daveleo
what?
This story is definitely "meat for the grinder" !
Who can not make fun of it !!??
Who can not make fun of it !!??
Ralph Gibson Leica Monochrome sells out in 5 mins.
- Thread starter gb hill
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 5K
L Collins
Well-known
It's explainable in terms of evolutionary theory. Thorstein Veblen, in The Theory of the Leisure Class, makes an very convincing argument that costliness and beauty are bundled together by human nature; beauty is really costliness masquerading as beauty. That's why people crowd around the Mona Lisa in the Louvre by the hundreds every day, while they walk right past the same print in a store window without a second thought.
Why would this be? Evolutionary psychology says that humans have been programmed to value costliness because of sexual selection, the same phenomenon that gives the peacock its brilliant tail. It's at base a strategy to make oneself more attractive to a potential mate by signalling that one has the resources to channel into work or objects that are essentially useless, in effect saying to prospective mates "look at me, I can marshall so much resources that I can easily squander them on useless things like this Ralph Gibson Leica. Just think what I can do for you."
So, when you buy that custom Leica with the red lizard skin covering with matching ASPH Summilux, you are, at base, acting out an evolutionary strategy calle "handicap signalling" devised by our remote ancestors in the Pleistecine.
Ergo, those buying the Ralph Gibson model are acting upon their most primitive, "caveman' impulses.😱
mfogiel
Veteran
Nice theory. You can see more of it at work in "Wolf of Wall Street".
burancap
Veteran
I do not believe in instant collectibility, at least I did not before my Leica days. One would think the production numbers and costs of the Gibson M would relegate them to the shelf of collectors, excepting perhaps a few of the purchasers that may actually break the seal because it is a tool. I just do not think the Gibsons or similar are tools any more and I doubt any seals will be broken besides Mr. Gibson's own. That seems a shame at first, and has lead me to think a bit about it.
I am not a collector, but I am guilty of somehow managing to let slide in to the cabinet an M or two that I do not use. Now we are NOT talking about anything in the same realm as the Gibson here, but one was indeed an idle purchase regarded as more of an investment.
The second was to be my ultimate camera in the truest sense of the definition. My LAST personal camera. The one that will be known to my grandchildren as MY camera, MY M ... but I have yet to touch it in anger! Is it still the tool I intended it to be and is the romantic notion I had when I purchased it still intact? As time passes does it slide into the category of the first one I bought for investment sake? Does one just move it down the road along with everything else? Is that what Leica has become, at least to me?
The Gibson? Well, I like these limited runs. I hope Leica makes lots of money and gets lots of advertising exposure from them. I hope they prosper and can cause this much emotion for decades and generations to come. I still have my late father's old beat up Nikkormat EL. Dents, dings, scratches, nasty old 50 on it. Every time I pick it up, the feel and the smell reminds me of him. I would like to think my children and their children might think the same way some day with MY M. I think I have a seal to break ... but, wait... oh damn, but... I hate this!
redisburning
Well-known
If I had the money, I'd buy one.
I mean, it's a very attractive camera. And some people have enough to spend on these just to enjoy them. I'll admit it's very expensive, and having Ralph's name on it doesn't do anything for me even as a big fan, but it's a pretty camera and again if I had massive amounts of disposable income I dont see how this is a worse purchase than buying more cars than you have family members or more houses than you take vacations in a year.
I mean, it's a very attractive camera. And some people have enough to spend on these just to enjoy them. I'll admit it's very expensive, and having Ralph's name on it doesn't do anything for me even as a big fan, but it's a pretty camera and again if I had massive amounts of disposable income I dont see how this is a worse purchase than buying more cars than you have family members or more houses than you take vacations in a year.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Aw, shucks, Randy. You keep saying things like that, you'll turn my head. 😀
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Until Leica comes out with the "2014 Retro M3" (like the 2005 SP) I'm not interested
David_Manning
Well-known
<<Until Leica comes out with the "2014 Retro M3">>
Hmm...a digital M without a meter? I'll pass 😉
Hmm...a digital M without a meter? I'll pass 😉
zauhar
Veteran
Paulbe
Well-known
Hey Greg--thanks for the link!
When will you post a picture of the RG special you bought???
Paul
When will you post a picture of the RG special you bought???
Paul
mfogiel
Veteran
This thread has inspired me to dig deeper into the reasons, why people want to pay this kind of money for an object. I think that this video should be a must for all the gear collectors:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html
BTW, Paul Bloom, who is the speaker, is an extremely interesting psychologist, who is currently running a course on www.coursera.org, titled: "Moralities of Everyday Life", which I am enjoying immensely, and encourage you to follow, as it is a topic of prime interest for all humans.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html
BTW, Paul Bloom, who is the speaker, is an extremely interesting psychologist, who is currently running a course on www.coursera.org, titled: "Moralities of Everyday Life", which I am enjoying immensely, and encourage you to follow, as it is a topic of prime interest for all humans.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
That sounds reductive to the point of inaccuracy.
Personally, and to put it simply, i loved his old film work. I don't like the new digital work. Not because it's digital. Because it doesn't look the same as the work i like. Not sure why this is a problem for some people to accept/embrace.
The man is a guitar player, as well. It's as if a guy known for the sound of a Les Paul through a Tube Screamer and into a Fender Twin suddenly stopped playing that signature combo, and switched to a Roland Guitar Synth.
Same player. Same notes. Different sound, even if he were to play samples of his old tones. It is NOT like a writer working on a typewriter and then switching to a word processor and getting the same book as a result.
While i think it's wonderful that Gibson still has such a following that warrants a special edition and that it sold so well, i continue to be discouraged by Leica's tack. But, i'm aware there's a conflict in all the arguments. I'm not anti-luxury goods. I like (some) 'designer goods.' I love Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, etc. And, yet, when it comes to cameras, i'm disturbed by Leica's interest in being a luxury goods manufacturer rather than a producer of excellent tools for as many 'real'/working photographers as possible. I'm not sure how to reconcile that conflict without just ignoring them.... I think my problem is just that Leica is so 'pompous' about it all. [?] It might just be that little nuance that saps my respect, and i used to be as Leica-obsessed as anyone, back in the analog days.
zauhar
Veteran
Dexter, I was being flippant, not really intending to be reductive. I was not even aware of his staunch pro-film statements until they were pointed out by others.
What I don't like is not so much his shift to digital per se, but rather that this seems to be part of an organized marketing effort.
I don't mind advertising, but I despise marketing.
Randy
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Well I think if they only made 35 then some collector is buying to make a profit somewhere down the line. So I would say for some that bought this that is exactly the motivation. Money. And in some cases might be a very good investment only time will tell.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
They have produced an excellent B&W digital tool. The original MM is a wonderful tool. I shoot all of my personal work with one and it is the only FF digital B&W rangefinder on the market. I applaud Leica for making a non cookie cutter, one size fits all camera digital. It took courage to make this camera. It could have been a major flop. I like the fact I can now shoot on the streets at ISOs of 1600 and 3200 so I can have a DoF of f/11 and still have shutter speeds as high as 1/500 of a second if thats what i desire. I doubt in a printed book you could tell the IQ of his early work from the new work from the MM except the MM images are probably cleaner and sharper. I like his new work and will by the book.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Nope, a film camera !
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing 'against' the Monochrom. Or the M240. What tends to irk me is Leica's devotion to the collector/fondler/sultan/'special edition' audience. Doesn't bother me if a 'dentist' wants to spend $9,000 on a camera. Well, no, it does - a bit. If he uses it for crappy pictures.... But, whatever. It's about the 'Paper Edition X2' and the Gibson thing, and the GStar thing, et al. And, i touched on this above. It's a hypocritical bit of conflict, perhaps. I'm envious of the guy with the Ferrari 458 Italia. I'm dismissive of the guy with the Leica Special Edition.
What you're saying about Gibson, though — that's the important stuff. You're acknowledging that the newer digital work is "probably cleaner and sharper." That's the point. I like the specific aesthetic of the older work. In my eyes, it is NOT improved by being cleaner and sharper. Those types of quantitative 'advances' substantially change the work, and 'clean, (digital-)sharp images are not what drew me toward his work. But, that's all nuance, and different people like his work for different reasons. To me, it's like taking all the dots out of a Seurat.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
You can always degrade a digital image. I like what would be medium format esthetic from a digital Leica. Kinda like hit'n the streets with a Rolleiflex of a 500 C/M but smaller. Plus to be able to shoot on the streets at f/8 and f/11 and still have shutter speeds of 1/500 and 1/1000 of a second and have very printable images is great for me and the way I work.
If Leica can recoup some $$$$ from these special editions which I would never buy its all good. If someone has the money and wont drive his family into poverty buying a special edition piece, more power to him. And if it helps Leica's bottom line so they can make wonderful digital cameras like the MM then all the better. And if the collector can hang on to the collector piece for some years and turn a profit then whats wrong with that? We still get the cameras we want so why should I care what others buy especially if it's helping a company make money and stay in business. Leica has had some lean years not so long ago.
8K for a Canon 1DsMk whatever and about the same for a Nikon DX whatever and thats OK but Leica, which BTW I remember was over twice the price of the Canon F-1 or the Nikon F back in the day, is the bad guy for charging as much as those mass produced one size fits all cameras. Seem like the big two have caught up price wise. And you probably wont loose money on any glass Leica M glass you buy. I doubt my Canon glass will fair as well.
Do i wish Leica M's were cheaper? Hell ya but they are what they are. And they are in the same price range as top of the line other digital 135 format cameras.
If Leica can recoup some $$$$ from these special editions which I would never buy its all good. If someone has the money and wont drive his family into poverty buying a special edition piece, more power to him. And if it helps Leica's bottom line so they can make wonderful digital cameras like the MM then all the better. And if the collector can hang on to the collector piece for some years and turn a profit then whats wrong with that? We still get the cameras we want so why should I care what others buy especially if it's helping a company make money and stay in business. Leica has had some lean years not so long ago.
8K for a Canon 1DsMk whatever and about the same for a Nikon DX whatever and thats OK but Leica, which BTW I remember was over twice the price of the Canon F-1 or the Nikon F back in the day, is the bad guy for charging as much as those mass produced one size fits all cameras. Seem like the big two have caught up price wise. And you probably wont loose money on any glass Leica M glass you buy. I doubt my Canon glass will fair as well.
Do i wish Leica M's were cheaper? Hell ya but they are what they are. And they are in the same price range as top of the line other digital 135 format cameras.
hendriphile
Well-known
Similar threads
- Article
