Has Leica alienated photographers?

[brennanphotoguy]

Lol, lets talk about those wait times and overall experience of *most* M9 users who have sent in their cameras for the replacement sensor. People are having 3-6 month wait times without loaner equipment or any correspondence. They were not ahead of anything with the sensor issue. In fact, when it first started happening they were charging people to fix the issue.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In this context, there is no such thing as "photographers". We are all different.

If they've alienated YOU, don't buy 'em. If they haven't, and if you can afford 'em, buy' em.

But stop pretending that your personal preferences/ prejudices are universal. And please, please, stop using the blindingly stupid word "fanboy". You're saying far more about yourself (unimaginative, stupid, envious) than you're saying about people who like Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[______]

Some clarification is needed, I see. Yes, it could only happen on a camera with a short register distance, so the normal cover glass had to be replaced by a coating.

I believe the M8 sensor does in fact have 0.5mm sensor glass (as do some other cameras) and not merely a coating. The problem is that in order to increase sharpness, in addition to removing the anti-aliasing filter, they also removed the IR cutoff filter (oops), which results in a magenta cast. The solution: after Leica was apprised of the problem, they began including IR cutoff filter for use in front of the lenses with the M8.

 

[BlackXList]

You didn't have to mention that, it is clear from your posts...

As for your list of "defects", I'm sure that you know that it is mainly a load of Internet baloney...
Top plates? You probably mean that the top plate of the M6 from 1982 may show some cosmetic damage after a few decades of use...
Yes, sensor corrosion, but do you know the reason? It could not have happened on another type of camera. And what other camera maker replaces the sensor for free without even asking about guaranty? It took a class action to get Nikon to do so, and even then they attempted to muzzle the publication of the facts.
Huge slow zooms (SL I suppose) - yes, for Leica M users, not if you compare to SoCaNikon etc.
Distortion on a 50? I wonder where you got that one from. It must have been Digiloyd..
Integrated digital-optical corrections. Indeed, anybody who is not living a stone knows that all major manufacturers are starting to use that technology to improve their lenses. It is an extra degree of freedom to correct higher order aberrations. It would be stupid if a lens designer did not take advantage of this progress.
Yes, a mechanical rangefinder system can be knocked out of calibration by the very nature of the system, so Leica made that practically impossible on their newer models.
The only things you are correct about are the strap lugs-a manufacturing defect ( loose - not worn, the locking compound on the screws was missing) in a small series of cameras and there were actually nine cameras that really worked loose - do you want a list of bloopers industry-wide?
And the service times - that is a realistic point of critique.

As for the photojournalistic pedigree, where do you think the association of Leica and Magnum comes from?

I'm glad you enjoyed my mention that I'm horrible with rangefinders, whenever I use one, I end up trying to take a photograph in portrait orientation, and then it becomes clear that Rangefinders and I are utterly incompatible.}

I'll let the top plates one slide, because as I said "I'm sure I've read something about top plates" but couldn't remember the exact issue, I know it wasnt from 1982 though.

Sensor Corrosion, yes but it wasnt any other manufacturer was it, also Nikon instantly handled their oil on the sensor issue with one of their top of the line bodies in recent years, I'm not a Nikon user so I can't comment on their customer service, but I do know Canon have been great when I've dealt with them (and fast, unlike Leica). Leica didn't quibble about the warranty because they'd sold a product with an inherent problem, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Huge slow zoom, yes the SL, and yes compared to Canon/Nikon users it's still very much oversized and slow compared to the competition.

The new SL based 50 shows significant distortion, I don't know who Digiloyd is, I do however know that it should be possible to build a 50 without significant distortion.
The Q's 28 also has significant distortion, which is software corrected, how much of an issue this is to you is up to you,(and I've seen people have significant issues about it on this very forum), but we're poking holes in all those claims of optical supremacy and purity.

Oh it's now almost impossible to knock the rangefinder out of calibration, so that it doesn't need to be sent away to be recalilbrated, how many years has it taken for that to be added.

The reputation, yes they absolutely did play a huge part in the documentation of the 20th century (they also run ads claiming that work shot on other cameras is Leica). I'd like to see them play a part in documenting the 21st, even if I can't use the damn things

They're doing a Kodak or a Blackberry.
They have a product that differentiates them from the rest of the market, but they're not paying attention whilst everyone else is racing ahead, and they're being left behind.

For a company that was important and enabled some incredible work,I want to see better from them, both in terms of product, and in looking after their shooters, because they're pushing themselves out of the equation.

They even have the bonus that the wide angles don't work well on unmodded Sony's (and it's not the same experience of course)

As far as my photo is concerned, even ignoring the quality loss from an aggressive automatic resize, Leicas aren't doing that at those kind of ISOs, we don't get to shoot at Base ISO all the time (and to be honest I'll put the original of that shot against many at base ISO, because the level of detail is ridiculous, and it's caught that moment exactly as I wanted it to.
It's not a world class photo, I wouldn't (and didn't) claim otherwise, but it did exactly what I wanted it to, how I wanted it to, and the result was exactly what I wanted.

That gets to the crux of the original question, not has Leica alienated Leica users, they have an extraordinarily loyal user base. It's a wider question than that, have they alienated Photographers.

 

[jaapv]

Yes, in the original sensor the cover glass was sandwiched, as the IR filter glass is ensitive to moisture. For the M this array would have been too thick, so the anticorrosive glass was replaced by a coating, which in some cases has porosities which allow corrosion.

 

[BlackXList]

To collectors it's not a ploy and if it helps Leica'a bottom line and gives them the financial freedom to not try and compete with the one size fits all that is the world of digital photography especially the big two and make great tools like the MM and the M 262 then Leica should keep on doing what they are doing. At least they are giving photographers like me a real choice.

I absolutely understand and support this, its the same as actors doing a mainstream film in order to pay the bills so that they can make something more artistically fulfilling as well.

In the same way that Photocopiers and 360 degree VR cameras make it possible for Ricoh to make a niche product like the GR.

I'd draw comparisons between the GR approach and my interpretation of the Rangefinder approach too, there's a lot of paring back everything deemed unnecessary, and focusing (no pun intended) on making a tool that does a very specific job.

 

[______]

Didn't Robert Capa, one of the founders of Magnum, use Contax and later Nikon rather than Leica. I don't believe there was ever a requirement that Magnum photographers uses Leicas, though HCB, Chim Seymour, and George Rodger, the other founders of Magnum, did.

 

[______]

Yes, in the original sensor the cover glass was sandwiched, as the IR filter glass is ensitive to moisture. For the M this array would have been too thick, so the anticorrosive glass was replaced by a coating, which in some cases has porosities which allow corrosion.

You are referring to the corroding M9 sensor, rather than the M8 sensor where the IR filter was removed causing the magenta cast. The register distance is the same for the replacement M9 sensor as it is for the flawed original sensor, so the issue is sensor design defect not register distance.

 

[BlackXList]

Point me to the threads about silly special editions from other companies.

PS: OP was more about value for money than outright affordability. There's a fundamental difference there.

I really feel like that fundamental difference is something being hugely missed in this thread.

If you love leica great, if you want to buy leica great, if you can great, if it's pocket change for you great, if it's something you save for a long time for, great.

Nobody has criticised that.

It's how are they as a value proposition, which instantly draws them into comparison with the rest of the market.

If you're wedded to the RF experience, then they probably represent better value to you.

If you're not wedded to it, then the red dot premium, and the tendency for them to be 2-3+ years behind the bigger names begins to be something that has to be considered.

This is not a Leica only issue, Nikon have been using Sony sensors in recent years, because they're better than the ones Nikon had made. Canon have been sticking to their own sensors and been getting (deservedly) slated for it for about 5 years now.

These value propositions are every day decisions, for example, a part of me would like a Sony RX1, but looking at the price I go "I can get a more versatile option, which works better with my existing equipment, for about half the price" I'm looking at still being able to produce 35mm images, and comparing the value offered to me from the options out there. (I'm also factoring into my decision that I don't mind a slightly larger kit cause I'm a big guy, and some additional weight isn't going to be a problem for me, of course these considerations are different for everyone).

It's not an attack on a specific brand, as a mostly Canon user, I could tear Canon a new one as much as I can Leica, (and I frequently do). I make no apologies for demanding a lot of companies who make products that I'd consider using.

 

[BlackXList]

It's not an attack on a specific brand, as a mostly Canon user, I could tear Canon a new one as much as I can Leica, (and I frequently do). I make no apologies for demanding a lot of companies who make products that I'd consider using.

Just to make a point:

While Canon got stick for changing their lens mount when they went to Autofocus, and Nikon was lauded for not changing. It baffles me why Nikon stuck with a mount that limits how fast their AF lenses can be.

That's a baffling decision to me. The oil on sensor issue with one of the recent pro bodies isn't something that ever needed to come to market either.

Canon: (I'll keep this as brief as I can, I could go on for days)

After changing the industry with the 5dmk2's video capabilities, they launch the MK3 and 6D, it's obvious that some of the people buying the 6d are going to be buying the 6d to try out video shooting, and it could have been a great step into the Canon system for many film makers.

The SD card slot in the 6d is prohibitively slow and acts as a bottleneck when making video, so the 6d is woefully inadequate for the job.

The entire Eos M range, (I haven't tried the 5 yet) is woefully slow to use and slow to focus, so it's taken what could have been a pocket sized back up body for any Canon user into a frustrating mess that's sadly best avoided.

The kit lens with consumer EOS bodies stinks, for most people a DSLR is a significant outlay, and straight out of the box, the lens that comes with it is going to give you less than great images, how many people have been put off by lackluster results from these lenses? it makes their product look bad!

Outdated sensors with less dynamic range than their competitors.

I could go on

 

[BlackXList]

I can tell you that I by far prefer the M 262 by far over any of the offerings by Nikon or Canon and I have been supporting my family with photography 100% for 3 decades now. I only shoot commercial/advertising no weddings or family portraits. I do not deal with the general public. Just finished an annual report shot entirely with Leica M digital. Also shot some 36 X 54 images for a large permanent display in one of my clients locations plus everything I have shot for clients for a bit over a year has been all Leica M.

Light years ahead? In all the bells and whistles maybe but those are things I don't want or need on a camera. I shot with 500C/Ms, large format and Canon F-1s, Nikon F-3s all manual, for a couple of decades and don't need or want most of the things that are so called light years ahead of Leica.

A great camera to me is a light tight box to hold light sensitive material. A lens to focus the image. A shutter to control the time the light is allowed to strike that light sensitive material. An aperture to control the amount of light allowed to strike that light sensitive material. And for me Leica is a design that gets out of my way and lets me create.

My MM is better in low light than a 5DII and in real applications my 262 is as good as a 5DII. That pretty much covers everything I shoot. And my 35 lux FLE was less expensive than my 200 2L and is a lot better glass than my 35L is. I also don't want or need auto focus, FPS, auto exposure and most of the things that are what many others look for in a camera. Nice to have a REAL alternative choice.

So if you like Nikon or Canon rock on. They are great cameras/tools for most but I never liked either of their digital offerings and have no regrets switching to Leica M. I do miss the service of CPS especially with the Itasca location.

Just out of curiosity, and I say this as someone who always enjoys your street work on here.

What do you do when the commercial work calls for longer focal lengths than RF is comfortable with?

I'm not trying to score a point, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[tunalegs]

In this context, there is no such thing as "photographers". We are all different.

If they've alienated YOU, don't buy 'em. If they haven't, and if you can afford 'em, buy' em.

But stop pretending that your personal preferences/ prejudices are universal. And please, please, stop using the blindingly stupid word "fanboy". You're saying far more about yourself (unimaginative, stupid, envious) than you're saying about people who like Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

Well of course you would say that, being a fanboy.

Didn't Robert Capa, one of the founders of Magnum, use Contax and later Nikon rather than Leica. I don't believe there was ever a requirement that Magnum photographers uses Leicas, though HCB, Chim Seymour, and George Rodger, the other founders of Magnum, did.

Of course, for a relatively short period of time, when Leica was producing cameras that were technically better than anything else on the market. Then most everybody switched to Nikon when they produced a camera which was technically better than most anything else on the market. For a huge variety of reasons (some of which were well outside of Leica's control, and some of which weren't), Nikon still has a large share of the camera market and Leica has a niche.

I really feel like that fundamental difference is something being hugely missed in this thread.

If you love leica great, if you want to buy leica great, if you can great, if it's pocket change for you great, if it's something you save for a long time for, great.

Nobody has criticised that.

It's how are they as a value proposition, which instantly draws them into comparison with the rest of the market.

If you're wedded to the RF experience, then they probably represent better value to you.

If you're not wedded to it, then the red dot premium, and the tendency for them to be 2-3+ years behind the bigger names begins to be something that has to be considered.

This is not a Leica only issue, Nikon have been using Sony sensors in recent years, because they're better than the ones Nikon had made. Canon have been sticking to their own sensors and been getting (deservedly) slated for it for about 5 years now.

These value propositions are every day decisions, for example, a part of me would like a Sony RX1, but looking at the price I go "I can get a more versatile option, which works better with my existing equipment, for about half the price" I'm looking at still being able to produce 35mm images, and comparing the value offered to me from the options out there. (I'm also factoring into my decision that I don't mind a slightly larger kit cause I'm a big guy, and some additional weight isn't going to be a problem for me, of course these considerations are different for everyone).

It's not an attack on a specific brand, as a mostly Canon user, I could tear Canon a new one as much as I can Leica, (and I frequently do). I make no apologies for demanding a lot of companies who make products that I'd consider using.

A reasonable comment that will probably be ignored or torn down with some sort of contrived strawman. Myself, I don't have any sort of brand loyalty. Sure I have Canon stuff, but when I bought it, it was just the best deal I found. I'm only aligned with the brand today by default, not because I think the products are magical or special in some way. I find the supercilious attitudes of brand snobs tiring.

 

[jaapv]

You are referring to the corroding M9 sensor, rather than the M8 sensor where the IR filter was removed causing the magenta cast. The register distance is the same for the replacement M9 sensor as it is for the flawed original sensor, so the issue is sensor design defect not register distance.

The M8 has a 0.5 mm filter glass, the M9 a 0.8 mm one. The register distance is the same on the M8 and the M8 and M9 sensor are the same, only size difference and a slightly thicker cover glass because of that (and to get better IR filtration). I think the issue was that the coating application process suffered in the transitions at Kodak.
The register distance combined with the need to cater for legacy lenses dictates the need for as thin a filter array as possible.
The new corrosion-free sensor for the M9 is again the same sensor with a different coating.
BTW, the need to stop at least some IR with such thin filters made the use of this moisture-sensitive optical glass necessary, plus the replacement of the protective glass by coating.

 

[______]

I find the supercilious attitudes of brand snobs tiring.

I haven't heard the adjective "supercillious" used in a long time. Vulgarity tends to dominate. Word points for you.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Just out of curiosity, and I say this as someone who always enjoys your street work on here.

What do you do when the commercial work calls for longer focal lengths than RF is comfortable with?

I'm not trying to score a point, I'm genuinely curious.

I always say that you learn to see for the appropriate F/L. Having said that in all of my work in all he years I have been doing this 75 will cover the longest almost always. For many years with my DSLRs my longest was 85. In fact 60% maybe more I shoot with a 35mm lens.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I really feel like that fundamental difference is something being hugely missed in this thread.

If you love leica great, if you want to buy leica great, if you can great, if it's pocket change for you great, if it's something you save for a long time for, great.

Nobody has criticised that.

It's how are they as a value proposition, which instantly draws them into comparison with the rest of the market.

If you're wedded to the RF experience, then they probably represent better value to you.

If you're not wedded to it, then the red dot premium, and the tendency for them to be 2-3+ years behind the bigger names begins to be something that has to be considered.

This is not a Leica only issue, Nikon have been using Sony sensors in recent years, because they're better than the ones Nikon had made. Canon have been sticking to their own sensors and been getting (deservedly) slated for it for about 5 years now.

These value propositions are every day decisions, for example, a part of me would like a Sony RX1, but looking at the price I go "I can get a more versatile option, which works better with my existing equipment, for about half the price" I'm looking at still being able to produce 35mm images, and comparing the value offered to me from the options out there. (I'm also factoring into my decision that I don't mind a slightly larger kit cause I'm a big guy, and some additional weight isn't going to be a problem for me, of course these considerations are different for everyone).

It's not an attack on a specific brand, as a mostly Canon user, I could tear Canon a new one as much as I can Leica, (and I frequently do). I make no apologies for demanding a lot of companies who make products that I'd consider using.

One other thought here is it the MM can't be compared to anything else made and for many, like me, a rangefinder best fits the way they see and work. I for one am glad they are a real alternatives to the one size fits all world of the cameras made by most today.

I'm a big guy 6'2" 250 lbs former Marine that lifted weights for a few decades (paying the price now ha Ha) and I have shot with large kits most of my career. 500 C/Ms and large format make most DSLRs seem small. I feel extremely liberated with the gear I now shoot with. BTW the M262 will give you images that compare to anything out there in a 135 format and I by far prefer the files I get from Leica cameras to both Nikon and Canon.

I have shot billboards, annual reports, all kinds of advertising with these cameras and being judged by other visual professionals so it's not like looking at 85kb compressed jpgs on a web site.

Value is using cameras that work with the way you work. To me thats value.
Maybe others compare cameras like they would a Chevy to a Ford and who has the most options. I tend to like the ones that have the least amount of stuff.

 

[kb244]

I feel like for a stretch of time, after Leica became renown for quality/craftsmanship, that they fell the way of Montblanc, in the sense that the majority of people who purchased them new were Lawyers and similar professions. Placing them upon the mantel.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Tuna there are still a lot of photographers that shoot with Leica and Leica digital. Ralph Gibson produced a book shoot entirely with the MM, Jill Freedman shoots with digital Leica M and does Meyerowitz to name just 3.

And Karl I would say there are some lawyers buying them but there and a lot of lawyers buying Nicanon1DxMkIVs whatever. There are working photographers that buy Leica. I know a few including me.

 

[:: Mark]

I suspect that the majority of new M series cameras that are sold are never very serious. My M 262 was bought second-hand at a 30% discount. The first owner was a doctor, who took probably no more than a few douzen shots. It still had the original protective film on the LCD. It cost less than an A7rII or a 5DIV.

The isssue for me is that the current M series give the impression that they are designed mainly for people that will not make heavy use of them, and who buy them mainly for the brand and some kind of perceived status. Hence the lack of useful features such as sensor cleaning, the presence of nonsical but nostalgic features such as the baseplate, and the frustrating service times.

Perhaps the M 10 will address some of this...

 

[user237428934]

I feel like for a stretch of time, after Leica became renown for quality/craftsmanship, that they fell the way of Montblanc, in the sense that the majority of people who purchased them new were Lawyers and similar professions. Placing them upon the mantel.

It's dentist, not laywer. If you want to be accepted by the other guys of the leica haters league you have to use the carefuully prepared arguments correctly.