New York Times Article on Digital Leicas...

Vince Lupo said:
In this morning's NYT business secition: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/t...ices-with-photos-to-match.html?pagewanted=all

Might be seen as a bit of a puff piece, but a nice one-page story for us devotees. I did notice one misstatement -- he mentions that "In the 1950's, Leica rose to fame when it introduced the M-System camera, its first so-called range finder body with an interchangeable lens mount." Not sure what he means by 'so-called' (were they called something else???), but I'm thinking the 'first range finder body with an interchangeable lens mount' was the Leica II in 1932. Other than that, a fairly informative article.
Click to expand...


The first rangefinder camera to be marketed was the Kodak 3A Autographic Special of 1916. It had a coupled rangefinder.
 

Attachments

  • Kodak-Eastman-Autographic-Special-No.3A.jpg
    Kodak-Eastman-Autographic-Special-No.3A.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 0
I think (or at least I'm assuming) he was also making reference to the fact that the camera had interchangeable lenses too. Don't know if that Kodak had that feature, but that is an interesting camera nonetheless!
 
Vince Lupo said:
Yeah that is kinda weird. I sent 'feedback' to the NYT mentioning that little 'oversight', shall we say.
Click to expand...

I actually got a reply!

"Thank you for taking the time to write The New York Times. We value your readership and welcome any feedback that we can use to enhance our customer experience, products or service features."
 
Vince Lupo said:
I actually got a reply!

"Thank you for taking the time to write The New York Times. We value your readership and welcome any feedback that we can use to enhance our customer experience, products or service features."
Click to expand...

This is the usual cut 'n paste response that most likely is even automated, kind of sad. I'm not sure if this is actually better than getting no response...

I was about to post the link to the article, too as I have read the paper during my lunch break but you beat me to it;).
 
A nice article, but flawed.
Some interesting facts though!
Leica has a "waiting list" whereas the all featured,
digital cameras of most makes are seeing a rapid decline in sales..
Please stop hating KR. He says it like he feels.
Unlike some other reviewers who point out problems, when either the bush telegraph, has burned the course or a new model released.
You only have to read the reviews of the latest Leica, to see "how poor the previous model" was/is.
 
Fluffy. Just plain old classic Puff piece IMO.

After reading this...Anyone not versed in Leica will think "oh $20k for a camera that's crazy" nothing more.
Conversely, anyone who understands the brand will be hung up by the odd lack of research.
Considering this article is about an iconic brand and in a major publication.....What is this "first RF with interchangeable lenses" BS?

That's like saying Porches first sports car was the Boxter.
 
With both Davidson and Meyerowitz knowing the history of Leica being two of the best at what they do and being New Yorkers you think that the NY Times would have gotten them to say a few things instead of KR but what KR said was true and as far as price goes both the top of the line Canon and Nikons are about the same price as digital Leica M. I'm old enough to remember when Leica Ms were over double what the top of the pro Canon (F-1s) and Nikon (F's) cameras were.
 
russelljtdyer said:
There may be some people who will think, "For twenty-thousand dollars, it must be excellent. That's not much money for me. I should get one."

After all, if a person has a watch that cost over $10,000, suits that cost a few thousand dollars each, a car that costs $100,000, owning a camera that costs only a few hundred dollars is not in keeping with his style and wealth.

-Russell
Click to expand...


I'll keep my cheap Rolex Submariner as long as I can shoot M9. Its all about priorities..
 
Nice articule, very informative for the newbe, but I disagree with KR's last statement,
a great camera does help the photographer take better pictures, something like a Leica
does get out of the way more.

Range
 
One should expect to be disappointed by newspaper articles about specialized subjects one knows something about, but this one had a real phoned-in quality to it.

My favorite proposition: "[R]ange finders offer crisper images because the lens is closer to the sensor of the camera."
 
Matthew Runkel said:
My favorite proposition: "[R]ange finders offer crisper images because the lens is closer to the sensor of the camera."
Click to expand...

I've found that my friends and family who know nothing of photography like to complement photos for being "crisp"; for them, perhaps correct focus and lack of camera shake is their supreme photographic aspiration!

The 'best' setup has to be the M plus Noctilux, eh? Um, what if I prefer a 35mm lens?
Click to expand...

Or an M that shoots film, or has fewer framelines, or costs less than $5K with lens, etc...though admittedly the piece wasn't as cringeworthy as I expected :p
 
Personally, I don't think the article was so horrid -- I know that us Rangefinder Forum folks likely have way more knowledge on this subject than the average NYT reader (and potentially more than the writer - but he owns an M9-P so he must have some knowledge), so we're going to be more nit-picky, but I think it was an 'okay' primer on digital Leicas to someone with basic photo knowledge (or maybe none at all?). However, I personally agree that the fact that they devoted 2/3 of a page to the story, there should have been a bit more verification of the info he provided (like that rangefinder/interchangeable lens thing, for one). And yeah, to get a quote from Bruce Davidson or Joel Meyerowitz (or Elliott Erwitt for that matter) would have been great, or at least one of the notable photographers for the NYT (like Damon Winter?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom