kingqueenknave
Well-known
But Leica charges the same amount for the M7 and MP, so I think you're wrong.
Hey, I'm sorry for the confusion ... I didn't mean for that paragraph to be directed at you. Only the first line.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why single Leica out for this? Just about every other camera manufacturer has also tried to persuade people of the same thing. Otherwise, why would Nikon make 57 different varieties of DSLR, and change their line-up every three weeks? (I exaggerate, but only slightly.)
Admittedly there are those manufacturers who make really nasty cameras and have no option but to try to peddle the line that it's the photographer, not the camera. They're wrong, of course. If that were really the case, we'd all be using box Brownies.
There's a 'quality plateau'. Up to it, a better camera will, indeed, make better pictures. Above it, the main thing that makes a difference is the photographer's skill. But it's easier to become skilled with a tool you like using.
Quite a lot of people bought (and presumably continue to buy) current MPs because they're simple, well-designed, new (not 50 and 60 year old) cameras. How is this a 'marketing job'?
Cheers,
R.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I didn't mention the M7?
They make you think there is a 'quality plateau', nothing wrong with that in itself - it is good for Leica (and maybe Nikon like you say), and nothing wrong by thinking you will make better pictures with that...but you know it is only yourself thinking that
.... and again also nothing wrong with that in itself, .... I just wanted to stress it is a marketing thing letting you think you will make better pictures with it...but in the end you'll know it doesn't matter whether the thing has a brass or a zinc top ...
enero
Killer of Threads
Ha, Ive been saving up for an MP, but this thread has now made me think that maybe I should give the M7 a try, if for nothing else, shear laziness! (Cheaper, AE, On switch)
seanbonner
Established
The thing with the M7 is you can buy a used one, play with it and if you decide you don't like it you can sell it for exactly what you paid for it with no trouble at all and still keep saving for the MP
enero
Killer of Threads
gdi
Veteran
Careful, you'll be sentencing yourself to years of feelings of inferiority and regret, compelling you to viciously defend an indefensible camera on international photography forums. For your own peace of mind, do the right thing.
gdi
Veteran
Ha! Another poser victim felled by simple logic!
enero
Killer of Threads
gdi
Veteran
The worlds most beautiful M7, and it is almost as beautiful as an M6 Millenium which is the SECOND Nicest modern Leica ! That really highlights the ugliness of the black chrome M7; it looks like an old crowbar, and an abused one at that.
maddoc
... likes film again.
... if something is only used because it looks the most professional in the absence of professionalism then I would call it a poser. However, if you look at the various threads here and at Leica User Forum and compare the amount of photos taken of BP MP and black-chrome M7 you might get my point.
(No, I am not a professional. I use the M7 because of a) convenience of having AE and b) the more accurate shutter. BTW, I used to have a silver-chrome MP that spent more time at Leica to get the shutter working to specs than for taking photos ....)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, there IS a quality plateau. No-one is making me think that: anyone of average intelligence (or less) can work that our for himself/herself. How can it be otherwise? The only alternative is that all cameras are equally versatile and deliver equal quality, which is patently nonsense.Ron (Netherlands) said:
Up to the quality plateau --which varies with the photographer, the subject matter, and the kind of picture that is wanted -- a better camera will get you better pictures. Beyond that level it won't matter: all that matters is the photographer's skill.
Well, OK, there's one exception. If you want poor sharpness, vignetting, light leaks, the whole Holga/Diana experience, some cameras may be too good -- though arguably, that's just redefining 'quality'.
I'm damn sure I get better pictures of more things under more kinds of different light with my MP than I would with (let's say) an Ilford Sporti 4. Could I get equally good pics with other cameras? Yes, some. Indeed, better with others, if I go to medium or large format. Could I get them as easily with (say) my Exakta Varex IIa? Possibly, but certainly not as easily -- and like many people, I find I can hold just about any RF/DV camera steadier than an SLR.
I see that your signature lists "Leica: Urleica, IIa synch conversion, M2, M6 TTL Millenium, M8.2". Why? If they all take equally good pictures, and no better than a Holga, why don't you just stick with a Holga? Or better still, a Lubitel (cheaper)?
Cheers,
R.