Repost: The end of the M?

[Nikon Bob]

I think neither are value for money!

I think you are correct, especially when talking new prices.

Bob

 

[sgy1962]

Actually, viewed in context of their useful life, a Leica rangefinder is cheap, assuming the continued availability of film and decent processing. Where folks get into "trouble" with Leica systems is that they believe they need a bunch of brand spanking new lenses; true for some, but not the majority. Or they buy something, use it a little, then sell it, and buy something else, ect. Think about it -- for $8,000 one could buy a new Leica rangefinder and 2-3 new lenses and that stuff would last probably the rest of your life. That's alot of money up front, but measured over an entire life it is not.

What is really hurting Leica, in my opinion, is people's perception that the future or decent processing is tenuous. Folks wouldn't mind putting big bucks into camera equipment if they believed that they could continue to use the equipment 10-15 years from now. I've talked myself into believing that film and processing will be available for a long, long time, even if only mail order, and that there may be even a renaissance in this medium, but even I am very cautious when it comes to purchasing film based equipment.

But Leica prices are approaching the insane level. I may pick up a few new items this month if I can get them at a good price, but after July 1, when prices here in the states go up a good deal, I will most likely no longer be a purchaser of new Leica products.

 

[jaapv]

Don't blame Leica for the prices- blame the $-Euro exchange rate. In Europe-where the stuf is made and sold- the prices are stable, albeit a bit on the high side

 

[sgy1962]

No one is blaming anyone. Leica has to do what Leica has to do. It does, however, takes one's breath away to see a big price increase on what is attmitedly expensive items. Leica has to be blind to believe that this price increase will not effect sales. I believe that it will drastically reduce Leica sales here in the states after July 1 -- the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

I don't think Leica is blind. I believe they probably have some new products on the near horizon which they believe will offset any price increase.

When I discovered how much Leica products sell in the UK and europe, I have been frankly surprised that they sell anything over there.

No offense, but in many of these threads regarding the price increase on the various forums I keep hearing the common refrain that it's not Leica's fault because of the exchange rate and if you want Wal-Mart prices you're not going to get Leica quality. I believe these arguments ignore some salient points. First, Leica may have to raise its prices because of the weak dollar, but a manufacturer must price its good accordingly if it wants sales. That is an economic fact. In blunt terms, Leica needs its customers, but the converse is not true. Either Leica has to reduce the cost of production or produce items more efficiently -- and that's on Leica's shoulders. It may not be Leica's fault in raidsing prices, but it is their problem.

Second, Leica's prices today in the states, even before the July 1 price increase, are very expensive. Even if you get a great deal on a new Leica product, it is still expensive. There is a point of demarcation where these items just get too expensive, and that point, in my opinion, is reached on July 1 (here in the states).

 

[Nikon Bob]

Viewed over the long haul a new Leica has been a cost effective way to go. I think that there are also fewer and fewer private individuals with the disposible/descretionary money needed for such a costly new purchase. Pros who can write down the cost are another matter altogether in the film or digital end of photography. To me they, Leica, are at or near a glass ceiling as far as how much they can charge and still sell their product.

Bob

 

[phototone]

When the Leica M cameras were selling well, it was a time when the pro's were using them, and (speaking as a pro myself), the cost of the equipment was not the only concern, as it is tax deductable, etc.

Now, as all the pro's are using digital (forced to by their employers), the remaining (fine art, hobbiest) buyers are far more cost concious. This is the problem with the film based "M" cameras, when considering the purchase of a new one.

Yes, I know that there are still photographers earning money from photos taken with "M" cameras, but their ranks are small and getting smaller, and whether it is their choice or not, the publications and ad agencies are requiring digital.

 

[Grumblepunk]

What I will never understand is the need for amateurs to covet the equipment of professionals, regardless of it's functionality for non-professional use.

 

[Nikon Bob]

It just is, you don't have to understand it or like it or even fall for it if you don't want to. Choosing something is not always done rationally or we would all be driving 4 banger cars and not SUVs as an example. Apologies to SUV and 4 banger car owners.

Bob

 

[phototone]

What I will never understand is the need for amateurs to covet the equipment of professionals, regardless of it's functionality for non-professional use.

If it weren't for amateurs coveting pro-level equipment, then the cost of pro-level equipment would be even higher than it is, due to low unit volume.

If it weren't for amateurs coveting pro-level gear, then I suppose Leica would already be out of business, as "pro's" are forced by market pressure to use digital now.

Should I not covet a Rolex because of its mechanical precision, over a Timex with its cheap durability, if I want to?

 

[billbarber]

nicely put phototone. I usually will go for the pro equipment - you get what you pay for.

 

[ScottS]

Should I not covet a Rolex because of its mechanical precision, over a Timex with its cheap durability, if I want to?

I've always found the Leica-Rolex comparison particularly interesting at a personal level. My introduction to rangefinders was via an M2 I inherited from my uncle who died in 1983. The rolex is from the same source. He purchased both of them, new, in 1962 when he spent a summer in Germany during his college years. Both of them worked flawlessly after sitting in storage for 15 years when I retrieved them around 1998 or so (until the M2 shutter stuck, but a CLA should handle that problem). With proper care and maintenance, there's no reason both won't last another lifetime (mine).

Scott

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I thought the M died back in the 70s. Hmm.

 

[Grumblepunk]

That was not my point at all, though rereading my post, I can see how it was construed as such. In my eyes, the buying public will tend to purchase equipment that is completely ill suited to their needs due to the expectation that the needs of the professional are simply a more robust mirror of their own.

The current digital exodus being a perfect example, of my point. Is it a more convenient medium? Depending on your Photoshop capabilities, possibly. However, digital has been pushed and hyped so vociferously that film is literally considered antiquated, in light of market bred necessity.

I would argue that Leica is not pro-level gear. Leica held it's dominance due to a perceived level of superior craftsmanship. Unfortunately for the institutions of our grandparent's era, craftsmanship is no longer as viable as technological advantage, in the eyes of the average consumer.

We once held the belief that earning the reward required sacrifice and labor. With the relative ease brought about by the technological age, we now require instant results and instant gratification. Professional photojournalists have been forced into digital due to time constraints artificially brought upon them by advances in multimedia.

If the photos take 3 days to reach London from Baghdad, when the news reporter can give us Marines marching into the city via direct satellite uplink, who would pay to field the photojournalists? Amateurs don't have to deal with these limitations. We can relax and enjoy our equipment for the simple pleasure of taking pictures, without having to worry about our 3 year old camera being completely eclipsed by a rapidly evolving digital world.

Should I not covet a Rolex because of its mechanical precision, over a Timex with its cheap durability, if I want to?

The Rolex is a piece of precision craftsmanship, that harkens to us in much the same way that a Leica does. A professional would be using a Chase-Durer U.S. Special Forces Underwater Demolition Team Chronograph Watch. 😛

I usually will go for the pro equipment - you get what you pay for.

Do you? Or are you purchasing a head start in the new tech rat race?

[edit] I should postscript this by saying that I have nothing against digital photography, what-so-ever. My photoshop skills easily outshine my darkroom capabilities, which really isn't saying much. Depending on future rangefinder digital cameras, I will likely be purchasing one within the next year, or so. However, I cannot agree with making a purchase based almost completely on "what the pros are using" this week.

 

[Bertram2]

T
The current digital exodus being a perfect example, of my point. Is it a more convenient medium? Depending on your Photoshop capabilities, possibly. However, digital has been pushed and hyped so vociferously that film is literally considered antiquated, in light of market bred necessity.
.

Well said.
Some months I ago I read in a forum "after a some going back and forth with this issue I decided to go digital with all my gear because all pros do so". Quoted literally. Isn't that the most ridiculous reason you can base your decisons on as an amateur? Don't you proof with these words that you have absolutely no clue of the profession itself ?

Let me answer to your first post too, pro gear for amateurs:
Dealing seriously with photography since more than 30 years ( some longer breaks caused by a lack of interest included) I learned that among the amateurs owning real pro gear there are relativley few top photogs but a lot of those who'd better throw their photos away instead of presenting them proudly to the public as pro-gear-shots of course. .
I could point out a lot of examples on several web galleries if this wasn't extremely impolite and violating.

Among those who used good amateur gear ( A Nikkormat EL for example instead of a F2 or a F80/100 instead of a F5 nowadays) or even quite cheap ( not poor!) stuff I found relatively more good and interesting results.

Leaving aside the prestige and status issue which I find really too embarrassing to discuss IMHO the most important reason is that many do not trust in their craft and knowledge and think pro gear will help them to shoot pro quality photos. I read stuff like "to have my mind free for shooting" which is a
wording that tells stories or "I want to have the most reliable and durable machine I can get" , another funny reason for someone shooting 50 rolls per anno, which is a pro' s consumption for one day with two fashion sessions.
This amateur would need 80 years to get the F2 or F6 shutter at the upper end of it's planned lifecycle of 150.000 to 200.000 releases.

And let me add that the idea that the "abuse" of pro gear by amateurs helped the manufacturers to make enuff money for re-invests in innovative concept developments is far away from reality.
Related to the pro market sales of a Nikon F or EOS 1 some amateur clients did not play a decisive role.

IMHO photography is not suited at all for all this prestige and status hassle, we are tlking about craft and art , about emotion ind inspiration. But thank god it is easy to see who shoots poor photos with expensive stuff.

For me someone like Eugen Atget has been a true photog. During 20 years, from 1905 to 1925 he left his flat in the Rue Champagne Premiere in Paris, early in the still dark morning when the city was sleeping, a 25 kilo something on his back which looked like a modified rabbit stable on a big heavy wooden tripod but was a 19th century camera with a wide angle coke bottle lens of the pre-anastigmat times and which produced glass negs of door mat size which still bomb any Leica photo down to the ground.

He had learned to paint in his youth and so he was able to shoot fascinating magic photos of very simple things like houses,, streets and parck, thought only as a documentation of the Paris of his time , some 10000 negs as a heritage for all following generations.

Watching these photos which look so trivial at the first glance you feel a strong fascination , hard to describe, hard to explain.
It's the photogs passion touching your soul after all the years, and that's what we should talk about here, folks !

IMHO we need more photo projects and photo contests and less Leica price lala to keep this forum to be what it is. It would be interesting to see what happens if all gear related posts and all photo related post were separated on two different lists 🙂

Best,
bertram

 

[RubenBlaedel]

IMHO we need more photo projects and photo contests and less Leica price lala to keep this forum to be what it is. It would be interesting to see what happens if all gear related posts and all photo related post were separated on two different lists 🙂

Best,
bertram

To a point yes - but one must not forget that this place is partially driven by GAS and some of those "less than 50 rolls a years amateurs" posesses a huge amount of knowledledge on cameras that they gladly share to the benefit of those who have more focus on the picture itself - let there continue to be this synenergy effect and not split things to much up please.
I do make a good income on my photography but it is not my main occopation but I do feel that gear can make a difference - "lenses" are obvious to have a<n influence on what you shoot especially when you do not shoot "sunny 16" all the time were as the influence of the "house" it self may be overrated.
I did experience a big difference in my photography when I whent from autofocus etc. to all manual gear and I am not going back - it forced me to think of what I was doing and it "lifted" the quality of my "work"
So yes - more projects - more competitions - more effort in writing substantial critiques/comments in the gallery part would be fine but taking away the gear talk from RFF would take away some of the spirit to - Do remember that cameras like the yashica 35 electro gs is less that 50$ - and it is a great user camera - and the threads on that camera take up more place on this forum than the Leica-M does.

 

[Bertram2]

- "lenses" are obvious to have a<n influence on what you shoot especially when you do not shoot "sunny 16" all the time were as the influence of the "house" it self may be overrated.
I did experience a big difference in my photography when I whent from autofocus etc. to all manual gear and I am not going back - it forced me to think of what I was doing and it "lifted" the quality of my "work"
........... but taking away the gear talk from RFF would take away some of the spirit to - Do remember that cameras like the yashica 35 electro gs is less that 50$ - and it is a great user camera - and the threads on that camera take up more place on this forum than the Leica-M does.

Ruben,
agreed at all points, talking about lenses can be really interesting but this is an issue very close to the final result and how it can get influenced.

BTW my suggestion did not mean to keep the gear talk out of RFF, that would not make any sense because the interchange of technical informations must be considered as a important part of the forum communication.

Maybe it would be enuff to open some more gear free forums related to different photographical issues (people,street, landscape etc) .

Very interesting too would be an explicit critique request place where people can put single photos to because they want to learn how others think about them. NO ratings but clear and honest opinions allowed NO MATTER HOW NEAGTIVE they are as long as the comments stay polite and related to craft and art.
"Uuhh I don't like this one !" is NO critizism.

Maybe this would be a constructive thing, who decides to go there with his pic must know it can happen he gets negative response and he must be able to live with it.

I personally avoid all kind of negative criticism in the member galleries because if you are not ASKED to name the deficits of a pic and you do it anyway this is schoolmasterish and arrogant IMHO and the very most people feel violated by such comments.

This needs a dedicated place and special rules, like in a boxing ring , the p.net critique request feature is a bad example because of the rating nonsense and the abuse of ratings. Ratings are a destructive factor, not a constructive.

Best,
Bertram

 

[sgy1962]

Don't forget that there are really two broad reasons why amateurs get into the field of photography: (1) the picture (i.e., the end result); and (2) taking the picture. Someone could have lousy pictures, but have quite a bit of fun taking those lousy pictures, and for that person this fun factor is justification enough to have "pro equipment" should they desire. I don't know if Leica is considered pro equipment anymore, and my photography certainly justify the great optics, but in my limited experience the Leica M system, for me, presents the greatest fun for the dollar.

 

[zeos 386sx]

I have a visoflex III and a 135mm f/2.8 with "goggles" and I want to to use them on the new digital M. I assume Leica wants to maintain compatablity with its older products. Would a vertical shutter require a taller M body and screw-up backward compatability?

 

[zeos 386sx]

I thought the problem was how close the CCD/CMOS has to be to the back of the M lenses. The shutter has to be between the lens and the CCD/CMOS. That puts it near the front of the camera and the focusing unit. I have only seen pictures of the Epson RD-1 but it looks taller than an M.

 

[zeos 386sx]

Rather than guess, I looked up the dimensions...
Epson RD1...5.59"W x 3.48"H x 1.56"D
Leica M7......5.43"W x 3.13"H x 1.50"D

Is that .35" height a difference in rangefinder placement?