SaveKodak
Well-known
I would not care to delete my comment, but apologize for any offence felt. It is entirely my opinioni that would have to be out of yoru goddamn mind to consider Leica digital in a business plan, and you have every right to dissent. I would actually enjoy reading a counter arguement. I don't know why people get so quickly 'offended' by differnig opinions. This is how debate works. It's fun. You don't have to agree. We all learn something. Deleting comments you don't like is just sad.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
No. Stick with the following highlight: you would have to be out of your goddamn mind to write a business plan and include Leica M digital bodies or lenses in it. If you're doing pro work you'll be better served with a dslr or Fuji anyway, and when you're doing your personal work to GET YOU work, use your Leica.
People who write business plans rarely understand much about the true passion of photography, and those who read them are likely to understand even less. What sort of "pro work" is he talking about, anyway? If I were ever to go back to advertising, I wouldn't piss about with jumped-up amateur cameras such as Canons anyway: rather, Alpa, Hasselblad, Leica S2 and the like. Or even a scanning back on 4x5 inch. Or, of course, just write the camera rental fee into the job on a job by job basis.
There are those whose photography is a way of paying for a passion for photography, and those who write business plans. I am happy to be one of the former and so are most of the professionals I've ever known. Put it this way: if you're good enough, you rarely need a business plan, though you may need the occasional letter to the bank manager...
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I suggest you contact forum management and get them to add 'god' to the words it currently filters out for our benefit.
I've had to learn that we can have shovels around here but not $pades ... so I wouldn't have a problem with that!
SaveKodak
Well-known
Oh man...sigh. I didn't realize I was a hack. I think my only retort worth saying would be that passion doesn't come from the equipment you use, it comes from the pictures you make. Using a Leica and calling a Canon amateur does not actually make you a better photographer. But what do I know? I'm only a professional photographer working in New York City. We're just a bunch of amateurs with digital SLRs.
Oh and as for my language. How do you even get through the day, man? They say worse on the evening news.
peterm1
Veteran
Leicas have always been expensive. Always will be - that's their niche. To be honest Leica is not the system to go with if you are a pro unless you want to be in a very very special niche yourself. (Like street photography yadayadayada) or you have lots of money to fling about on gear. For most pros other systems are a better option.
IMHO The real problem with Leica today is not that Leicas are expensive - but rather it is how do they maintain their business model in a world which is all about planned obselecence?. You used to be able to buy a Leica and know that you could have it for years and it would (a) continue to work (b) be able to be serviced and (c) hold the better part of its value. Everyone of those assumptions is now questionable as its not how digital works! You can now pick up M8s for a fraction of their new value. M9s are headed the same way.
The value curve trends downward much faster than it did for film cameras. And in a few years (maybe 10) you will be lucky to find replacement parts when that printed circuit board inside your M9 dies and your camera becomes a paperweight. Maybe that doe not matter to some pros - those who flog their gear so much it falls apart eventually anyway. But therein lays another issue - Leica used to be the camera you turned to when you wanted something that was bullet proof and would just keep on going and going and going. In fact the well worn and handled Leica M which just kept functioning was a kind of bagde of honour. I fear this is no longer so.
IMHO The real problem with Leica today is not that Leicas are expensive - but rather it is how do they maintain their business model in a world which is all about planned obselecence?. You used to be able to buy a Leica and know that you could have it for years and it would (a) continue to work (b) be able to be serviced and (c) hold the better part of its value. Everyone of those assumptions is now questionable as its not how digital works! You can now pick up M8s for a fraction of their new value. M9s are headed the same way.
The value curve trends downward much faster than it did for film cameras. And in a few years (maybe 10) you will be lucky to find replacement parts when that printed circuit board inside your M9 dies and your camera becomes a paperweight. Maybe that doe not matter to some pros - those who flog their gear so much it falls apart eventually anyway. But therein lays another issue - Leica used to be the camera you turned to when you wanted something that was bullet proof and would just keep on going and going and going. In fact the well worn and handled Leica M which just kept functioning was a kind of bagde of honour. I fear this is no longer so.
clayne
shoot film or die
If his desire is the case above, which people are commonly recognizing as a "niche" for Leica, time is not usually of the essence. Hence once again we're back at square one of "so why do you need a new camera again?"
slm
Formerly nextreme
I'm not a pro (I do own a Canon dslr don't you know ) but I'm wondering if some of the pro's out there could answer me this:
Has anyone ever specified the gear or workflow you must use to complete the job ?
I can imagine dead lines, or a requirement for a file format and size (or film size ?) It would seem to me that most probably the only requirements a client would specify would be these.
Cheers
Steven
) but I'm wondering if some of the pro's out there could answer me this:Has anyone ever specified the gear or workflow you must use to complete the job ?
I can imagine dead lines, or a requirement for a file format and size (or film size ?) It would seem to me that most probably the only requirements a client would specify would be these.
Cheers
Steven
SaveKodak
Well-known
I'm not a pro (I do own a Canon dslr don't you know
Has anyone ever specified the gear or workflow you must use to complete the job ?
I can imagine dead lines, or a requirement for a file format and size (or film size ?) It would seem to me that most probably the only requirements a client would specify would be these.
Cheers
Steven
No, never. It's not about that. It's about having a 2nd body, relying on your equipment, finding a replacement day of, fast repair, available rentals, etc... Studio photographers DO need a camera that tethers though, that's important so that the crew and client can see the images to make changes if necessary. Nobody would say, this has to be Hasselblad, or this has to be Phase One/Mamiya. I've seen shoot to card studio jobs too of course, there are no rules. Obviously if you're on a creative job with a specific photographer who only shoots film all that's out the window. You don't tell Bruce Weber he can't use his Pentax.
My film jobs are wedding and portrait based. I use a Pentax 67II and a Nikon F100 with a Zeiss 50mm 1.4, or sometimes a Contax 645 (borrowed because Contax's are at the hight of popularity and price now due to Johnathan Canlas and Jose Villa, or 'hacks' if you believe Mr. Hicks), and having a turnaround for these clients is normal. When I shoot for advertising clients I like to deliver a bit faster, and they don't particularly benefit from film in the same way. Incidentally I also shoot Super 8 films at weddings too, which has been really fun creatively for me.
The 'hammers' in my toolbox are a full frame Nikon and a X100s. But when I work with cameras I love I use a Pentax 67II, an 8x10 field camera, a Fuji GS645S, a 4x5 Press camera, an SX-70, or a Nikon FE/F100 with a Zeiss 50. I recently purchased a Sigma 35mm 1.4, which I'm enjoying. I make money with all of the above. It's a simplification to think that you can either use a DSLR or nothing, or a Leica or nothing, or film or nothing. You can actually use everything. It's about vision, not gear. I happen to have too much gear in my opinion, but I've been lucky to find deals. And a lot of my gear doesn't sell for much so I keep it. Only the Pentax 67II and digital equipment would sell for more than a grand.
Contarama
Well-known
If someone really really wanted a Leica M240 they would work hard, save the money, and get one...it is possible. I would love to have one. More than any other camera there is. It is for fun or for money but usually not both. Whatever your bag is pick your poison but it isn't fair to pick on other's choices or whine about your choices to everyone else.
SaveKodak
Well-known
That's not what this thread is about. It's about how expensive it is, and whether it makes sense to use a Leica digital in a professional photography business. Of which there are differing opinions. So nobody is picking on every Leica user. For wealthy enthusiast photographers, it's a great choice.
Pablito
coco frío
It is pretty grim, but the jobs are still out there. However, you have to be really good and really determined. And the pay is very, very bad. So you do it if you can't not do it.
zwarte_kat
Well-known
Forget about digital Leicas for work get a couple of Canon 5ds which will do everything you will ever need until you start making money, I've still to meet a working photographer that uses Leicas.
'If you can't reasonably make enough money with photography, to pay for appropriate tools'
I think that is a bit harsh everyone has to start somewhere I dont think digital Leicas have ever been 'appropriate tools'
I am with Fraser here. I mean seriously, did anyone even read the word "professional" in his initial post, or "aspiring"?
If you want to make beautiful photos with a luxury classic style camera and have the money for a digital M, then go for it, but it seems you are not.
95% percent of the clients don't give a sh.. what you use, and the other 5% are out of your reach.
I know a high level pro who uses digital full frame M's, and has four of them including all the nice lenses, but he is way up there. He would advice you to get a Canon (he actually told me he liked the 7D and now the 6D). I asked him about film, and his answer was pretty straightforward: "It doesn't matter". He shot film before but shoots completely digital now and sold all his film Ms too.
I just want to prevent you from making a mistake and spending a lot of money. Most of the people on this forum are not pros, or were a long time ago.
So I'd say: Get a DSLR, spend the rest on lighting and accessoires and promotion. One's you become established, you can consider incorporating special cameras in your arsenal.
If it's just your hobby, get whatever you can afford and have fun.
If you are super rich, no need even to ask us lol!
Markus
Established
There are only a handful lenses in the canon EF-system that can keep up with Leica. Considering Canons price policy, Leica lenses perform much better. For me the lenses are the main reason to switch from Canon to Leica.
I also own a Canon not-rangefinder-camera (don't want to use the unholy word) and after by now 7 years with this system I can assure you that Canon can't offer any solution for this problem. At the moment I would prefer a M6 with some nice lenses to my Canon-System.
I also own a Canon not-rangefinder-camera (don't want to use the unholy word) and after by now 7 years with this system I can assure you that Canon can't offer any solution for this problem. At the moment I would prefer a M6 with some nice lenses to my Canon-System.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Uh? There are many tools for professional photography which are appropriate and I think that if one is wise will pick up the tool which maximizes profit, for most this is not a Leica.
GLF
Fraser
Well-known
In real world photography it doesn't really matter that Leica lenses are maybe that 10% sharper etc especially in a job in journalism and thats what the op wants to get into. For the price of even an M8 and a Leica 50mm I'm sure you could pick up a couple of 5d classics a long lens and something wide.
Fraser
Well-known
I must be a real amateur hack as I just took delivery of two amateur Canon 1dxs, in my experience there are lots of great photographers but the ones that are making a good living are the average photographers with a good business plan!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Regular posters here know that I am not particularly sympathetic to Leica. But DxO places M240's sensor exactly on par with Canon's current full frame offerings. By no conceivable standard is that "dismally weak," particularly given that the M240 sensor is optimized for lenses that have short nodal point-to-focal-plane offsets.
There are many reasons why a pro might want to avoid using Leica gear. Poor sensor quality in the MM and M240 are not among them.
YYV_146
Well-known
This post has gone stray...but Dunn, if I wanted to say something about digital Leicas...Don't buy one.
I've worked with quite a few mirrorless bodies, X-E1, NEX-C3, 5 and 7, the X100, and all of them are better cameras in terms of usability compared to an M9 or MM. They are simply too slow, laggy, prone to freezing up and take forever to write a few shots. Of course the M240 has none of this, but...$7500? I can buy a used set with a 50lux, 35 cron and 28 elmarit asph, then pay for a nice trip with the rest. Who cares if it's as good as a D800 or better?
Yes, I can *almost afford an M240 at the moment...but I'll probably buy a 24 1.4 or WATE and keep shooting on crop bodies for another year or two.
I've worked with quite a few mirrorless bodies, X-E1, NEX-C3, 5 and 7, the X100, and all of them are better cameras in terms of usability compared to an M9 or MM. They are simply too slow, laggy, prone to freezing up and take forever to write a few shots. Of course the M240 has none of this, but...$7500? I can buy a used set with a 50lux, 35 cron and 28 elmarit asph, then pay for a nice trip with the rest. Who cares if it's as good as a D800 or better?
Yes, I can *almost afford an M240 at the moment...but I'll probably buy a 24 1.4 or WATE and keep shooting on crop bodies for another year or two.
Ansel
Well-known
Exceptional photographers who use Leica equipment:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...tional_photographers_who_use_Leica_equipment:
http://blog.leica-camera.com/topics/photographers/
A Working Photojournalist’s Review of the Leica M9
http://blog.kevinmoloney.com/?p=285
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...tional_photographers_who_use_Leica_equipment:
http://blog.leica-camera.com/topics/photographers/
A Working Photojournalist’s Review of the Leica M9
http://blog.kevinmoloney.com/?p=285
_lou_
Established
It is fascinating to see is how much time Leica users spend trying to justify their camera choice.
Leica always was very conservative, afraid of change, and lagging behind. Even now they sell second rate sensors, more than 5 years behind everyone else. For me it makes no sense to buy a digital M, and certainly not for professional use.
The brand has been taken over by marketing folks who perpetuate the storytelling about the legend, blah blah blah. Just go the the web site and read all this crap. So many folks here buy into it, this is amazing.
Going back to the OP, and following some opinions expressed previously, Leica is not targeting photographers, but wealthy people. They have the ingredients of a luxury brand strategy :
- an foundation myth (Oskar Barnack)
- incarnation of the myth (Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson, ...)
- products as social statements
- tight control over distribution of the products
- very high quality products
- the ability to set the price point
- prices with no relation with production costs
This is exactly what Apple is doing with the mobile phone market, and has been very successful in keeping very high margins. It looks like Leica folks have learned their lesson, and are rather successful lately.
Last edited: