Why all the Leica bashing lately?

I think that most of the members of this forum want to see a healthy Leica moving into the future. I think that some sense that Leica may be overly conservative, or under funded to continue to compete in a digital world that is changing at an unbelievable pace. Underwhelmed is what I see posted here. I want to be excited about a new product. I want to sell my soul for that new expensive camera, but it has to be that good and Leica may not be up to that challenge We hope they are and if not, we hope that someone else steps up to the plate.
 
Nice photos Brian. :) Two of my favorite lenses...

Just having some fun with the frameline comments.

What I'd like to see developed is better focusing technology (still manual, just better implementation of the RF patch.) Maybe some of the profits from the M9Ti will go into this area.
 
bwcolor said:
I think that most of the members of this forum want to see a healthy Leica moving into the future. I think that some sense that Leica may be overly conservative, or under funded to continue to compete in a digital world that is changing at an unbelievable pace. Underwhelmed is what I see posted here. I want to be excited about a new product. I want to sell my soul for that new expensive camera, but it has to be that good and Leica may not be up to that challenge We hope they are and if not, we hope that someone else steps up to the plate.
Click to expand...

They may not see themselves as a major player in the Digital world. This is where Panasonic fits in their marketing. But, I think they could compete on some products... The X1 was a start, but, Fuji just made Leica go back to the drawing board (I hope).
I don't ever see Leica in APS or FF DSLR anymore. But, there are more than enough people world wide for a X100 competitor. And, many would prefer the "Leica" branding. I would sell all my Gear (about $3,500.00 resale) for a camera like I suggested above. (17/35 Bi-Summicron Fixed lens Retro APS-C Leica Offering)
 
braver said:
Standard internet forum fare really. I try not to get annoyed by the senseless bashing of everything, and the self righteous 'brand x should not do y because it will loose their True Fans', but it's a pattern that reoccurs ad invinitum everywhere and it it's unsettling when it happens. Not just here, not just for Leica, but every single forum, for every single brand. There is even no sense in trying to have a debate about why it suddenly rears its head, it is like rain: suddenly it's there, and then it's better to stay in and wait till it passes.
Click to expand...

Lots of people are troubled over their identity. So they identify with how they dress and the things they own. Those same people use this system to identify and catalog others.. by what they own. It’s a belief system. If the objects they identify with come under attack, they take it personally. Some people grow out of this sort of thing, others are embedded in it.. aided by an army of advertising and marketing people.
 
Let’s be truthful; Leica is a luxury item. Yes it is a viable product used by both true “photographers” and “collectors”. Yes, Leica makes super-luxury versions of it cameras that only collectors can afford – but really, have any of you ever seen a safari or titanium version of a Leica out in the field, being used like a sturdy Leica can be? No. What you see is an M4 with wear marks, being used by someone who uses it for its designed purpose.

Its no different than any other luxury manufacture; parts of the product line have a wider user base and other parts are only purchased by those who can afford very discretionary items, but really will not use it – think of all the Investment Bankers who buy Maserati’s with the bonus money, yet only drive them on summer weekends in the Hamptons.

So, why “all the Leica bashing”? Maybe, just maybe, it is a much-deserved backlash at Leica for focusing on the super-luxury versions over the “user” versions. Face it; every luxury manufacturer sooner or later will get a comeuppance by a competent, but not nearly as sexy newcomer to the product line or industry. And maybe, just maybe, someone from Leica has been reading the forum and has seen the “users getting restless”.

J.D.

p.s. If I had the discretionary income to purchase a $30,000 M9 Titanium as a “look at what I have” item, I would. But then again, I would be out using it to take pictures of my super-model trophy wife, who would be wearing a Tiffany’s princess cut 15-carat pink diamond ring, leaning against my Maserati. Hey, I can always dream.
 
Speaking as someone who does not own a Leica, but lusts after one...

Back in the 1950s, a Leica was something that a working photographer could acquire at the beginning of their career. HCB was in this category.

These days, a new Leica rangefinder seems like an ultra-luxury item that only established photographers or retired dentists can afford.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does change the character of the brand from "serious tools for dedicated professionals" to "precious tools for obsessed enthusiasts."

Again, just 2¢ from an admittedly obsessed enthusiast.
 
bensyverson said:
Speaking as someone who does not own a Leica, but lusts after one...

Back in the 1950s, a Leica was something that a working photographer could acquire at the beginning of their career. HCB was in this category.

These days, a new Leica rangefinder seems like an ultra-luxury item that only established photographers or retired dentists can afford.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does change the character of the brand from "serious tools for dedicated professionals" to "precious tools for obsessed enthusiasts."

Again, just 2¢ from an admittedly obsessed enthusiast.
Click to expand...


True, when I used Leicas I paid $350 ea for 2 new M4 bodies in the late 60s. I had 4 lenses 28-90 and I don't think I had more than $1,700 tied up in the whole thing. Back then a $ was = 4 DM ..
 
I think illuminated framelines would annoy me.

Personally I like the old, 100% mechanical, meterless Leicas. That is what appeals to me and what I look for when I grab a Leica to go for a stroll. I really don't really care about their newer digital offerings (and i'm not an anti-digital guy--I use it and enjoy it all the time). However, I can understand the disappointment felt by those who do care.

IMO, If they can sell these M9ti's to some rich saps and use the money to stay in business than more power to them.
 
I think the last several posts have hit the nail on the head. There is a disconnect between the reality of what Leica is today, and what many photographers here would like them to be. This is compounded, in part, by the surfeit of (relatively) affordable used film M bodies. They distort the reality of how expensive new Leica Ms actually are, and have been for several decades, ever since Leica stopped making photographic tools and started making aspirational luxury items.

Along these lines, I'd say that comparing the X100 to the X1 betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the X1 is. The X1 is not a digital rangefinder. It is an expensive vanity compact along the lines of the Minilux (I own a Minilux and love it for the incredible lens, but have no illusions about what it is). The X1 is exactly as Leica intended it to be.

Obviously, what many of us would like (and some even seem to think they are owed) is a more affordable version of the M9: essentially a digital CL. But it's not going to happen. Remember, Leica killed off the CL. They don't want to make a digital CL. They view the original as a mistake that helped to nearly sink the company.

So, if you want innovation and affordability, you do exactly what rangefinder aficionados have been doing for the last 30 years or so: buy Japanese. Witness the Minolta CLE, the Hexar AF and RF, the Voigtlander Bessa series, the Epson RD1, *maybe* the X100 (we'll see if it's the modern Hexar AF, or just a fixed lens EP2 with a fancy built-in digital viewfinder). Ah, but the true Leica fan will say, they're affordable and have lots of bells and whistles (for rangefinders), but they don't have the feel, the quality, the soul of a Leica. And so you hunt around for a used M8 at a good price or sell a kidney and buy a M9. The cycle continues just as it has for the past several decades. The point is, these choices didn't just suddenly appear at Photokina 2010. They are at the very heart of the Leica "dilemma."

Anyway, I've decided to sit this round out. I'll stick with my M6 and my Nikon DSLR and start checking out prices on used M9s around the time the M11 comes out (which will likely feature the exact same viewfinder that's in the X100!).
 
I'm not sure I've seen any bashing but I have seen a lot of desire for Leica to take the lead like they did with the M3 and the first Barnack. Yes they have some some great glass and some fine cameras. The M9 is a wonderful camera but many of us want Leica to take the lead, make a quantum leap.

B2 (;->
 
People seem to be surprised that the Leica brand is expensive all of a sudden?

Or are they annoyed that Leica is not catering to their own particular niche?

I do not see how that makes them bad cameras, or how it makes Leica a bad company.
 
BillBingham2 said:
I'm not sure I've seen any bashing but I have seen a lot of desire for Leica to take the lead like they did with the M3 and the first Barnack. Yes they have some some great glass and some fine cameras. The M9 is a wonderful camera but many of us want Leica to take the lead, make a quantum leap.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

I'd be delighed if Leica merely exhibited the level of competitiveness and user-responsiveness in the camera market that they already show in the binocular market.

If current trends continue, it's likely I'll never buy another (new) Leica camera. They are just a horrible value proposition (again, possibly excepting the S2 -- but I'm not in the market for a medium-format SLR). On the other hand, I'll probably buy a pair of Leica binoculars in the next month or two, and I doubt it will be our last.

The difference? In the binocular market, Leica has real competition – from Zeiss, from Swarovski, from Nikon, etc. That competitive pressure directs Leica's product and marketing decisions in healthy directions, IMO.

Perhaps the X-100 will be the best thing to happen to Leica since the RD-1.
 
Mister E said:
Leica hasn't made a good camera since at least the M5. I'm not sure why people are just now getting angry?!
Click to expand...

I'd actually say the M3 was the beginning of the end, but either way, the mental gymnastics people are jumping through to justify how ridiculously irrelevant Leica is becoming are amazing.

Look up what an M3 cost in 1960, look what their competition cost. Nikon was similar, Contax was more expensive. They sold so many because they were innovating, not making retro fetishes for the rich to fondle. I wouldn't take an M9ti for free, unless I could sell it to feed kids in Africa. It's actually offensively frivolous, and I'm no hippy. I suspect people are angry because they want cameras to take pictures with.

There are only two companies left making rangefinders, and if I'm being honest I'd rather see Leica disappear than Cosina at this point. That's pretty pathetic, but at least Cosina is demonstrating passion and attempting new things. I love my R3A, and doubt I'll ever own a Leica older than an M6 at this point. And I'd probably buy the ZI instead.
 
Selling one M9Ti is equivalent to pushing out 10 D700s or 5D2s, or about 30 500Ds, GP2s, etc. So the batch of 500 gives them cashflow equivalent to (and margins likely better than) selling 15000 consumer-priced DSLRs.

Not bad for a prototype with modest R&D costs. Why all the complaining? It's not like they detract from anything you are willing to buy.
 
Noone wants to copy Cosina rangefinder looks though, not even Fuji who's like next building ;)
 
doobedy said:
I'd actually say the M3 was the beginning of the end, but either way, the mental gymnastics people are jumping through to justify how ridiculously irrelevant Leica is becoming are amazing.

Look up what an M3 cost in 1960, look what their competition cost. Nikon was similar, Contax was more expensive. They sold so many because they were innovating, not making retro fetishes for the rich to fondle. I wouldn't take an M9ti for free, unless I could sell it to feed kids in Africa. It's actually offensively frivolous, and I'm no hippy. I suspect people are angry because they want cameras to take pictures with.

There are only two companies left making rangefinders, and if I'm being honest I'd rather see Leica disappear than Cosina at this point. That's pretty pathetic, but at least Cosina is demonstrating passion and attempting new things. I love my R3A, and doubt I'll ever own a Leica older than an M6 at this point. And I'd probably buy the ZI instead.
Click to expand...

Which innovations were you thinking of?

Cheers,

R.
 
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

Here's my 2d worth:

If Leica want to make a super luxury version of their cameras then that's OK by me and doesn't really affect me. In the long term parts of it will trickle down to my level.

I don't see run of the mill Leicas as expensive. Many years/decades ago some fool bought a CL, didn't like it and traded it in. I bought it instead of a brand new one and saved a bit of cash towards the 90mm lens. I still have it and use it regularly. Ignoring the charity shop cameras, it's the cheapest camera I've owned in terms of cost per year for the outfit.

Adjusting the CL's price in 1973 in line with average earnings* it comes to £4,320 of today's money.

As for repairs to old cameras, Leica will repair elderly stuff and having an idea what it costs to maintain a service dept. that covers almost everything I can't fault their policy or prices.

And just what is wrong with the M9 which seems to me to continue a fine and long standing tradition? Consistency is something I miss these days but Leica deliver.

Regards, David

* Using www.measuringworth.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom