Some buy cameras with logos, and then cover them; at the other end of the spectrum...

both my M6 and M9 have black electrical tape.
sorry .. but the red dot is too much and the big white engravings waaay too shiny. I didn't wanted to paint it over for resale value.
 
We have a Leica surveying scope here in the office. I know its a Leica because it has the red dot on it.

What else does Leica make? Microscopes? Optical equipment for medical use? I wonder if all those surveyors, doctors and scientists who use Leica equipment tape over the red dot too.
 
Black electrical tape or black gaffers tape? If I had a Leica it'd be the gaff tape for certain!
 
What is point of buying a Leica, if you cannot be proud of it!
I have met other owners, becoming dear friends because of use of a Leica. It is a special camera, so different in usage than SLR or DSLR.
Taping a silly idea. Thieves know what a "Leica" is. My M3 was taped at one stage, being chrome and shiny, in "places of stormy history". :D
Now simply not worth doing, vulcanite peeling off. Chrome worn to brass.
Even my M6TTL not in pristine condition. Used and used.
So to those who envy us owners, save up and buy one!:angel:
 
I tape or fill logos on most of my cameras, solely because the stark contrast can be eyecatching.

I'm a big guy, so I don't become magically invisible thanks to a bit of tape, but it's the kind of thing that catches my eye, so I'm assuming it can for others.
 
In the late 1950's many Japanese 35mm rangefinder brands
had some variation of the red dot for their company logo...

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
In the late 1950's many Japanese 35mm rangefinder brands
had some variation of the red dot for their company logo...

Chris
Click to expand...
True, Chris! Yet Leica is fairly well-known now for that red dot, and passers-by who see my M Leica are not likely to think, "oh, that guy is carrying a Petrie!" :D OTOH, if I were carrying my Petrie 7s, someone might mistake it for a Leica...?
 
I've always had my M6 taped, going right back to 1987 when I spent 6 months in India just after I'd bought it. Then I had every bit of metal covered in gaffer tape, those were the days when a Leica was an investment. Looked like a piece of garbage but it stayed with me when lots of people I'd met had their cameras stolen. Since then I've always had the red dot and the white printing taped over. Not for security but because I like the look of the camera better that way. The M2, M3 and early M4 had nothing on the front and I think look much nicer as a result. However, I've just filled the white lettering with a black grease pen and have a black dot coming from DAG so I can go without tape. BTW I filled in the X-E1 with the same pencil and it also looks so much better.

cheer,
clay
 
why do you care about what others do to their cameras? is your life that poor?
let people do whatever they want with their stuff, I think covering logos is silly but I really don't care if the whole world does it.

...and don't forget, even Leica added their logos to cameras that were not even german.
400px-CL-top.jpg
 
Brian Atherton said:
My feeling, too. This is why I tape over mine, not because I think it draws undue attention.

It's like a zit on the face of the Mona Lisa.
Click to expand...
Dear Brian,

A lovely analogy! Looking at the Leicas on my desk (don't ask -- a friend died and I'm supposed to be getting rid of them for his daughter) the dot on the face of the M4-P is if anything even uglier than the ones on the top housings of the M6 and M9.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...A lovely analogy! Looking at the Leicas on my desk (don't ask -- a friend died and I'm supposed to be getting rid of them for his daughter) the dot on the face of the M4-P is if anything even uglier than the ones on the top housings of the M6 and M9.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Roger!

Compared to other ‘Red Dot Leicas’ I’ve always thought that the red dot on my Leica M4-P was particularly idiotically placed, since when using the camera, it’s covered by one’s hand – likewise by a half-case – thereby defeating Leica's brand awareness advertising (sorry, advertising speak, a legacy of my long since gone paid employment; I’m receiving treatment).
 
It's just that I was out just yesterday and I was using a silver Fujifilm X100F. Many mistake this for a Leica even though it doesn't have any logos. Camera geeks and fashion people will notice, but nobody else cares at all. I think people notice a 6' 2" bald man more than a small camera when doing street photography up close. There are betters ways to be discrete. However, if it is a matter of aesthetics, then ok. Even then, I think logos generally look better than tape.
 
Really, the logo is there for the owner to look at and stroke it a la Gollum "my precious."

The notion of being a photographer in a combat zone and covering a logo would make the difference between getting shot or not is complete BS. But if folks think it makes a difference and the magical tape protects you, then perhaps it is the psychosomatic at work.

One old combat photographer I knew out in Iraq used a Nikon D1 and a chrome F2. No tape on either. He got out just fine. Personally, I used a Nikon D2H and two chrome Leica M bodies. The Leicas didn't have logos as they were M2 and M4. I got shot at so much that I can't count the times. Maybe I didn't go far enough and should have taped my Leicas with dymo or electrical tape. The real reason was probably that I was dressed in US camo, therefore a legitimate target. Add to this the fact that if someone shoots through that red dot, then they are just messing with you and they were going to kill you anyways. Not to mention, they are a world class sniper. If you don't want to get shot in a combat zone, don't use a flash and don't be a smoker. After that, everything is fair game these days.

This is just so much ridiculous drivel. Taping a camera does not make it invisible. It makes the camera a more obvious personalized fashion accessory. Your body language and comfort in-situ are what make the camera less visible.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Really, the logo is there for the owner to look at and stroke it a la Gollum "my precious."

The notion of being a photographer in a combat zone and covering a logo would make the difference between getting shot or not is complete BS. But if folks think it makes a difference and the magical tape protects you, then perhaps it is the psychosomatic at work.

One old combat photographer I knew out in Iraq used a Nikon D1 and a chrome F2. No tape on either. He got out just fine. Personally, I used a Nikon D2H and two chrome Leica M bodies. The Leicas didn't have logos as they were M2 and M4. I got shot at so much that I can't count the times. Maybe I didn't go far enough and should have taped my Leicas with dymo or electrical tape. The real reason was probably that I was dressed in US camo, therefore a legitimate target. Add to this the fact that if someone shoots through that red dot, then they are just messing with you and they were going to kill you anyways. Not to mention, they are a world class sniper. If you don't want to get shot in a combat zone, don't use a flash and don't be a smoker. After that, everything is fair game these days.

This is just so much ridiculous drivel. Taping a camera does not make it invisible. It makes the camera a more obvious personalized fashion accessory. Your body language and comfort in-situ are what make the camera less visible.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...
Deasr Phil,

Absolutely. Which is why I say that my only objection to the red dot is that it is bloody ugly, i.e. that it offends MY aesthetic sense.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...Which is why I say that my only objection to the red dot is that it is bloody ugly, i.e. that it offends MY aesthetic sense.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,
The "bindi" is indeed unsightly. I had the ostentatious one in my old M4P removed and covered with new body leather. Camera looked fantastic.

Phil Forrest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom