Is Leica now officially a "hobbyist's" camera?

[Pablito]

Professional does not mean all-knowing photographer, and amateur certainly does not me a terrible picture taker.

Absolutely! In some cultures and societies, it is, in fact, the amateur artist who is most highly revered in the lens of history. Take Chinese painting, for example. The greatest of the ancient Chinese painters were all amateurs (royalty) who practiced their art for the love of it, and the spirituality. The work of the professonal artists was far more rigid, and IMO, less interesing.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I have a newspaper background so if pros are using the rangefinders in other areas I wouldn't see it.
In the days of film there was often a guy or two at the major dailies who had a m4 or m6 in his bag of tricks.... just using it when it was suitable.
Now that it's digi only at the papers I don't know of anyone who uses one. Since most of them sold the lenses a few years back I doubt if they would be tempted by the M8 now that it's out.
Tomorrow I'm going to a 20 year gala for the main Photojournalism school in Canada, I know alot of the photographers are going to the event so I'll ask around and see what the interest is like with the students and those that are now in the field.
Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

 

[shadowfox]

<cropped>

When 35mm ruled the roost in PJ circles around the world, and Tri-X was consumed by the proverbial truckload by pros known and unknown, who were Leica, Kodak, Nikon and Canon (among others) still making most of their money from? Amateurs.

I doubt this has changed much in the digital world.


- Barrett

Agreed, if any, I think the digital made it more possible for camera companies to make more money from "amateurs".

Used to, as an amateur, you have to have enough drive and passion not to give up photography after spending your money to develop your 15th roll and looking at yet another 36 piece of cr*p(TM) (to borrow Keith Novak's phrase).

Today, digital camera and its natural cohort, digital post-processing makes beginners amateurs "feel" like they have the same ability as the "pro" (here means people who kept getting paid to take picture because others think they are good enough).

Because you can instant preview, delete, and keep shooting, the price of entry to photography has been lowered. Sadly, this doesn't necessarily raise the quality of the pictures taken, it just increase the number... and the sales.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Wow, great thread.

Short answer to the original question: Yes. Of course there are a few hold-outs.

For most professional photography, digital SLR is good enough, and what it lacks in quality, it makes up for in speed, quantity, and easy manipulation. For the pros that still use film, medium or large format is the reason, not 35mm. I love & respect Leicas as much as the next guy here, but let's be real. For pro use, it's all but dead.

Also, I will reiterate what others have said. Pros do not necessarily make great pictures. They make salable pictures. As a group, hobbyist photogs are probably better than pros; we are much more passionate, becuase we do it out of love, not necessity.

There's no shame in it.

...and yes, I've noticed that Asians (not necessarily just Japanese) do love their Leicas. Just like they love their Mercedes'. They know quality when they see it, as do many of us. Example: A long time ago, Toyota studied Mercedes' to find out why the door of a Mercedes closing made such a solid sound compared to their then-current cars. Now, they know why, and they make a very good quality product. Probably as good or better than Mercedes in the reliability department. But there are still things that Mercedes does better, because they will not compromise to make a buck in mass production. Ditto with Leica. With a stiff spine, Leica still makes their bodies out of ultra-expensive materials, and with "antiquated" designs, simply because it is the better way to do things. They know their fans, though the fan base has changed over the decades. In general, Europeans have a higher respect for tradition & quality than the rest of us do.

Examples? German cars, motorcycles, and cameras. English chess sets. Italian leather. Czechoslovakian sailplanes. French wine & cheese. Swiss watches. Well, before I turn this into a huge racial profile, I'll just come full circle.

Leicas are not used by anyone but amateurs these days. (in general) But there is no reason to feel bad about it. We are their market now. They didn't change with the times, and where they did, they were not priced competitively. They were just too darned stubborn. Their competitors made an equal or nearly-equal product for much lower cost. Leica stood there, arms crossed, and said: "But ours is still better!" Not enough better, as time has shown.

 

[Avotius]

I take good care of my cameras but they get used well, I have a canon ae1 here that has the chrome worn off in many places to attest to that, same with all my other stuff. It gets used, I dont care if it says canon or leica on it, if im going to spend money on it im gona use that bloody thing

 

[wpb]

It was never a professional camera. If it was (in its heyday) those black paint M2 & M3 cameras wouldn't be so f-ing rare. It was conceived as a snapshot camera, small and well constructed without loosing quality over medium format cameras of the day. That professionals have on occasion exploited the virtues of the Leica is because as a professional you choose the right tool for the job.

 

[x-ray]

For most professional photography, digital SLR is good enough, and what it lacks in quality, it makes up for in speed, quantity, and easy manipulation. For the pros that still use film, medium or large format is the reason, not 35mm. I love & respect Leicas as much as the next guy here, but let's be real. For pro use, it's all but dead.

Also, I will reiterate what others have said. Pros do not necessarily make great pictures. They make salable pictures. As a group, hobbyist photogs are probably better than pros; we are much more passionate, becuase we do it out of love, not necessity.

What lack of quality with digital? Digital on the pro level is fantastic. For example the 1DsII that I shoot is very comperable to MF. There's certainly no lack of quality here.

Pro use of film, atleast in my case, is not driven by format. I shoot film for a particular look and most of the film I shoot is 35mm. From time to time I drag out the 4x5 or 8x10 but only about 10% of the time.

No, pros don't necessarily make great pictures but many do whether for sale or not. Being a pro just meany the person takes money for what they produce. I've certainly seen some poor pro work over the years. On the other hand I've seen amateur work that's excellent but per percentages the pro work is better than amateur work in general. Take the whole of pro shooters on all levels and I would estimate 10% are really superb shooters. Take the amateur shooters and I would estimate 2% to be really fine shooters.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[x-ray]

I certainly wold'nt call myself a digital lover but I do see the value where appropriate. Under the right conditions digital is the solution and other conditiond film is the solution. It great to have the option. I think this is one of the characteristics of a true pro, seeing where a particular medioum, digital or film, is appropriate and selecting the correct format, camer and lens combo to accomplish the task.

Cheers Magus!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

There is a lot of misunderstanding about amateur and professional.

I see stunning photos from amateurs such as kathytoth.ca, nico, swann, OurManInTangier, Robert Blu, jan normandale and Bike Tourist. And many more.

I also see very mediocre work from professional photographers locally.

 

[Pablito]

I admit that I've been called a snob, but I think x-ray's 2% is about right except that I think it also applies to "pro" photographers! Most pro photograhers are hacks who plod along doing their mediocre wedding, pj, and advertising jobs. True visionaries are few and far between. I know, I sound like a jaded old f*rt.

 

[mw_uio]

My thoughts are this, call "Leica" whatever you want too! Pros will use what will get the job done! 😀

Mark
Quito, EC

 

[wpb]

The original Leica camera was marketed as a snapshot and travel camera, and was often marketed to women. Show me one ad where it is marketed to professional photographers. By 1932 Leica had sold 90,000 cameras, there is no way they were sold substantially to professional photographers. I think even Leica likes to get all misty-eyed about how they changed photojournalism, but they certainly never marketed the camera that way in the beginning.

 

[Keith]

God made FSU's to keep the 'riff raff' away from Leicas ... hobbyists indeed... such a suggestion!😱 😛

 

[emraphoto]

ng

ng

i belive the entire national geographic article on china (shot within the last 6 months) was done on two m6's.
and i'm sure we all know of david burnett.
i use film and currently have two (municipal and federal) art grants to shoot.
disclaimer; i also shoot on digital format. by no means are the words expressed to be mistaken for a less than glowing opinion of digital.

 

[amateriat]

No, pros don't necessarily make great pictures but many do whether for sale or not. Being a pro just meany the person takes money for what they produce. I've certainly seen some poor pro work over the years. On the other hand I've seen amateur work that's excellent but per percentages the pro work is better than amateur work in general. Take the whole of pro shooters on all levels and I would estimate 10% are really superb shooters. Take the amateur shooters and I would estimate 2% to be really fine shooters.

The big difference between most pro shooters and most amateurs isn't quality, but consistency. Decent pros, while not necessarily artistically well-honed, can put out decent work on-demand and on-sched, because, well, they have to for the sake of their livelihood. Better pros (x-ray being an example), are likely able to raise the bar more often than not. (Maybe this aspect is connected with Elliott Erwitt's fondness for the term "amateur" as opposed to "pro"?) 😉


- Barrett

 

[ywenz]

Leica is an artist's camera. Not a professional photographer's camera. Those two things are mutually exclusive most of the time.

Example: A long time ago, Toyota studied Mercedes' to find out why the door of a Mercedes closing made such a solid sound compared to their then-current cars. Now, they know why, and they make a very good quality product. Probably as good or better than Mercedes in the reliability department. But there are still things that Mercedes does better, because they will not compromise to make a buck in mass production.

European cars are notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to the vehicle's electronics. I wouldn't set the bar with their products.

 

[Jeremy Z]

The big difference between most pro shooters and most amateurs isn't quality, but consistency. Decent pros, while not necessarily artistically well-honed, can put out decent work on-demand and on-sched, because, well, they have to for the sake of their livelihood. Better pros (x-ray being an example), are likely able to raise the bar more often than not. (Maybe this aspect is connected with Elliott Erwitt's fondness for the term "amateur" as opposed to "pro"?) 😉

I agree; well said. I think X-Ray is giving some of his fellow pros too much credit. He is obviously a better-than-average pro because even in his off-time, he is here reading more about photography. He is more passionate than most pros, because he is still thinking about photography.

There is no doubt that Leicas were once the preferred cameras of photojournalists. To say otherwise is pure ignorance, and indicates that person is not well read in the history of photography equipment. Before the 35mm still film and Leica rangefinders burst on the scene, Speed Graphics were the photojournalist's standard. Leicas gave image quality that was good enough for newspapers & magazines, and the cameras were much smaller and handier. Then, as others have said, Nikon made SLRs the logical choice, especially for pros. It took quite a while longer before SLRs came into common use among "regular guys".

 

[KM-25]

For most professional photography, digital SLR is good enough, and what it lacks in quality, it makes up for in speed, quantity, and easy manipulation. For the pros that still use film, medium or large format is the reason, not 35mm. I love & respect Leicas as much as the next guy here, but let's be real. For pro use, it's all but dead.

Also, I will reiterate what others have said. Pros do not necessarily make great pictures. They make salable pictures. As a group, hobbyist photogs are probably better than pros; we are much more passionate, becuase we do it out of love, not necessity.

There's no shame in it.

Well, this was a cool thread until the blankets started flying.

Blanket statements that is. There are only a few pros on here, I am one of them. What is stated above is a perception, not a truth.

1. The pros in my circle including my self use both film and digital. We also use it in 35mm, not dead. In fact, since digital has proven so profitable, many of us use more film because of that. So all in all, film use is on the rise by some 70 of 170 photographers I know.

2. Every single pro I know is much, much better than 95% of any amateur work I have seen on here, Pbase, Photo.net, etc, etc. Many win top awards. Only three are wedding photographers by the way. A few of my friends have won pulitzers, I know of not a single amateur that has won a pulitzer.

3. Many of us are incredibly passionate about our work. We don't get paid to do photography for a living, we get paid to live an incredible life that many amateurs can only dream of.

So yes, there are a good many amateurs that may enjoy their hobby and even do some great work, but there are a huge amount of pros....*Huge* amount who are outstanding and are passionate about what they do.

I think X-Ray's comment on 10% of pros are good and 2% of amateurs are good is a more accurate place to be with all of this.

How many of you subscribe to Photo District News or Communication Arts?

Not many I would bet. Well, my friends, that is where you will find most of us pros. And that is where you will see what the real world looks like in the realm of the non-mainstream pro.

I am not trying to put anyone down, it is just that ever since the inception of the internet and these types of forums, there is a growing misconception that amateurs are getting better than pros and pros are not passionate about their jobs.

I am a pro and know over 170 pros, I call BS!

 

[StuartR]

The vast majority of all cameras are used by hobbyists. That's what supports all camera companies, Canon included. Anything that can be used to make images that will sell has been used by pro's and that could include Holga's, 8x10 view cameras, a Cheerios box with a hole punched in it and modern DSLR's. What does it matter what car, bicycle, tennis racquet or camera any particular pro uses? If you are planning on spending time on the top of Everest, in impassable Tropical rainforests or in the Artic well then you might want a camera with weather seals. Use what works for you. If your images sell, you can call your rig a 'pro' camera.

This was exactly what I was going to say. Honestly, HAnkg is totally correct.