BLKRCAT
75% Film
I had a good laugh at this one.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then again, it could be argued that it could alienate people, implying that AIDS is a problem that concerns "them" and not "us". "Them" are the people who can afford Leicas; or who think that Apple is anything other than a triumph of overpriced style over function (personally I find the camera hideous); or who have AIDS.It's a good gesture from Leica and Apple nonetheless. For companies of such weight and prestige, the least they can do is use their names towards something that benefits mankind.
On a side note I won't mind Leica mass producing thisLooks nice and sleek like everything else Apple makes.
Cheers,
R.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Does Ive really love the Dieter Rams Braun design so much that he did style a Leica like a 60s electrical shaver, including a shaving head patterned body?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59537662@N08/6805642074
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59537662@N08/6805642074
Major Tom
Established
Another reminder of how I really, really, really. really hate post-modern design.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Looks like it's based on an M Typ 240; so, digital.
Jockos
Well-known
.......... :bang:
Ranchu
Veteran
Pretty tough to screw up a strap lug.
Ranchu
Veteran
Did you write a book about barbeque? I think I saw it the other day at a thrift store.
swoop
Well-known
Looks like it should say Fisher-Price on it.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Dropping the bomb:
I like it and would have one if it were series produced and could afford it (about the same time we collide with Mars, I'd say)
I like it and would have one if it were series produced and could afford it (about the same time we collide with Mars, I'd say
)CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I wish they had been working on 1) making excellent products more affordably; 2) serving their base, rather than abandoning certain products or systems; 3) making more products for actual photographers, rather than sultans, collectors, and foo-foo elitists; 4) developing their own products, rather than re-badging existing items; 5) developing products that actually are needed/wanted, rather than slapping a dot on something that existed earlier and then marketing it as somehow worthy of the extra dosh....
And i am a HUGE Ive fan. But, i can't see the purpose or utility here. Wouldn't a more 'mass' release generate more revenue? The objective here seems purely superficial and extravagant.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It represents everything about current design trends that I dislike ... blandness and zero imagination masquerading as pop art.
Just my opinon ... many will probaly love the emperor's new clothes!
Just my opinon ... many will probaly love the emperor's new clothes!
ssmc
Well-known
Surprised no-one has mentioned the name yet - an appalling (and tasteless given the intent) pun. No 80's Madonna fans on RFF?
Scrambler
Well-known
Saw the pun, but for all the reasons you mention wasn't going there. Not least being having to admit that I recognised the 80's Madonna reference...
panerai
Well-known
Not sure you can write off if an auction. Donation with nothing received is a write off, but if your bidding on something in return for money. Don't think you can write it off.
In Canada we have charity lotteries and being a lottery with prizes. Can't write it off. Even if you don't win.
US may be different
DON
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
I don't always, but I completely agree with what Roger has said thus far.
In my opinion, there are far better solutions to awareness, prevention and treatment of HIV than a Leica camera. This is a typical ploy, backed by a system that enables itself to continue into the same traditional contradictions that we are fed everyday - production/advertising/administration costs versus actual social/environmental impact costs. How much net costs go to research anyway? Seems more like a make-work project in a shaky economy than actually addressing the issue. Do we get to see the numbers that back this product? Or is that another hidden element? Doesn't seem like a good business plan to create social impact to me.
Scrambler
Well-known
OK, googled to see what more info was out there.
Sotheby's flyer:
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...c7ce75-8fbc-4b13-ad59-7b1c60bc1532/689391.pdf
I do a little work in health care in the developing world, and money in the Global Fund is well worth it, it my book. I don't care how it gets there.
I read someone questioning gold EarPods: I see it as a great fundraiser. A unique item which will sell for multi-thousands but costs almost nothing.
In reality the LeicaPod will be similar: it will be a pretty shell over an existing chassis, cost probably not much more than production versions retail for, and will possibly go for a million dollars or more.
It's not about awareness. It's not a Leica limited edition. It's a unique item created to exploit the difference between "cost" and "value" for the mega-rich and use that money to do something worthwhile.
Sotheby's flyer:
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...c7ce75-8fbc-4b13-ad59-7b1c60bc1532/689391.pdf
I do a little work in health care in the developing world, and money in the Global Fund is well worth it, it my book. I don't care how it gets there.
I read someone questioning gold EarPods: I see it as a great fundraiser. A unique item which will sell for multi-thousands but costs almost nothing.
In reality the LeicaPod will be similar: it will be a pretty shell over an existing chassis, cost probably not much more than production versions retail for, and will possibly go for a million dollars or more.
It's not about awareness. It's not a Leica limited edition. It's a unique item created to exploit the difference between "cost" and "value" for the mega-rich and use that money to do something worthwhile.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. It has appeared under a number of imprints: it was a flat-fee book so I've not been kept informed. I wrote it rather over 20 years ago. One problem was that the commissioning editor was a vegetarian and had a problem with "all those pictures of meat"...
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
That's the polite way of putting it. The rest of your post -- which is effectively about sustaining an unsustainable economic model -- is much more to the point.
Until recently -- 50 years ago, say -- economics was predicated on scarcity. But in rich countries, where superabundance is taken for granted, there is no longer genuine scarcity. In a rich country, even the poorest of the poor are unlikely to starve, and the "everyday" poor -- the bottom 10%, say -- will still often have a car, a television, etc. In most rich countries they need not fear illness either; or at least, not ruination and dying in the gutter as a consequence of illness.
Right now, in the UK, Call-me-Dave and his Tory chums are trying to re-create the results of scarcity -- "In the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread", Genesis 3:19 -- without actually having the scarcity to back it up, despite the best efforts of Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). The reason so many under-25s aren't working is because there aren't enough jobs. Forcing them to undertake meaningless "education" with worthless degrees, or treating them as slave labour to pick up litter, is missing the point.
The point, simply, is that money AND WORK needs to be more evenly distributed. Rich kids can afford to work for nothing (unpaid internships), because Daddy supports them, but in a decent society they'd be paid a fair wage for a fair day's work, rather than being exploited in their 20s so they can in their get overpaid jobs in their 30s and exploit others. And, of course, in a decent society, they'd get that internship (or whatever) out of a mixture of talent and burning enthusiasm, rather than being processed through the sausage machine, essentially on the basis of their social class or parental wealth.
I actually saw this starting at first hand nearly 40 years ago when I worked as an assistant in a London advertising studio. In the earky 1970s, assistants were paid (just) enough to live on, but over the 3 years or so that I intermittently worked as an assistant, wages didn't go up at all. Photography was a glamorous and sought-after trade, and too many rich kids (including me, though it's hard for me to think of myself that way) could rely too much on their parents -- so the market FORCED them/us to rely on their/our parents.
An even sillier example is journalism. In 1977, when I considered joining the NUJ (National Union of Journalists), a chapel (branch) consisted mostly of people who'd come up the hard way, joining a local paper as a cub reporter or even messenger boy on leaving school. There was always a more or less louche contingent as well, but they were rare.
Then people like me -- graduates, in my case with a law degree -- started coming in, and now, God help us all, journalism is regarded as a "profession". Oh, come on...
Cheers,
R.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Looks clean, like most of Ive's products; certainly you can see the Dieter Rams (Braun) lineage which has filtered though to the Jony Ive (Apple) mock up.
I'd like to see a real photo rather than the standard Adobe Illustrator mock up though.
I'd like to see a real photo rather than the standard Adobe Illustrator mock up though.