Has Leica alienated photographers?

[noisycheese]

Your premise is, with all due respect, incorrect. The closest equivalent to an M4 and 50mm Summicron would be an M-A ($4,195 at B&H) and 50mm Summicron ($2,195) for a total of $6,390. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's also a niche (film) product, which may account for the difference in price.

In addition, I do not understand where you get the $12,000 equivalent. An M Typ 240 will run you $6,595.00 at B&H. That, and the 50mm Summicron will run you $8,790.00, not $12,000. Unless, you are thinking of the latest 50mm Summicron APO, but that would not be equivalent, would it?

Comparing a 1969 M4 with the current M Typ 240 is akin to comparing a Nikon F (which in 1959 listed for $359.50 with a 50mm 2.0 Nikkor, today's equivalent $2,967.86) with a Nikon D5, which retails for $6,496.95 without a lens.

So, is Nikon also alienating photographers?

This whole whining about Leica prices has really gotten old. If you do not feel that the equipment represents good value at the asking price, then don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

Regards,


Antonio

Hear, Hear.

If you want a Leica but cannot afford it due to your current circumstances, make a way to afford it. We all have stuff that we really don't need or use regularly. That stuff? Sell it. Save the money for your Leica.

Still can't afford a Leica? Work some overtime or get a part time job. make an extra $150 a week and save it. In around 15 months, you can pay cash for your Leica and a lens for it.

If you want something badly enough to work and sacrifice for it, you can have it - even a Leica.

Just saying...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hear, Hear.

If you want a Leica but cannot afford it due to your current circumstances, make a way to afford it. We all have stuff that we really don't need or use regularly. That stuff? Sell it. Save the money for your Leica.

Still can't afford a Leica? Work some overtime or get a part time job. make an extra $150 a week and save it. In around 15 months, you can pay cash for your Leica and a lens for it.

If you want something badly enough to work and sacrifice for it, you can have it - even a Leica.

Just saying...

You don't have many poor friends, then? Or any who are old or sick or both, and don't know how they can even meet their regular monthy expenses, let alone luxuries?

There are lots of people who cannot afford Leicas no matter how hard they work, quite possibly because they can't get the work.

I completely agree that many people, perhaps most, could afford a Leica if they really wanted one, and that they waste their money on all kinds of other things (fitted kitchens, big-screen televisions, new(er) cars, iPhones...) but it is nonsensical and patronizing to suggest that everyone can "Work some overtime or get a part time job. make an extra $150 a week and save it". Many people are genuinely struggling and it is fairly nauseating that you cannot understand this.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I had to sell my Toyota Celica to get my 1st Leica M3 in 1988...I thought I was crazy then..but I wasn't..
But now..there are so many other options..unless you really need it..just get something else..
That's why they made Sony..

 

[zian]

Has Ferrari alienated drivers?
Has Rolex alienated watch wearers?
Are you alienated by objects you cannot afford?

This whole thread is just silly.
Just search "Leica" on this forum, how many photographers here are discussing and using Leica products.

Are Leica products expensive? Relatively, yes.

Are they worth their price? That's for every individual to decide on their own. The value of money and objects is personal and relative.

If you love photography, you find a way to support your hobby.

 

[flavio81]

Hear, Hear.

If you want a Leica but cannot afford it due to your current circumstances, make a way to afford it. We all have stuff that we really don't need or use regularly. That stuff? Sell it. Save the money for your Leica.

Still can't afford a Leica? Work some overtime or get a part time job. make an extra $150 a week and save it. In around 15 months, you can pay cash for your Leica and a lens for it.

If you want something badly enough to work and sacrifice for it, you can have it - even a Leica.

Just saying...

Somebody has read too much Ayn Rand...

 

[alan davus]

Has Ferrari alienated drivers?
Has Rolex alienated watch wearers?
Are you alienated by objects you cannot afford?

This whole thread is just silly.
Just search "Leica" on this forum, how many photographers here are discussing and using Leica products.

Are Leica products expensive? Relatively, yes.

Are they worth their price? That's for every individual to decide on their own. The value of money and objects is personal and relative.

If you love photography, you find a way to support your hobby.

Shame we haven't got a like button for your input above. I'll just say couldn't agree more... If you can't afford it or don't want it, why Pooh Pooh it for those who can and do.

 

[noisycheese]

You don't have many poor friends, then? Or any who are old or sick or both, and don't know how they can even meet their regular monthy expenses, let alone luxuries?

There are lots of people who cannot afford Leicas no matter how hard they work, quite possibly because they can't get the work.

I completely agree that many people, perhaps most, could afford a Leica if they really wanted one, and that they waste their money on all kinds of other things (fitted kitchens, big-screen televisions, new(er) cars, iPhones...) but it is nonsensical and patronizing to suggest that everyone can "Work some overtime or get a part time job. make an extra $150 a week and save it". Many people are genuinely struggling and it is fairly nauseating that you cannot understand this.

Cheers,

R.

First, please point out where I specified that my comments apply to "everyone" as you falsely assume that they do.

Next, you falsely assume that I have money to burn and that all of my friends do too. For the record, all of my friends and 95% or more of the people I know are middle class and/or working class. I know of a few rich people; I do not personally know nor do I rub elbows with that demographic.

Next, you falsely assume that I have never encountered financial or health adversity and that I have never struggled in this life; you would be wrong on both counts.

For the record, I am 59 years old; that's old in my book. I was an aircraft mechanic making $15/hour until the toxic chemicals at my workplace caused me to become afflicted with systemic sclerosis, AKA scleroderma. I was forced out of work because of scleroderma and I damn near died because of it.

After nearly three years of unsuccessful treatment and consulting multiple specialists from coast to coast, my doctors at Duke University wanted to do a stem cell transplant to save my life. The health insurance company dug in their heels and fought because it would have cost them in the neighborhood of $500,000-600,000 USD in 2016 dollars. They knew if they fought for just six weeks, I would no longer fit the profile to be included in the stem cell study. Bottom line: They didn't give a "fork" about whether I lived or died. All they cared about was money.

After that, I was able to get chemotherapy treatment (cytoxan) which saved my life. Every other treatment that I was given to that point did nothing. Due to the effects of rampant connective tissue growth throughout my body, I have had thirteen hand surgeries to try to save my fingers from being amputated, as happens to many scleroderma sufferers. Connective tissue builds up, strangles blood flow in the fingers, tissue dies, ulcers appear and if left untreated gangrene sets in. At that point, fingers must be amputated. A friend lost parts of all ten fingers and all of her toes due to this progression of the disease.

I was fortunate; I still have all my fingers, even though they no longer work. I have lost 90% or more of normal hand function but I can still manage to work my cameras and make images.

I suffer from chronic pain and chronic fatigue but consider myself fortunate, as I have stood by helplessly and watched three people from my scleroderma support group wither and die. One was a 30 year old mother who left behind a husband and a nine year old daughter. Those three people died; I survived. I am both fortunate and blessed.

With regard to my Leica kit - before I got my M-P Safari set I collected, bought, sold and traded cameras for over 23 years. The way I afforded my supposed arrogant rich man's camera was that I traded in two large Pelican cases full of Nikon cameras and lenses along with my 5x7 Deardorff and two lenses.

Today I am receiving disability payments from social security and have a fixed income, 1/3 of which I pay back to the U.S. government every April 15. If it were not for the fact that my wife has been fortunate enough to have a decent job, I would end up being just another homeless military veteran living on the streets - and with no supposed arrogant rich man's camera.

So - next time before you go making false assumptions about people you have never met - you might consider for a moment that you do not know all there is to know.

You might consider setting aside your closed minded worldview for just five minutes and actually engage in the process called thinking before you go shooting off your cake hole, spewing ignorant and judgemental false assumptions - thus revealing to the world your true inner ugliness.

Just a suggestion.

Cheers.,

n.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . traded in two large Pelican cases full of Nikon cameras and lenses along with my 5x7 Deardorff and two lenses. . . .

You might consider setting aside your closed minded worldview for just five minutes and actually engage in the process called thinking before you go shooting off your cake hole, spewing ignorant and judgemental false assumptions - thus revealing to the world your true inner ugliness.

Just a suggestion.

Cheers.,

n.

Dear N.

Para 1: Which of course all poor people can easily afford.

Subsequent paras: Re-read what you've written, in this post and the previous one, and ask yourself how much you have been "spewing ignorant and judgemental false assumptions - thus revealing to the world your true inner ugliness.

Just a suggestion."

Cheers,

R.

 

[noisycheese]

Dear N.

Para 1: Which of course all poor people can easily afford.

Subsequent paras: Re-read what you've written, in this post and the previous one, and ask yourself how much you have been "spewing ignorant and judgemental false assumptions - thus revealing to the world your true inner ugliness.

Just a suggestion."

Cheers,

R.

Para 1: Again, show me where I ever said that. Those are your words, sir. It is likely that there is not a person on this forum who does not have more than the truly poor. Does that make everyone who has more than another an inherently evil person? No. Did they steal what they have from the poor? In 99.999% of the cases,the answer is no. Is invoking the specter of poverty an impotent attempt at salvaging an already indefensible position? Yes.

Subsequent paras: in spite of your patronizing response, I have done nothing other than point out the indefensible nature of your comments, using nothing other than factual information - regardless of how inconvenient and distasteful those facts are to you at the present moment. Condescension is the final refuge of those who have not a leg to stand on. Just saying.

Cheers,

n.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Condescension is the final refuge of those who have not a leg to stand on. Just saying. . . .

Are you aware of Healey's First Law of Holes? It is: "When you are in a hole, stop digging." Adding "Just saying" is a further sign of the poverty of your arguments.

How, in your present circumstances, would YOU scrape together the money for a Leica?

Cheers,

R.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Somebody has read too much Ayn Rand...

"Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[97][98] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[99] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[100]"

The so called laissez-faire capitalism only has "initial objections" when subsidies are in sight...

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[97][98] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[99] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[100]"

The so called laissez-faire capitalism only has "initial objections" when subsidies are in sight...

They've not read enough about Ayn Rand, perhaps?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Emile de Leon]

If you cant afford a Rolls Royce...

 

[sepiareverb]

If you cant afford a Rolls Royce...

...blame the manufacturer for not making it out of plastic in China.

 

[noisycheese]

Are you aware of Healey's First Law of Holes? It is: "When you are in a hole, stop digging." Adding "Just saying" is a further sign of the poverty of your arguments.

How, in your present circumstances, would YOU scrape together the money for a Leica?

Cheers,

R.

Is grasping at straws the best you can come up with?

I'm done with you.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Another M-mount camera maker?

Another M-mount camera maker?

The Photo Rumor website has, for some time now been hinting about a CCD-based M-mount camera NOT made by Leica. I'd love to see this happen, just to generate some significant competition for Leica.

 

[Dogman]

I haven't read the previous posts although I skimmed over some of the responses. I understand that current Leica users can justify their use and that those who have never used Leicas will remain mystified. I'm pretty bewildered sometimes when I see a Panasonic compact camera selling for a huge premium based almost solely on sheetmetal changes and a "Leica" badging. There's no justification for that and, yes, it does (and should) alienate true photographers.

I loved using my Leicas when I used my Leicas. But those were film Leicas. Most photography today is digital and even digital Leicas have been relegated to the category of consumer electronics by continual improvements in technology. Essentially, that multi-thousand dollar Leica today is gonna be worth about nothing in practical terms within 10-15 years. Again, that is sort of alienating.

The bottom line is that I wish I could still afford Leicas because they were the best cameras I've ever used in the almost 45 years I've been a photographer. So maybe I'm more envious than alienated.

 

[Lord Lucan]

I would have voted but option is not there ,I mean a straight question about alienation. Yes or No
I would have voted as No.
Why? Because Leica is a commercial business name. Any business will not alienate customers. It would be suicidal.
I will not buy any product until I know I can afford,that goes for anything wether camera equipments or other items. And if I cant afford,I will not criticise the products market position.
There are other cameras and lenses rivaling Leica but,but...
with a leica there are less chances of variation in samples.
I also use Sony gear and there are no shortage of people complaing about noy just sony but canon,nikon etc ..that their lenses decentred or not put together precisely.
So at the end of the day,either you want it or not want it.

 

[Steve M.]

It's interesting that the thread has swung 'round (I won't say devolved) to Ann Rand and personal attacks on people on what is after all merely our opinions. Which goes back to my comment that Leica appeals mainly to rich folks w/ fragile egos that need them stoked, and when that gets pointed out, people sort of freak. There's also those people, irregardless of their income, who feel that owning a Leica makes them a pro or makes them a better photographer. Like owning a Ferrari makes someone a race driver. Sorry, buying a set of surgery tools does not make me a brain surgeon :]

It's OK, I have my own ego too. We all do. Mine just hasn't ever been about bling, or owning "the best" gear, because look at the photos that people like Edward Weston produced w/ decidedly "inferior" gear. So no, owning a Leica doesn't make anyone a better photographer, although lots of people are attached to that perspective. I once had a fair anoint of money and could have certainly bought a whole bunch of Leica cameras and lenses, but I didn't. Mostly I shot Nikons. They were well made and took great photos (although I did often shoot a Leica R 90 lens on them, but a Canon FD 85 or 135 was essentially as good).

I still say that today Leica is primarily a manufacturer of niche luxury goods and not necessarily a camera maker. That's fine, but it's not photography. No one on earth needs a Leica at any level in order to be a "pro", which is just a cool word for commercial photographer The old Leica cameras have a feel that is great because they were almost handmade and one got to appreciate handling a well designed tool, but that is a different story from Leica the camera company of today. They haven't alienated their customers (if anything, their shrewd marking to a very upscale market seems to be working quite well) but they seem to have alienated photographers.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

I'm not sure that they have alienated people (all right, when you think of it, I'm sure they have PO'd a lot of folks, sure). It's more a matter of Leica being irrelevant.

Their market is not photographers and hasn't been for a long time. They're a manufacturer of ultra high end luxury items that are all about status. The irony is that the build quality hasn't apparently suffered, but does any photographer NEED a Leica? Hardly, they need to be better photographers using the gear they have. Leica is all about selling the sizzle to people who think that an expensive camera will make them a better photographer. Anyone that thinks that is crazy, and yet, a lot of people are just that.

This is a generalization. but one that I trust is correct. Rich people tend to be highly insecure, which is why they need their egos constantly reinforced w/ expensive objects. The best house in the best neighborhood, the $200 hair cut, all that silliness. Owning a Leica is something that pushes the right buttons for them, and Leica, as all luxury goods makers totally understand, knows how to manipulate their customer's fragile egos. I remember getting an R3 once on eBay that came w/ it's own red velvet display case. What a stupid and distasteful thing that case was. I threw it away, and that's essentially what a Leica represents, and they know it. Something to show off and display to the common people.

It's interesting that the thread has swung 'round (I won't say devolved) to Ayn Rand and personal attacks on people on what is after all merely our opinions. Which goes back to my comment that Leica appeals mainly to rich folks w/ fragile egos that need them stoked, and when that gets pointed out, people sort of freak. There's also those people, irregardless of their income, who feel that owning a Leica makes them a pro or makes them a better photographer. Like owning a Ferrari makes someone a race driver. Sorry, buying a set of surgery tools does not make me a brain surgeon :]

It's OK, I have my own ego too. We all do. Mine just hasn't ever been about bling, or owning "the best" gear, because look at the photos that people like Edward Weston produced w/ decidedly "inferior" gear. So no, owning a Leica doesn't make anyone a better photographer, although lots of people are attached to that perspective. I once had a fair anoint of money and could have certainly bought a whole bunch of Leica cameras and lenses, but I didn't. Mostly I shot Nikons. They were well made and took great photos (although I did often shoot a Leica R 90 lens on them, but a Canon FD 85 or 135 was essentially as good).

I still say that today Leica is primarily a manufacturer of niche luxury goods and not necessarily a camera maker. That's fine, but it's not photography. No one on earth needs a Leica at any level in order to be a "pro", which is just a cool word for commercial photographer The old Leica cameras have a feel that is great because they were almost handmade and one got to appreciate handling a well designed tool, but that is a different story from Leica the camera company of today. They haven't alienated their customers (if anything, their shrewd marking to a very upscale market seems to be working quite well) but they seem to have alienated photographers.

Hm... I guess you're trying to express something like:

«The (US [140393406528]) tabloid reading ‹white trash› admires (US [140393406528]) ‹social climbers› even if it's not a secret that many of them are actually vile crap. The main difference between these two groups is: the ones, rich or super-rich (in many cases very recently), feel anxious about their low birth and are thus forced to show their affluence (‹conspicuous consumption›), while the others, poor as dirt since generations, dream of it.»

Or?