gommy
Senior Member
artspraken, you secretly buying is it? hahaha....
LINK: Why Buy Leica ?
- Thread starter Dfive
- Start date
artspraken, you secretly buying is it? hahaha....
artspraken
New Member
Ok before anybody planning burglary, pls note its huge and full coz i keep leica boxes inside also
losheng
New Member
ROTFL! What's wrong with the LCD? As far as I can see, it is just as good as the one on my EOS 5D!
OTOH - since Leica has always been about the bare essence of photography, it would have made a stronger statement by discarding that LCD all together.
I think everyone should just come clean about this: a big part of owning Leica is about brand digging, showing off and the association with wealth, just as one private pm forum user has said so eloquently, and another poster that said that money is of no issue for him, and he doesn't want to be seen as yet one of the 'another DSLR guys' . Great photographers like Henry Cartier Bresson and Robert Capa used Leicas because they came from rich backgrounds - you don't think they have conducted a range of objective and comprehensive lens tests before settling on the system, do you?
There's nothing unusual about brand digging - it's shallow, its disgusting, but we all do that - perhaps at different levels. No? Is that pair of Converse canvas shoes that much better than the Feiyue ones - hell, they are even made in the same country! The difference is that there are more of us that can afford the Converse than the Leica. This thread won't have appeared if the Leicas were to cost the same as the Voigtlanders, will it? This reminds me of a chat with a fellow motorcycling enthusiast about the difference between our bikes. I asked him what made him pay for the BMW when my Honda is cheaper, more fuel efficient, cheaper to maintain, runs just as fast, doesn't overheat at the causeway, and above all, doesn't leak oil like his. His reply was: "When I go to the Shangri-la, they allow me to park at the door." So the next time I went to Shangri-la, I asked if I can leave my bike at the door. The doorman pointed me to the car park. So there you have it!
A luxury brand cannot hold its position without first busting the price-utility ratio. Paying a lot more for something a lot better is just being rational. Paying more for something less is being plain dumb. But the willingness and ability to pay a lot for very little more - now that really sets you apart. It spells exquisite taste and it demonstrates wealth. It is exactly that bit of irrationality that makes those who can do it feel good about themselves, and those who can't green with envy, which in turn makes the former feel even better.
But I guess we all already knew that, don't we?
(No, I don't own a Leica. I belong to the have-nots, but I do dig brands that I can afford too! - and yeah, damn it, now I want that BMW too ...
)
Last edited:
artspraken
New Member
I would point out:
1. Robert Capa never used a Leica; he used a Contax II early in career, and later a Nikon (forgot which model);
Can see the Contax II here. I think its a Contax IIa.
2. It is not clear how many Magnum photographers actually use Leicas, except that it is known there is a brand collaboration between Magnum and Leicas, hence the perception that Magnum uses Leica.
3. HCB chose Leica under very different circumstances. In his active years, Leica was a gritty camera, not much of a luxury brand. For purposes of your views, I do not regard HCB as a good example;
4. I agree with you that today, Leica is about brand digging and irrationality
5. The "50 cent LCD" is a coinage by Chairman (i think, I hear him say it all the time haha). It refers to the fact that M9 LCD only has 230k pixels. 230k even when M9 was released was very old technology compared to the 920k pixels on Ricoh GXR or the standard 460k pixels on most M4/3s and small cameras at that time. Today, M9P still has 230k pixels. For a camera that price - hence Mr Chairman's reference to 50 cent LCD.
1. Robert Capa never used a Leica; he used a Contax II early in career, and later a Nikon (forgot which model);
Can see the Contax II here. I think its a Contax IIa.
2. It is not clear how many Magnum photographers actually use Leicas, except that it is known there is a brand collaboration between Magnum and Leicas, hence the perception that Magnum uses Leica.
3. HCB chose Leica under very different circumstances. In his active years, Leica was a gritty camera, not much of a luxury brand. For purposes of your views, I do not regard HCB as a good example;
4. I agree with you that today, Leica is about brand digging and irrationality
5. The "50 cent LCD" is a coinage by Chairman (i think, I hear him say it all the time haha). It refers to the fact that M9 LCD only has 230k pixels. 230k even when M9 was released was very old technology compared to the 920k pixels on Ricoh GXR or the standard 460k pixels on most M4/3s and small cameras at that time. Today, M9P still has 230k pixels. For a camera that price - hence Mr Chairman's reference to 50 cent LCD.
Last edited:
artspraken
New Member
Relevant to this thread, I want to share this DigitalRev Video which I enjoyed very much.
The key thing to note that is that Leica is not the only RF.
Leica M9 vs Konica Hexar - YouTube
The key thing to note that is that Leica is not the only RF.
Leica M9 vs Konica Hexar - YouTube
Question is, what has those great photographers and their camera had to do with their pictures? I bet Abbas could have gotten his winning shots even without Leica?
The funny thing is, with so much gear talks here, everyone seems to be blinded by the gear than the picture which shouldnt be the case.
I recalled when i was walking thru the Abbas gallery, there was a guy beside me who explains the picture to this lady companion...not in the aspect of the story behind the picture nor the persepctive of the picture but to my amusement, he was identifying each lens behind the photo.."This must be from a 35mm summicron...that should be from a 50mm summilux....". I dont think the lady could have understood any of these. But given any leica player around, he might have appreciate such information more replying "NO wonder" and decide which should be the next purchase?
I agreed that Leica is about brand digging in today context and there is nothing wrong with it. The same concept of whether u want a watch to read the time(Casio) or a watch(Rolex) that shows your status. Like Losheng mentioned, if Leica werent so expensive now, i bet this topic would never surface!
There is absolutely nothing wrong about flaunting a Leica RF, i admit it has its strength, i just feel that its not right to mention that its a better camera choice over others as it produce good images. Especially to novice or starters who plans to enter the world. This is misleading...as we all know it deep down that this isnt true!
I think once awhile, we should try take some pictures and share with people who know nuts about gears...as they are really the best judge over what is nice or not...that is when you can decide if you really take nice photos. And if you say this to them when they say its not nice "Aiya you don know how to appreciate one la..its a ____ lens that cost, how can it be not nice..." then it means that you really need to re focus your objective back to photography.
Just a clarification, there is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting lenses, cameras etc...i take those as a separate hobby call "Collecting vintage camera and lenses", its equally fun...especially when you start reading back the history of each lens and used by which great photographer!
The funny thing is, with so much gear talks here, everyone seems to be blinded by the gear than the picture which shouldnt be the case.
I recalled when i was walking thru the Abbas gallery, there was a guy beside me who explains the picture to this lady companion...not in the aspect of the story behind the picture nor the persepctive of the picture but to my amusement, he was identifying each lens behind the photo.."This must be from a 35mm summicron...that should be from a 50mm summilux....". I dont think the lady could have understood any of these. But given any leica player around, he might have appreciate such information more replying "NO wonder" and decide which should be the next purchase?
I agreed that Leica is about brand digging in today context and there is nothing wrong with it. The same concept of whether u want a watch to read the time(Casio) or a watch(Rolex) that shows your status. Like Losheng mentioned, if Leica werent so expensive now, i bet this topic would never surface!
There is absolutely nothing wrong about flaunting a Leica RF, i admit it has its strength, i just feel that its not right to mention that its a better camera choice over others as it produce good images. Especially to novice or starters who plans to enter the world. This is misleading...as we all know it deep down that this isnt true!
I think once awhile, we should try take some pictures and share with people who know nuts about gears...as they are really the best judge over what is nice or not...that is when you can decide if you really take nice photos.
And if you say this to them when they say its not nice "Aiya you don know how to appreciate one la..its a ____ lens that cost, how can it be not nice..." then it means that you really need to re focus your objective back to photography.Just a clarification, there is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting lenses, cameras etc...i take those as a separate hobby call "Collecting vintage camera and lenses", its equally fun...especially when you start reading back the history of each lens and used by which great photographer!
Last edited:
NazgulKing
Senior Member
*shrug*
People like to feel different, and they like to have something extraordinary that others do not have. Merely exploiting this human tendency can reap rewards in some ways.
Leica has been in the cost cutting business for a long while. The shutters have no claimed mean lifetime, while their components inside are largely generic. This is in contrast against how integrated Japanese high end DSLRs are, with all the high power processing, how durable the cameras are and yet the camera can be cheaper than a Leica M9. Compare the new D800 vs the Leica M9. Sure the former is much bigger, but when you look what the other companies are doing with their mirrorless cameras and their relative size, you have to question whether Leica's general incompetence when it comes to electronics justifies the M9's price.
People like to feel different, and they like to have something extraordinary that others do not have. Merely exploiting this human tendency can reap rewards in some ways.
Leica has been in the cost cutting business for a long while. The shutters have no claimed mean lifetime, while their components inside are largely generic. This is in contrast against how integrated Japanese high end DSLRs are, with all the high power processing, how durable the cameras are and yet the camera can be cheaper than a Leica M9. Compare the new D800 vs the Leica M9. Sure the former is much bigger, but when you look what the other companies are doing with their mirrorless cameras and their relative size, you have to question whether Leica's general incompetence when it comes to electronics justifies the M9's price.
losheng
New Member
I'm not a history buff, but Robert Capa seemed to have first started with a Leica, though it seemed that he carried the Contax and Rollei during the D-day invasion, and perhaps for most of his later careers, till he was eventually killed with a Contax and a Nikon S in his hands. His early work done during the Spanish war seemed to have been attributed to Leicas. And of course, didn't his girlfriend also died with a Leica in her hands when she was crushed by a tank in the midst of the Spanish War? And even in her dying moments - she asked about the condition of the camera!
A common man's camera in the early days would have been a Brownie, which HCB received when he was just a kid; or the Argus, with which Tony Vaccaro, who couldn't have afford anything better, carried into WWII. If Ken Rockwell's words are anything to go by, even the great HCB cried: "merde!" when he went back to try to get a second lens for his first Leica! LOL!
I have to say that I was quite taken aback by the LCD when I first saw it. I really really think it would add to the snob appeal by simply dropping it all together! - even I will dig that! And honestly, I don't think that's a bad move for digital photography in general!
After reading your post, I double check the specs of my 5D and indeed my gut feel was spot on - it has the same 230k LCD as the M9! That has really made me feel like a better person already - I have been owning a small part of M9 all these years!
I'm not sure about the current situation, but till the mid to late nighties, there were still many photojournalists that used the M system - for all the good reasons that are associated with the RF methodology. But I remember only the better off ones were able to afford the current model then - usually they had go for the older models like the M3, and a badly bashed up one even. I figured that it didn't take Leica too long to realize that most of their current customers were better off amateur photographers.
I agree that its silly to argue about the gear. I don't know if painters argue that passionately over the brand of their brush, or even feel the need to justify their choice. (OTOH, programmers do over their choice of editors -vi vs emacs, remember?). But hey, that's part of the fun! - My pictures may suck, but you can't say that about my gear! For that reason, I get a feeling that women photographers often shoot better photos - they seem to focus more on the photos, and don't seem to get too hung up about the gear, not as much as they would with the shoes anyway.
But who cares about the photos? - my gears are better!
Last edited:
Double Negative
Member
You're quite welcome!
Though I'm not sure why the article might be considered "biased." Sure, it's on a primarily Leica site. And I didn't go into the downsides of owning a Leica or a rangefinder for that matter... But I did try to keep it relatively neutral. And after all, it is about why you would want to buy a Leica rather than why NOT to.
Of course there's nothing wrong with owning a Canon, a Hasselblad or a Mamiya. As mentioned, they're all tools to get the job done. In fact, I use all of those in addition to Leica. Like I said, the article is on a primarily Leica site - so the general tone of the article shouldn't be surprising. I'd be happy to do a search and replace of "Leica" with "_____" if anyone would like that.
Last edited:
You're quite welcome!
Though I'm not sure why the article might be considered "biased." Sure, it's on a primarily Leica site. And I didn't go into the downsides of owning a Leica or a rangefinder for that matter... But I did try to keep it relatively neutral. And after all, it is about why you would want to buy a Leica rather than why NOT to.
Of course there's nothing wrong with owning a Canon, a Hasselblad or a Mamiya. As mentioned, they're all tools to get the job done. In fact, I use all of those in addition to Leica. Like I said, the article is on a primarily Leica site - so the general tone of the article shouldn't be surprising. I'd be happy to do a search and replace of "Leica" with "_____" if anyone would like that.
You have and interesting site.
Double Negative
Member
It is true that having the right camera/lens combo will help you get the pictures you want. There is nothing wrong with shooting with a Leica or any other expensive(branded) camera outfit so long you know what you want out of that system. Leica M has the perfect attributes for street photography - excellent image quality, reliability, solidly built quality and an ultra quiet shutter.
But hey, my rolleicord have the exact attributes and its also dirt cheap plus it gives you negatives that are way bigger and so much more enlargeable! ;p;p
But hey, my rolleicord have the exact attributes and its also dirt cheap plus it gives you negatives that are way bigger and so much more enlargeable! ;p;p
Double Negative
Member
So does a Mamiya 7II.
wootsk
Deregistered
While it feels quite overpriced, leica lens do have good mtf results and quite high lpmm in the 135 region.
I personally feels that in the area of analog rf camera, leica is petty good not including the cost. But in the digital area, i cannot find too much of a good advantage over a mirrorless like nex 7, maybe the larger sensor and nothing too much more.
I am belonging to those who get a camera purely for abusing to take photos and sometime, it disgust me hearing someone telling that analog leica has value and you don't make loss selling it off later, you might even make a small profit. (might be true, but...)
I personally feels that in the area of analog rf camera, leica is petty good not including the cost. But in the digital area, i cannot find too much of a good advantage over a mirrorless like nex 7, maybe the larger sensor and nothing too much more.
I am belonging to those who get a camera purely for abusing to take photos and sometime, it disgust me hearing someone telling that analog leica has value and you don't make loss selling it off later, you might even make a small profit. (might be true, but...)
Last edited:
wootsk
Deregistered
So does a Mamiya 7II.
Gotten poison by mamiya 6, 7, 7II series before. But just cannot spare fund to get it with my hobby budget. I also realize that a interchangable back system suits me more.
Leica Store SG even said to me just before I signed off " oh yes sir you could sell your 50 Lux off and make some money on it, up to 5.6K !! "
( Bought at 5.2K and sold mint at 4.8K some 7 months later )
A bit of a confession. I was attracted to the dark side of digital over this weekend and bought myself a Ricoh gxr. It is a wonderful camera, and provides superb images with my Zeiss and CV lens.
But it is a far cry from my zeiss ikon -- not as much fun (for me) to hold it to the eye and shoot. I find the Ricoh is more than capable of outdoing even the best color film scans I can produce, but it is never only about image quality. If you dont want to have fun making pictures, why even bother?
I do not own any Leica products (having sold off my M4), but I do hope that Leica (and some other vendors) will keep the rangefinder camera alive and relevant.
But it is a far cry from my zeiss ikon -- not as much fun (for me) to hold it to the eye and shoot. I find the Ricoh is more than capable of outdoing even the best color film scans I can produce, but it is never only about image quality. If you dont want to have fun making pictures, why even bother?
I do not own any Leica products (having sold off my M4), but I do hope that Leica (and some other vendors) will keep the rangefinder camera alive and relevant.
Last edited:
I love my Leicas, however, I cannot see myself buying a $9000 (and up) digital cameras that would be obsolete in a few years.
For me, the heart of any digital camera is the sensor. Sensor manufacturers have been outdoing one another at lightspeed pace.
Currently my digital cameras are ricoh grd3 and sony nex5n (with leica lenses obviously), and very happy with the results...although the new Fuji X-Pro1 might soon be replacing my Nex5n.....
For me, the heart of any digital camera is the sensor. Sensor manufacturers have been outdoing one another at lightspeed pace.
Currently my digital cameras are ricoh grd3 and sony nex5n (with leica lenses obviously), and very happy with the results...although the new Fuji X-Pro1 might soon be replacing my Nex5n.....
Similar threads
