Bill Pierce
Well-known
I grew up using Leicas, and they served me well. But the Leicas I grew up with didn’t cost as much as today’s by any standard. I’m sure somewhere there are folks just starting out who use Leicas, but I don’t know a single one. And, to a certain extent, what you start with is what you continue to use. I had one Leica; then, 2, in case one failed on the job. After awhile, there were 3, each with a different lens (wide angle, normal and medium tele). When you are doing news, there really isn’t time to change lenses. (Once I saw Gene Smith with 6 cameras hanging on him - the same 3 we all used and three more so he could have similar rigs in black-and-white and color. That wasn’t his normal outfit, but it was pretty impressive.)
Once I started traveling, I had to have another body in case one failed. And since these were mechanical cameras that had to go into the shop for cleaning, lubrication and adjustment another body wasn’t out of the question. That’s a lot of Leicas.
Let’s face it, the M10 is a good camera, but I don’t think some young professional is going to be able to afford multiple bodies and a few Leitz lenses. The Leica, a rangefinder camera, is unique. I think if you don’t start using one fairly early in the game, your habits will be set, and you probably will stick with other types of cameras. That doesn’t seem to me to be a good thing for Leitz in the long run. Your thoughts?
Once I started traveling, I had to have another body in case one failed. And since these were mechanical cameras that had to go into the shop for cleaning, lubrication and adjustment another body wasn’t out of the question. That’s a lot of Leicas.
Let’s face it, the M10 is a good camera, but I don’t think some young professional is going to be able to afford multiple bodies and a few Leitz lenses. The Leica, a rangefinder camera, is unique. I think if you don’t start using one fairly early in the game, your habits will be set, and you probably will stick with other types of cameras. That doesn’t seem to me to be a good thing for Leitz in the long run. Your thoughts?
DwF
Well-known
I agree with your closing statement that the camera you learn on (first camera) will stay with you - whether rangefinder or SLR, I suppose whatever type.
I can't speak to Leica's strategy but I've often thought if I had my say, the lines offered and approach to marketing as well as camera offerings would be different. Of course it is easier said than done; the arm chair quarterbacking.
My son is just this past week getting into having and carrying an actual camera. He is 20 and of course he was offered opportunities since he was old enough to "press the shutter". So I've handed him my X E2 and kit lens but will very soon suggest he go out with only the 27mm. That aside, I am watching him process all this info, and he is keeping his focus pretty simple- framing, aperture and shutter. And he is perfectly content with the finder as he should be, X E2 has a nice one. There is a learning curve and he will probably stay with something like the Fuji.
While I love Leicas, Fuji has done things wisely in my opinion. In the 90s, Leica users had a prelude to the digital age with the Hexar AF and with the X100 series Fuji really capitalized on that model.
I can't speak to Leica's strategy but I've often thought if I had my say, the lines offered and approach to marketing as well as camera offerings would be different. Of course it is easier said than done; the arm chair quarterbacking.
My son is just this past week getting into having and carrying an actual camera. He is 20 and of course he was offered opportunities since he was old enough to "press the shutter". So I've handed him my X E2 and kit lens but will very soon suggest he go out with only the 27mm. That aside, I am watching him process all this info, and he is keeping his focus pretty simple- framing, aperture and shutter. And he is perfectly content with the finder as he should be, X E2 has a nice one. There is a learning curve and he will probably stay with something like the Fuji.
While I love Leicas, Fuji has done things wisely in my opinion. In the 90s, Leica users had a prelude to the digital age with the Hexar AF and with the X100 series Fuji really capitalized on that model.
Dogman
Veteran
I learned photography with Nikon F's. When I became a newspaper photographer (I hesitate to call the job "photojournalism" considering the true range of assignments), I continued to use Nikons. They were dependable and they felt right. I did try using Leica for a time but it never felt as comfortable to work with as the Nikons. Only years later, after I had left photography as a career and started enjoying it again, did I give Leica another try. I had not used Nikons for some time so they had lost that "rightness" of feel like they had when I used them every day. This time, the fit was good and I used Leica right up the the day I stopped shooting film and began using digital for everything.
I believe Bill is correct in stating the tools you start with are usually the tools you continue to use. They get that "rightness" of feel that comes with muscle memory and you begin to trust them. I also agree with DwF concerning Fuji. Fuji is now positioned where Leica once was--the compliment to the DSLR for the working pro. While not cheap, a Fuji outfit is still a fraction of the cost of a digital M outfit and it offers many of the same benefits--small, light, nimble and highly capable.
I believe Bill is correct in stating the tools you start with are usually the tools you continue to use. They get that "rightness" of feel that comes with muscle memory and you begin to trust them. I also agree with DwF concerning Fuji. Fuji is now positioned where Leica once was--the compliment to the DSLR for the working pro. While not cheap, a Fuji outfit is still a fraction of the cost of a digital M outfit and it offers many of the same benefits--small, light, nimble and highly capable.
Lss
Well-known
kshapero
South Florida Man
Today I think Leica is eye candy for the rich. As a marketing position it seems to be working. But it sure has no room for starters or today's pros. These days when I am at an event where a pro or two is working, all I see are Nikons and Canons with an increasing amount of Sony's. Plus I have seen a Fuji and a Leica SL. BTW I never see any video only equipment. Video is all done by DSLR's and Sony A7's. Oh the times, they are a changing.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Depends on the standard. If you compare — provided the same place, of course — the disposable personal income e.g. of a graduated nurse in the 1930s/40s/50s, and of a graduated nurse today in 2017, you’ll get quite a realistic picture: They were MORE EXPENSIVE in the PAST than today.
Don't they have grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on?
— Hm, I have the impression that in the past older people were MUCH more generous than today, the today's senior citizens' addiction to vacation etc. was unknown then
Gregm61
Well-known
There will always be enough interest in Leicas that they'll sell enough. It's different, and people's habits/wants do change over time if they're into photography. There will always be some percentage that eventually gets the bug to at least try one, like me. I couldn't have told you what Leica was until I read a great classic camera article by Bob Schwalberg in the March, 1987 edition of Popular Photography that included the M3 and Contax IIA that started my interest in the Leica and Contax lines and culminated with last year when I purchased my first brand new Leica, an M262.
It's not like Leica needs to sell 1 million of them as year to stay in business.
It's not like Leica needs to sell 1 million of them as year to stay in business.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Didn't professional photographers already move away from Leica rangefinders to SLR's during the sixties? As a luxury niche brand, I suppose that today Leica could target more wealthy individuals in Asia, and the Northern Hemisphere than ever before.
goamules
Well-known
You are exactly correct. Nikon, Canon, and most of the other rangefinder makers dropped them from their lines, and concentrated on SLRs. Only Leica and a few fringe companies kept making them, in smaller and smaller numbers, and millions of SLRs were taken up by the 1970s. Same as cell phone camera users today.
willie_901
Veteran
The M10 is a great camera. It is particularly valuable to those who own a thoughtfully acquired stable of M/LTM lenses.[1]
It seems reasonable to speculate a rather small percent of all the working photographers on this planet use M cameras. Just because their numbers may be relatively small doesn't mean there aren't any. Of course there are.
The issue is: of all the working photographers how many actually buy new digital M bodies on a regular basis? Does anyone think working photographers are Leica's core market?
[1] It would be more succinct to replace the words "thoughtfully acquired stable" with curated. But it seems the word curated is unacceptable to some RFF readers.
It seems reasonable to speculate a rather small percent of all the working photographers on this planet use M cameras. Just because their numbers may be relatively small doesn't mean there aren't any. Of course there are.
The issue is: of all the working photographers how many actually buy new digital M bodies on a regular basis? Does anyone think working photographers are Leica's core market?
[1] It would be more succinct to replace the words "thoughtfully acquired stable" with curated. But it seems the word curated is unacceptable to some RFF readers.
Dogman
Veteran
Rangefinders continued to be used by a whole lot of shooters into the 1980's. The beginning of SLR's dominance did start in the 60's but rangefinders were still in regular use for years to come. When I went to work for a mid-size daily newspaper in the mid 70's, two of the photographers used rangefinders for at least some of their assignments(one a Leica, another used an old Contax). Another photographer used a Rolleiflex for routine non-news and non-sports assignments. But in professional photojournalism overall, Nikons pretty much dominated.
Dogman
Veteran
Depends on the standard. If you compare — provided the same place, of course — the disposable personal income e.g. of a graduated nurse in the 1930s/40s/50s, and of a graduated nurse today in 2017, you’ll get quite a realistic picture: They were MORE EXPENSIVE in the PAST than today.
Don't they have grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on?
— Hm, I have the impression that in the past older people were MUCH more generous than today, the today's senior citizens' addiction to vacation etc. was unknown then
I really doubt Leicas cost less today in comparison to what they cost in say 1950, 1960, etc. If that were the case, you would see more of them in professional use today if for no other reason than to supplement the mainstay DSLRs most pros are using. In those past decades, it was fairly normal to see a pro with 3 or more Leica bodies matched to different focal length lenses. Today, if you see a pro using a Leica at all, he probably has one single body and maybe one or two extra lenses.
Unless those mentioned relatives are very wealthy and not at all world wise, I can't believe anyone with a realistic concept of generosity would expect to be gifted multi tens of thousands of dollars. That goes well beyond generosity.
Actually no.
Take an M3 that cost $273 new in 1965: the US consumer price index in Jan 2017 was 242.839 and 31.2 in Jan 1965 — that's an increase of 7.783 times. $273 x 7.783 = $2,125 in todays dollars: that's a lot less than an M10 today.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
robert blu
quiet photographer
Leica miss an entry level offer. The Leica entry level is the pre-owned market. Depending on the shooting style and need of the young professional a couple of M-9, or M-E or similar plus a couple of primes (also second hand) could be the starting point.
Of course fin for his way to shoot he needs an high-tech with the last possibilities offered by the technology the older camera do not offer them.
Just my idea, but I'm a simple amateur, no pro!
robert
Of course fin for his way to shoot he needs an high-tech with the last possibilities offered by the technology the older camera do not offer them.
Just my idea, but I'm a simple amateur, no pro!
robert
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I had been shooting mostly SLR's for 24 years before I shot my first Leica/rangefinder. I think I'm probably more comfortable with the SLR format, but now use rangefinders (a Nikon S2 w/occasional M3) on a daily basis. Mostly for personal projects, not for work. Part of the reason is that I prefer shooting film for personal projects and there is a beautiful simplicity with a film rangefinder. With work, they always need everything yesterday, so it leans digital.
While I agree with what was mentioned above, the used Leica market allows for an entry level into the rangefinder world, I don't think Leica (as a company) is trying to attract young photographers, professional or otherwise. Back in the day (1950's) they probably were. But I think now their "niche" market is older folks with disposable income who are looking for a luxury product.
Best,
-Tim
farlymac
PF McFarland
Hmm. My early lessons in photography were on a Polaroid Swinger. I could see that wasn't going to get me anywhere soon.
But while there are many photographers that just stuck with one system during their careers, there are many others who did just the opposite, constantly switching brands as the technology progressed, either for the lenses, or the camera bodies. Lenses for a certain look, and bodies for capabilities.
I for one went through four stages of type of camera and film format before settling on Nikon SLRs after quite a bit of research into the system as it stood in 1973. But then I never quit looking at other systems, since sometimes you just need something different to get the look one wants.
I did go Pro once, but never made much money with it because my job that paid the bills demanded too much of my time and attention. But I wasn't limiting myself to one format or brand while I was in that mode. Mostly because I didn't want to be buttonholed into being a "journalist", or "wedding", or "studio", or "industrial", or "product" photographer. I wanted to do it all, and that meant having the right equipment for the job. Unfortunately, I could never afford the investment in all that stuff.
PF
But while there are many photographers that just stuck with one system during their careers, there are many others who did just the opposite, constantly switching brands as the technology progressed, either for the lenses, or the camera bodies. Lenses for a certain look, and bodies for capabilities.
I for one went through four stages of type of camera and film format before settling on Nikon SLRs after quite a bit of research into the system as it stood in 1973. But then I never quit looking at other systems, since sometimes you just need something different to get the look one wants.
I did go Pro once, but never made much money with it because my job that paid the bills demanded too much of my time and attention. But I wasn't limiting myself to one format or brand while I was in that mode. Mostly because I didn't want to be buttonholed into being a "journalist", or "wedding", or "studio", or "industrial", or "product" photographer. I wanted to do it all, and that meant having the right equipment for the job. Unfortunately, I could never afford the investment in all that stuff.
PF
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
LOL, you're US [140393406528], aren't you?
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Encore: you're US [140393406528], aren't you?
The so called «consumer price index» is irrelevant. But I'm not going to try to explain that since you're perhaps an MBA, and that's exactly the problem: MBAs tend to be the persons who have not the slightest idea of MACRO-economics.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
A camera is a camera..you adapt..
Cameras today shoot video too and save bux from shooting film..
But..
Its not as fun as it once was..the whole mystery of shooting is gone for good..
Its just happy snappin now...diggy emptiness..
Everything is done for you now..anyone can do it..
Cameras are passé..phones took over..
And yes..Leicas are expensive..
So what to do..
I'm going back to 8x10..
And try to restart the feelin again..
Of a good and true... photographic experience..
Cameras today shoot video too and save bux from shooting film..
But..
Its not as fun as it once was..the whole mystery of shooting is gone for good..
Its just happy snappin now...diggy emptiness..
Everything is done for you now..anyone can do it..
Cameras are passé..phones took over..
And yes..Leicas are expensive..
So what to do..
I'm going back to 8x10..
And try to restart the feelin again..
Of a good and true... photographic experience..
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I suggest to read Leica blog. They have some young photographers with film Leica cameras. Few week ago I sold Rigid to young M3 owner who ditched digital Sony and went with film Leica.
These days used Leica isn't very expensive, if you need Leica. Used film bodies are more affordable comparing to few years ago, starting from 600 USD for working one. Digital M are possible to buy for the same price as some used DSLRs are available.
On previous week I purchased my second digital Leica rangefinder for the price of used Canon 6D.
Young photographers who are unable to purchase M10 and Leica lens is problem of current situation with digital cameras market, where only Leica makes RF camera and state of professional photography which become next to hobby, but not profession with income enough for living and buying equipment by credit card.
20K is the price of the nothing special new car. Where I'm if you want to be photographer you need to have car. Vehicle maintenance, cost of fuel and insurance are more expensive than paying credit for M10 and lenses.
These days used Leica isn't very expensive, if you need Leica. Used film bodies are more affordable comparing to few years ago, starting from 600 USD for working one. Digital M are possible to buy for the same price as some used DSLRs are available.
On previous week I purchased my second digital Leica rangefinder for the price of used Canon 6D.
Young photographers who are unable to purchase M10 and Leica lens is problem of current situation with digital cameras market, where only Leica makes RF camera and state of professional photography which become next to hobby, but not profession with income enough for living and buying equipment by credit card.
20K is the price of the nothing special new car. Where I'm if you want to be photographer you need to have car. Vehicle maintenance, cost of fuel and insurance are more expensive than paying credit for M10 and lenses.