Why Leica Matters

sjones said:
Exactly, the issue doesn't necessarily center on the comparative expense account for the cameras' guts, but on the final price. The digital M, which is Leica's top end full frame 35mm camera, cost around the same as Nikon's and Canon's top end full frame 35mm cameras.

Yes, I think we all get it; the DSLRs are jam-packed with goodies. But those goodies are irrelevant if you don't need or want them. In the end, no matter how sophisticated and electronically equipped a DSLR is, it will never be a rangefinder. And if one needs or wants a digital rangefinder, the only current option is the Leica M series, and this uniqueness itself constitutes a notable premium.

The point is that someone paying more than US$6,000 to US$7,000 on a DSLR, or one who sees such pricing reasonable for a high-end camera, is really not in position to then paint Leica owner's as chic-driven show offs enslaved to conspicuous consumption.

Moreover, if someone wanted to showoff their goods in a way that's going to attract the general public, not just other photographers, are they going to hang a rangefinder around their neck or a large DSLR strutting a huge telephoto lens?

One would have to be drenched in immeasurable levels of naiveté to think that a good number of photographers don't, in part, buy large DSLRs to flaunt as some type of a suburban status symbol. In fact, numerically speaking, the number of people who use their DSLRs as jewelry is likely much higher than those similarly using a Leica for no other reason than the limited number of Leica users altogether.

But here's the thing, it's not the camera's fault how it is used, abused, or appropriated. If someone uses a Leica or a large glaringly white L lens to announce his or hers materialistic triumphs (and yes, this happens!), it doesn't suddenly render ALL Leica's or white L lenses as ineffectual decoration.

Yet, it just seems that certain people too dismissively target all Leica's as just the accouterments of the ostentatious, as though the cameras could serve no other purpose. To be sure, for such criticism and negative perception, Leica is partly (largely) to blame, as it does push and profit well from its boutique persona...and many of its limited editions even raise the ire of some of the company's most loyal customers. But again, does this mean that a digital Leica M is just a superfluous luxury item that holds no practical value to an earnest photographer? Of course not!

But as always, it gets a little more complicated. The guy flaunting his Leica or John Holmesian L lens might also use these accessories to photograph, and possibly even photograph well. Fashion and industrial design are not mutually exclusive of functionality, and while this might come as a shock, some people, for example, will buy a certain car because a) it will get them from point A to point B, and b) it looks good.

Yes, Leica's are expensive, and yes, celebrities are drawn to the company's name brand (also it's small size I would figure), but the Leica M is ultimately a camera, and for those seeking a digital rangefinder, Leica is the only answer (outside the older Epsons). And as long as Leica is the only company making a full frame digital rangefinder, I would argue that in this sense, and perhaps only in this sense, Leica matters.

But really, all camera companies matter, because they provide choice, and diminishing choice is seldom if ever good.
Click to expand...

Nicely put and I agree.
 
sjones said:
Exactly, the issue doesn't necessarily center on the comparative expense account for the cameras' guts, but on the final price. The digital M, which is Leica's top end full frame 35mm camera, cost around the same as Nikon's and Canon's top end full frame 35mm cameras.

Yes, I think we all get it; the DSLRs are jam-packed with goodies. But those goodies are irrelevant if you don't need or want them. In the end, no matter how sophisticated and electronically equipped a DSLR is, it will never be a rangefinder. And if one needs or wants a digital rangefinder, the only current option is the Leica M series, and this uniqueness itself constitutes a notable premium.

The point is that someone paying more than US$6,000 to US$7,000 on a DSLR, or one who sees such pricing reasonable for a high-end camera, is really not in position to then paint Leica owner's as chic-driven show offs enslaved to conspicuous consumption.

Moreover, if someone wanted to showoff their goods in a way that's going to attract the general public, not just other photographers, are they going to hang a rangefinder around their neck or a large DSLR strutting a huge telephoto lens?

One would have to be drenched in immeasurable levels of naiveté to think that a good number of photographers don't, in part, buy large DSLRs to flaunt as some type of a suburban status symbol. In fact, numerically speaking, the number of people who use their DSLRs as jewelry is likely much higher than those similarly using a Leica for no other reason than the limited number of Leica users altogether.

But here's the thing, it's not the camera's fault how it is used, abused, or appropriated. If someone uses a Leica or a large glaringly white L lens to announce his or hers materialistic triumphs (and yes, this happens!), it doesn't suddenly render ALL Leica's or white L lenses as ineffectual decoration.

Yet, it just seems that certain people too dismissively target all Leica's as just the accouterments of the ostentatious, as though the cameras could serve no other purpose. To be sure, for such criticism and negative perception, Leica is partly (largely) to blame, as it does push and profit well from its boutique persona...and many of its limited editions even raise the ire of some of the company's most loyal customers. But again, does this mean that a digital Leica M is just a superfluous luxury item that holds no practical value to an earnest photographer? Of course not!

But as always, it gets a little more complicated. The guy flaunting his Leica or John Holmesian L lens might also use these accessories to photograph, and possibly even photograph well. Fashion and industrial design are not mutually exclusive of functionality, and while this might come as a shock, some people, for example, will buy a certain car because a) it will get them from point A to point B, and b) it looks good.

Yes, Leica's are expensive, and yes, celebrities are drawn to the company's name brand (also its small size I would figure), but the Leica M is ultimately a camera, and for those seeking a digital rangefinder, Leica is the only answer (outside the older Epsons). And as long as Leica is the only company making a full frame digital rangefinder, I would argue that in this sense, and perhaps only in this sense, Leica matters.

But really, all camera companies matter, because they provide choice, and diminishing choice is seldom if ever good.
Click to expand...

Excellently put !
 
Roger Hicks said:
In fact, they're worse than irrelevant if they get in the way of taking pictures.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes! Yes! Yes!

For some time now I've thought that camera manufacturers are missing a trick or two in not allowing users to download the individual parts of a camera's operating software (e.g. video capability) they want, much in the same way Photoshop, say, has downloadable plugins.

Of course I realise this wouldn't work for everyone, and, of course, not everyone would want or require such a facility. But many now are 'computer savvy' and photographers all have different needs and requirements, especially at the higher end of capability.
 
hepcat said:
Phil really called it right here. Leica is NOT a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or jewel-encrusted tiara that have no practical value.
......
Click to expand...

Oh my.

Ferrari's have no practical value?

Some people enjoy driving a high-performance automobile as much as others enjoy making photographs. Just hearing a Ferrari V12 motor at full power is pleasurable to some.

I own it a lovely book Roger wrote about Ferraris. I still leaf through it occasionally.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hepcat
Phil really called it right here. Leica is NOT a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or jewel-encrusted tiara that have no practical value.
......

willie_901 said:
Oh my.

Ferrari's have no practical value?

Some people enjoy driving a high-performance automobile as much as others enjoy making photographs. Just hearing a Ferrari V12 motor at full power is pleasurable to some.
Click to expand...

Thanks -because I don't get it either. Anything can have a practical value to anyone. At the end of the day, a Ferrari etc., gets you from point A to B -no differently than a Leica delivering an image.
 
burancap said:
At the end of the day, a Ferrari etc., gets you from point A to B -no differently than a Leica delivering an image.
Click to expand...

Only in theory though.

Try driving a Ferrari 430, the least expensive and most practical model which is close to current, or any Lamborghini from the last 15 years (of which all are pretty much all-out, no-holds-barred race cars with street legal lighting and safety systems) on the streets of Philadelphia or around the towns near the Hackensack river in New Jersey without ruining the undercarriage.

You'd be hard pressed to get from my place at 9th and Snyder up to a friend's place on 16th and Tasker only a few blocks away without doing serious damage to the car. Especially now in this weather.

This brings the conversation back to money though and those who can pay for the damage to the car will drive it.

You wouldn't take the car off-roading because it couldn't get more than a few yards down a trail.

Again, pick the tool for the job.

Phil Forrest
 
willie_901 said:
Oh my.

Ferrari's have no practical value?
Click to expand...

Having driven a Ferrari 308, I can tell you that as transportation vehicle they have no practical value. It takes two strong men and a boy to depress the clutch. The steering is abominable at parking lot speeds. The ride is that of sitting on a skateboard while riding downhill on a pot-hole filled street. There's no room for groceries, or for that matter any other cargo. They're cramped and uncomfortable. The only thing they do well is go fast. Really fast, which is something that, in our current world, really doesn't have much value on the street. Frankly, they can't go any faster than a Prius, legally. They are the epitome of conspicuous consumption.

Not that I'm opposed to sports cars, having had a steady diet of them for forty years. My last toy car, an '02 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 was a marvel of engineering. The twin turbos and all wheel drive/all wheel steering were amazing. And it sat in the garage for most of the five years I owned it. It's now been sitting in the garage of a friend of mine for most of the five years he's owned it. It didn't have much practical value either. It sounded great, looked awesome, went like a bat out of hell, handled like a race car on a track, was absolutely a ball to drive... but it didn't have much practical value as a vehicle for transportation. It was, in fact, a conspicuous consumption toy car too.

So, yes, I'd assert that a Ferrari is of no practical value.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Only in theory though.

Try driving a Ferrari 430 ... without ruining the undercarriage.
Click to expand...

You confuse me, so I assume you agree ... but for the record, try Pittsburgh.

Leica matters because it matters to those that choose to use them, ruining them or not.
 
hepcat said:
So, yes, I'd assert that a Ferrari is of no practical value.
Click to expand...

This all rides on one's definition of "practical value." Do not confuse it with plain old "practical." They are two completely different things.

Like I said in #148: "Anything can have a practical value to anyone." That includes your camera, your gun, your car, your whatever.
 
willie_901 said:
Ferrari's have no practical value?
Click to expand...

Au contraire. Ferraris are extremely efficient in terms of assisting those who drive them in getting laid.

That one attribute instills megatons of practical value in them. :D

Ferraris matter - but for vastly different reasons from why Leicas matter.
 
noisycheese said:
Au contraire. Ferraris are extremely efficient in terms of assisting those who drive them in getting laid.

That one attribute instills megatons of practical value in them. :D

Ferraris matter - but for vastly different reasons from why Leicas matter.
Click to expand...

You sound like a genuine Leica hater.
 
I don't understand why people feel compelled to rationalize or justify their purchase and use of a Leica. Who cares what other people think.
 
noisycheese said:
That is a puzzling comment - quite the opposite, in fact. I'm heading out the door with my M4-P and 28/2 Summicron ASPH right now...
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Now look at your sigs. Read them. Why could they not be about Ferrari or >insert whatever here<? Oh, and read the last one twice.


"Shooting with a Leica is like a long tender kiss, like firing an automatic pistol, like an hour on the analyist's couch."
- Henri Cartier-Bresson

"You’ve got to push yourself harder. You’ve got to start looking for pictures nobody else could take. You’ve got to take the tools you have and probe deeper." - William Albert Allard

"To base your life on the opinion of another man is a very sad existence." - Publius Syrus


My point, and I will say it again ... "Anything can have a practical value to anyone."
 
Phil_F_NM said:
They are still fantastic cameras but for someone in my position, I just couldn't rationalize keeping it
Click to expand...

I got into photography as an amateur hobby through rangefinders.
Today for various reasons I don't want to shoot (and develop) film.
I bought an M-E and loved it.
But it's simply too expensive for me. There are other things in life that I really want to do for which I could use that money, and still have other gear around for making excellent images.

What matters (to me) about Leica is the VF/RF.
But I've learned that I can make some of the images I want without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom