thegman
Veteran
I agree 100%.
All I will say is that I have bought cameras because I like how they look. It does not always have to be about getting better results. An M9 is not going to give technically better results than any other contemporary full frame digital camera, and it's not really supposed to, it's supposed to be a pleasure to use for Leica fans. They are not for pros, or students, for 99% of enthusiats. Leicas are for Leica fans or collectors, and that's about it. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that really, the world would be full of boring things if we only took what we *needed*.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Isn't that mankind's failing though ... and why such a large percentage of the world lives in poverty while we accumulate more 'stuff?'
Sorry to go all philosophical on you but that sentence really caught my eye!
thegman
Veteran
Isn't that mankind's failing though ... and why such a large percentage of the world lives in poverty while we accumulate more 'stuff?'
Sorry to go all philosophical on you but that sentence really caught my eye!
Yes, I think accumulation of "stuff" is almost always a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with the acquisition of things we really like.
I think there is a good sized grey area between always buying the next new phone/tablet/toy every six months and occasionally buying a classic watch or camera.
But then, if millions in China were not employed making tat for the rest of us, what would they be employed doing? Perhaps in a different type of economy and society, that could be answered but as it stands, most of us still need some kind of employment.
The consumerist impulses you see around you every day can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I certainly don't like it. However, I do accept that our modern economy is founded on it and changing it would not be trivial.
I do quite agree with you though.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
... Sometimes there is a reflex that gets triggered and it makes you feel uncomfortable for a minute or three!As you say though hard to change ... I admire the souls who do make personal change in this area though because most of us choose not to.
To some it is just a tool and not an object of fetishization.
This comes down to ergonomics and what you enjoy using to make photos.
Is this just typical Leica hate and the fact that people seem think that if you have an expensive camera, you should be making the worlds best photos? Money spent has nothing to do with output. Time spent does. There is nothing wrong with someone owning something expensive and using it for pleasure. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world gets to experience that, but that is not the typical Leica users fault.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would have gotten more and more stuff in my life hasn't it been for getting married to a woman who does not want to see lots of stuff at home. She is a minimalist. It could be that she appreciates other sides to life, after experiencing many years of war and lost lives around her.
I still have plenty of stuff, but it is "controlled" now.
I still have plenty of stuff, but it is "controlled" now.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm in he process of downsizing now.
If Leica M would have had a FF camera when I went digital I wouldn't have bought my Canon gear. I shoot all of my personal work now with the MM and the 35 Lux. Thats it. I also use it on some of my commercial assignments when B&W is the end goal. I eventually plan to get dump my Canon cameras and Canon glass which I only have what I need in that regard to and pick up a couple of color Leica M digital bodies for my real job and a 21mm and a 75 mm lens. Thats the plan as of now.
If Leica M would have had a FF camera when I went digital I wouldn't have bought my Canon gear. I shoot all of my personal work now with the MM and the 35 Lux. Thats it. I also use it on some of my commercial assignments when B&W is the end goal. I eventually plan to get dump my Canon cameras and Canon glass which I only have what I need in that regard to and pick up a couple of color Leica M digital bodies for my real job and a 21mm and a 75 mm lens. Thats the plan as of now.
newsgrunt
Well-known
gee, better performance at hi iso AND video ? I'd get one if I had the scratch.
Isn't that mankind's failing though ... and why such a large percentage of the world lives in poverty while we accumulate more 'stuff?'
Sorry to go all philosophical on you but that sentence really caught my eye!
I rather see it as mankind's accomplishment. There will always be rich and poor; the creation, development, and manufacture of products serves to help people at all levels.
This thread has ventured in all sorts of directions, hasn't it?
maclaine
Well-known
If you actually read what Mr. Huff writes, you'd know that he is never sent any free cameras. He buys everything he reviews and sells something if he wants a new camera.
As far as where the money goes, yes, it is the experience. I do not currently have a digital camera for exactly the reason you mention. I don't like the way they look, feel, or operate in my hands. I do, however, enjoy shooting with Leicas, though I don't currently own one, either film or digital. Leica, for all their current focus on the luxury market, has done something no other camera company has, which is to present a full frame digital camera that preserves a unique and older style of shooting. Perhaps not useful to you, but not everyone is alike. For me, this may be the camera that finally makes me go digital. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. Quite the opposite, in fact, so it has nothing to do with status and everything to do with taking pictures the way I like.
Scheelings
Well-known
That's because 99.9% real photographer's can't afford Leica's - not because the camera isn't more technically capable.
Also, the technical capabilities of the camera only play a small part in the final image. In other words - photographer's quickly learn the limits of their camera's - and work within those bounds.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Meyerowitz owns one and has made a few decent images with it.
The only people I know personally that own Leica digital Ms are full time working photographers.
The only people I know personally that own Leica digital Ms are full time working photographers.
Scheelings
Well-known
Hmm, maybe that's because you live in a wealthy country where photographers can earn enough to afford a Leica.
I typically live in countries with high disparity between rich and poor.
I think I've been out of the First World far too long.
I typically live in countries with high disparity between rich and poor.
I think I've been out of the First World far too long.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Bresson, Meyerowitz, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Davidson all shot Leica M in an age when Leica M was 2 and even 3 times more than the top of the line Canon & Nikons. And many photographers shot with Hasselblad and Rollieflex and those were even more expensive. I think if you don't try and own all the equipment its easier to get the equipment that really fits your vision and the way you work.
Leica M has never been the cheap alternative.
Leica M has never been the cheap alternative.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I agree with your first point. It can be just a tool. I have no qualms with people buying/using Leicas. I used to buy/use Leicas. What i resent is the unwarranted hype that goes along with it. Not from most photographers, but from too many forum members and those bloggers. My 'rant' was, essentially, aimed at Huff and Thorsten.
So, no, re: "Leica hate." I've had two M7s, a CM, an R8, and an R7. Well, maybe i should amend that. Yes, to "Leica (digital) hate." The film cameras somehow seemed 'worth it,' in a way. Digital, not so much, except as a platform for the glass, which is still excellent, but again, not so excellent as to make photography qualitatively better.
I tried DR Summicrons, 50 Lux-Pre, 50 Lux-ASPH, current 50 Cron... and now my favorite lens is a $30 Nikon 50/1.8 Series E. The E does what i had been looking for in the $8,000 i spent on Leica glass. Which is kinda my point. You buy a 50 Summicron 20 years ago, because Leica (and everyone else) says it's the best lens. Five years later, there's a newer Summicron. You have to have that. Another five years, it's a newer Leica 50, and five years on, it's a newer and better Leica 50. Then, you look back, and ask yourself if photography is better now than it was 20 years ago. My answer is No.
Yet, the bloggists proclaim every advance as the greatest thing to happen to the craft, and people line up to spend $5,000 on a lens or $8,000 on a camera. Believe me, i am not anti-luxury. I love my Merc convertible, covet a BMW or Aston Martin, and will have a Ferrari before i die. And, i'll never approach their top speeds or handling capabilities. But, when people talk about those things, there is a greater sense of perspective involved. The car will depreciate much more than a Leica lens, and i realize there's some conflict in this paragraph and comparison. Something just 'happened' in the past few years, with Leica, its approach to development, support, and marketing, and then the blogosphere. It's a combination of issues just kinda sicken me. I hope not to have offended anyone here, and truth told, i don't even mind Huff in the vast majority of instances. I still read his stuff, but when these guys approach Rockwellian bluster and BS, i either tune it out or dismiss the surrounding material.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
That's kind of interesting. Of all the pro photographers i've known, worked with, or read about, only a few use(d) Leicas, and never for professional work. But, those guys were mainly in fashion and commercial work, not journalism.
I still think it's 'rare' to find a pro using a Leica. Canon and Nikon and Hasselblad H dominate pro work in just about all fields. Which is odd, if Leicas really do present a significant and/or valid advantage.
Back in the film days, Leicas were used by the sort of 'nomadic storyteller' — the guy who could spend a month in a location on a story. Or the random street photographer — the guy who put a book or exhibition together after a few years of wandering around. But, not by people who actually had to get the (specific) shot on that day, in that instant.
Different types of pro work have different types of demands. I haven't really seen a major change in Leica's direction with digital, but maybe i'm looking in the wrong places. I'm sure someone here can list a few pros who use the M9 as a primary tool, but what percentage does that make?
Thank you for the thoughtful and tactful response CK. I can completely understand where you are coming from. I believe I misunderstood what you were saying in the other thread. My fault.
srtiwari
Daktari
I have discovered, to my surprise, that excess "stuff" accumulated during bouts of GAS, caused me a vague discomfort - in part since I could not use it enough with all the other "stuff" around. The desire to own it is relatively fleeting, in my case, but selling it is not easy, either. Once sold, however, I don't think of it again, and seem to enjoy the remaining "stuff", much more.
Go figure...
Go figure...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I really understand where people are coming from on this one. For people who take real pleasure in using genuine RFs, yet want digital, the price is just disproportionately high compared to other formats. This is NOT an argument about whether or not that price is justified. It's just that it is high enough to be really exorbitant or even prohibitive for people who would really like to be using that kind of body. It doesn't have to be Leica, but I think people who like RFs really really do want full frame.
Now, if you were a shooter of any other kind of small format body, you would have many more options, including full frame ones, some of them at a much lower price.
In about 2 or 3 years full-frame M9s will be affordable for a much larger group of people. However, the waiting period, plus the fact that you have to buy second or third-hand, is a drag. Not to mention the ignominy of buying a camera with a really outdated sensor for such an inflated price, even used.
Even though the M-E is called an "entry level" body, the price really isn't there yet.
The RF system really really needs a true low(er) cost entry-level NEW offering. But I doubt that we're ever gonna see that, so that's where the frustration really comes from.