Leica has a problem

Hektor said:
It's often interesting to ask - "When did you last buy a brand new Leica ?"

the answers tell about both Leica, and their customers on whom they survive.
Click to expand...

I have not and I do not know anyone who has. That of course is a small sample. Would I ever buy new? If I won the lottery maybe.

Bob
 
Hektor said:
It's often interesting to ask - "When did you last buy a brand new Leica ?"
Click to expand...
At this point I think a more telling question would be to ask "Who plans on buying a digital M?"

I want one. I may even be able to save enough in one year to buy one (if I don't eat on weekends and ride a bicycle everywhere). I am excited about the camera even though I don't know one thing about it. I don't even know if it will be made by Leica.

(I do have to qualify the above statement. I get excited about new rangefinders of all kinds.)

If I can afford one I will probably buy a digital M. If the digital M design is marginal then I will probably buy and R-D1/R-D2 and use the money I save to buy a Leica lens.
 
Hektor said:
It's often interesting to ask - "When did you last buy a brand new Leica ?"
Click to expand...
My Leica body was used, but my three Leica lenses were all bought new. 🙂 I am not particularly interested in any "serious" digital camera, new or used. A digital P&S (used!) is fine, limited to P&S tasks...
 
The other telling question - who bought a new voigtlander? I and many others like me did why? -because I wanted a rangefinder couldn't afford a leica M new so got myself a whole system new for less than the price of one leica body. The quality is lower but still compares favourably to the 'L' zooms I had on my Eos - so well within 'professional' standard. I would bust a gut to buy a new Leica digital or otherwise as long as I could just about rationalise it *but* the type of work Leicas are best at is currently the most time consuming and lowest paid -in depth photojournalism or documentary photography. The money I could earn from this camera could not justify the outlay in such a marginal segment of the market - I don't need a pinnacle of engineering I want the Leica M equivalent of a Nikon FM2n an unglamorous but reliable workhorse. The current camera that fits the bill is the Bessa R2a and may soon be the Zeiss Ikon the M7 is a joke in terms of specification and the M digital very sadly will probably be a even bigger joke 😡
 
Toby

I think that you are on to something with reference to how a camera is spec'd out. In this electronic age the more features/programs the better to the consumer regardless if you need them all. For the most part manufactuers like this as it is so easy to add in the electronics age and cheap too. More is better is today's consumer standard when it comes to bragging rights.

Bob
 
Toby,

quote: <I would bust a gut to buy a new Leica digital or otherwise>

So really, you still want one then ! - reallyreally !

You don't buy a Leica just to take better or commercial photos, - it's photographers that take pictures, - not cameras.

You buy a leica because you want one, - for your own reasons, - whatever they are.

You can learn a lot from taking pics with Leicas, - about the camera, - about the picture,

- and about yourself.
 
What was that about a Leica with Herpes? Sorry. Hey, wouldn't it make sense for Panasonic to simply buy Leica outright, given their close ties?

And before you dismiss the notion, take a look at what Ford's cash has done for Jag and Aston Martin. And then there's VW bankrolling a $1.25M Bugatti.

And if not Panasonic, maybe Fuji should consider.

Just dreaming....
 
About a year ago, I mentioned on photo.net that I thought Ford had helped Jaguar survive and had helped to improve the quality of its vehicles. But a number of people said that they felt the opposite had happened -- that Ford had ruined Jaguar's reputation and the quality of its cars.

I don't agree with them, but perception goes a long way.
 
Hektor said:
Toby,

quote: <I would bust a gut to buy a new Leica digital or otherwise>

So really, you still want one then ! - reallyreally !

You don't buy a Leica just to take better or commercial photos, - it's photographers that take pictures, - not cameras.

You buy a leica because you want one, - for your own reasons, - whatever they are.

You can learn a lot from taking pics with Leicas, - about the camera, - about the picture,

- and about yourself.
Click to expand...


That's the killer I and probably many others like the idea of owning a Leica but in the cold light of day they don't make anything that foots the bill. For what I would use it for (self-comissioned documentary work) it just doesn't make sense -the costs on this type of work often make the profitabilty marginal and it's not as if a leica is as flexible as a pro AF SLR and I could make up the cost doing other work with it -it would have to be a cost on top of my everyday kit. It's not as if I use cheap eqipment or I would shy away from making big investments where necessary but for what it would add to my repertoire - it's just not a good business decision
 
Ok Toby, I understand.......

I'll tell that to Salvador Salgado, - if I ever meet him, (no such luck), he used to do some self-commisioned documentary work I hear.

The Force is strong Toby,,,, - beware the Dark Side.......


Just Kidding, Best Regards, John C.
 
>>In fact the "pros" laughed at them till the press stopped using Speedgraphics and Rollei TLR's....<<

That's true only up to a point. Newspaper and wire-service press photographers kept their SpeedGraphics and Rollei's so long that they switched to SLRs, bypassing RFs almost altogether.

On the other hand, Leica all but created the genre of available-light unobtrusive photojournalism. The ability to get a miniture camera into everyday situations as well as behind closed doors spawned an explosion of reality-based photography in the 1930s, leading to the birth of Life magazine and its many competitors. For several decades, there was a strong distinction between grab-shot news photography -- which focused on getting a single news photo -- and more in-depth, essay-based photojournalism which offered most people their primary viewpoint of the world before the rise of television.

If Leica wants to maintain its standing in the photographic world, the company ought to come out with a VERY SMALL interchangable lens RF -- something along the lines of the old PenF. Allow an adapter for existing M glass but otherwise create a new camera system, just as they did in the switch from LTM to M. We are seeing small digital cameras reinventing the limits of photography -- some of the most compelling pictures out of Iraq were taken by the troops themselves using their personal cameras, such as the Abu Ghraib pictures. Leica was do well to return to its roots and embrace its whole philosophy of creating the best possible instrument for fly-on-the-wall reportage. Small sensor size. Small interchangeable lenses with adapters for older M lenses. Stunning viewfinder. Silent operation.
 
VinceC said:
That's true only up to a point. Newspaper and wire-service press photographers kept their SpeedGraphics and Rollei's so long that they switched to SLRs, bypassing RFs almost altogether.

On the other hand, Leica all but created the genre of available-light unobtrusive photojournalism. The ability to get a miniture camera into everyday situations as well as behind closed doors spawned an explosion of reality-based photography in the 1930s, leading to the birth of Life magazine and its many competitors. For several decades, there was a strong distinction between grab-shot news photography -- which focused on getting a single news photo -- and more in-depth, essay-based photojournalism which offered most people their primary viewpoint of the world before the rise of television.
Click to expand...
W. Eugene Smith - Smith was fired from one job becaused he used a miniature 2 1/4x2 1/4. Some of his most notable work was with a Leica M.

VinceC said:
If Leica wants to maintain its standing in the photographic world, the company ought to come out with a VERY SMALL interchangable lens RF -- something along the lines of the old PenF. Allow an adapter for existing M glass but otherwise create a new camera system, just as they did in the switch from LTM to M. We are seeing small digital cameras reinventing the limits of photography -- some of the most compelling pictures out of Iraq were taken by the troops themselves using their personal cameras, such as the Abu Ghraib pictures. Leica was do well to return to its roots and embrace its whole philosophy of creating the best possible instrument for fly-on-the-wall reportage. Small sensor size. Small interchangeable lenses with adapters for older M lenses. Stunning viewfinder. Silent operation
Click to expand...
It doesn't have interchangable lenses or a "stunning viewfinder" but Leica's new "D-Lux 2" makes it appear that Leica is thinking along those lines.
 
Hektor said:
Ok Toby, I understand.......

I'll tell that to Salvador Salgado, - if I ever meet him, (no such luck), he used to do some self-commisioned documentary work I hear.

The Force is strong Toby,,,, - beware the Dark Side.......


Just Kidding, Best Regards, John C.
Click to expand...


The irony is Sebatiao Salgado probably (in fact almost certainly) gets given all his leica kit for free- certainly judging by the 'shot on Leica credits' in his books. Rich and famous photographers don't have to buy cameras 🙄


Also although exteremly talented he was made very wealthy when he was the only photographer present at Reagan's attempted assassination - that gave him the funds to do pretty much what ever he wanted. So I take your point but Salgado's an exception not the rule
 
My apologies to Mr Salgado for getting his name wrong, - I was searching my memory banks but I guess a few pixels had gone noisy !, - However his pictures surely are memorable !

I'm wondering what camera he had for the shots of Reagan's assassination attempt ?

There is another factor which has influenced my photo-life, - I bought a s/h IIIb with f2 summitar in about 1969, (cost £25), and became very accustomed to working with it. I can still work it in my sleep, and just nothing else feels the same, or works the same way. It's what your right arm is for. Throw the lens cap away and you can't go wrong if you practice, practice, practice, - and shoot, shoot, shoot.

Then you stand a chance when a unique photo oportunity suddenly arrives, - at least you don't have to wait for the thing to switch on and self-test and decide it can't auto-focus !

JC.
 
Hektor said:
My apologies to Mr Salgado for getting his name wrong, - I was searching my memory banks but I guess a few pixels had gone noisy !, - However his pictures surely are memorable !

I'm wondering what camera he had for the shots of Reagan's assassination attempt ?

There is another factor which has influenced my photo-life, - I bought a s/h IIIb with f2 summitar in about 1969, (cost £25), and became very accustomed to working with it. I can still work it in my sleep, and just nothing else feels the same, or works the same way. It's what your right arm is for. Throw the lens cap away and you can't go wrong if you practice, practice, practice, - and shoot, shoot, shoot.

Then you stand a chance when a unique photo oportunity suddenly arrives, - at least you don't have to wait for the thing to switch on and self-test and decide it can't auto-focus !




JC.
Click to expand...



That's why I've not bought a camera body in 5 years - the learning curve of new equipment is a pain - familiarity yields the best results 😀
 
Sebastião Salgado is an interesting character. He is Marxist with a PhD in economics from the Sorbonne and, like most of the people in this forum, he uses several cameras. It is my understanding that for the second part of his recent Genesis project he used a Pentax 645.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom