Niche Marketing as Leica photographer

The only time I ever hear anyone ask for a specific camera it's usually "must own Canon 5D mk2."

It's complete BS. And using only a Leica means nothing. I went from a college student using an M7 like anyone else on this forum to working for the Wall Street Journal all using only Leica's and it has never gotten me any mention anywhere. I know a senior staffer at the NYTimes and he is the only other news photographer I know using a Leica on every assignment day in and day out and there's never any mention of it.

Just use the camera you like to use. I have to work harder using a Leica. And I keep trying to switch to DSLR's just to make my job easier but I keep going back because I just love working with the camera. Its few strengths outweigh its many weaknesses.
 
whoa there!

whoa there!

A careful reading of my original post will indicated my skepticism to the question of the post.

Didn't realize so many would assume so much about how I work, or intend to work, from so little.

Peace,
Denton
 
x-ray said:
In 43 years as a commercial photographer I've never had a client care what I shot with. It's all about you and the images you produce not your equipment.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement. Few clients care about equipment.

A couple I can think of though have been Symphony Orchestras - if I'm taking photos during a performance. And film crews. I rarely work with anything other than DSLR and SLR film cameras. A quiet RF has it's place in certain instances, and may be used when a noise maker, especially a motorized camera would be a problem.

The image is of highest importance, regardless of the tools used.
 
For specialty projects, especially in my line of panoramic work, I am occasionally asked about equipment since there is a major rift between high quality work and the low end work that permeates the quick real estate photo market. I tell clients I use a range of the best cameras available and will decide on what gets used during a job based on what the shot requires. It's like a big tool box. Aside from that, I assure them the file sizes will all be at minimum well above their specification. When I do get asked for a brand, whether they are curious or looking to question... I say a mix of Leica and Canon daily, but I will use Phase One, Nikon, and most others as needed. I have no brand loyalty. Whatever will give you the best image is what I'll use.

I would never just advertise with brand names though. There is not enough space to waste marketing materials on brands that I have no actual affiliation with. (Canon explorer of light for example)
 
As said above, I think the film/digital distinction matters more than whether you're using a Leica. A Leica does look a bit tiny sat on top of a tripod at a wedding, and you *need* a tripod as a fixed point of reference for group shots. That's largely why wedding pros used Hasselblads; they look damn impressive even if they're not actually necessary for the size of enlargements normally purchased afterwards.

A black-and-white film niche might be an interesting one to explore. There is no real digital substitute for silver b/w negatives, which have a particular grain and a particular response to the developer chemistry (acutance).

As an aside, apparently Leicas used to be the only cameras permitted in theatre performances because of the quiet shutter. However, a non-reflex digital camera can be completely silent; having shot some photos of a choir recently I can tell you that even an M3 shutter (supposedly the quietest of them all) is audible.
 
Last edited:
Equipment matters to other photographers. The only people that ever ask about equipment are other photographers. On other forums, there is a lot of comments about "Fred Flintstone" photographers using film gear.

I've never met a client who really cared about the gear. Some, maybe most, are clueless about the gear we use. Once when I was unpacking gear before a wedding, someone said they didn't know I was doing video also. They were looking at the MF camera and thought it was a video cam.
 
I've gotten jobs because I use a Leica and there is a definite pattern to that kind of customer; they are very wealthy, like Anesthesiologists who know what a Leica is and have an interest in photography but lack the time to develop the technical skills to do it themselves.

Most customers have no idea about cameras and I think they assume that the larger the camera the more of a "pro" you are. I have had customers mistake my blacked out Leica for their plastic kodak point and shoot. I'm not insulted, I don't care and I think all that matters is the images I get.

I have also gotten jobs because "I'm quiet" which the customer interpreted the quiet shutter as a positive. I got a documentary job earlier this year where I shot a funeral of a politician.

You could probably create a market as a Leica photographer and get customers looking for that specifically if you live in a very big city. I live in Arkansas where most people have never even heard of a Leica so that strategy would rarely work for me but it has happened more than once.

I market myself as a film photographer who makes handmade images and I think it gives me an edge because people seem to take me more seriously than the digital types.

Best to you,

Click
 
This makes the most sense to me. Assuming a photographer is already producing high quality work & has no qualms about shilling for a particular camera maker(s), there are probably opportunities to enter into sponsorship agreements w/suppliers. Of course, as you point out, this would be driven mostly by the marketing folks working for the equipment maker, but there's nothing to stop an enterprising photographer from taking the initiative & pitching ideas. In effect, the client is now the equipment company.

Leica has been doing some of this type of stuff, working w/Magnum, sponsoring contests, featuring Leica users on their blog, etc., but I don't think they would sponsor just any old wedding photographer, even a good 1 who happened to use Leicas.

sonofdanang said:
Often, in the cases where the gear is mentioned outside of technical reference, the only reason the brand issue is raised on the fly-leaf or a bio is as a marketing tool - for the camera manufacturer, not the photographer. Sponsorship agreements will usually require visible brand information. Haven't seen that outside of sporting event shooters for ages though, and I haven't done that kind of work for nearly thirty years so I don't know if that still exists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vilk said:
i'd be wary of clients who knew what a leica is ;)
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, many years ago I almost lost a job because I DIDN'T have a Leica. I was hired to photograph a clarinet recital in NYC - one of the world's most famous classical clarinetists. He was performing solo and when he saw my SLR he insisted that I could not take photos. He seemed outraged at the fact that I would show up for this job and not have a Leica - he specifically asked that I use Leica, presumably due to the quieter shutter. Fortunately, his manager calmed him down and I was told only to take pictures in the louder parts of the music.

At this point in my life, I am more financially solvent and have several Leicas which I use for any job, as I see fit. The above incident had nothing to do with my choice to buy Leica. Actually, I'd make in my pants before calling myself a "Leica photographer."
 
I've certainly had clients who insisted on 'overkill', even to the point of insisting on 4x5 inch where 35mm would have be more than adequate for a 3x4 inch picture, never mind MF.

The mere fact that a client is an idiot does not negate the fact that he is the client.

His dictis, I'd be hesitant to market myself on the basis of the brand of equipment I used.

Cheers,

R.
(off to Arles tomorrow)
 
Back in the days when Leica and Contax were the kings, there were photographers around who thought Contaxes were the better cameras. Just don't get your fingers in front ofthe rangefinder window, and yes, they did have shutter problems. But if you were a pro and made your bread and butter with a camera, one or the other was the one to have. Rolleiflex, anyone???

Ever hear of "Weegee"? He used a Speed Graphic.
 
I just completed a wedding shoot for a friend of mine who married a German girl. Her father asked me if my Konica Hexar AF was a Leica and I said no. He then expressed to me in half German and half English that he would prefer the wedding to be shot by a Leica camera and looked disappointed by the fact that I did not have one (my new M6 arrived in the US the day after I departed for Europe, but that's a different story). I then pulled out my Rolleiflex and he was overjoyed.
Just sayin' that to some people, the brand does indeed matter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom