Thorsten Overgaard on the M10

[davidtan]

Originally Posted by Araakii

That would be great news! But can they? If you can't convince yourself to buy a digital Leica, then don't. There is no need to come up with all kinds of reasons to justify your decision.

I find decisions best backed by reasons. As long as you know I'm not faulting Leica for no reason.

[furcafe]

Per my earlier post (#92), I don't believe your impression is entirely correct. Leica's original intent was to make a very high quality small ("miniature") format camera, based on Oskar Barnack's desire to have something much more portable to shoot with (he had asthma) while hiking. While the end result may have been more "democratic" in the sense of making high quality equipment lighter & less bulky, the gear itself has always been very expensive. What has changed is that in the modern world, you no longer have to pay a lot of money to get a very high quality small camera, & that has made Leicas more expensive compared to the competition. If we imagined an alternate reality where Canon & Nikon still made optical RFs, their top-of-the-line "7szD" & "DSP" would probably cost $4K or $5K (& I predict that if, or when, Cosina makes a full-frame digital RF, perhaps for Zeiss, it will cost @ least $3K).

Originally Posted by davidtan

I've always been under the impression that Leica’s original intent, when it first came out with the Barnacks, was to be a democratizing force in photography. The arrival of Leica gave an alternative to large, costly negatives and cumbersome cameras. They gave an economic use to small cine-film, and introduced a lightweight and highly portable camera to shoot it with. Does anyone else think that the current goals of Leica—to foster an image of prestige and present their inventory as luxuries—to be quite different from their earlier ideas and innovations?

Of course, Leica is a business first and a religion second. They understand the sort of appeal that their products carry, especially with a century's worth of fame and artistic association to prove it. If they can sell their cameras at a premium and make a profit, they will. That's just how a company operates and I won't criticize them for that.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by furcafe

Per my earlier post (#92), I don't believe your impression is entirely correct. Leica's original intent was to make a very high quality small ("miniature") format camera, based on Oskar Barnack's desire to have something much more portable to shoot with (he had asthma) while hiking. While the end result may have been more "democratic" in the sense of making high quality equipment lighter & less bulky, the gear itself has always been very expensive. What has changed is that in the modern world, you no longer have to pay a lot of money to get a very high quality small camera, & that has made Leicas more expensive compared to the competition. If we imagined an alternate reality where Canon & Nikon still made optical RFs, their top-of-the-line "7szD" & "DSP" would probably cost $4K or $5K (& I predict that if, or when, Cosina makes a full-frame digital RF, perhaps for Zeiss, it will cost @ least $3K).

Never verified it, but Ken Rockwell states that the IIIF was priced at the equivalent of $3500 in today's dollars...

It would be interesting to see a table with manufacturer's cameras through the years with prices then and prices equivalent to today's monetary standard.

[furcafe]

Well, you don't have to take Mr. Rockwell's word for it (it's a free country), you can just take the prices listed on Mr. Gandy's site here (http://www.cameraquest.com/prices38.htm) & then plug them into an inflation calculator like here (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/). So in 1938, a Leica IIIa w/5cm/3.5 Elmar (the "kit" lens back then) would have cost you something like $2218.44 in 2012 dollars (the equivalent Contax II kit would cost $2787.48). Not a perfect comparison because the CPI doesn't account for factors like wages having gone up & food prices having fallen, etc., but still gives you a rough idea of how fine optical equipment has always been pricey.

Originally Posted by dave lackey

Never verified it, but Ken Rockwell states that the IIIF was priced at the equivalent of $3500 in today's dollars...

It would be interesting to see a table with manufacturer's cameras through the years with prices then and prices equivalent to today's monetary standard.

[furcafe]

I agree, though Leicas have not gotten cheaper at the same rate as other brands that have been quicker to embrace modern technology & production methods.

Originally Posted by photomoof

In the real world of an average net income a fine camera has actually gotten cheaper!

In 1950 my guess is, that my father, an electrical engineer with a degree and professional license, working for Union Electric in the midwest, was earning at most $75 a week. The Leica would have represented a month's pay at least.

My first job offer in 1970 was only $8000 with a master's degree.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by furcafe

I agree, though Leicas have not gotten cheaper at the same rate as other brands that have been quicker to embrace modern technology & production methods.

It was in the '70s when Leica prices started to look "unreasonable", most probably due to raising wages in Germany compared to the old as well as their incapability to switch to new technologies (for they were selling those years only a fraction of the quantities of any Japanese SLRs). Too much overhead, conservative technology has caused Leitz to shrink continuously until the family decided to sell a large portion of their shares to save the company from bankruptcy and then Leica AG has been established.

Before I remember of paying $232 for a Summilux 35/1.4, while the 36-exp Tri-X was costing $1.30. (Not even 200 rolls! )

[davidtan]

Modern technology and production methods are a good thing aren't they? The fact that companies like Canon and Nikon have the economies of scale to produce at a larger output and lower cost doesn't mean that their products are somehow less fine than that of a small company like Leica.

But some people see the prices and use that as a gauge for quality. Leica certainly uses costlier methods and materials, but does it really lead to a difference in quality as dramatic as the difference in prices between it's flagship camera and Canon/Nikon's? Is having more hands-on production methods better than using machine-led assembly? Is having more metal in it's cameras' construction better than having more plastic? Are the lens designs of an A-list engineer like Peter Karbe always going to be better than the designs dreamed up by Japanese camera makers?

It really boils down to: Is Leica expensive because it's better or expensive because it chooses to be?

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by davidtan

Modern technology and production methods are a good thing aren't they? The fact that companies like Canon and Nikon have the economies of scale to produce at a larger output and lower cost doesn't mean that their products are somehow less fine than that of a small company like Leica.

But some people see the prices and use that as a gauge for quality. Leica certainly uses costlier methods and materials, but does it really lead to a difference in quality as dramatic as the difference in prices between it's flagship camera and Canon/Nikon's? Is having more hands-on production methods better than using machine-led assembly? Is having more metal in it's cameras' construction better than having more plastic? Are the lens designs of an A-list engineer like Peter Karbe always going to be better than the designs dreamed up by Japanese camera makers?

It really boils down to: Is Leica expensive because it's better or expensive because it chooses to be?

Leica is expensive because it HAS to be! There was an article in LFI magazine that explains it from last year.

Your argument above should actually be turned around. Leica is called expensive and bashed for a $7k camera but no one bashes Nikon for the same thing. Or Hasselblad for more expensive equipment.

Now it is T minus 1 hour! The show is about to begin in....(insert your favorite memory of the time counting down at the local big screen theater before the featured show)....

[dave lackey]

While waiting...check out this podcast:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/r...st/id511195755

[ramosa]

Originally Posted by Jobin

He is like a knowledgeable and skilled Ken Rockwell.

Best quote of the day. No question.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by davidtan

But some people see the prices and use that as a gauge for quality. Leica certainly uses costlier methods and materials, but does it really lead to a difference in quality as dramatic as the difference in prices between it's flagship camera and Canon/Nikon's? Is having more hands-on production methods better than using machine-led assembly? Is having more metal in it's cameras' construction better than having more plastic? Are the lens designs of an A-list engineer like Peter Karbe always going to be better than the designs dreamed up by Japanese camera makers?

It really boils down to: Is Leica expensive because it's better or expensive because it chooses to be?

As I said, whether Leica is really "better" or not is irrelevant because everyone has different ideas about quality. The fact is that they are in a niche market and there are very few comparable products. As long as they continue to differentiate themselves from the others, they can choose whatever production method they like and charge accordingly. Those who prefer machine assembly and streamlined production methods always have other choices. That's why you have those CV and Zeiss lenses. I don't understand why people feel entitled that they should be owning Leica lenses for less than what they cost now.

[davidtan]

Originally Posted by Araakii

As I said, whether Leica is really "better" or not is irrelevant because everyone has different ideas about quality. The fact is that they are in a niche market and there are very few comparable products. As long as they continue to differentiate themselves from the others, they can choose whatever production method they like and charge accordingly. Those who prefer machine assembly and streamlined production methods always have other choices. That's why you have those CV and Zeiss lenses. I don't understand why people feel entitled that they should be owning Leica lenses for less than what they cost now.

I’ll say it plainly again, as I’ve said it plainly before: Leica doesn’t need to change anything if they don’t want to. I’m not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn’t required to making it affordable for me or others like me. My views on Leica are still evolving (to take the term from a certain president), but I won’t pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can’t dare question the order of things and ask “Why?”?

[furcafe]

You can ask all you want & the answer is the same: They are expensive because they choose to be. Why? The answer is here:

http://us.leica-camera.com/culture/corporate_values/

Originally Posted by davidtan

I’ll say it plainly again, as I’ve said it plainly before: Leica doesn’t need to change anything if they don’t want to. I’m not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn’t required to making it affordable for me or others like me. My views on Leica are still evolving (to take the term from a certain president), but I won’t pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can’t dare question the order of things and ask “Why?”?

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by davidtan

I’ll say it plainly again, as I’ve said it plainly before: Leica doesn’t need to change anything if they don’t want to. I’m not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn’t required to making it affordable for me or others like me. My views on Leica are still evolving (to take the term from a certain president), but I won’t pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can’t dare question the order of things and ask “Why?”?

The reason is that for every person out there who wants Leica to make an affordable model at lower production cost, there's someone else who wants Leica to maintain their current approach and not adopt the machine productions that other brands use. There are enough wal-marts and canon in this world.

[davidtan]

Originally Posted by furcafe

You can ask all you want & the answer is the same: They are expensive because they choose to be. Why? The answer is here:

http://us.leica-camera.com/culture/corporate_values/

If they choose to be, then that’s that. Who am I to tell Leica what to do? But their choices inadvertently breed a sort of snob effect among some of their fans—to the off-putting of outsiders.

Originally Posted by Araakii

There are enough wal-marts and canon in this world.

Snob effect like that.

[furcafe]

As I posted before, the "snob effect" has been implicit in Leica marketing since the beginning & explicit much of the time (try a google image search for some of their vintage ads from the 1920s-30s). Just because some the most famous Leica users have been socialists & left-wingers (e.g., most of the founders of Magnum) doesn't mean that the company has ever been particularly egalitarian when it comes to pricing & selling their products. Other companies, like the original Zeiss Ikon & their Contax system, were even snobbier, as was Kodak when they introduced the Ektra (though Zeiss Ikon & Kodak, much bigger than Leica, also offered cheaper cameras for regular people like Canon & Nikon today).

Originally Posted by davidtan

If they choose to be, then that’s that. Who am I to tell Leica what to do? But their choices inadvertently breed a sort of snob effect among some of their fans—to the off-putting of outsiders.



Snob effect like that.

[Hoool]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...9c8o2_1280.png

[albygentle]

Originally Posted by Araakii

As I said, whether Leica is really "better" or not is irrelevant because everyone has different ideas about quality. The fact is that they are in a niche market and there are very few comparable products. As long as they continue to differentiate themselves from the others, they can choose whatever production method they like and charge accordingly. Those who prefer machine assembly and streamlined production methods always have other choices. That's why you have those CV and Zeiss lenses. I don't understand why people feel entitled that they should be owning Leica lenses for less than what they cost now.

I agree..complaining about pricing is kind of dull and pointless. One has a wide array of choices to choose from. Leica can price however they want, and I am sure they will be fine. Leica chooses to be expensive. They want to be a luxury brand. It will never cater to the average paid photographer or person. Sad but true. Same goes for Hasselblad and the such. I dont know why it is so surprising to some.

One has to live within the limitations of Leica...and be content with what they can afford to take great images. From the m8-MM..and all the lenses..there is no excuse to not make awesome photography.

and the same would go for every other camera maker out there.