NickTrop
Veteran
Leica gets bashed sometimes because - while I'm sure their cameras/lenses are outstanding, they're not that much better than equipment that costs a fraction of the price. As a result - correctly or incorrectly, they're - to some, elitist consumer items worthy of contempt for folks with too much expendable income. The "red dot" = an item of gross conspicuous consumption worthy of scorn. And that scorn is sometimes vocalized, and were better to pop off about it that RFF? Here we see Fuji coming out with a camera that's very Leica-like at least based on what is known of the early prototype and specs. They're charging $1000 US, no not cheap but w/in range to anyone who really, really wants one. Start a piggy bank - brown bag it for a year, squirrel away a few bucks a day and viola - it's yours in about a year. Unlike an M9 you won't end up in the ***' house. Certainly, there's some reasonable margin built-in to Fuji's price, which is fine...but they're not gouging. Compare Fuji that announces the X100... and what's Leica's big announcement at Photokina? A Titanium M9 that I read will cost over 20 grand? This merely adds fuel to the fire, and they've - to some, become a parody of themselves. Have they transitioned from a one-time top-of-the-line camera company to a collectable company like the Frankin Mint that sells cameras with red dots instead of civil war chess pieces or "Elvis Dinnerware" to collect? Are they the "collect'em all" Star Wars action figures for man-children with too much expendable income? Are they expensive toys for the wealthy to run around urban areas making "art" by shooting people in artsy grainy Tri-X eating out of garbage bins and sleeping on grates, with "toys" that would feed and shelter their "subjects" for a year... until they get bored with that and move on to the whatever else is deemed fashionable in those circles?
Last edited:
filmfan
Well-known
Semilog, why does the X-100 have to be made by Leica? Why can't it be Olympus? It will surely do the same thing.
PKR
Veteran
Some of this “class distinction” argument comes from Leica’s advertising. Companies like Canon and Nikon advertise that the Pros use their gear. Leica’s advertising (Leica Culture) boasts that famous Actors, Politicians, People of Means, own Leica cameras. Leica has done this for years. When I bought a Leica in the late 60’s it was Sammy Davis Jr. who, among others, “Shoots Leica” .
"POP STAR MILEY CYRUS HOOKED ON LEICA CAMERA
Home » News » Pop star Miley Cyrus hooked on Leica camera
Monday 6th April 2009
Chris Cheesman
American pop princess Miley Cyrus has developed a fascination for Leica, according to an online news report."
"POP STAR MILEY CYRUS HOOKED ON LEICA CAMERA
Home » News » Pop star Miley Cyrus hooked on Leica camera
Monday 6th April 2009
Chris Cheesman
American pop princess Miley Cyrus has developed a fascination for Leica, according to an online news report."
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
True, but when people feel like they are paying $200 for a hamburger that they get a little uptight.
Bob
antiquark
Derek Ross
A friend of mine asked me how can he justify using a camera from a company that just brought out the "Safari Edition M8 in all-white". I told him, "The lenses". He's using an M9 now with a new Noctilux 50/0.95.
In my opinion, This M9ti is "over the top" even more than the "Limited Safari Edition".
So why all the Leica bashing now? It's coming from multiple sources. The M9ti provides great ammunition to those that do not like Leica, and it is a disappointment to those of us that like to take pictures with a Leica. The X100 represents innovation with regard to optical viewfinder development, and Leica should have been the one to introduce it.
How would a hybrid viewfinder make your photography better? It would provide highly accurate framelines for different focal lengths with correction for both parallax and field of view as you focus. My point with using the 10.5cm lens with 90mm framelines, and 8.5cm lens with the 75mm framelines: the M8 field of view is that far off with most uses beyond 5ft, and this new technology would correct the error.
In my opinion, This M9ti is "over the top" even more than the "Limited Safari Edition".
So why all the Leica bashing now? It's coming from multiple sources. The M9ti provides great ammunition to those that do not like Leica, and it is a disappointment to those of us that like to take pictures with a Leica. The X100 represents innovation with regard to optical viewfinder development, and Leica should have been the one to introduce it.
How would a hybrid viewfinder make your photography better? It would provide highly accurate framelines for different focal lengths with correction for both parallax and field of view as you focus. My point with using the 10.5cm lens with 90mm framelines, and 8.5cm lens with the 75mm framelines: the M8 field of view is that far off with most uses beyond 5ft, and this new technology would correct the error.
JayGannon
Well-known
That says it all to me to be honest. You honestly care about what the camera looks like.. or how people percieve you... I prefer to use cameras that give me good results, i couldnt care less what they look like or how people percieve me. Thats fashion not photography in my eyes.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
People keep saying this. It's patently obvious to everyone on the thread.
That's true. But I don't think that it explains what's going on here.
Here's another example: the Porsche cognoscenti generally have no problem with expensive cars, right? They are thrilled when something like the 959 is released, even if they can't afford more than a Boxster or even a used 924. Very many in the same crowd were quite angry when the Cayenne SUV was released. And the anger was not because of the price. It was because the Cayenne is (1) not a driver's road car in the classical Porsche sense and (2) like the M9Ti, the Cayenne looks like a silver turd.
So is it worth pissing off (or, rather, pissing on) your core enthusiast constituency for a quick buck? Perhaps for both Porsche and Leica, it is. But neither company should be surprised when the the loyalty of that constituency is compromised, and they leave. Over time, such brands will cease to mean what they once did, instead becoming merely meaningless vapid generic luxury nameplates. Other sad examples include Jaguar and Harley-Davidson.
Coming back to the first post, of course enthusiasts are going to bash a company that takes such a course of action, especially when they do so by compromising good taste (M9Ti, Cayenne). The backlash is wholly predictable. And just as the companies are entitled to peddle whatever garbage their marketing people can sell over the short term, their customers are entitled to: (a) go elsewhere and (b) tell their friends why the company in question has disappointed them. That is the kind of information flow and change in perceived value that defines the free market.
Last edited:
jamesdfloyd
Film is cheap therapy!
One thing I feel that we all can agree on is that Leica, whether by original intent or by marketing plan, has a luxury / premium position in the market. This is not something new, but historical. Look at where Leica has been in history; it was always considered the best working camera once 35mm film became popular. Leica cameras and optics where considered good so, that all the major combatants in World War II where using Leicas for some or all of their documentation of the war (think of those famous pictures of Field Marshal Rommel using a Leica when he was in North Africa).
However, somewhere along the journey Leica started to appeal to the affluent crowd as a status symbol. Leica has taken advantage of this is the past and the results have undoubtedly been to pay the R&D costs of the M series we all know now. When I first started with a camera in 1976 while living in Spain, if you had a Japanese camera and not a Leica, you obviously where not serious about photography. That was not my opinion, but the opinion of the European establishment.
Leica cannot be criticized for being what they are – a great product that relies much more on their laurels than on their recent accomplishments. We all know immediate examples of this with other companies or industries that affect our day-to-day lives more than cameras; think General Motors, Chrysler and most of Wall Street.
The other thing that is obvious to me about this thread, is that I am not the only one who is jealous in some way of someone with a Leica. I only recently joined this forum and I quickly realized that if I had quit the wedding business 3-years ago as opposed to last year, all the money I spent on upgrading to a Nikon D3 and new lenses, I could have gone to a M7, lenses and possibly a M8. So every time I read about “…why is Leica doing this or doing that?” I cannot help but become jealous.
J.D.
However, somewhere along the journey Leica started to appeal to the affluent crowd as a status symbol. Leica has taken advantage of this is the past and the results have undoubtedly been to pay the R&D costs of the M series we all know now. When I first started with a camera in 1976 while living in Spain, if you had a Japanese camera and not a Leica, you obviously where not serious about photography. That was not my opinion, but the opinion of the European establishment.
Leica cannot be criticized for being what they are – a great product that relies much more on their laurels than on their recent accomplishments. We all know immediate examples of this with other companies or industries that affect our day-to-day lives more than cameras; think General Motors, Chrysler and most of Wall Street.
The other thing that is obvious to me about this thread, is that I am not the only one who is jealous in some way of someone with a Leica. I only recently joined this forum and I quickly realized that if I had quit the wedding business 3-years ago as opposed to last year, all the money I spent on upgrading to a Nikon D3 and new lenses, I could have gone to a M7, lenses and possibly a M8. So every time I read about “…why is Leica doing this or doing that?” I cannot help but become jealous.
J.D.
Last edited by a moderator:
gho
Well-known
Maybe there is another type, that is simply repelled. As Bobonoli and Carlos M pointed out, film Leica users may be associated with that 'exclusive, special, stand out'-image, even if they just use their old beaten M2s, because they appreciate them as photographic tools. Just yesterday I had a reference to "Luxury Leica" *sigh* when being out with an old, used, but pefectly functional M4-P. The irony is, that these cameras cost less than a midrange DSLR.
Now, when out in public, the users of Leicas are also carrying the burden of the image that is created by the marketing. Some people may like that, but some other people may just not feel comfortable with that. However, I am not quite at the point that I would wrap my old M into a brown paper bag.
All that is certainly not a reason for bashing the company. If Leica has decided to cater the luxury segment exclusively, why should I complain? I do not have to use Leicas if I do not want to.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It doesn't have to be made by Leica.
In fact I'd hoped that Olympus would do it (they still might, with the pro micro 4/3 camera), and I'm delighted that Fuji IS doing it. But the X-100 is a camera designed to do much of what Leicas (starting with the Barnack cameras) have traditionally done, and it should have been a Leica.
It is sad to see Leica abandoning that design philosophy. It's almost a given that the next or Robert Frank or Josef Koudelka or Jim Marshall or Mary Ellen Mark will not use a Leica camera for their most important work, because Leica no longer makes its cameras as the best tools for some of the most serious and creative photographers, but – mainly – as toys for the wealthy. They used to do both. Increasingly, they only do the latter.
The lesson of the S2 vs. the M9Ti may be that this is the correct business decision. But that does not make it something other than sad.
There is a difference between making tools that are used to produce work that is central to our culture and our history, and making baubles.
There is a long connection between Leica and some of the most important photographic work. But as a corporate entity, Lecia has made the clear decision that its fate is tied more closely to the road taken by Louis Vuitton than the roads taken by Cosina or Canon or Nikon. Or, for that matter, Adobe and Apple.
Make no mistake: Leica still makes great lenses, but Leica is taking itself out of the business of producing the best tools to make art and culture and history.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
True, but they are better and they are different.
Is the difference and the price worth it to you? To me, an M9 is; an M9 Titan isn't. In fact, I'd pay more for a 'real' M9 than for a Titan. And?
I've not driven a Range Rover for years, but the expensive modern models often have the same effect on the owners of 'real' Land Rovers (Series + Defender) as collector Leicas have on users of 'real' Leicas. Sorry: I can't get excited. Any more than I can get excited about Ferraris or for that matter abouit well-made, genuinely fast sports cars. I buy what I want and use. What the rest of the world buys is not my problem, sunshine.
I do get pissed off with people who dismiss all Leica users as rich twerps who are useless photographers, not least because so many Leicaphobes are rich twerps who are useless photographers but choose to spend their money in completely different ways: boats. golf, fitted kitchens, fast cars, bicycles, whatever. There is a hard core of Leica users who firmly believe that Leica M-series are the best cameras in the world for them, based on the number of good pictures they've had (and in some cases, had published) over the years or decades. Or sometimes, based on the sheer pleasure of using them. I am among them. You don't have to be the best photographer in the world to use a Leica. You just have to think that it's the right camera for you -- in which case it will probably give you better pictures.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Peter^
Well-known
I don't own Leica, and have never really understood how worked up a lot of you guys can get about a mere brand. They do some good stuff (the M9, which like most Leica products is too pricey for me) and they do some weird stuff (the M9Ti). I guess we should be glad that they're still around. But let's be real: They are absolutely small fry in comparison to Canon, Nikon and even newcomers such as Sony, both in the world of consumer and professional photography. For the most part, they serve a micro-niche market of "enthusiasts".
Anybody got a good definition for the word "enthusiast"?
Anybody got a good definition for the word "enthusiast"?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Go to a Nikon forum. Go to a Porche forum. Talk to contractors and ask them which circular saw is best. Skil or Makita worm drive? Milwaukee sidewinder? Which framing hammer? Talk to a skiier about his sticks. Talk to a surfer about his boards. Talk to someone who collects pocket knives (Spyderco? Benchmade?), or shoots pistols (Revolver or semi-auto? 1911A1 or Glock?). Talk to a mechanic who uses Snap-On wrenches. Talk to a cyclist who's been riding Campy components for a long time. Talk to most anyone who rides motorcycles. Talk to a climber about climbing shoes or ice tools.
People who use fine tools in a serious way tend to be passionate about them, and in every area I've just mentioned there are leading brands that due to long traditions of innovation, quality, and (we'll make a loving exception for British car fanatics here) dependability, inspire fierce brand loyalty.
Conversely, if you run a company that makes a tool so good, and that over time develops such a rich history, that it actually creates something resembling a community or subculture around it, you ignore that community at your peril.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yes ... but at least I know there'd probably be a coctail bar in the back ... and fresh caviar!
ferider
Veteran
That's all true. Except all those people are used to buy new equipment.
With Leica it's different, and I feel you are missing that in your argument: Most people who are emotional about the M9TI are not Leica customers. For example, I have 6 Leicas, and several lenses, but have never bought from Leica directly. Users like me buy used and have it serviced by non-Leica service-people (Don, Sherry, Youxin, etc.).
Leica hasn't marketed for those people since years. Just see how the M9 was sold with Seal as an exemplary user. With the M9 the traditional Leica user could still excuse the high price with technical innovation, the FF sensor with micro-prisms, etc. (just a reminder though, that this "innovation" followed years of Leica and Leica associates - and only them - telling customers it was not possible). With the M9TI the fact that Leica has left its traditional customer base since 5 or more years becomes loudly obvious.
Bashing reason #3.
I'm not saying this is good or bad. I simply don't really care, and recommend to look at it rationally and not invest emotionally. For Leica's survival the last 5 years have certainly be good, much like the Cayenne for Porsche, or the new big twin for Harley.
Last edited:
JayGannon
Well-known
Just as a point of fact, there were more beta testers of the M9 than were announced in the press releases, professional photographers who don't wrote books or frequent forums but work 24/7 taking photos. So yes the m9 did have input from people who take photos for a living, not just celebrities.
Olsen
Well-known
It must be frustrating to experience the effect of the fall of the US$ and it's effect on their purchasing power. With the currency rate of ten years back this Range Rover would have cost less than 50,000 US$ and a M9Ti 'only' 13,000 US$ today.
For us Europeans the situation hasn't changed. Our purchasing power has stayed the same. But these items have been outside our economical range anyway. Since we earn less than what the Americans used to earn.
So, for whom are the M9Ti intended? I can think of only one customer, this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacharuddin_Jusuf_Habibie He has had a long career as a manager and engineer in Germany and is a Leica freak with 'all' the Leica jubilee models on his shelves. He's also an ex president of Indonesia, president Soharto's Godson and millions protested in the streets to see him leave the presidential palace. But privately he is a nice guy. A series of 500 units is a bit optimistic, if you ask me. So, a few M9Ti will be bought by the German state and given away to potential weapons systems customers and other prominent heads of state. And hope that he is a young guy.
Because, what is typical of a Leica M customer is that he (practically all are men) are middle aged and well that. So, if Leica does not find a way to introduce themselves to a younger audience, they will die, along with their customers.
Last edited by a moderator:
JayGannon
Well-known
All 500 were sold within 2 hours of the announcement.
Last edited by a moderator: