Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Amateurs generally do not buy expensive cameras unless they're very well off financially. They don't need to make a living with the gear so its hard for a middle class person to justify a $7000 camera (that comes with no lenses so budget extra for at least one lens if the person doesn't already have Leica compatible lenses). That's serious money for a middle class person and an impossible amount for a poor or working class person. Most RFF members are amateurs, which is why most don't understand buying such a camera.
Pros do buy costly cameras, some costing far more than an M9. They can justify it because they earn a living with it. Other trades or professions have costly equipment too, like the tools an auto mechanic owns or the very expensive tractors and combines owned by farmers.
I don't make enough money to even afford, let alone justify an M9. Not yet at least, maybe later. If I do end up able to get an M9 someday, I would like to. I have disliked every digital camera I have used. Not because of the image quality, which is very good on all of them made today. I hate them because of the ergonomics. They get in the way; I want something simple. Shutter speed, aperture, manual focus. The M9 is the digital camera I could like.
Last edited by a moderator:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I think you are wrong - amateurs will buy expensive stuff regardless of cost for their hobby. Looked at the price of sailing yachts recently? Hifi-gear? Motorcycles? Guitars? It is the pro that has to count the beans and ask himself if he can justify the cost in his business model.
skibeerr
Well-known
Dear Roger,
I simply wish I had the euros to buy an M9 let there be no mistake about that. This is why I long for an affordable M bajonet drf. And Emraphoto could take two body's to the sahara
I just think it would be in the interest of Leica to be there first.
As for the "idiom" of German quality engineering it can be counterproductive if you stick to the past.
You are a BMW motorbike owner, an R100RS I think, look at how BMW has diversified their gamma, sometimes not afraid of drastic changes, they have taken and are holding on to their share in the market. ( We can off course bemoan the loss of quality as to the old twin boxers and the introduction of to much plastic etc.)
W
Last edited:
skibeerr
Well-known
I have bought none of the above recently.
Is it not a rather shortsighted pro who saves on his working gear and then spends it on Sailing Yachts.
W
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Depends of where you live I guess. Most yachts I see ( and I live in an area with four large marinas within ten minutes walking distance) are owned just by normal middle class or working class people like you and me.
At a guess I would say about 20 to 30 % of families in our area own either a sailing or motor yacht, small or large.
Anyway, a skiing holiday, at the most two, -and again, that is a completely normal average-family pursuit in middle-European eyes- for four people will set you back the price of an M9.
I see where you live now - maybe I should have have referred to the cost of hunting rifles.
Last edited:
I ate peanut buffer for a month to buy a brand new Nikon F2a with lenses when I was 20.
I took care of it, used it for Yearbook pictures, etc. Picked up a Nikon F Photomic as back up. I was also paying my way through achool and worked 3 part-time jobs to do so.
So- if you were taught to save your money for something you really wanted- I can see a number of non-professionals buying an M9 because it is fun to use.
I took care of it, used it for Yearbook pictures, etc. Picked up a Nikon F Photomic as back up. I was also paying my way through achool and worked 3 part-time jobs to do so.
So- if you were taught to save your money for something you really wanted- I can see a number of non-professionals buying an M9 because it is fun to use.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Arguably you are not "working class", nor are most yacht owners, or at least those who own yachts in the ballpark of the yacht equivalent of a M9, or a M2 for that matter. More like the yacht equivalent of a digital compact, if at all.
Now I am completely lost.
All of the Leica owners that I know are working class. I do not know anyone that owns a Yacht. I know someone that bought a fairly large boat, cabin cruiser. Earned income taking people out on fishing trips on the weekend, was a Computer System Manager during the week. The boat cost more th an M9 with a 50/0.95 Noctilux. If he did weddings on the weekend instead of taking people fishing, he could have bought a Leica.
All of the Leica owners that I know are working class. I do not know anyone that owns a Yacht. I know someone that bought a fairly large boat, cabin cruiser. Earned income taking people out on fishing trips on the weekend, was a Computer System Manager during the week. The boat cost more th an M9 with a 50/0.95 Noctilux. If he did weddings on the weekend instead of taking people fishing, he could have bought a Leica.
A Nikon F2AS with the MD-2/MB-1 Motor Drive, rechargeable batteries, and charger cost the equivalent of an M9.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Indubitably.
But wait: there's only one correct way to tell a story: lots of adjectives, via Haikus, iambic pentameter, fictionally, non-fictionally, allegorically, Cliffs Notes-like...why, civil wars have been sparked by far less than this (roses, anyone?)
Nevermind those who swear by the iPad; others by the notebook; others by the fountain pen (and the various sects divided by blue ink, black ink, red ink, invisible ink...), others by the graphite. The typewriter faction deride the ballpoint faction because, well, who's most legible? The electric typewriteristas shamed by the crayonistas, who in turn are looked down upon by the pastelistas.
Everybody's wrong. Everybody's right. It's all so confusing with horse blinders. And don't get me started on Pintos vs. Mustangs...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Likewise. Although, I did know someone who owned a mini-yacht. None of them doctors. Well, the owner of the mini-yacht was a dentist. One owned a Gremlin (not kidding) and another owns an Audi. One of them can only afford a beat-up bicycle.
On the weddings thing: I know someone who used to shoot a Lomo along her Nikon F5. The Hassie hardly got used (but she couldn't bring herself to sell it); worked hard and is pretty much middle class. Doesn't use any rangefinders because it didn't fit her style, although I once used my M6 for one gig I was her assistant photographer. Believe me, using manual-focus cameras at a fast-paced wedding event is not for the faint of heart.
Which could bring me back to the OP, but we've been through so many doors, what with the monster chasing Bugs Bunny all over the place, I don't know which door is which anymore.
The first lens that I used with the M8 was a KMZ Jupiter-3 bought for $60. Rebuilding that lens, modifying it for close-focus, and shimming it to perfection- I was REALLY happy. It was a mess when I received it.
It's going to look good with an M9.
M9 FOV simulated using a Canon P with Kodacolor 200.
This is only a simulation of a Digital Full-frame camera using a Canon P.
It's going to look good with an M9.
M9 FOV simulated using a Canon P with Kodacolor 200.
This is only a simulation of a Digital Full-frame camera using a Canon P.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I don't have an M9, but I can speak about having an M8: it was an opportunity I couldn't let pass by. That said, I've never felt any "pressure" in "justifying" the M8. In fact, the only reason I use the equipment I have is so that I am *the most comfortable* taking photos. I cannot take in-my-view-good photos if I am not comfortable with the equipment.
I consider my lineup a "kit" from which I get to choose depending on the environment, the subject, how I feel (literally and figuratively). I am lucky in that respect, and as Brian mentioned, I also have endured being "poor for the craft", something that you can afford while young (or, for others, "unweighed by major responsibilities"). Is it wise? No. Is it to be derided? Perhaps. But the choices one make aren't any less or more reasonable because others don't have the same perspective.
Then again, I'm just weird.
I consider my lineup a "kit" from which I get to choose depending on the environment, the subject, how I feel (literally and figuratively). I am lucky in that respect, and as Brian mentioned, I also have endured being "poor for the craft", something that you can afford while young (or, for others, "unweighed by major responsibilities"). Is it wise? No. Is it to be derided? Perhaps. But the choices one make aren't any less or more reasonable because others don't have the same perspective.
Then again, I'm just weird.
Last edited by a moderator:
GSNfan
Well-known
I can only justify the purchase of new gear by promise of doing good work, otherwise i cannot simply buy gear just because i want it. And when I do make a purchase I put it through its paces and if it pays off i'm happy, if not then i end up selling it.
But then everyone has their approach, and we should accept that just as we accept different personality types.
kevin m
Veteran
Yet another thread where an honest inquiry is swamped by the usual voices saying the usual things, reminding us that the status quo was ever thus and will ever so remain.
But is any of that true? The Leica M used to be a viable professional alternative to an SLR. It offered noticeable, easy to appreciate advantages in exchange for its limitations, (and even its limitations imposed a discipline that could lead to better photography.) But that was when film was the common denominator. The "two-stop" RF advantage has been rendered moot by excellent high-iso capture, and, likewise, the need for super-expensive, super-speed lenses. It's a paradigm shift. The circumstances for which the Leica M was designed no longer exist; the form optimized to meet them has become less-than-optimal in the digital age. The M9 has fewer performance advantages and more limitations than did the film M's that preceded it. That's the bottom-line conclustion that even those working pros predisposed to like the M have reached.
If I read correctly, it seems the original question posed by this thread was a simple inquiry into the possibility of eliminating some of those limitations and making the M a more viable professional tool in the digital age. Why does just asking that question ruffle so many feathers?
But is any of that true? The Leica M used to be a viable professional alternative to an SLR. It offered noticeable, easy to appreciate advantages in exchange for its limitations, (and even its limitations imposed a discipline that could lead to better photography.) But that was when film was the common denominator. The "two-stop" RF advantage has been rendered moot by excellent high-iso capture, and, likewise, the need for super-expensive, super-speed lenses. It's a paradigm shift. The circumstances for which the Leica M was designed no longer exist; the form optimized to meet them has become less-than-optimal in the digital age. The M9 has fewer performance advantages and more limitations than did the film M's that preceded it. That's the bottom-line conclustion that even those working pros predisposed to like the M have reached.
If I read correctly, it seems the original question posed by this thread was a simple inquiry into the possibility of eliminating some of those limitations and making the M a more viable professional tool in the digital age. Why does just asking that question ruffle so many feathers?
menos
Veteran
I'd like an M9P, but doubt, it will happen as per the current Leica outlook in business.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
People's attention does tend to wander a little eventually in these types of threads.
Apologies to the OP!
Apologies to the OP!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Who knows. But if you read the thread carefully, it wasn't so. Then shortly the "it's expensive" "luxury" etc. typings came in. I understand the OP's writer's frustration. And I also started replying in general.
It's just true: you cannot have a good debate about it. People start deriding the brand, and they think they have the right to let their opinion (usually having nothing to do with the subject at hand) go unrefuted. Then refuting is derided as being an "apologist" and it just goes down like that.
Every Leica thread has the "it's expensive" "doctors" "luxury" "Canon" and "Nikon" as counter-replies. Maybe one day it won't be so? Perhaps people will be too absorbed by the X100, which is drawing the usual fire from those who don't own the thing they're against.
My only point is (and has been): people miss the point by being so entrenched in their biases.
You cannot force paper scissors (expensive or otherwise) to cut sheet metal. It just won't happen. If you cry foul with "but it's so much money, why won't it do what other things do?" it won't get you anywhere. It blinds and derails the issue.
PJs in the 40s and 50s had a different pace, a different world, different infrastructure. You cannot compare then with now. You can ask for a new tool, but you cannot ridicule it in the process (something that the OP never did, but many who "took sides" --I hate that-- did).
My twopence (and interest).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
People's attention does tend to wander a little eventually in these types of threads.
Apologies to the OP!
Word. But mark my words: there will be yet someone else who has something to "contribute" without having read anything that preceded. That's what usually derails a conversation.
Have you seen the "protective filter or not" threads? Lots of people married to one idea or the other, without hearing the other ones out. Let alone a "debate" about multi-resistant coated vs. plain. With the usual "who cares!" dropped in there.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well arguably the whole luxury argument was brought up already in the original posting, where the OP himself mentioned that Leica is currently marketing their cameras through association with luxury (titanium M9s, Ostrich Hermès versions etc.)
Much of the discussion now indeed seems to be about why people who buy digital Ms now don't see themselves as buyers of a luxury boutique product, (an association that people apparently don't like). However, along those lines the discussion hasn't really strayed all that much from the original posting.
Much of the discussion now indeed seems to be about why people who buy digital Ms now don't see themselves as buyers of a luxury boutique product, (an association that people apparently don't like). However, along those lines the discussion hasn't really strayed all that much from the original posting.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.