Tired of the Leica Marketing experts

[Roger Hicks]

Actually they have been getting a lot smaller and lighter

Philipp

Dear Philipp,

Not after you've bought 'em, which was my point.

As for prettier, don't agree. Aesthetic appeal and pleasure in using something are indivisible for me. A late friend likened modern mega-SLRs, 35mm and digi, to 'half-formed turds' and 'melted plastic ashtrays'.

A further point which occurs to me is that for me, a DSLR is a compromise of the worst kind. I put up with the size, weight, looks and abysmal and overcomplicated control layout in return for the speed and convenience for commercial shots (mostly pack, product and how-to shots). Almost ANYTHING is an improvement when it comes out, so in that sense, the camera is obsolete as soon as anything new comes out: the newer camera is unlikely to be worse.

Whereas the only really big advantage of my MP over my M2 is the meter. Yes, there's the self-resetting counter and the slightly faster loading (though I have a rapid-load kit in the M2 so that's minor).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

But seriously, even if you can buy 100 M8's tomorrow, whats the point of saying it here? To rub it in? To show people how much money you have?
My question is - what can you do with your M8? Do you have some photos to show?

I agree.

M. Valdemar, telling a bunch of strangers on an internet forum that you could drop a half million dollars without batting an eye is beyond obnoxious.

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

Just a point of order:

High-quality cameras such as Nikons and Leicas have ALWAYS been expensive. The prices in the ad you posted are, adjusted for inflation:

Leica M3 $3300

Nikon S-2 $3000

Not exactly cheap. These cameras were very well made and they were pushing the boundaries of technology at the time. People who had the means and desire saved up for them. Not so different from today.

Those prices were including the 50mm Summicron and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Good point. Still, $3300 for a new camera and normal lens is quite expensive. I'm not arguing that the cost of new Leica gear hasn't gone up in the last fifty years, just that the "good old days" need to be looked at realistically. $450 in 1958 is very different from $450 today.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Damn. I haven't seen a thread that pushes so many of my buttons for quite some time. I can't even begin to account for all the button-presses, so I'll simply give some samples...

Sometimes, to repeat myself, it really is about the photos.

Mike

Dear Mike,

The words 'personally' and 'can't see it myself' were meant to be taken literally, as a counter-argument to those who decry Leicas as too expensive, too simple, too backward, etc.

Personally (I'll emphasize the word this time), I find Canon DSLRs a waste of money. This is however a viewpoint you almost never hear expressed: I'd be surprised it it came up a thousandth as often as you hear the equally subjective opinion that Leicas are too expensive.

Both opinions are equally valid or equally worthless; what winds me up is not just the people who think they have all the answers, but that their answers are of universal application (I am not accusing you of this).

DSLRs suit you and the pictures you take, very well. The examples you posted are indeed very fine. I do not recall saying anything about not understanding why people bought them; merely that I couldn't see it myself. I just thought it might be interesting to put the boot on the other foot; and I think you'll find some quite nice pictures, of completely different subjects, on www.rogerandfrances.com. Taken with rangefinders. As you say, it's about the pictures.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mfunnell]

I think you'll find some quite nice pictures, of completely different subjects, on www.rogerandfrances.com. Taken with rangefinders. As you say, it's about the pictures.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger, I think we really quite agree. I too love rangefinders and, for different subjects than those I posted, I often find RF cameras (and film, god help me) rather the better choice of camera to take the photos I want.

I may have been over-reacting to a view often expressed on RFF, and imputing it to you where it isn't applicable, that modern cameras are bad. They're not. They may not be to some people's taste (apparently not yours, and that's fine) but they're not bad. They are, in fact, rather good for taking some kinds of photos. If they're not the kinds of photos you want to take then, again, that's fine.

(I'll note here that I much appreciate many of the photos you've pointed me to on your web site.)

For some kinds of photos I, personally, (I should pay more notice to that word) find my M3 or Hexar RF cameras rather better than a dSLR. I just dislike the view, sometimes expressed around here, that "my preferences are absolutes".

I'm now sure you don't hold that view, and if I'd paused for a moment I would have realised that you've never held that view.

I apologise.

...Mike

 

[Ade-oh]

Well, Roger. Lesley Hornby never appealed to me, either. Not enough mass to hold onto.

Oddly enough I saw her in my local supermarket last month. She's looking pretty good for nearly 60.

As for cameras... I understand why people become emotionally attached to them, I'm not sure quite why people develop a hatred or dislike for brands which they don't use. Indulging in a bit of amateur psychology, I suspect that many photographers tend to define themselves and others by the cameras they use, thus Canon users are modernists, Nikon users are middle of the road progressives, Leica users are bronzed attractive sex gods (oh, OK, Leica owners are purists then...), Olympus users were cheeky cockney scamps like David Bailey and Don McCullin etc etc. All utter bullsh1t of course.

 

[csaunders]

Yep, M8 is for closers only! ... see this M8? see this M8? This M8 costs more than your car!

Glengarry, Glen Ross. Nice!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I think we really quite agree. I too love rangefinders and, for different subjects than those I posted, I often find RF cameras (and film, god help me) rather the better choice of camera to take the photos I want.

I may have been over-reacting to a view often expressed on RFF, and imputing it to you where it isn't applicable, that modern cameras are bad. They're not. They may not be to some people's taste (apparently not yours, and that's fine) but they're not bad. They are, in fact, rather good for taking some kinds of photos.

...Mike

Dear Mike,

No need to apologize; but since you have, it is more than willingly accepted. Over-reaction is something we all do on the internet!

Modern cameras? The only really, seriously modern camera I'd like (and can't afford) is the current top-of-the-line digital Hasselblad: good for studios and portraits. That or a BetterLight back for my Technikardan. Many years ago, when the first giant Canon film SLR came out, I won no Brownie points at photokina when a Canon PR man asked me what I thought of the new camera. I replied that I preferred smaller, more compact cameras, so I used medium format...

I can see why people buy 35mm-styled DSLRs if they want to take a certain kind of picture, but what I don't understand is people who buy pro-level cameras and then shoot undemanding snapshots (which again, yours are a long way from being). Somehow, an M8 makes more sense as a snapshot camera...

Cheers,

roger

 

[rxmd]

I had a friend who referred to the Canon T-90 when it first came out as "soap on a rope."

I guess he hadn't used one by then.

I'm digressing a bit from the topic, but the T90 it's a fantastic camera. It has a remarkably easy and consistent interface: "push a button and turn the control wheel" for everything. Quick and easy to use. Given how much more the camera can do (and that what it does is actually quite useful for real-world photographers in real-world situations), its control layout and ergonomics are easily the equivalent of the M Leicas. It gets bashed a lot, but I am under the suspicion that most who don't like it haven't put a roll of film through one.

I'm not much of a fan of Colani design in general, but the T90 is a masterpiece. It shows the importance of a form-follows-function approach to create good ergonomics, and it's an iconic camera for the post-1986 camera world no less than the Leica M3 or the Nikon F were back in the 1950s.

I actually like the shape and feel of modern SLR's. When I first held a EOS-1 when it first came out, I fell in love with it. It fit my hands perfectly and the controls were logical. I also like the look and feel of Leica M's. But I don't really have a preference one over the other.

I completely agree.

Philipp

 

[Bertram2]

I am sorry for the cheezy car comparison, but yet there is some truth to it!

No. This comparison does not make any sense at all.

And all that gossip of the numerous self taught marketing smart alecks does not make sense either. It just reveals, how simple the world looks to some simple minds and it reveals their unlimited overestimation of their abilities.

Doing a marketing job since 20 years and having observed the Leica story since the 80s i would recommend them to stop sending strategic advice to Solms for a healthy future. Because there is none.

Leica Camera will not survive as the company we all know. Because of many reasons.

bertram
P.S.:
Of course Lee has been the wrong man and could not succeed in Solms. So what, everybody who knows the business did know that from the beginning on. Why was he hired anyway ??

 

[mw_uio]

"I suggest that everyone use whatever makes them happy" EriKFive

What ever makes you happy.....if you want digital machine gun style dslr, or basic no meter camera......whatever......if you focus too much on gear, I think that you will impeed your photography skills.....



Mark
Quito, EC

 

[Ororaro]

Doing a marketing job since 20 years and having observed the Leica story since the 80s i would recommend them to stop sending strategic advice to Solms for a healthy future. Because there is none.

Everything must come to an end, so you're not quite a genious by announcing Leica's end, whenever it will come. It was supposed to happen 30 years ago, though, so you're a bit late to the dance.

But if I go back to my original post, I am not an expert, I don't want to be one and I don't necessarily have more respect for the experts. I don't care if Leica gear costs an arm a leg and a kidney. If I can't afford one I'll just work harder. I won't start crying how Leica will go bankrupt. I couldn't care less, actually. I have a Hobby, a passion, it's inside of me.

 

[Bertram2]

Desperation?

Me? No. It's quite a time since I was a Leica customer and I have no stocks.
It's bitter tho to observe this chain of wrong decisions since 40 years, which all went in the wrong direction.
I think this has been the last time that this great name could again find an investor willing to take risks and trying to continue the story.

The next one (if there is any) will chop it to parts.

 

[literiter]

Somehow, an M8 makes more sense as a snapshot camera...

roger

This about sums the thing up for me.

 

[mw_uio]

sitemistic, yeah I know....stop being funny! 😀

Mark

 

[Bertram2]

Everything must come to an end, so you're not quite a genious by announcing Leica's end, whenever it will come. It was supposed to happen 30 years ago, though, so you're a bit late to the dance.
.

Calling somebody a stupid does not mean I keep myself as a genius. I just know, what I am talking about. This may appeal ingenious to some, not my fault tho.

 

[splitimageview]

I agree with Erik, it's whatever makes you happy.

That's why I drive an old 911 and why I sometimes shoot film slowly and deliberately with an incident meter and a 50 year old rangefinder camera, and sometimes shoot digital at 6fps. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ned,

Clearly you are an ignoramus who knows nothing whatsoever about Leicas, as all you do with them is take brilliant pictures: MUCH less important than advising the company on what they should be doing, how to make second-string cameras in China, etc.

I really liked your web-site, which for me illustrates very well what Leica photography is about. Purely personally, I preferred the monochrome to the colour -- but you really shouldn't waste all that time taking pictures when you could spend the time whining and bitching about the price of a decent camera instead.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[tomasis]

own monologue...

I cannot help to wonder if Noctilux and M8 are curses for Leica because they are most expensive then people start do not like them because of price.

No, I don't have think that because some loud people have their needs to express their opinions on some online forums to prove some nonsenses. During the time as they do, crazy photography(picture)-interested guys buy thousands new M8 & Noctluxes and have fun with those.

I'm feeling really torn between those worlds and I could felt better if I sold everything of digital stuffs and keep out from the evil computer and internet. Maybe it doesnt have to be such drastic changes. But it is so difficult to keep of not contrustive threads if I click on this by mistake or not knowing. You have to spend 20 minutes reading and realise that all that most are nonsenses again. It is very same with most of M8 or nocti pictures I'ever seen. I don't think that most ferraris are used at racing tracks where they should be. not just museums examples. But all this is very natural. Some have more money than own brain cells. It is one of holy trues.

end of monologue

many greats posts by ned, rxmd, roger frances.. *nod nod* :angel: