airfrogusmc
Veteran
LoL. Well it might if it didn't feel so secure.
Why Leica Matters
- Thread starter noisycheese
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 308
- Views 33K
LoL. Well it might if it didn't feel so secure.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I shot Oly digital for about 10 years... I had an E-5 with my beloved 35-100 f/2 and a flash jump off the deck of a powerboat onto a concrete floor 10' below. The lens mount separated from the lens and stayed in the body, but I got it off, grabbed another lens and finished the shoot.
Anecdotes are interesting, but not of great value in trying to understand the MTBF of a model or brand.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The only film cameras I still own. All are real tanks.
Sold my 500 C/Ms years ago.
Never up graded these because there was no reason to. The same for my blads. Now if I could only get at least a fraction of the use out of my digital Canons (LoL).
hendriphile
Well-known
Subsitute "Questar" for "Leica' and "astronomer" for "photographer" and you'll have a situation often encountered in the world of amateur astronomy.
sjones
Established
A few things:
Some of the best things in life are not mainstream (particularly in the world of arts), and some of the worst things in life are mainstream. Let's all agree that this is not a churlish popularity contest. It's simply a matter of preference, and as such, some people are invariably going to fall into the minority lest we contend that all humans should think alike.
Besides, in the greater global layout, you use a camera, any type of camera, that cost US$500 or more, you're niche, face it. You want to glorify the mainstream, then stick with a camera phone (and there's nothing wrong with this, by the way...seen great shots from sub-one megapixel camera phones).
Also, this is not some Darwinian survivalist endeavor (at least not in the world of enthusiasts/hobbyists), so it's ridiculous to assume that if someone likes something, it's simply a consequence of not adapting to something else. And "enforced simplicity," well, um what, as opposed to "enforced complexity"? Neither sound very appealing to me. In any event, if want to glorify adapting to the latest, then stick with a camera phone.
But hey, it's good to know that the likes of, among others, Cartier-Bresson, Eisenstaedt, Winogrand, Erwitt, Baltz, Frank, Davidson, Friedlander, and Kertesz were hobbled by their luxurious indulgences, taking all those boring black and white photos of people on a the street.
To note, I started photography (at least on a somewhat serious level as I'm actually relatively old) with a DSLR. I didn't know what a rangefinder was; I couldn't believe I or anyone else ever managed to use film given its oh so many limitations; and Cartier-Bresson was unbeknownst to me.
My incremental transition from a DSLR to a film rangefinder was a natural progression of discovering what I liked, what I enjoyed, what fit my evolving style; that simple. In the scheme of commercial development, I went backwards. In the scheme of my personal preference, I simply moved toward what I liked irrespective of any chronological considerations. Again, the mainstream doesn't represent 100 percent of humanity, and thank God for that!
Also, if someone doesn't care what others think, they would NOT be posting anything on this thread...oh, the irony of it all...And really, comments leading to complete guilt by association, well then, I should despise all DSLRs users given some of the remarks I've heard, but I choose not to dip into such foolish conflation.
Use what you want, use what you need...it's not the attack against a particular camera that bothers me so much, but the attack against choice, and yes, such thinking does have the potential to detrimentally affect me!
Now I will leave this thread, but as the folks over at POTN know, PM's always welcome...
Some of the best things in life are not mainstream (particularly in the world of arts), and some of the worst things in life are mainstream. Let's all agree that this is not a churlish popularity contest. It's simply a matter of preference, and as such, some people are invariably going to fall into the minority lest we contend that all humans should think alike.
Besides, in the greater global layout, you use a camera, any type of camera, that cost US$500 or more, you're niche, face it. You want to glorify the mainstream, then stick with a camera phone (and there's nothing wrong with this, by the way...seen great shots from sub-one megapixel camera phones).
Also, this is not some Darwinian survivalist endeavor (at least not in the world of enthusiasts/hobbyists), so it's ridiculous to assume that if someone likes something, it's simply a consequence of not adapting to something else. And "enforced simplicity," well, um what, as opposed to "enforced complexity"? Neither sound very appealing to me. In any event, if want to glorify adapting to the latest, then stick with a camera phone.
But hey, it's good to know that the likes of, among others, Cartier-Bresson, Eisenstaedt, Winogrand, Erwitt, Baltz, Frank, Davidson, Friedlander, and Kertesz were hobbled by their luxurious indulgences, taking all those boring black and white photos of people on a the street.
To note, I started photography (at least on a somewhat serious level as I'm actually relatively old) with a DSLR. I didn't know what a rangefinder was; I couldn't believe I or anyone else ever managed to use film given its oh so many limitations; and Cartier-Bresson was unbeknownst to me.
My incremental transition from a DSLR to a film rangefinder was a natural progression of discovering what I liked, what I enjoyed, what fit my evolving style; that simple. In the scheme of commercial development, I went backwards. In the scheme of my personal preference, I simply moved toward what I liked irrespective of any chronological considerations. Again, the mainstream doesn't represent 100 percent of humanity, and thank God for that!
Also, if someone doesn't care what others think, they would NOT be posting anything on this thread...oh, the irony of it all...And really, comments leading to complete guilt by association, well then, I should despise all DSLRs users given some of the remarks I've heard, but I choose not to dip into such foolish conflation.
Use what you want, use what you need...it's not the attack against a particular camera that bothers me so much, but the attack against choice, and yes, such thinking does have the potential to detrimentally affect me!
Now I will leave this thread, but as the folks over at POTN know, PM's always welcome...
rbsinto
Well-known
- Local time
- 2:40 PM
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,597
I always thought their cameras and lenses were over-priced and over-hyped.
And I've never met anyone who could look at a photo and tell me with absolute certainty what brand lens it was taken with.
If you like their stuff then by all means use it.
But truly, Leica means nothing to me and never did.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
They are the perfect tool for fast moving street work or any candid photography. It is a camera that just gets out of the way. Thats a big reason I use it. I can get shots that I would say I probably wouldn't get with a DSLR.
And like I've already said my Canon digitals have been far less reliable than my Leica MM has been.
And like I've already said my Canon digitals have been far less reliable than my Leica MM has been.
Scrambler
Well-known
Nicely put. Thanks.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nor have I. Well, with the exception of someone who could always distinguish shots taken with an Alpa and a 38/4.5 Biogon on 66x44 mm. Often, even I can't tell whether I used a Nikon or a Leica in 35 mm.
But is that the point? If you like using a camera, you'll get more good shots with it. If it's smaller, lighter and faster handling, probably likewise. The RF frame is less precise than an SLR, but you can see around the image area. Or you may prefer 8x10 inch. Or a cheaper camera. It's always a question of trade-offs.
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
A great piece by Meyerowtz explaining why rangefinders are so good on the street and some really great words on framing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo
chhayanat
Established
Oh dear!
Posted by Emile de Leon
. . . The digital Leica..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...
My old Leica Digilux 2 will be 11 years old soon and I'm still using it. Worse still, I've still got the original battery in it.
Regards, David
Mine too! 🙂 Nice to find a fellow Digilux 2 shooter 🙂
uhoh7
Veteran
I've had an M9 for about a month now. It goes everywhere with me. I ski with it almost everyday. It gets cold. It gets wet. Once in a while I have to remove the battery.
It makes very sharp shots with tiny lenses.
No DSLR can I use in this way.
Price was 3500. Worth every penny. Some day it may break. Until then I use it.
L1003553 by unoh7, on Flickr
I love the camera. 🙂
Every day people pay much more for a decent motorcycle. 😉
It makes very sharp shots with tiny lenses.
No DSLR can I use in this way.
Price was 3500. Worth every penny. Some day it may break. Until then I use it.
L1003553 by unoh7, on Flickr
I love the camera. 🙂
Every day people pay much more for a decent motorcycle. 😉
Michael Markey
Veteran
They may well be depending on your own perspective in these matters but that doesn`t prevent them from being very enjoyable to use.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Your post begs the question: have you ever used Leica equipment (or an RF/VF camera system) yourself, or have you based your opinion solely on prices?
Again, for me, it's all about the coincident rangefinder/viewfinder. If that suits one's style of shooting then there is nothing else available, particularly in digital. If you don't like that style of viewing and framing, or it just doesn't matter to you, then just about any other product is probably a better buy for you.
DominikDUK
Well-known
There is no overpriced or underprice there is just priced. As long as Leica has customers they are not overpriced, if they went for lower prices they would probably lose some customers.
They are expensive but not overpriced neither is a Ferrari or a Porsche imo.
They are expensive but not overpriced neither is a Ferrari or a Porsche imo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
True, but astonishingly many people apparently find it impossible to say, "I can't afford this." They'll use any form of words to get around it, but the favourite is "It's overpriced."
Of course "can't afford" is flexible. I can't afford a new car -- because I don't want one badly enough to give up my Leicas, good food, travel, etc. Nor do I want to borrow any money, ever again, if I can avoid it.
My wife, born in upstate New York, whom I met in California, reckons that most Americans are even worse than most Europeans at saying "I can't afford it."
Cheers,
R.
ps: sorry. I was just going down the lane to look at the river and to assess the risk of flooding. Fortunately, negligible.
Rodchenko
Olympian
Roger, please could you edit that last post? I find the lack of your customary R quite disconcerting.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Actually... there are over/under pricing situations, but they're market-dependent. What we see in comparisons of Leica to other brands (which really isn't logical anyway as there isn't any other product with features comparable to an M digi body) is that folks don't understand which market-values to compare to.
You can't compare a Ferrari's cost to a Toyota pickup, for example. They're completely different product aimed at different markets, yet that's exactly what happens when someone says Leica is over-priced in comparison to other brands.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
True. As in the scandalous underpricing of the Royal Mail in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/17/royal-mail-privatisation-select-committee
Cheers,
R.
Rodchenko
Olympian
Quite.
And good news about the flooding. Hope everyone is safe.
And good news about the flooding. Hope everyone is safe.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
