Turtle
Veteran
You've lost me and I suspect plenty of others too. From what you are saying are we to gather that Leica uses plush boutiques and luxury paraphernalia to sell luxury goods? OK, sure, but this is fairly obvious because all quality/non low end brands do the same.
I think you may be confusing 'luxury/quality' (which is something that can be appreciated internally) with 'status symbol' (which is something projected outwards for the affect it has on others). Quality and aficionado some to mind with Leica, but not status symbol. They are too obscure for that. As to suggest that Leica derives lots of its income from men buying to impress an accompanying woman, well, thats just fantasy. There are many more obvious (and impressive) ways to blow cash to impress people.
A person can buy a top Merdedes because of their love of cars and passion for the brand without having the slightest concern what other people might think. In fact, some people would feel slightly embarrassed with their 100K top Mercedes and buy it despite feeling like the show off they are not.
I own a number of Leicas and use them with great sincerity. I know plenty of others do too. While many Leica owners do love the brand (esp the M series) for their jewel like quality, I suspect this is a solo pleasure due to the fact that most people do not know anything about Leica and could not care less. Its a rare person on the street whose eyes light up when they see a Leica. Most assume its an old camera that you would have to be silly to be fooling around with.
I own a number of Ms because I feel they are the best tool for me to get the job done. If they were inexpensive and not highly revered by some, I would still use them. It would be nice if they were cheaper, but sadly they are not.
I think you may be confusing 'luxury/quality' (which is something that can be appreciated internally) with 'status symbol' (which is something projected outwards for the affect it has on others). Quality and aficionado some to mind with Leica, but not status symbol. They are too obscure for that. As to suggest that Leica derives lots of its income from men buying to impress an accompanying woman, well, thats just fantasy. There are many more obvious (and impressive) ways to blow cash to impress people.
A person can buy a top Merdedes because of their love of cars and passion for the brand without having the slightest concern what other people might think. In fact, some people would feel slightly embarrassed with their 100K top Mercedes and buy it despite feeling like the show off they are not.
I own a number of Leicas and use them with great sincerity. I know plenty of others do too. While many Leica owners do love the brand (esp the M series) for their jewel like quality, I suspect this is a solo pleasure due to the fact that most people do not know anything about Leica and could not care less. Its a rare person on the street whose eyes light up when they see a Leica. Most assume its an old camera that you would have to be silly to be fooling around with.
I own a number of Ms because I feel they are the best tool for me to get the job done. If they were inexpensive and not highly revered by some, I would still use them. It would be nice if they were cheaper, but sadly they are not.
P
Peter S
Guest
Here at RFF we are enthusiasts and in general down to earth people that bolt at the suggestion that their tool is a status symbol. I would not be surprised however if in certain parts of the world where there is a lot of recent wealth Leica is looked at as a status symbol. In a way Leica has always flirted with that notion, in the past with their special editions (Sultan of Brunei to name one of the more tasteful ones) and more recently with their boutiques. The more people buy Leica, the better as it only makes the company stronger and its chances of survival bigger. The only downside I can see is that it could drive prices further up and then, to come back on topic, camera's like the Fuji X Pro will gain even more traction.
Well, photographers who don't like rangefinders will know the camera and won't want one. Not everyone who knows of the M9 wants it.
The issue I have is when people have no clue what the difference between a mechnical rangefinder digital camera with old school controls and a DSLR and proceed to say you are stupid for buying one (M9) over the other (DSLR). Different philosophies.
jippiejee
Well-known
I've bought all of my Leica gear used, and always picked it up myself since I live in a country with no distances (the Netherlands). What I noticed was the humble nature of the Leica people. Always very kind and soft-spoken, living in very middle-class houses, often without much to show for but their love for good photography equipment and photography. Saw some great collection of photobooks in their homes. I think I could have been friends with any of them. They never seemed to be into the status thing of Leica, but loved their gear for the intrinsic quality of it. Some of them were photographers, but most were just men with some disposable income who loved their hobby.
anerjee
Well-known
What is being pointed out is a discrepancy between Leica as the brand and Leica as the product that many here love.
Today the brand is positioned to appeal to a certain section of society which may be more status conscious than the "usual" Leica photographer. Nothing wrong or right about it, and it definitely does not detract from the product.
Also, Leica is definitely not obscure, especially here in Asia.
Today the brand is positioned to appeal to a certain section of society which may be more status conscious than the "usual" Leica photographer. Nothing wrong or right about it, and it definitely does not detract from the product.
Also, Leica is definitely not obscure, especially here in Asia.
Ben Z
Veteran
Bottom line for me, I don't like EVF's, at least none that I've seen so far. If I add up all the money I could have spent on micro 4/3 cameras thus far that were touted at the time as great and are now discontinued, I'm halfway to an M10. I'm still shooting a Canon 5D-Mk1 and a 20D and I'm just as happy with their results as I was when I bought them. Not trading my 911 on a Mini-Cooper S either...even though the latter gets better gas mileage and has Bluetooth connectivity 
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I think it's all envy. They don't have the money to afford them, so they must be hoity-toity toys for the rich.
I don't have the money to afford them, but I'm willing to sell my mother's declined years to get a Leica because it's a camera I like to use... ;-)
Not sure if its envy. There are many things I right off as rich guy stuff, but am not jealous of...
Let's face it... if you think DSLRs are the best cameras on the market for your needs and truly like that form factor, then a M9 at $7,000 must really seem nuts.
Let's face it... if you think DSLRs are the best cameras on the market for your needs and truly like that form factor, then a M9 at $7,000 must really seem nuts.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Let's face it...if the Fuji X-pro1 performs well, then an M9 at USD 7,000 is nuts. At least to me, especially when considering that the market will soon offer a number of M-mount adapters.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, the Fuji and the M are two totally different cameras...so insert most any other camera in place of where you put Fuji X-pro1 and we could have this argument.
My point is that if you want a manual focus, mechnical rangefinder, full frame digital camera with old school controls and a minimal menu... there is still only one camera that fits that category. To those people, $7,000 is a lot, but it is worth it.
To anyone else who doesn't want that and is only concerned with putting their legacy glass on just any rangefinder-like body, the M9 seems crazy.
f6andBthere
Well-known
I guess it's hard for people to equate value for money with the M9 ... because it's not if you're being totally honest with yourself whether you can afford it easily or not.
Like jsrocket says ... you buy it if it's worth it to you personally to own a $7000.00 full frame digital rangefinder ... and let's face it, plenty have!
Like jsrocket says ... you buy it if it's worth it to you personally to own a $7000.00 full frame digital rangefinder ... and let's face it, plenty have!
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
We should draw a distinction between Leica today and Leica in the pre-digital era.
There was a time when Leica was much more aggressive in the pro market. They were routinely found in the hands of photojournalists.
That's just not the case today. Are there PJs out there using them? Sure there are. But only in very limited numbers. The exceptions that prove the rule.
I don't really think its fair to call an M9 a status symbol. I certainly didn't think of my M8s as status symbols when I bought them. But I certainly have grown to think of digital Ms as luxury items - which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what Leica wants them to be.
In the end, though, it's a little optimistic to compare the potential life span of an M9 to that of any of film M. That's like comparing the lifespan of a manual typewriter to that of a Radioshack TRS-80 Model 100 "laptop" made in the 1980s. It was state-of-the-art at the time. But I wonder how much luck you'd have trying to keep one of those running for 40-50 years.
These aren't just cameras we are buying these days. They are computers with lens mounts. That gives them an added element of vulnerability.
There was a time when Leica was much more aggressive in the pro market. They were routinely found in the hands of photojournalists.
That's just not the case today. Are there PJs out there using them? Sure there are. But only in very limited numbers. The exceptions that prove the rule.
I don't really think its fair to call an M9 a status symbol. I certainly didn't think of my M8s as status symbols when I bought them. But I certainly have grown to think of digital Ms as luxury items - which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what Leica wants them to be.
In the end, though, it's a little optimistic to compare the potential life span of an M9 to that of any of film M. That's like comparing the lifespan of a manual typewriter to that of a Radioshack TRS-80 Model 100 "laptop" made in the 1980s. It was state-of-the-art at the time. But I wonder how much luck you'd have trying to keep one of those running for 40-50 years.
These aren't just cameras we are buying these days. They are computers with lens mounts. That gives them an added element of vulnerability.
gdi
Veteran
Considering that Fuji in place of an M9 at all is nuts. At least to me, but I may consider it over those little Sonys.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Hmm, Leica, status and posers..Is the existence of trophy wives an argument against matrimony?
flyalf
Well-known
The M9 is not a old girl, but a youngster that needs to mature into the full potential.
Dust removal, a bit more customization buttons, dedicated ISO button and a bit quicker boot-up and shuffling of data, and there we are.
Dust removal, a bit more customization buttons, dedicated ISO button and a bit quicker boot-up and shuffling of data, and there we are.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, actually. I don't care what other people think of the M, or the Fuji for that matter.
I looked at the Fuji and think it's a fine camera. But it's not what I want to shoot with. I picked the M9 as the camera I want to work with without regard to it's specific performance or price ... I like it because it works the way I want a camera to work. I'm sure it will do fine on performance, regardless of what else might also do well or cost less.
I'm lucky to have the means to afford it easily. If I didn't, it wouldn't bother me a bit: I have other cameras which do a great job too. Including an SLR and a mirrorless TTL camera.
In the end, the goal is to do photography. That's more important to me than any camera.
dave lackey
Veteran
PatrickONeill
Well-known
imo, the fuji is more of a danger to the mid-range, crop body dSLR cameras, high end p&s cameras and to μ43'rds camera than it is a threat to the M9.
not because the M9 is Better, but because it is Different. the M9 retains the core fundamentals of what makes a rangefinder so unique. the X pro doesn't. so what?
honestly. take you pick, make your pictures. have some joy.
not because the M9 is Better, but because it is Different. the M9 retains the core fundamentals of what makes a rangefinder so unique. the X pro doesn't. so what?
honestly. take you pick, make your pictures. have some joy.