wolves3012
Veteran
What's special? Mostly, the price! I won't dispute they're very well made but for many people they are unaffordably expensive or unjustifiably so. Certainly, they cater for niches that the mass market manufacturers don't though. Photographically, I don't imagine there's a shot that only a Leica could achieve.
Yes, I do have one - but only an old IIIC that was, relatively, inexpensive. If I could afford it, would I buy something like an M9? Probably.
Yes, I do have one - but only an old IIIC that was, relatively, inexpensive. If I could afford it, would I buy something like an M9? Probably.
wolves3012
Veteran
Roger,
I can give you a good example of why. Back in the days when they were new, I was very tempted to buy a Pentax MX, as a step-up to my then-owned Spotmatic. Until, that is, a friend bought one and I handled it. I have rather large hands and that camera is small. It would have cramped my fingers to use it much and it just felt all wrong, notwithstanding it's a very nice SLR.
Ansel
Well-known
This runs contrary to my experience. I used to edit a magazine up until a couple of years ago - sure, images had to be provided digitally for layout on a computer, but I never once asked a photog. for a film or digital source image, just an image. And many of those images were and continue to be film, mainly medium format.
Customers don't ask for formats, they ask for images. The film/digital debate is completely irrelevant as all film images are very easily converted and digital has no real speed advantage for most commercial work.
p.s. There also seems to be a subtext to a lot of these discussions about film/digital, i.e. that if it is pro then it is good if it is amatuer or not commercial/pro, then it is not good and not as valid. This is of course total nonsense. We are currently experience a massive period of content creation democratisation.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Of course we all are different! I am just giving my experience Roger. Sure, I use other cameras, but when I pick up a Leica M, it all falls into place for me. Even my wife, who is not a photographer, has picked up one of my Ms and exclaimed "Wow. Now this is a camera!".
hepcat
Former PH, USN
The market for which the image is made has much to do with the medium used to make the images.
My point wasn't about the superiority of one medium over another, or who shoots them; rather it is about the demands of many current consumers of images. Short lead times and short turn-around times seem to be the norm now. The luxury of jobs that contract for final product in sixty to ninety days out seem to have gone the way of Kodachrome.
More and more my business has been calls from clients who need images made and delivered in 24 hours, and that just can't be accommodated by film. The last two jobs I've had, an architectural job and an aerial job both had to have the finished digital images in the hands of the clients in remote locations in 24 hours. I got the call on the architectural job at 2pm on a Sunday, and I was shooting it at 7pm in another city.
Unfortunately, I was out of town for the aerial job time-frame, and I lost that one to another photographer. It's tough, but when you're a generalist in a small market, you take the jobs as they come and perform for the client in their time frame or you don't get the job. I'd love the luxury of shooting for a monthly glossy magazine. There just aren't enough of those around any more.
icebear
Veteran
hepcat,
as others already stated, nicely put. I am not sure if this hits the nail on it's top but it might be very close.
I am not a pro, just an amateur enjoying a line of camera's w/o "Auto-everything". A camera that doesn't get in my way. That fires the shutter the moment I press the release. I have the feeling that I make the decision and not some software in a computer with a lens in front of it
.
I have the feeling that I make the decision and not some software in a computer with a lens in front of it
Damn, my cameras make my decisions for me...
_mark__
Well-known
Prefer Nikon personally but there is no denying the leica glass is exceptional.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I (sort of) see your point but I'm convinced it's mostly ergonomics. Yes, some cameras are uncomfortably small, and others are uncomfortably big, but they only feel that way if they're either badly designed or simply don't suit the way our hands/minds work. If the design is right, you can use them with big or small hands. It doesn't mean you have to like 'em, but (for example) when I say that most modern 'pro' DSLRs are ungainly tubs of lard that's just one of the things I dislike about them.
I can't help wondering how many people rationalize some other fault with a particular camera by blaming it on the size of their own hands, when really, the camera designer didn't do his job properly. My Olympus Pen W is tiny and my Polaroid 600SE is huge, but they're both designed right so they feel right.
Cheers,
R.
icebear
Veteran
Most have already GPS built in.Damn, my cameras make my decisions for me...
Not long and they will tell you where to go, where to point and when to press the shutter release
:bang: .fberna
Member
A smart marketing strategy.
Basically the very same as Harley Davidson did. Both selling you something which lags behind the competitors modern technology, selling that as simplicity value. And making you pay trough the nose for it!
Both relying heavily on creating a customer image; THE Leica customer is -allegedly- a real photographer, who knows about photography, not interested in the unnecessary bells and whistles offered by the modern technology.
Convinced to be a real connaisseur, a step above the crowd. Even better if equipped with a Billingham "made for Leica"...
Funny enough, the similarity extends even further: among the HD folks you find those considering as real the old pan or knuckle head bikes, while the new models are seen as gadgets for trendy yuppies.
Then we have those who consider real Leica the film cameras and despise the digital ones... too modern for the Jurassic era...
Both firms invest heavily in advertisement and events, convincing customers or potential ones to be VIPs...
Nowadays every middle to upper segment camera is more than capable of producing stunning images. The difference is made by those behind the camera...
Modern technology offers a great deal of tools which, for those capable of using them, allow to produce even better results.
Put here dozens of good images produced by skilled photographers and no indication about the camera; nobody would be able to find out those taken with a Leica.
Basically the very same as Harley Davidson did. Both selling you something which lags behind the competitors modern technology, selling that as simplicity value. And making you pay trough the nose for it!
Both relying heavily on creating a customer image; THE Leica customer is -allegedly- a real photographer, who knows about photography, not interested in the unnecessary bells and whistles offered by the modern technology.
Convinced to be a real connaisseur, a step above the crowd. Even better if equipped with a Billingham "made for Leica"...
Funny enough, the similarity extends even further: among the HD folks you find those considering as real the old pan or knuckle head bikes, while the new models are seen as gadgets for trendy yuppies.
Then we have those who consider real Leica the film cameras and despise the digital ones... too modern for the Jurassic era...
Both firms invest heavily in advertisement and events, convincing customers or potential ones to be VIPs...
Nowadays every middle to upper segment camera is more than capable of producing stunning images. The difference is made by those behind the camera...
Modern technology offers a great deal of tools which, for those capable of using them, allow to produce even better results.
Put here dozens of good images produced by skilled photographers and no indication about the camera; nobody would be able to find out those taken with a Leica.
lukitas
second hand noob
This is an impressive thread!
Cogent and evocative arguments, both for, against, and sideways!
One thing is clear : Leica is not the same thing for everybody. For some it is the perfect simplicity of the Barnack, for others, the Titanium edition M9 designed by Audi. What is special about M3's and M2's is not the same as what is special about the M240. And some people consider considerations of the body as beneath contempt, and wish to talk only about glass.
I could (just) afford a couple of old leica's, an M3 and an M2. They live up to the myth. In my career, I have used nikons to linhoffs, passing through hassy and sinar. and a digital P/S or two. Ergonomically, the old leica's are the best camera's I ever used (metering light 'in camera' was always a distraction to me), especially the viewfinder being larger than the frame.
On the other hand, I feel ill at ease with today's pricing of leica products.
Yes, I know, in the forties, a contax cost as much as a (small) car, one could say that nothing much has changed, but it has. However much an M3 or an M2 could be construed as a fashion statement for a well-to-do young man in the fifties and sixties, it is not the same fashion statement as the Hermès edition Leica bought by Paris Hiltons' BFF. The dentist who bought a camera and an enlarger 50 years ago at least had to act as if he did it for arts' sake.
He was expected to show off his best work at the local yearly show of the art club. These days, that function has been taken over by instagram and flicker and the rangefinder forum galleries. Being an artist has become accessible to everyone, but your camera does the artistic work, you only get to choose the style. Andy Warhol Pop, super-saturated colors, sepia with scratches and vignetting (oops. got off on a rant there).
So yes, I am violently irritated by Leica' marketing and pricing. Selling millionaire playboy toys under the aura of HCB and Robert Capa is an insult to what Leica was in that era. Yes it was expensive, but it was a high-grade tool.
Like micrometers, you paid for quality, for professional tooling. I find it depressing, to see this tradition reduced to bling. (Just as I find the descent of watchmaking into bling disgusting).
my 2cents.
p.s. I might consider exchanging my M2 for an M9 or a Monochrom, but I doubt anyone would envisage such an exchange. I might even cover it in snakeskin, to sweeten the deal. I would think 40 more years of functioning to be an excellent exchange for digital processing, but who would agree?
Cogent and evocative arguments, both for, against, and sideways!
One thing is clear : Leica is not the same thing for everybody. For some it is the perfect simplicity of the Barnack, for others, the Titanium edition M9 designed by Audi. What is special about M3's and M2's is not the same as what is special about the M240. And some people consider considerations of the body as beneath contempt, and wish to talk only about glass.
I could (just) afford a couple of old leica's, an M3 and an M2. They live up to the myth. In my career, I have used nikons to linhoffs, passing through hassy and sinar. and a digital P/S or two. Ergonomically, the old leica's are the best camera's I ever used (metering light 'in camera' was always a distraction to me), especially the viewfinder being larger than the frame.
On the other hand, I feel ill at ease with today's pricing of leica products.
Yes, I know, in the forties, a contax cost as much as a (small) car, one could say that nothing much has changed, but it has. However much an M3 or an M2 could be construed as a fashion statement for a well-to-do young man in the fifties and sixties, it is not the same fashion statement as the Hermès edition Leica bought by Paris Hiltons' BFF. The dentist who bought a camera and an enlarger 50 years ago at least had to act as if he did it for arts' sake.
He was expected to show off his best work at the local yearly show of the art club. These days, that function has been taken over by instagram and flicker and the rangefinder forum galleries. Being an artist has become accessible to everyone, but your camera does the artistic work, you only get to choose the style. Andy Warhol Pop, super-saturated colors, sepia with scratches and vignetting (oops. got off on a rant there).
So yes, I am violently irritated by Leica' marketing and pricing. Selling millionaire playboy toys under the aura of HCB and Robert Capa is an insult to what Leica was in that era. Yes it was expensive, but it was a high-grade tool.
Like micrometers, you paid for quality, for professional tooling. I find it depressing, to see this tradition reduced to bling. (Just as I find the descent of watchmaking into bling disgusting).
my 2cents.
p.s. I might consider exchanging my M2 for an M9 or a Monochrom, but I doubt anyone would envisage such an exchange. I might even cover it in snakeskin, to sweeten the deal. I would think 40 more years of functioning to be an excellent exchange for digital processing, but who would agree?
Last edited:
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Not only smart marketing, but you present a valid comparison between H-D and Leica. It even goes further; both of them nearly bankrupt in the '70s and coming back to life in a big way.
And you're absolutely right. I've said repeatedly that one cannot look at an image and tell me what it was taken with. It just can't be done.
The difference for me was that I came of age in photography in the age of the M4. I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the digital age. I've had to learn all of the new skills; photoshop, file manipulation and storage, tweaking RAW files for the best output etc. etc. when I'm really more comfortable in a darkroom with negatives.
And you're right, any mid-range camera today is capable of producing stunning images... provided that the dynamic range is within its competence level, that the point of focus is where it's expected, and that the exposure situation is something in its library that it can cope with. If any of those parameters are outside its programming, the results are, well, bad. That's when the knowledge and skill level of the photographer come into play.
I didn't even mind (too much) learning the features, menus and shortcomings of the first couple of generations of digital cameras. I bought Olympus and went through the e10, e20n, E1, E3 and last the E5. Each offered features and improved image quality with an entirely different menu setup. In retrospect, the E1 was simple and fast to use. The E3 and E5 were more complex, and I still used them predominantly in manual modes, and was increasingly frustrated by the electronics. The E5's predecessor will probably be released in a year or so, and I realized that I just didn't want to learn another menu system and feature set. I didn't WANT to have to do that again. I already know how to make a proper exposure. Unfortunately, the camera seldom knows what I want. IT wants to do what it's programmed to do. Shutter speed dials, aperture rings and ISO dials have been replaced with a series of button pushes, up and down arrows, and serrated wheels all of which require conscious thought which distracts me from the job at hand which is making the exposure the way I want to make it.
Moving back to a coincident rangefinder with traditional controls was like a breath of fresh air for me.
And you're absolutely right. I've said repeatedly that one cannot look at an image and tell me what it was taken with. It just can't be done.
The difference for me was that I came of age in photography in the age of the M4. I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the digital age. I've had to learn all of the new skills; photoshop, file manipulation and storage, tweaking RAW files for the best output etc. etc. when I'm really more comfortable in a darkroom with negatives.
And you're right, any mid-range camera today is capable of producing stunning images... provided that the dynamic range is within its competence level, that the point of focus is where it's expected, and that the exposure situation is something in its library that it can cope with. If any of those parameters are outside its programming, the results are, well, bad. That's when the knowledge and skill level of the photographer come into play.
I didn't even mind (too much) learning the features, menus and shortcomings of the first couple of generations of digital cameras. I bought Olympus and went through the e10, e20n, E1, E3 and last the E5. Each offered features and improved image quality with an entirely different menu setup. In retrospect, the E1 was simple and fast to use. The E3 and E5 were more complex, and I still used them predominantly in manual modes, and was increasingly frustrated by the electronics. The E5's predecessor will probably be released in a year or so, and I realized that I just didn't want to learn another menu system and feature set. I didn't WANT to have to do that again. I already know how to make a proper exposure. Unfortunately, the camera seldom knows what I want. IT wants to do what it's programmed to do. Shutter speed dials, aperture rings and ISO dials have been replaced with a series of button pushes, up and down arrows, and serrated wheels all of which require conscious thought which distracts me from the job at hand which is making the exposure the way I want to make it.
Moving back to a coincident rangefinder with traditional controls was like a breath of fresh air for me.
fberna
Member
I understand your point -or I think do-. I have also transitioned from the film to digital, just to fund myself battling against menu written by somebody who just confused the multivitamin pills with some other more creative substances.
It was inevitable during the first phase of the digital era, but now it seems to me that the modern cameras give us a good blend of technology and easiness to use.
As an example the Fujifilm X series still have the same dials and button of the film type cameras.
If I want to keep it simple I just have to put a Fuji X-Pro or E-X1 to full manual, even manual focus if I want and I will get excellent results with a machine very similar to my film Konicas. Provided that I would be an excellent photographer, which I am not.
For getting very similar results -or worse in terms of low light situation- Leica wants me to fork out six or seven times more.
With the difference that with the Fuji, if I want and I am ready to invest enough time to learn how to use all bell and whistles, I can explore new grounds and take advantage of a technology that Leica is just not giving me.
Leica gives me the chance to meet Paris Hilton at a Hermes event in Paris? Possibly, together with the status of owning something reserved to real -and possibly wealthy- photographers.
The problem is -for me- that I want to buy a camera, not a status.
I do have my own junkyard here, with Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, etc. Even a Tessina -which got its name from this part of Switzerland called Ticino or Tessin in German-.
Nice to keep them in a shelf but we are in 2013 and technology has made possible to achieve better results with a fraction of the effort and cost.
Like the fellows in Amana vor der Höhe I went through the Great Change
It was inevitable during the first phase of the digital era, but now it seems to me that the modern cameras give us a good blend of technology and easiness to use.
As an example the Fujifilm X series still have the same dials and button of the film type cameras.
If I want to keep it simple I just have to put a Fuji X-Pro or E-X1 to full manual, even manual focus if I want and I will get excellent results with a machine very similar to my film Konicas. Provided that I would be an excellent photographer, which I am not.
For getting very similar results -or worse in terms of low light situation- Leica wants me to fork out six or seven times more.
With the difference that with the Fuji, if I want and I am ready to invest enough time to learn how to use all bell and whistles, I can explore new grounds and take advantage of a technology that Leica is just not giving me.
Leica gives me the chance to meet Paris Hilton at a Hermes event in Paris? Possibly, together with the status of owning something reserved to real -and possibly wealthy- photographers.
The problem is -for me- that I want to buy a camera, not a status.
I do have my own junkyard here, with Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, etc. Even a Tessina -which got its name from this part of Switzerland called Ticino or Tessin in German-.
Nice to keep them in a shelf but we are in 2013 and technology has made possible to achieve better results with a fraction of the effort and cost.
Like the fellows in Amana vor der Höhe I went through the Great Change
hepcat
Former PH, USN
There is no doubt that Leica is expensive, but "boutique" value is all in the eye of the beholder. I have Leicas as working equipment. Unfortunately, they're the only game in town for coincident rangefinder digital cameras and if that's what you want, you have to pay the price of admission. This is, however, THE most I've ever tied up in camera bodies.
The XPro-1 was actually the camera that drove me back to Leica. The promise of the XPro-1 appeared to have "as-good-as Leica performance" with no hassles. Unfortunately, that was the camera that I struggled with the menus and controls the most. It won't manual focus without using the EVF, a deal-breaker for me. I had one shoot where it only achieved acceptable auto-focus on two out of three exposures, and because I was using the OVF I had no indication that one out of three exposures was unusable. When it was on, it was amazing. Unfortunately it wasn't "on" enough to be a reliable performer for me. After six or seven months and 5,000 exposures, my satisfaction level with the technology was in the basement. If that technology had worked for me I'd still have the XPro-1, but I couldn't rely on it to do what I needed. And, as you so eloquently put it...
Fuji locked me in to a whole bunch of technology that I couldn't get to perform the way I wanted it, and no matter how much time I spent with it, it required more time for each shutter release. Don't get me wrong, its a wonderful snapshot camera with amazing image quality right out of the box. But I couldn't use it manually the way I wanted to. It just wasn't designed to operate the way I work. The M bodies are... and that's probably because I "grew up" using M bodies. So... I just decided I'd bite the bullet and buy cameras I'm comfortable with and I don't regret it for an instant.
The XPro-1 was actually the camera that drove me back to Leica. The promise of the XPro-1 appeared to have "as-good-as Leica performance" with no hassles. Unfortunately, that was the camera that I struggled with the menus and controls the most. It won't manual focus without using the EVF, a deal-breaker for me. I had one shoot where it only achieved acceptable auto-focus on two out of three exposures, and because I was using the OVF I had no indication that one out of three exposures was unusable. When it was on, it was amazing. Unfortunately it wasn't "on" enough to be a reliable performer for me. After six or seven months and 5,000 exposures, my satisfaction level with the technology was in the basement. If that technology had worked for me I'd still have the XPro-1, but I couldn't rely on it to do what I needed. And, as you so eloquently put it...
Fuji locked me in to a whole bunch of technology that I couldn't get to perform the way I wanted it, and no matter how much time I spent with it, it required more time for each shutter release. Don't get me wrong, its a wonderful snapshot camera with amazing image quality right out of the box. But I couldn't use it manually the way I wanted to. It just wasn't designed to operate the way I work. The M bodies are... and that's probably because I "grew up" using M bodies. So... I just decided I'd bite the bullet and buy cameras I'm comfortable with and I don't regret it for an instant.
I understand your point -or I think do-. I have also transitioned from the film to digital, just to fund myself battling against menu written by somebody who just confused the multivitamin pills with some other more creative substances.
It was inevitable during the first phase of the digital era, but now it seems to me that the modern cameras give us a good blend of technology and easiness to use.
As an example the Fujifilm X series still have the same dials and button of the film type cameras.
If I want to keep it simple I just have to put a Fuji X-Pro or E-X1 to full manual, even manual focus if I want and I will get excellent results with a machine very similar to my film Konicas. Provided that I would be an excellent photographer, which I am not.
For getting very similar results -or worse in terms of low light situation- Leica wants me to fork out six or seven times more.
With the difference that with the Fuji, if I want and I am ready to invest enough time to learn how to use all bell and whistles, I can explore new grounds and take advantage of a technology that Leica is just not giving me.
Leica gives me the chance to meet Paris Hilton at a Hermes event in Paris? Possibly, together with the status of owning something reserved to real -and possibly wealthy- photographers.
The problem is -for me- that I want to buy a camera, not a status.
I do have my own junkyard here, with Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, etc. Even a Tessina -which got its name from this part of Switzerland called Ticino or Tessin in German-.
Nice to keep them in a shelf but we are in 2013 and technology has made possible to achieve better results with a fraction of the effort and cost.
Like the fellows in Amana vor der Höhe I went through the Great Change
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I, like hepcat, never really liked the X Pro 1 and its more for the same reasons plus the FF thing. Great camera I just personally don't care for it. I think if you compare Leica M to the top of the line Canon and Nikons they're about the same price and the Leica MM doesn't have all the crap that I don't want on a camera. I remember when I bought my Canon F-1s the Leica M at the time was over twice as much as the top of the line Canon and Nikon F3 which I also had. So the Nikons and Canons have caught up with Leica M. All are way to expensive but its the way it is. I gotta eat so I gotta pay.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I can see why you were forced to do this - it was a matter of survival from a business standpoint. Back then, the clients of commercial photographers valued instantaneous results over quality. Today, digital cameras have come a long way in terms of image quality; they are virtually neck and neck with film, if you compare small format to small format and medium format to medium format.
There is a different look or visual fingerprint when you look at digital images vs. film images. Admittedly, the subtle (and not so subtle) differences are lost on the masses; the lowest common denominator of "good enough" is okay with this sector.
Some people and clients prefer the hyper sharp look of digital; some prefer the uniform exposure look of HDR images; some prefer the light and shadow of film based images, and some prefer the visual texture that different emulsions and developers give a finished print. Today, there's something to please everyone's eye (and everyone's stopwatch).
That's a good thing.A small minority of wedding and portrait photographers still work in film, even though it's slower than digital. Most clients want instant results though, so most of these photographers are forced to work in digital.
It seems like the more a client's needs are tied to revenue generation, the more they demand the instant results that digital provides. This is also true for clients who must meet time deadlines such as news media and magazine publishers.
The digital vs. film divide seems to come down to the issue of revenue generation. Commercial photographers are not in control of their time - their clients, who are in the business of revenue generation, are. They want it now. No, they want it yesterday.
The more the photographer is in control of his/her own time, the more he/she can afford the luxury of shooting film. Most wedding and portrait photographers are not - the demands of the client control their time.
In today's world, it seems like only true lone wolf type photographers - almost exclusively fine art photographers - have the ability to create their work on their own terms. They have no clients badgering them about the time factor.
Just some observations...
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Excellent, accurate, and timely observations as well. Well said. Thanks.
Michael Markey
Veteran
This has been an excellent thread ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highly disputable. I'd draw a much closer parallel between Leica and BMW. BMWs are commonly bought by people who want to ride long distances, smoothly and unobtrusively, for many years, without aggravation. Much as Leicas are bought by people who want to take lots of pictures, smoothly and unobtrusively, for many years, without aggravation.
I've been using Leicas since 1969, and riding the same R100RS BMW since 1983. I had other bikes before that, starting in 1966, and from 1987 to 1992 I had two BMWs, an R90s in the USA and the R100RS in Europe. From personal experience, I'd say that while there may be 100,000 bikes at Daytona Bike Week, there are fewer than half that many motorcyclists. Of the poseurs, the vast majority ride Harleys. I use the word 'ride' loosely -- distressingly many paddle their bikes around corners with their feet.
Of course the BMW is a rather newer basic design than Harley (1920s not early 1900s) and considerably cleverer, but it appeals to riders who want to ride rather than to the sort of person known as "Attila the Stockbroker" to real motorcyclists. "Attila the Stockbroker" wants to project a bad-ass greasy biker image on summer week-ends and drops $20,000 on a toy to project the fantasy: rather more than a Leica costs.
Yes, of course there are plenty of fantasist photographers who buy Leicas (and Nikons and Canons and...) and there are plenty of real motorcyclists who ride Harleys. But I really don't think the Harley/Leica comparison holds anything like as much water as a Leica/BMW comparison.
Cheers,
R.