I'm not trying to upset anyone, but...

G

gravityassault

Member
Local time
4:55 AM
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
33
Good morning all,

I hope everyone has a terrific weekend planned. I was talking with someone the other day who made an excellent observation about Leica, and one that I completely agree with, although I think it might ruffle a few folks around here.

It's amazing that Leica followers are willing to pay the kind of money Leica charges for equipment with technical flaws a la the need for a filter on the M8, or the banding issue, or extremely high noise on the M8, M8.2 and M9 at high ISOs, the problem of the M9 freezing while buffering frames, the slow buffer rate after shooting seven continuous frames, the issue of vignetting on the M9. If Nikon or Canon put out products with such issues at a price point equivalent to Leica, they would be lambasted in magazines and laughed at around the world via the web. And to that end, it would appear that the Leica mystique extends to the Noctilux as well. In full disclosure I have never shot a Noctilux but I've read reviews and there seems to be a vignetting issue and a lack of sharpness, which doesn't seem acceptable for a $10,000 lens. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not trying to upset anyone but I would like to understand the rationale behind it. And please don't tell me it's just part of owning a Leica, that they're quirky...no other company in my memory, besides perhaps Jaguar in the mid-80s could get away with such a thing. So what is it?

I am a professional press photographer and while I don't shoot rangefinders for work, (I use DSLRs), I shoot an M6TTL in my personal life, but I expect the same from them as I do my work gear. I don't want quirky, finicky cameras and lenses, I want something to work the same way every time I pick it up.

And finally, I see images on quite a few forums of people's cats on the couch, or of lawn chairs in the backyard, or of stop signs having been shot with a $7,000 M9 and I'm wondering why. As a professional tool I don't think the M9 is there yet, but it seems far too expensive for non professional use. Just an observation.

I understand the fun of rangefinder photography, but would a less expensive digital rangefinder be a better choice, say an RD-1?

Anyway, again I'm not trying to offend anyone or in any way come off as unappreciative of the rangefinder family, I just want to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

Thanks very much, have a great Friday.

Chris
 
It's not rocket science. Leica makes a unique product. People will pay more for such a product and have to accept a few flaws. Obviously if you don't like the performance of a Canon DSLR, you have many choices. If you want a FF DRF, you have one. The fact the Epson essentially gave up after one shot tells you the market is pretty small.

Personally, I can't afford an M9 but certainly would like one. My rationale is simple: I like rangefinders and I want a sensor that is the same dimensions as 35mm film.
 
If your not a professional then photography is a hobby. What drives people to spend huge sums of money on a hobby is one of life's mysteries. I know people who will spend $10,000 on a rifle and never shoot it. What's the point? None.
 
Well, even Mercedes has built some cars with severe problems. But along the way they manage to figure out, how to improve and work on solutions. What I mean is, that they have built some excellent cars also and this is why the reputation of Mercedes is still high (although they could manage to ruin that by still producing one faulty car after another).
Leica has built some of the great cameras and lenses, which are a joy not only to use because of the results you could get from them, but also because of design, haptic and so on which is pretty unique (I still like the touch of my Leica more than of my Hexar RF, although its a fantastic camera too)
So - there is some mystique, but also evidence of quality that comes with the name of Leica as well as the name of Mercedes. And some people like to drive a Mercedes, although they drive most of the time from their house to the shop nearby, which they could do with a VW as well (or even better because it needs less gas, less parking space and so on). Do they have to be - lets say -a sales manager who drives thousands of miles on the freeway every year?
And thats why not only semi-professional amateurs or pros use Leicas but also those, who take pictures of their cats. And - buy the way, there is nothing to say against that in my opinion that someone spends thousands of dollars on his photo equipment if she or (mostly) he can afford it. And may be you can feel like a pro at least a little - even if you only have the gear of a pro not able to aim for more than grandmother in front of the TV.
And probably thats why some problems in manufacturing don't cause major reputation-loss of Leica Solms- most people just can#t tell if a lens has more vignetting than another. And besides that, the lenses are still excellent.
 
Last edited:
Why buy a top model BMW or Mercedes when a Kia or Hyunday also drives on four wheel and with a steering wheel?

Driving a BMW is more enjoyable than driving a Kia.

Now, exchange the word "BMW" with "Leica"... etc.
 
Last edited:
Problems with Leica cameras and lenses are usually exaggerated by those who have a troublesome unit. Even though they're made in small batches (compared to Canon and Nikon), most cameras turn out fine and a small amount has bugs and glitches. Well... guess who are the ones to complain loudly? The buyers with the glitchy cameras.

Hence, it's not that outrageous that people spend that kind of money on Leicas.
 
gravityassault said:
Good morning all,

I hope everyone has a terrific weekend planned. I was talking with someone the other day who made an excellent observation about Leica, and one that I completely agree with, although I think it might ruffle a few folks around here.

It's amazing that Leica followers are willing to pay the kind of money Leica charges for equipment with technical flaws a la the need for a filter on the M8, or the banding issue, or extremely high noise on the M8, M8.2 and M9 at high ISOs, the problem of the M9 freezing while buffering frames, the slow buffer rate after shooting seven continuous frames, the issue of vignetting on the M9. If Nikon or Canon put out products with such issues at a price point equivalent to Leica, they would be lambasted in magazines and laughed at around the world via the web. And to that end, it would appear that the Leica mystique extends to the Noctilux as well. In full disclosure I have never shot a Noctilux but I've read reviews and there seems to be a vignetting issue and a lack of sharpness, which doesn't seem acceptable for a $10,000 lens. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Chris
Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

There is a vast gulf between "I don't understand why..." and "It is amazing that..."

I do not understand why anyone would pay money to watch a football match (or baseball or anything else), but the key is that it gives them pleasure. I don't have to understand it, and I wouldn't understand the answer if they tried to explain. Read on and see if you understand what I say. (To borrow your own disclaimer, I'm not trying to be offensive.)

When it comes to press photography, well, there are plenty of other kinds of photography too. Advertising (which is where I started). Travel. Architecture. Food. That's before you even consider 'fine art'. And there's a useful distinction, I believe, between press photography and photojournalism (also known as reportage).

For what I do - not just writing about photography, but also illustrating books and magazine articles on a range of subjects as wide as the American Civil War, the Tibetan cause, and travel by motorcycle and Land Rover - Leicas are perfect: small, light, easy to use, reliable and delivering excellent quality. I'd be totally crazy to spend the same money on bloody great heavy DSLRs. For food photography, it's true that the M9+Viso+65 is right on the edge compared with the 6x7cm and 4x5 inch tranny that the clients used to insist on, but it's still more than good enough, and I come back to the point that it's what I like using.

As for what is 'acceptable for a $10,000 lens', it's meaningless question. Why does anyone buy noisy, cramped, thirsty, unreliable Ferraris? Or ride oily vintage motorcycles instead of nice, clean, reliable new Hondas?

Finally, yes, there are plenty of rotten pictures of cats, back porches, coffee mugs and worse, taken with $10,000 camera-and-lens combinations. What of it? It takes me several years to wear out a $500 pair of walking boots, though they'd probably only last a serious walker a season or two. So? Should I buy only $100 boots? Or $50 boots? The parallel is exact: the boots are comfortable and do what I want.

Postscript: Yes, I've got a good weekend planned. Tomorrow is the vide-grenier, a sort of village wide garage sale, then on Sunday there's a motorcycle event up near Saumur. I plan to take my M9 to both.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Good thoughts by all to my query of the rational behind spending Leica money on a camera with issues, thanks much everyone for responding.

I totally understand wanting to use a rangefinder and I get the car analogy too, but it's not quite the same in my opinion. Driving a Mercedes vs a VW as was posted above, is a fairly large leap in quality and performance because they are in large part not going to be equal in terms of finish, materials, and technology. They will both absolutley get you where you need to go and both in nice style, but they are different and of completely different price points, and are perhaps marketed to different audiences.

I don't believe a person would buy a Mercedes and expect it to drive like a VW, or vice versa.

My issue isn't necessarily with Leica and folks wanting to shoot with them, (I own an M6TTL as I mentioned), rather I think I'm surprised by the fact that people are willing to spend large money on brand new technology with flaws, where they probably wouldn't spend it on another brand with equally as documented issues.

This being the allure of the Leica name. I spoke of Jaguar earlier in my post and I bring that up as my family owned a couple and they all had problems. When they worked they worked beautifully and were fabulous to ride around in, but when they didn't work or had recurring issues, the Jaguar faithful maintained that it was just part of the charm of owning a Jag. No one made those same comments when their other cars didn't work properly.

And that's what I'm trying to get my head around. If Pentax or Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever put out a seriously expensive body that didn't work correctly I don't believe they would be given the same latitude. Most professionals I know switch between Nikon and Canon every few years as one's technology clearly tops the other so I suppose there isn't a loyalty as there is with Leica.

Please, more thoughts are always welcome. Thanks much.
 
I certainly wouldn't call it 'part of the charm'. The thing is, though, that if you want a digital RF there is no choice except an out-of-production, heavy-crop, unsupported and rare camera. If Nikon gets an SLR wrong, they'll lose customers to Canon, and vice versa. If a Leica is less than perfect... um... tough. You have to decide whether the drawbacks (the importance of which is, as Francisco pointed out, often exaggerated) are worth the advantages. Many reckon they are.

Of course there are those with fantasies about other DRFs but I'd be astonished if (a) anyone would find it financially attractive enough to bother, or, if they did, (b) whether they'd be a lot cheaper anyway. Of course I could be wrong. But so could the fantasists.

Cheers,

R.
 
For the most part you can't use the words rational and new Leica gear in the same sentence, at least from my POV. Leica is what it is and costs what it does and in the case of the M9 it is the only game in town. I can understand wanting an M9 and buying one but for me the decision to buy one would not be based on anything rational. OTH you can rationalize anything to yourself and others would not understand.

Bob
 
>And that's what I'm trying to get my head around. If Pentax or
>Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever put out a seriously expensive
>body that didn't work correctly I don't believe they would be given
>the same latitude.

But they have, people bought them, and accepted them for what they were. The Nikon D1 was $5000, has IR issues and ISO 400 is awful. D1x, $6500- ISO 125 was good, forget higher. IR problems. Nikon D2H- back to the IR problems.

Associated Press bought the Kodak NC2000 for their professional photographers. Price tag was in the $18,000 range. The price of two M9's with lenses. Some papers used the earlier Kodak DCS200ci. 80MBytes fixed internal disk, held 50 images before they were read-out using a SCSI cable.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6463-7191

Compared with an M9? Today, a lot of newpapers are ditching their professional photography staff and using pictures from cell phones of people happening to pass by the event.

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/12/times.html

So somehow I doubt that a professional photographer using an M9 would have their photo's rejected because the equipment was not good enough.
 
Leica has always catered mostly to the wealthy Amateur, always being priced at the high end. The fact that it has been as well a very successful professional tool for more than 50 years is thanks to an ingenious and elegant design. Professional use has promoted the myth among amateurs.

For the wealthy amateur market, 20k US for camera and 2 lenses is nothing, easily the difference between a cheap and an upper middle class car, and when spent there, nobody blinks an eye. A Leica M9 and Noctilux is cheaper than a Harley Davidson, much cheaper than a Porsche 911, boat or a horse. It costs less than a luxury vacation, say, 2 weeks on luxury Safari. It is so little money that the wealthy amateur buys two digital Leicas, since, as aspiring professional, that's what you need to do.

And, since in the real world, most nobody knows what a Leica is, wealthy amateurs buy new Leicas either (a) for the pleasure of using them, and/or (b) to brag about on internet fora, the only really receptive medium for this. 100% function is not required for either. Both activities promote the Myth.

Look at who receives a free M9 or other equipment by Leica's (now quite smart) marketing department, for "testing" purposes or just to "use", it tells you everything about their target.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I hate big, plastic cameras. So I got an M8. At the moment, my per-frame price is hovering around 16¢/shot, which is a bargain; especially if I don't have to lug around some big honkin' piece of Wünderplastik.
 
ferider said:
Leica has always catered mostly to the wealthy Amateur, always being priced at the high end. The fact that it has been as well a very successful professional tool for more than 50 years is thanks to an ingenious and elegant design. Professional use has promoted the myth among amateurs.

For the wealthy amateur market, 20k US for camera and 2 lenses is nothing, easily the difference between a cheap and an upper middle class car, and when spent there, nobody blinks an eye. A Leica M9 and Noctilux is cheaper than a Harley Davidson, much cheaper than a Porsche 911, boat or a horse. It costs less than a luxury vacation, say, 2 weeks on luxury Safari. It is so little money that the wealthy amateur buys two digital Leicas, since, as aspiring professional, that's what you need to do.

And, since in the real world, most nobody knows what a Leica is, wealthy amateurs buy new Leicas either (a) for the pleasure of using them, and/or (b) to brag about on internet fora, the only really receptive medium for this. 100% function is not required for either. Both activities promote the Myth.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Dear Roland,

I agree, except that it's only fair to add to the last paragraph that (c) they are also very good cameras, so that the quality of the final image is limited far more by the user's talent than by the camera.

Of course you can say that this is true of any camera, but most photographers, professional or amateur, have a 'comfort level' below which certain cameras won't do what they want, the way they want. Often, this is a question of the look they want, and generally, I get more pictures I like with my Leicas than with (for example) my 1960s Pentaxes. As a percentage of pics shot, anyway, except perhaps with B+W portraits.

Bragging on the internet? If you're truly a wealthy amateur, this looks to me like a very feeble payback for the money involved. And if you buy them to take pictures, it's no payback at all.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Well once again the community has rasied a good point that I had not really considered: there is only one full frame digital rangefinder so there is no alternative.

Good thoughts also about the photography enthusiast who can afford a Leica and wants to shoot it over a more well-equipped more complicated, larger, heavier DSLR. Is Epson planning on making a full frame version of the RD-1?

Will Leica continue to be the only game in town is this area of technology?

Thanks everyone for responding, most appreciated.

Have a great weekend.

Chris
 
I still find it astounding, arrogant even, that Leica could release a camera that required a filter for every lens you put on it to correct a serious image quality flaw.

Imagine if Mercedes sold a car where every passenger had to bring their own airbag!?!?!!!
 
As a lifel-long Nikon diehard... I have come to finally loathe their ever-changing products. I have a D2X that I need to sell, not because it is a bad camera but because I only need a rangefinder and enjoy using it.

I rode HD motorcycles for years. The old saying "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand" sums up that experience. But, I tired of it over time and rode BMW motorcycles because of the ability to ride 1000 miles/day without pain. Why did I not buy a GoldWing which I had always admired? I tried to but the BMW had "soul".

The BMW had it's own share of design problems including lousy lighting. I retired from motorcycling after hitting a deer and going airborne one night at 60mph. But, if I had not made the decision with my wife to retire, I would ride nothing else but a BMW touring bike.

My Leica camera and lens have the same "soul". I can't explain it. You would have to experience it yourself.

I do not own a digital Leica M body because I can not afford one with being unemployed 19 months and my wife recently having a heart attack and a subsequent stroke. But, if I were working as before, I would own at least an M8.2!

BTW, I no longer drive Toyotas and the like anymore. We own 2 Mercedes vehicles with a total of 300,000 miles on them and very little cost. Why? Safety. Comfort. Safety. Style. Safety. Engineering. Safety. and yes, soul! I do all the maintenance myself with help from members of the Mercedes Club and I absolutely love the Roadside Assistance program that is available for FREE for any MB owner regardless of circumstances. I junked my last Camry at 250,000 miles and it is probably now sitting in a trailer park in the form of a mobile home. Good riddance. If I didn't have to drive my wife to her job 120 miles every day and lived on a train/bus line, I would ride nothing but my bicycle....oh, crap...I forgot I sold it months ago to pay rent!:eek:

So, you see, people spend their money on what they want. Should be no surprise. Personally, I want my purchases to have the elusive quality described above....;)

Have a great weekend!
 
Last edited:
benno said:
I still find it astounding, arrogant even, that Leica could release a camera that required a filter for every lens you put on it to correct a serious image quality flaw.

Imagine if Mercedes sold a car where every passenger had to bring their own airbag!?!?!!!
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that every Mercedes owner should have a spouse?:eek:;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom