my opinion of them. Not just for twitter either. It's quite possible to dislike things without permanently turning your back on them. In fact doing so does one a disservice. The world needs constant re-examination. That's why I still take pictures.Does someone have you chained to a desk forcing you to read twitter posts?
Regards,
s-a
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm old enough to remember when Leica M was more than double the price of top o the line Nicanons. Now the M and the top o the line Nicanons are about the same price. So I guess Leica has always alienated photographers but maybe Leica is less alienating now?
The problem being that Leica does not have a decent low end option vs. Nikon. It's not a problem IMO, but it is worth consideration for thrifty types.
Gregm61
Well-known
The cheapest Leica will ever get are the knock-off Panasonic made, Leica-branded digital cameras. If that doesn't do it for the thrifty/cheap George Costanzas among us, they're just going to have to "settle" for Nikon or Canon low-end, which definitely gets cheap enough.
Leica's never been interested in playing at that level. They've somehow managed to survive this long in their narrow market range, which is more than can be said for most German camera makers over the years.
Leica's never been interested in playing at that level. They've somehow managed to survive this long in their narrow market range, which is more than can be said for most German camera makers over the years.
Gregm61, I'm well aware of that. I was just pointing out that while it is fair to compare a high end Leica to a high end Nikon, it is also fair to note the other options available. And let's not fool ourselves... those Panasonics are not Leicas.
steveyork
Well-known
This has always been an issue with Leica even back many, many years ago.
Here's my little story for what it's worth (probably nothing): I shot Leica rangefinders exclusively from about 1997 to 2008. Even in Leica's dark days, circa. 2002-05, I upgraded much of my system to include many new items, including M7, MP, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 50mm Summilux ASPH, 90mm Elmarit. I mention this to show only that I was a real Leica junky.
Well, in circa 2008 I went on a nature trip that required an SLR. I just happened to select the Leicaflex series, and I used these cameras for the next several trips. What I found is that, even though I was using 70's optics, my pictures were so much better, and the picture taking process was so much more fun with the Leicaflex. It took a few years, but I eventually got rid of the rangefinder stuff. Fortunately I was able to pull most of my $$ out of the system. Since then I've tried a lot of different manual and/or mechanical cameras from other makers.
There was a real addictive quality to owning the smashing new Leica stuff, and the 50mm Summilux ASPH was one of the few lenses I ever used that had that 'whow' factor, but I would never, never, never buy new Leica stuff now for a film user. Too many nice alternatives at a fraction of the price.
BTW, today, for my rangefinder fix, I'm using a pair of Kiev rangefinders made in the 1950's. Very impressed, especially given the low, low, low, price.
Here's my little story for what it's worth (probably nothing): I shot Leica rangefinders exclusively from about 1997 to 2008. Even in Leica's dark days, circa. 2002-05, I upgraded much of my system to include many new items, including M7, MP, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 50mm Summilux ASPH, 90mm Elmarit. I mention this to show only that I was a real Leica junky.
Well, in circa 2008 I went on a nature trip that required an SLR. I just happened to select the Leicaflex series, and I used these cameras for the next several trips. What I found is that, even though I was using 70's optics, my pictures were so much better, and the picture taking process was so much more fun with the Leicaflex. It took a few years, but I eventually got rid of the rangefinder stuff. Fortunately I was able to pull most of my $$ out of the system. Since then I've tried a lot of different manual and/or mechanical cameras from other makers.
There was a real addictive quality to owning the smashing new Leica stuff, and the 50mm Summilux ASPH was one of the few lenses I ever used that had that 'whow' factor, but I would never, never, never buy new Leica stuff now for a film user. Too many nice alternatives at a fraction of the price.
BTW, today, for my rangefinder fix, I'm using a pair of Kiev rangefinders made in the 1950's. Very impressed, especially given the low, low, low, price.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Working photographers? Yes. With rare exceptions, I only know of working togs buying used Leica kit.
Art photographers? Seems to depend on if that is their primary income stream, or extra cash.
If it was just body prices, they are more or less on a parity. But when a basic 3 lens kit costs leica prices too, then it quickly moves into the "seriously? for a basic 50mm?" territory. Nevermind backup gear.
If your typical pathway to a photographer is the used market via castoffs from dentists, then you have alienated the photographer market.
Art photographers? Seems to depend on if that is their primary income stream, or extra cash.
If it was just body prices, they are more or less on a parity. But when a basic 3 lens kit costs leica prices too, then it quickly moves into the "seriously? for a basic 50mm?" territory. Nevermind backup gear.
If your typical pathway to a photographer is the used market via castoffs from dentists, then you have alienated the photographer market.
dave lackey
Veteran
Jeez, thrifty cheap low end wannabe?
I don't think I am alone in preferring Leica products for all sorts of reasons. Nor am I alone in not being able to afford them. I am not thrifty and I am not cheap, I learned my lessons. Preferences are as individual as every human in this life.
The truth is, if one wants something, he/she might be able to sacrifice enough and actually obtain that object. Maybe not. But Leica is what it is and costs what they charge for it. As a consumer I can choose from Nikon or any other product. Leica knows the competition and it is fierce. But they know their business pretty well I think. And ...
John is right, it is a fact that in general, consumers compare equally priced products and even perceived value of products. Leica does their own thing and why not?
As was common in the 70, we used to say, "Hey, too much, man, let it all hang out". Meaning be comfortable with yourself. Leica products are unique and we are lucky to have choices, even the used market.
Does Leica alienate photographers? Of course. But that is normal. I have no problem with it anymore. Call it self-enlightenment.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Surely, that's just another distribution channel?
My used Monochrom had 600 exposures made when I bought it.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Not for Leica it's not - they make no money on that sale. If the goal for Leica is to sell cameras to photographers, they failed if the photographer bought it used.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If we are going down the digital Panasonic route/diversion then I might as well add the mini and minilux series to the mix and, of course, the wonderful C3.
Out of that lot I fancy and have been using the mini 3 for some time; mostly because it's small and neat and the lens is great. The C3 is the next bargain up...
Regards, David
If we are going down the digital Panasonic route/diversion then I might as well add the mini and minilux series to the mix and, of course, the wonderful C3.
Out of that lot I fancy and have been using the mini 3 for some time; mostly because it's small and neat and the lens is great. The C3 is the next bargain up...
Regards, David
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Dentists don't cast off cameras, they hang on to them.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No they didn't. They have often stated that they regard the used market as their entry level. Many used-buyers will go on to buy new camera, lenses, etc.
Btw - Leica - nor any of the mainstream camera makers- regard professional photographers as their main customer target. There are relatively too few of them and they are not affluent enough. The main reason for catering to the professionals is marketing exposure.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
That's a post-hoc justification, not a marketing strategy.
And yet top of the line Canon and Nikon bodies (and lenses) are de-facto standards among most professionals. Even those who primarily use MF digital solutions, also have small format bodies. Leica, almost never. Now that we are fully into digital land, there is no reason for that to be the case. Leica has simply chosen to not give much of a ****.
That's fine. That's their prerogative, but we cannot argue that it is not clearly the decision they have made.
nikonosguy
Well-known
all my gear is used --- i shoot an m8... can't keep up with the cost factor
giganova
Well-known
The only difference is that now we can complain on the Internet and reach tens of thousands of people. Back in the 70/80s, I could only complain to my parents and my sister
The only difference is that now we can complain on the Internet and reach tens of thousands of people. Back in the 70/80s, I could only complain to my parents and my sister
Haha, too funny.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Has Porsche alienated drivers? If you can't answer that question, "yes," then you really have no basis to say that Leica has alienated photographers.
Dante
Dante