Leica these days (a little rant)

Rather than pining for ways to spend 6000$+ on a camera, how about spending 6000$ on film. That's 1000+ rolls of Tri-X right there (which includes the free archiving on this noble metal called silver). You plan on shooting that all in a year? Highly doubtful, also highly doubtful you'll shoot it all in 5 years - at which point your M8/M9/M240/MWTFever will be worth peanuts again. But hey, the manufacturers want you in the cycle - so hop aboard!
 
mfogiel said:
Maybe you are into the wrong profession. If you can't reasonably make enough money with photography, to pay for appropriate tools, then the market is sending you a signal. Maybe it would make more sense to become a smart plumber or programmer, and if you like your M6, you can use it in your spare time, and hope to become the next HCB.
Click to expand...

With due respect, that's ridiculous.

Firstly, he said he is an aspiring professional photographer. Maybe it's because I've been in my own business, but exceedingly few startups that can afford the most expensive, top-of-line tools right from the day they open their doors.

Secondly, even among professional photographers, he'd be among a small minority if he were using a digital Leica extensively in his practice.

The overwhelming majority do just fine with Canon or Nikon, without ever touching a Leica.

That isn't meant as a swipe at Leica; it's a great company that makes wonderful cameras, and offers a level of customer service that no other company can approach.

Dunn, if that is what you want, go for it. I can identify with your frustration. I want an M9-P in the worst way, but can't justify the expense as a hobbyist. As a pro, perhaps it probably makes a lot more sense, depending on your work and preferences.

There is a lot of wisdom in this:

btgc said:
... If you want a car, there are millions of options. If you want a performance car, still plenty of choices. Rear drive car - less options, but still many. Mid engine - not so many anymore. Mid engine full wheel drive - now you are limited to a few.

We have to pay for our choices and preferences.
Click to expand...

Follow your passion. Plan for the cost, and it will happen if that's the tool you need.
 
Dunn,
I'm not sure what area of photography you aspire to be in, but I see a lot of wedding photographers using film. You can market film as 'boutique' and 'aspirational' vs. the humdrum digital option. Before anyone jumps on that, I'm saying you can do that as marketing, it does not need to be the truth.

Also, I know it's easy to read Steve Huff Photo and get the impression that everyone has a $10,000 digital Leica kit, and the GAS can get the better of you. In reality though, once you've given in to GAS a few times, it gets a bit boring. I GASsed after a Black Paint Leica MP. Eventually I got one, and it was 'Meh', I preferred my M3 by a significant margin. In fact I preferred my Bessa R4A too. Desirable cameras don't need to be the expensive ones, in fact I find they rarely are.

Cheers

Garry
 
Dunn said:
I just need to share my feelings that I'm sure plenty of you may have had.

I'm an aspiring professional photographer and while I LOVE using my Leica M6 the future is digital. So, of course I think any of the full frame digital Leica M's would be my perfect camera, but why do they have to be so expensive? I've tried an X100 which is pretty good and I have the new Ricoh GR which I like a lot, but they are no M.
I don't know for sure that a digital M would satisfy me like the M6 does, but they are just too freakin expensive to even try one out!
And then I check out the Leica blog every now and then and everyone seems to have a new M or Monochrom and I envy them.
Maybe it's good that I can't try one out because if I love it then I wouldn't be able to afford to keep it. Even if I could, ideally I would have two bodies and that's pretty much impossible with Leica prices.
Uggghhhhhhh
Anyone want to donate me a digital M? Haha
Thanks for listening
Click to expand...


The problem is not Leica being so expensive. It is the photographer who makes the photo with whatever tool he uses. I use film Leica cameras and an X1. Then, again, I have used Nikon D bodies forever.

Nobody needs a Leica. I prefer them but I do not need a Leica. I simply prefer them and will probably never own an M9 or more expensive digital Leica because they are expensive. I don't have a problem with that, it is called life.

I deal with it by being the best photographer I can possibly be.

And I am very happy with the M3 and R4. Film is not dead, so why do you not think you can get by with any digital camera? The market is full of capable cameras just waiting for a capable photographer. Stop bemoaning the fact that you can't afford an MM, or other camera. It doesn't matter. Really, it does not matter.:angel:
 
Get an M8. In the majority of situations you'll encounter it will work wonderfully, it is cheap, and is a Leica. Not very difficult to find either.
 
There is more to it than that:

  • Developing and processing.
  • Printing costs are much, much higher if you are not a master printer yourself.
  • You still need scans to be able to submit work and share it.

I love film too (in fact I am currently sitting inside an exhibition of my film work) but can see why someone wants to work digitally going forwards, or for more of their work.

clayne said:
Rather than pining for ways to spend 6000$+ on a camera, how about spending 6000$ on film. That's 1000+ rolls of Tri-X right there (which includes the free archiving on this noble metal called silver). You plan on shooting that all in a year? Highly doubtful, also highly doubtful you'll shoot it all in 5 years - at which point your M8/M9/M240/MWTFever will be worth peanuts again. But hey, the manufacturers want you in the cycle - so hop aboard!
Click to expand...
 
If my living depended on photography, I would never go with digital Leica. They make no sense from a business perspective. They are far too expensive. I agree with Fraser - go with used Canon 5Ds.
Film doesn't make sense for a business - the work flow is too slow and film is too expensive.
I prefer the Sigma foveon sensor cameras over everything else. My Sigma SD1 Merrill is a terrific camera but it is also too slow for professional use in my view.
If you need to travel light for your business, consider the Fuji X-Pro1. Great set of lenses, great IQ, simple to use - I really like that system. But it is hard to beat the versatility and speed of a full frame digital camera from Canon or Nikon.
Use your Leica M6 and/or a used M8 for personal use.
Mixing business with pleasure can become unnecessarily costly.
 
Eric T said:
If my living depended on photography, I would never go with digital Leica. They make no sense from a business perspective. They are far too expensive. I agree with Fraser - go with used Canon 5Ds.
Film doesn't make sense for a business - the work flow is too slow and film is too expensive.
I prefer the Sigma foveon sensor cameras over everything else. My Sigma SD1 Merrill is a terrific camera but it is also too slow for professional use in my view.
If you need to travel light for your business, consider the Fuji X-Pro1. Great set of lenses, great IQ, simple to use - I really like that system. But it is hard to beat the versatility and speed of a full frame digital camera from Canon or Nikon.
Use your Leica M6 and/or a used M8 for personal use.
Mixing business with pleasure can become unnecessarily costly.
Click to expand...


I think it depends on the business and the type of photography, and the person doing it. We all read about that photographer who purchased $100k worth of Velvia 8x10. So unless he/she is a rich hobbyist, it's probably making quite a lot of money to make that worth while. Jonathan Canlas is a wedding pro who charges a lot of money and shoots film.

Obviously it's not for everyone, but film is clearly making sense for some people from a business perspective.
 
If you're going to own Leica cameras you gotta charge Leica prices.

My mentor, Monte Zucker, once told the story when he was learning the technicals about posing, lighting and composition, he was leaving his house to go see his mentor, Joe Zeltsman and his wife said, "you're going to be nothing more than a cheap clone of Joes!"

Monte said, "I may be a clone of Joes but I won't be cheap!"

Monte was a salesman with a camera.

I tried to emulate Monte and I wasn't as good as him but I did OK.

Does that tell you something about identifying the people you want as your customer base? And how do you educate them to your view of the world so as they hire you?
 
As a person who has photography as a hobby, I can afford to use film. The film itself is not really expensive, but the time to develop and handle the film is costly. If you are a freelancer then time is probably more important. The time to handle film compared to digital is the time you lose for the next paid job.
 
Turtle said:
There is more to it than that:
  • Developing and processing.
  • Printing costs are much, much higher if you are not a master printer yourself.
  • You still need scans to be able to submit work and share it.
I love film too (in fact I am currently sitting inside an exhibition of my film work) but can see why someone wants to work digitally going forwards, or for more of their work.
Click to expand...

For me, coming up with $4000 for a used M9 is impossible as is a cheaper M8 at $1600. If I sold all of my Leica cameras and kept the lenses, I would be able to buy an M8 but at such a cost!!.. for a camera that is not even supported with replacement screens and I can't afford new lenses to deal with the crop factor.

With over 12 years of digital work (Nikon D bodies), I understand the ages-old arguments about the future of digital...and the so-called costs involved. Using both digital and film works for me but if the OP cannot afford what he wants (MM or whatever), then he will have to deal with it like all of us. Buy a cheaper M8 if he can afford it. Get any other digital camera that takes Leica lenses. Get a compact Leica digital. Etc., etc.,etc.

Me? I am totally hybrid. I do not print except for paying customers. So printing is no cost to me. Developing is cheap. Scanning is free.

The point is...if one cannot afford a luxury camera, it doesn't matter. It is up to the photographer to use whatever he/she can afford and whatever he/she actually likes to use. I would LOVE an MM. Not going to happen. I would LOVE an M9. Not going to happen. Again, it's just life. But it is full of choices.:)

Luxury items are just that...not necessities.
 
tom.w.bn said:
As a person who has photography as a hobby, I can afford to use film. The film itself is not really expensive, but the time to develop and handle the film is costly. If you are a freelancer then time is probably more important. The time to handle film compared to digital is the time you lose for the next paid job.
Click to expand...

Who gets paid?:p
 
I shoot film professionally and have done for decades, and all told it is neither expensive or time consuming compared to digital in my experience, in fact it is faster and cheaper.
 
If you're an aspiring professional I'd suggest you let your business market decree which camera will be of most use to you.

Make enough money doing your job and you can buy yourself the MM (or future equivalent) either through your business or as a personal 'toy.'
 
thegman said:
I think it depends on the business and the type of photography, and the person doing it. We all read about that photographer who purchased $100k worth of Velvia 8x10. So unless he/she is a rich hobbyist, it's probably making quite a lot of money to make that worth while. Jonathan Canlas is a wedding pro who charges a lot of money and shoots film.

Obviously it's not for everyone, but film is clearly making sense for some people from a business perspective.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the percentage of professional photographers making a living from film is well below 1%. It would be interesting to see if anyone has firm data on this. There will be the rare person who spends a fortune on film. But that is a rarity and that's why it made the news.
 
Eric T said:
I suspect that the percentage of professional photographers making a living from film is well below 1%. It would be interesting to see if anyone has firm data on this. There will be the rare person who spends a fortune on film. But that is a rarity and that's why it made the news.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure it's a tiny percentage making money from film, but I too would be interested in the stats. And of course, how are we defining a living? I read on Ken Rockwell's site that the median pay in the USA for photographers is $29k per year. Obviously it depends on where and how you live, but $29k in London is barely a living really. I doubt it's much of a living in the more expensive cities in the USA too like NY or San Francisco.

It may be like comparing iPhone app developers to IBM mainframe developers, iPhone app developers will outnumber them by 1000 to 1, but almost no iPhone developers actually make any money, certainly not a living. On the other hand if you're working as an IBM mainframe developer as a professional, you're probably making a decent wage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom