Has Leica alienated photographers?

[airfrogusmc]

The MM original MM was several years behind the Nikon d800E.

But for me the image and getting the image is what's important and I have worked on all kinds of files and I prefer my Leica files over currant cameras and those things that most want on a camera are all things I don't want and that certainly makes cameras like the M 262 and MM perfect choices for me. I actually really like the M-E also.So called latest and greatest doesn't always = best. Just the latest.

I remember in early 1990s I was shooting a job with my 500 C/Ms and some guy was there at this event I was shooting. He had the latest EOS 1 whatever it was at the time and he said to me I can't believe a pro would be shooting with what i was shooting with and not a EOS 1 whatever. I jokingly said that I needed to get one of those.

Even through all the automation and auto focus of the big 2 I still shot with M 4s, Canon F-1s, Nikon F-3s and 500 C/Ms. No need to upgrade to the stuff with more bells and whistles. Those features in my opinion and for the way I work made those cameras less intuitive and more cumbersome. I feel that way about those kinds of features today. Those things tend to get in the way of me making photographs. I know many can't live without that stuff but I search out cameras that avoid that stuff

And I agree with jaapv enjoy what you have whatever it is especially if you have found things that match your vision but to say the equipment I shoot with is lacking because it's not the latest because maybe all the latest is what floats your boat. But you will always be chasing the perfect camera because there is always something that is going to be so called better. When instead you should be chasing your vision with equipment that you have spent a lot of time with. Like Weston was pointing out that if you are constantly changing gear you never master it and at what point is it all good enough. It is there now and has been there like Haas said they are all capable of capturing what you are seeing, you just have to see.

To me Leica is M. It is what separates them for the herd. But there are a lot of photographers I respect that do not agree with that and thats quite alright. Nice to have choices I say.

 

[kb244]

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.

1) Not a Leica hater.
2) Lawyers/etc was what all the old Curmudgeons in the camera shop I used to work at would refer to. (Guessing you say Dentist in the sense of microscope cameras etc).
3) Mark's Photos near here became a shop because it was a lawyer hoping to get retailer discounts on the Leicas he liked 😀

 

[roscoetuff]

Sean Reid's review of using the new Leica M10 that will come out soon suggests a winner with a thinner - more M7 size body. Sounds like Leica is beginning to catch up with the real world, but their market is now broader than photographers. Photographers buy their cameras or they'd have gone out of business. I think they are VERY effective at selling the intangibles and slowly beginning to get it with the tangibles. From what I read, they're now following Fuji's X-PRO2 ideas.

The VERY good news in this is that it will likely mean a number of Leica-owners dump their cameras on the market and enable the photographers to buy them at cheaper prices. Price I saw for the M10 body seems to convert close toe $8,000 some. If even fan-boys, and have to trade up at these prices, this means the sale prices for 2ndary ownership should fall. Looks to me that the upward price pressure on new models is intended to provide some bouyancy to the used market. This is the way cars used to work in the 1980's. We'll see.

Aside from the fact that Sony just gets the job done, Leica is still an appealing camera. Does it promise to fight obsolesence for any of us? Absolutely not. Used cameras will still be good values, but not like the film versions which are still good after 50 years. I don't think a digital Leica is made with the sort of tech ruggedness we could expect from the film versions. Military grade... bullet proof tech fits into two categories: Enormously expensive and rugged, or infinitely replaceable and disposable, but available in high volume. Leica doesn't fit either, but no other does either. Fifty years from now, it will be ubiquitous throw-a-way cameras that are still chugging.

Different question isn't about alienation camera companies do in their ads that annoys you? With Leica... there was an ad on the website a few years back celebrating Hannah Montanna's purchase of a Leica. I couldn't close my browser fast enough.

 

[uhoh7]

I'll tell you who Leica has not alienated: Reporters 🙂

Every one is gushing about the M10 LOL

 

[Huss]

With Leica... there was an ad on the website a few years back celebrating Hannah Montanna's purchase of a Leica...

Is that like a male version of Justin Bieber?

 

[jsrockit]

I'll tell you who Leica has not alienated: Reporters 🙂

I thought it was newspapers that had done that! 😉

 

[Godfrey]

The new M10 is $6600. That's about $400 less than the M-P typ 240, and about $600 more than the M-D typ 262.

I'm not alienated at all by that price, or by the M10. Or by the brilliant incremental development that Leica is achieving in the M line. When they release the M-D10 with all those improvements (the better viewfinder optics, better sensor, better buffer performance, etc) in the simpler body, I could even be convinced I should upgrade.

Could ... I remain quite satisfied with the M-D just as is, and could be shooting with it for a decade. 🙂

G

 

[jsrockit]

The new M10 is $6600. That's about $400 less than the M-P typ 240, and about $600 more than the M-D typ 262.

I'm not alienated at all by that price, or by the M10.

Yeah, but you have $$$$... 😉

 

[Fotobot]

Yeah, but you have $$$$... 😉

I'm alienated by my lousy finances.

 

[Godfrey]

Yeah, but you have $$$$... 😉

LOL! You are so wrong. 🙂

I don't have $$$$ ... in fact, I'm retired and on a fixed income now.

What I have is priorities: I value the qualities in a Leica more than most any other camera so I put the money together and buy that to do my photography with. I don't do a lot of other stuff that people spend money and time on.

G

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

... there was an ad on the website a few years back celebrating Hannah Montanna's purchase of a Leica. I couldn't close my browser fast enough.

Is that like a male version of Justin Bieber?

Hannah Montana was a fictional character on the Disney Channel, from 2006 to 2010. I believe the actress who played the part, was shown with her new camera, an M8, in 2009, when she was 16.

 

[benlees]

Hannah Montana was a fictional character on the Disney Channel, from 2006 to 2010. I believe the actress who played the part, was shown with her new camera, an M8, in 2009, when she was 16.

Gosh, don't those guys know? Billy Ray Cyrus is her dad. That will make it better!

 

[:: Mark]

I for one would be a lot less alienated if an M body (non-sensor) repair estimated at 3.5 hours work had not been sitting for six weeks in Wetzlar and still with no clear estimate for completion.

 

[roscoetuff]

A lot on this thread seems a rant against a high price rather than the camera itself. Gee... y'know if you don't back a company that has a small market with enough oomph to let it survive and thrive, then the only option for what you want - whatever it is - becomes these whacked out one-of-a-kind now-once-and-only kickstarter projects. And these are fine for somethings, but for long lived products where you might actually need service after the sale.... you need a company. And their employees don't quit and play in the bank vault throwing money in the air after you buy their camera. No, they hang around waiting for a chance to fix something, or maybe build something else you can hang on the camera to use.

Figure it this way: What is the price of discontinued cameras from companies that no longer exist? Higher or Lower than the prices of cameras from on-going companies still committed to making new stuff? Higher... in virtually all cases. You're paying not for today's product, but tomorrow's as well. Leica's small market means that charging a premium reflects smaller volumes to cover the development costs.

If you want a mass market priced item, you buy one. I think the marvel is that Leica has kept the same lens mount going since the 1950's. There's value in that just as there is in Nikon's F mount. I'd agree with Godfrey: It's not about the money... though money is a factor, but about our choice of priorities. For my part, Leica entered the picture with Zeiss lenses... which I'd grown to love using a Sony digital. Is Sony digital cheap? A7RII? Don't think so. Leica M4-2's and Zeiss ZM 35 f/2 will cost you far, far, far less.

Rolls Royce, Tesla, McLaren, Masseratti, Ferrari.... have their prices alienated drivers? You might say that because you don't see these in mass market - yes. But hey... that's not their market. Their market is the white shoe, white glove market of old. Never big, but very lucrative. I wouldn't begin to put Leica in that market... maybe Hasselblad once upon a time, but not Leica. Leica's more like BMW or Mercedes... cars that German taxi drivers used to drive as nothing special.... just reliable. Here... in middle class America, these were and still are treated as luxury. It's all relative... and then you find one in the seat behind you.

 

[PKR]

I think it was Forbes or a WSJ article I saw this week that said the only camera companies that would survive the next few years were Sony, Canon and Nikon. I was surprised that Fuji and Leica didn't make the cut. I think this was all based on R&D and projected sales.

 

[jszokoli]

I think it was Forbes or a WSJ article I saw this week that said the only camera companies that would survive the next few years were Sony, Canon and Nikon. I was surprised that Fuji and Leica didn't make the cut. I think this was all based on R&D and projected sales.

That's because Forbes does not know that Fuji or Leica exist...
Joe

 

[PKR]

That's because Forbes does not know that Fuji or Leica exist...
Joe

The story was a Reuters piece with info from Credit Swiss. They cited moves in the smart phone photo market. I don't know anything about Leica , but Fiji is having some trouble and reorganizing their medical division I think - nothing to do with their photo stuff.

Time will tell. The story won't keep me from buying Fuji gear.

 

[larmarv916]

Leica has over and over again....stabbed thier own "buyers"in the back historically. Just before the M8 was being introduced...I was at the Leica factory, and watching as the complained about having to mark up the Euro prices of the inventoyr because the USD had strength at the time decreased the exchange rate.....so to get more USD then jacked up the prices again for the second time in 6 months. Then sat in on a meeting about how the terrible sales of M7 had force the idea of also raising the prices so that the break even point on the bodies could be lowered for Leica as well as using this price increase would make the standing inventory of M7's. Turn a profit for Leica....even if the slow sales pace on M7 's remained the same for the next 12 months !! This is just the tip of the pricing BS that began in serious earnest. Needless to say they were looking at my M3DS with a angered brow...as how could I own a body that had been out of date for so many years! I pointed out that my view finder system was technically superior to that of even the .85 M7...the technical guy in the room...also the oldest confirmed my claim...he was told to go back to work !! I was still shooting also with my R8 at the time and was told of the disappointment of customers not buying the R9 Digital back....I cited the grossly overpriced item. Also that the sensor was at least 2 generations behind Nikon at that time. Also reminded them of the cost of Nikon's top of the line digital camera and the autofocus lenses....yeah they were not to happy. The Staff swore they would never produce a autofocus lens for the R system or any other camera system or even license out their name for designs. We see how that changed. Leica was infected with the LVMH virus...and was showing all the uber high collectable limited editions...that their were sure would be their saving grace ! NOT.

So...Leica no long makes the fastest or even the sharpest lenses any more. The contrast levels are excessive. There so many other brands that are faster and sharper and cheaper. Even in blind testing, mysteriously they come up short. I dont care anymore about what Leica is or is not doing...overpriced yes. Leica sold its soul for the old axiom seen in the "Emporer's new clothes".....All sad but true. Any of my original M's are still full frame...Fuji as eaten Leica's lunch and kicked them ot the curb. With adapters now you can fit any lens on almost any body....Leica never caught up the rest of the industries sensor technology either. So...As the Euro has been boring a whole straight down for several years in reality the LEICA product line should have dropped dramatically.....surprise it didnt. Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The contrast levels are excessive. . . .

Stop and think about this quote, which (if you are talking about the lenses, rather than the processed image) is patently nonsense.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot on this thread seems a rant against a high price rather than the camera itself.. . . .

Which of course we have NEVER seen before in Leica threads....

Either they're worth it to you or they aren't. Or maybe, either you can afford them or you can't. Whichever it is, why do people feel the need to attack Leica quite so vehemently?

Are they perfect? Of course not. In particular, battery life on the M8/M9 is bloody awful. But I put up with than in return for their advantages.

Cheers,

R.