Why Leica Matters

hepcat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Using a rangefinder instead of a Pro SLR has made you weak. :D
 
Roger..
This is complete rubbish. My M8 will be 8 this year and still works fine;Try getting parts for it anymore...when it finally goes belly up..thats it...the end..
 my M9 will be 5. Your figures are completely made up.
See how good your M9 will be goin in another 4 to 5 years...I'm sure it will make quite the dandy 7K doorstop..

Your analysis of the prices is pretty shaky, too.
I don't think so...
You may not think I likey the Leica too much..but I do..I own enough of them..and have taken them all over the world with me..film ones that is..M6 particularly..
They are swell cams..some of the best ever..
Just at this point in time..IMHO..L is not a particularly relieable cam..esp for the dough outlay..sorry..
Someday I may buy a digital M..esp if they shrink it down a bit..
Bring the video quality up..
And put an fully articulated screen on it..
Like that's gonna happen anytime soon..
 
Emile de Leon said:
Roger..
This is complete rubbish. My M8 will be 8 this year and still works fine;Try getting parts for it anymore...when it finally goes belly up..thats it...the end..
 my M9 will be 5. Your figures are completely made up.
See how good your M9 will be goin in another 4 to 5 years...I'm sure it will make quite the dandy 7K doorstop..

Your analysis of the prices is pretty shaky, too.
I don't think so...
You may not think I likey the Leica too much..but I do..I own enough of them..and have taken them all over the world with me..film ones that is..M6 particularly..
They are swell cams..some of the best ever..
Just at this point in time..IMHO..L is not a particularly relieable cam..esp for the dough outlay..sorry..
Someday I may buy a digital M..esp if they shrink it down a bit..
Bring the video quality up..
And put an fully articulated screen on it..
Like that's gonna happen anytime soon..
Click to expand...
Sorry, Emile, you're the one talking rubbish. I'm not the only one to have pointed this out. Yes, if the M8 dies, it dies. For 8 years' use so far, and counting, I'm not complaining. You may not have noticed that 8 years is already rather longer than "..will be middle aged at 2 to 3..old at 5..and most likely dead soon after..if you can get repair parts or batteries for it.."

You may also have failed to notice than an ME, a current production camera, is basically a slightly stripped-down M9. Do you really believe that Leica will cease to stock parts (or batteries) for a current production camera? Yes, there was a problem with the availability of M8 screens, the so called "coffee stain". You are willing to generalize from this?

If you choose to live in your own crabbed little fantasy world, and to ignore the inflation adjustments given above, there's not really much point in continuing the discussion. As for making the M smaller AND adding a tilting screen, well, good luck.

Who cares about the video? Have you used an M type 240? A manual focus video camera with that form function is not a whole hell of a lot of use for most kind of video. My suspicion is that they put it in (a) because they could and (b) because there's a certain kind of buyer who believes that additional features (video, titling screens) are always better, regardless of their actual utility.

Cheers,

R.
 
burancap said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... really. I'm not buying your semantic analysis. I agree that anything can have value, but aren't necessarily practical. Something can be practical, however, which would lead to having "practical value" regardless of it's monetary worth.

A Ferrari has value... but it's value lies in it's "look at me, I'm rich" factor. As Noisycheese so eloquently remarked, it's value is that it might get you laid. It has no other practical use.

UNlike the Ferrari, Leica is practical, and I doubt that it's flashy enough to serve the role of the Ferrari in your love life. Even though expensive, I'd even argue that Leica is the antithesis of the "Ferrari chic" mindset, even despite the Hermes advertising. In my view, the Hermes camera(s) is like the difference between a Chevy and Caddy on the same frame. They serve the exact same purpose transportation-wise; but one is purpose-built to separate the wealthy from their money. The other is a daily driver that gets the job done.

Unlike a Ferrari, a production Leica is unobtrusive and serves a very practical role. The "Ferrari chic" value has to be assigned by the person looking at it... and that comes from advertising and hype, not from the camera itself.
 
faberryman said:
And rationalizing your purchase and use of a Leica on an internet forum somehow redeems you in the eyes of the insulting party? You are certainly not being insulted here, so something else must be going on.
Click to expand...
It is. I'd like Leica to stay in business. I therefore try (not always successfully) to counter the negativism, drivel and straight lies that are involved in most anti-Leica posts.

Stop and think. Even you are using the word "rationalizing". I don't need to "rationalize" what I do, because I buy my Leicas for a very simple reason: they help me earn a living. Nor do I have to "justify" my Leica purchases (not your phraseology, but common enough in attacks) except to the tax man if I want to write them off against taxes. He's happy enough that I buy them.

On top of that, I enjoy using them, and anyone but a complete fool must surely accept that the more you enjoy using a particular camera, the more likely you are to get good results, professional or not. I do however feel the need to point out that "rationalize" and "explain" do not mean the same.

Finally, there are those who say, "It doesn't matter. You can always buy second hand." The feebleness of this argument hardly warrants rebuttal. Where do these people think second-hand Leicas come from?

These arguments are of particular interest to me at the moment, because in a few weeks I shall be a guest speaker at The Leica Society's AGM and week-end in the UK. My topic will be, "Why do we buy Leicas?"

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
hepcat said:
Hmmm... really. I'm not buying your semantic analysis. I agree that anything can have value, but aren't necessarily practical. Something can be practical, however, which would lead to having "practical value" regardless of it's monetary worth.

A Ferrari has value... but it's value lies in it's "look at me, I'm rich" factor. As Noisycheese so eloquently remarked, it's value is that it might get you laid. It has no other practical use.

UNlike the Ferrari, Leica is practical, and I doubt that it's flashy enough to serve the role of the Ferrari in your love life. Even though expensive, I'd even argue that Leica is the antithesis of the "Ferrari chic" mindset, even despite the Hermes advertising. In my view, the Hermes camera(s) is like the difference between a Chevy and Caddy on the same frame. They serve the exact same purpose transportation-wise; but one is purpose-built to separate the wealthy from their money. The other is a daily driver that gets the job done.

Unlike a Ferrari, a production Leica is unobtrusive and serves a very practical role. The "Ferrari chic" value has to be assigned by the person looking at it... and that comes from advertising and hype, not from the camera itself.
Click to expand...

You sound like a genuine Leica hater.
 
In my opinion if you are Leica don't compete with the big two. Let them chase the automation, video and the FPS. FPS is all going to be video soon anyway and there are so many of us that don't want any of that on our rangefinders. If Leica does that they will be taking away our choices and becoming just like the big two. Why compete with them on their level. Most Leica rangefinder photographers DO NOT want all that stuff.

A camera is still a camera and the basics haven't changed in a century. It's a light tight box that holds light sensitive material. It has a lens to focus the image. A shutter to control the amount of time the light is allowed to strike that light sensitive material. It has an aperture to control the amount of light allowed to strike that light sensitive material. That reciprocity is a basic visual tool. That and an understanding of how the meter reads reflected light (spot meter or most camera meters) or light striking the subject/scene (incident meter) and I want those controls squarely in my hands and not in the hands of a computer.

The rest is just how many bells and whistle do you need? The rest is all what I call the gadget go round. And once you start on that ride it can be never ending trying to keep up with the next automated feature that only removes the photographer one more step from the process. Leica if you are listening I like the process and I can do it better to get the final image i am looking for than any of this automation can. The camera and the computer have no idea of what I want my final image to look like. Only I do.

So as long as Leica doesn't become consumed in further removing me from the process as the big two are doing in their quest for the one size fits all camera and will give photographers a different choice, then Leica will remain relevant and will matter.
 
faberryman said:
And rationalizing your purchase and use of a Leica on an internet forum somehow redeems you in the eyes of the insulting party? You are certainly not being insulted here, so something else must be going on.
Click to expand...

I think its pretty obvious to tell if a person has made up their mind on a particular subject by the way (tone) of what they've posted. So as you ask why bother to reply,,,simple that person isn't the only one reading this form so while that person may not find any value in the views and experiences of long time Leica digital shooters like Roger, people that haven't made up their mind on the subject may find them very useful.
 
burancap said:
Then why all the puerile commentary about Ferrari?

You introduced them to this thread, not me. You even spoke of them in the same sentence as Lamborghini and a "jewel-encrusted tiara." Leica, as I recall, did some encrusting, but I don't recall Ferrari ever doing so. How was that practical value?
Click to expand...

And why the vitriol? Puerile? Really?

It appears that you missed the point entirely. A Ferrari is a luxury item with no practical value. A consumer, street-legal Ferrari (as opposed to a racing car) is expensive and it is most definitely NOT a working vehicle, or even an every-day driver. The Leica is an expensive camera with entirely practical uses that is inappropriately viewed by some as solely a luxury item in the same light as "Ferrari, Lamborghini, or jewel-encrusted tiara." Now I'll grant you that the Hermes camera, and some of the other special edition cameras are not intended for the purpose that my working Leicas are. Special edition cameras are no more than jewelry for people who like that sort of thing rather than working tools. But there are those who think (and express publicly) that the entire line has no value other than jewelry which is just plain wrong... and as a result, those of us who use this gear to make a living are branded by some as narcissists, elitists, and show-offs because we shoot Leica... when nothing could be further from the truth and I'm not sure where that comes from. Folks who have even more tied up in their Canikon kits are looked at as 'pros.' It's a strange world indeed.

My Leicas are working tools and serve many practical uses. A consumer Ferrari, by design, is not and cannot be a "working tool." That was the intent of the comparison.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...Who cares about the video? Have you used an M type 240? A manual focus video camera with that form function is not a whole hell of a lot of use for most kind of video. My suspicion is that they put it in (a) because they could and (b) because there's a certain kind of buyer who believes that additional features (video, titling screens) are always better, regardless of their actual utility.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I dislike intensely (okay, hands up, hate) as I see it, the incessant and creeping ‘bloat’ of features that are installed because they can be put on a chip just because makers ‘can’ but are of no use to me. If I want a digital video camera I’d buy a dedicated one, not a half-baked version grafted onto a still camera.

Okay, one may say, one doesn’t have to use it. True. But there it is, without so much as a by-your-leave, cluttering up my menu on my camera when I don’t want it, and as it is I am stuck with it, whether I want it or not.

When I buy a new computer I can delete the installed program ‘bloat’ I don’t require. Why can’t I do this with my camera? What is it about a digital camera – in essence a computer with a lens and sensor, which is so precious to the manufacturer?

I’ll hazard a few guesses. Control? Or perhaps cost? Maybe it is demand or lack thereof?

Camera makers issue software updates. Why not think outside of the box and issue updates that you or I can tailor to our individual needs? For example how about plugins such as code to correct in-camera aberrations of non-manufacturer’s lenses? It doesn’t have to be free, plugins could be downloaded from the manufacturer rather like they are from the App Store.

Outsiders write plugins for all kinds of programs, e.g. Photoshop and Family Historian, a genealogy program I use. The iPhone has a camera, and programs can be downloaded for it (e.g. Hueless). Why not for cameras?

Maybe I'm dreaming... :(
 
hepcat said:
My Leicas are working tools and serve many practical uses. A consumer Ferrari, by design, is not and cannot be a "working tool." That was the intent of the comparison.
Click to expand...

To try and bring this somehow back to Earth (or at least to the thread) ... I simply disagree. Let us leave it at that.
 
There was a great line on a TV programme that I watched last night, which I fear sums up this discussion too well. Detectives investigating a murder asked the victim's wife if he was a gambler.

"Oh yes," She replied, "he'd bet on anything: horses, dogs, football matches. If there was nothing else, he'd bet on two flies crawling up a window."

I have a terrible suspicion that this discussion has reached the equivalent of those two flies.

:angel:
 
Roger Hicks said:
These arguments are of particular interest to me at the moment, because in a few weeks I shall be a guest speaker at The Leica Society's AGM and week-end in the UK. My topic will be, "Why do we buy Leicas?"
Click to expand...

Interesting that the topic of your presentation is why we buy Leicas, and not why we use Leicas. Speaks volumes.
 
It's always been interesting to me me how much negativity the very idea of Leica elicits. Now I'm a relatively poor man; my only Leica presently is a 1938 IIIb that I use with three Leitz LTM lenses, including a 50 f2 collapsible Summicron and a 1946 90mm Elmar, both of which I like a lot. My "modern" 35mm rangefinders are a Bessa R and an Olympus35 SP -- nice camera, by the way, with a lovely 7 element double Gauss lens in 5 groups. If I could afford an M9 I'd probably have one.

All I'm saying is that there are many fine tools out there, and at least among film cameras, many are as simple as a Leica -- focus, set aperture and shutter speed, compose and shoot. Even my Olympus E-M5 can be used very simply, in spite of the plethora of options in the menu. I rarely change anything but iso and white balance (and image stabilization if I am using a long manual focus legacy lens for birding), and shoot manually. It's still set exposure, focus, compose and shoot. The fancy modes are there, but I don't use them. Landscape? Sport? I'm quite capable of using settings that will accomodate those situations without fiddling with "mode" dials. Just because they are there doesn't mean you have to use them.

Other forums I've been on have people very fond of Leica bashing. I don't get it. Choose your tool and go shoot with it. If you can't afford it, choose another tool that does what you need it to do. The Sigma DP2 is about as close as I'll get to Leica resolution, and it, too, can be simplicity itself. When the cash flow improves, however, I will keep my eye out for an M8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom