Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica General Discussion / News / Rumors

View Poll Results: Poll: Has Leica alienated photographers?
Yes, I feel alienated by Leica's High Prices 144 40.91%
Maybe, sometimes yes, sometimes no 68 19.32%
No, I want Leica quality and that means Leica prices 93 26.42%
YES, I am alienated by Leica targeting bling marketing (late poll addition) 47 13.35%
Voters: 352. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-01-2015   #81
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
As noted -- not to all of us. The black paint M6's I had were nice, but still did not hold a candle to a black paint Nikon S2.
I'm on a Nikon binge at the moment. I found a AIS EDIF 300/2.8 for 600 bucks and it is very very fun on the A7.mod. Handheld no problem. My best 200ish is the AIS 180/2.8 ED. I like the 55 micros alot, too. Now I have a AIS 500/4 on the way from japan.

But the famed 28/2 AIS I found dull and in general the leica glass, for me, is in another league entirely. From SEM 21 to APO 135, I never saw anything from Canikon I liked as much.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #82
lucasjld
Registered User
 
lucasjld is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Age: 25
Posts: 44
My first rangefinder was a Bessa R2M (i'm 24). Backpacked around Europe with it. Loved it.

I now work with weddings and always wanted a "digital Bessa". The only option: Leica M.
It is a bit annoying how "old" the sensor technology is, or how ****ty the M9 LCD is, but is the only company that makes the camera I want.

I sold my Sony A7s in Brazil (that I bought to use with my M-Mount lenses) and with not much more I got a used Leica M9-P. Couple months later I sold it in and bought a M240.

I just find obvious that any Leica camera now won't "last for decades". 10 years from now the A7S II ISO will be like "how ****ty is that?".
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #83
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
No need to declare absolute truths here, IMHO.
Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #84
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 4,319
To the OP: I think the answer is no.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #85
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is online now
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucasjld View Post
I just find obvious that any Leica camera now won't "last for decades".
Yes but for some reason people can`t seem to understand that and insist that the worth of a camera resides in its perceived longevity .

As regards cost ; the cost of running a horse in the UK is (at a minimum) 3-4 thousand pound a year or 5 to 6 thousand dollars.
That excludes tack and any vet fees.
I`ve excluded the cost of competing .

People pay that happily because they enjoy what they do.

For every well heeled owner there are those on min wage and some are on welfare.

A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.

I`m actually more curious as to why that should be so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #86
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 62
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Yes but for some reason people can`t seem to understand that and insist that the worth of a camera resides in its perceived longevity .

As regards cost ; the cost of running a horse in the UK is (at a minimum) 3-4 thousand pound a year or 5 to 6 thousand dollars.
That excludes tack and any vet fees.
I`ve excluded the cost of competing .

People pay that happily because they enjoy what they do.

For every well heeled owner there are those on min wage and some are on welfare.

A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.

I`m actually more curious as to why that should be so.
Because I can't throw a saddle on my Leica?

Comparing my Leica to a horse makes as much sense as comparing it to my cats.

Comparing it to a Rolex watch is probably a bit more appropriate. If I spend the money for a Rolex and it keels over in 3 or 4 years then I believe I am entitled to feel cheated.

I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.

I am not rich, but for me it is not the money. I am spending that money for the reputation of robustness and longevity. I own an M3. I own an M-A. I own an M9. If Leica stays true to its heritage I should not have to replace any of them.

EDIT - Unless of course they are stolen or damaged beyond any hope of repair.
__________________
"Your 1st 10,000 Photographs Are Your Worst"
HCBresson

"My 2nd 10,000 Are Not A Lot Better"
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #87
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
A horse doesn`t last a lifetime and indeed can keel over in an instant yet I never hear the complaints about cost that I hear expressed in these threads.
A lot of people complain about those costs. Mostly parents whose kids want a horse or at least to compete.

Horse meat is cheaper than beef, though.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #88
:: Mark
Registered User
 
:: Mark is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 133
The price/performance/reliability for Leica is definitely not good compared to other contemporary cameras (and I do not see the point of inflation calculations - what matters is what alternatives are available today).

However, what is alienating to me is Leica's fixation on dubious special editions.

Leica's focus appears to be on fashionable repackaging of old or third party (Panasonic) technology in fancy boxes. This takes resource that could be used to improve functionality and reliability. I don't mean fancy video modes, but basic things such as the ability to re-calibrate the rangefinder without a service trip and providing a built-in diopter correction for the viewfinder (even my 35 year old Minolta XDs has this).

It is one thing to use an old quirky system, but if I am going to spend a lot of money on a new camera I want to put it in to a system where the manufacturer is focussed on making better cameras and lenses, and not distracted by 6-monthly releases of crocodile skinned pre-distressed fashion statements.
__________________
Mark
PhotoBlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #89
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is online now
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Because I can't throw a saddle on my Leica?

Comparing my Leica to a horse makes as much sense as comparing it to my cats.

Comparing it to a Rolex watch is probably a bit more appropriate. If I spend the money for a Rolex and it keels over in 3 or 4 years then I believe I am entitled to feel cheated.

I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.

I am not rich, but for me it is not the money. I am spending that money for the reputation of robustness and longevity. I own an M3. I own an M-A. I own an M9. If Leica stays true to its heritage I should not have to replace any of them.

EDIT - Unless of course they are stolen or damaged beyond any hope of repair.

Yes ... agreed.
Perhaps not the best analogy .

Thinking about what you said I guess that the difference is that , I have never really bought into the longevity argument completely (if at all).

It was not a factor in my decision to buy the brand .

My only Leicas are a 1955 M3 and a 1960 M2.
Its remarkable that they are still ticking along after all this time but there is no expectation on my part that they will last for another fifty years.

They may well do but that`s not something I consider.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #90
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
I do feel the same about Leica because they have encouraged me to feel that way. Now I could care less that a Nikon digital dies in 4 years, but my Leica digital is built of stiffer stuff, or at least it should be. It should at least be repairable.

I know this seems a bit OT but this, in my mind, is what will end up alienating Leica photographers. I know that this opinion is not real popular, but if Leica begins treating their digital cameras as disposable electronic goods then they will end up losing their customers to other brands. Not immediately, but when it happens it will happen quickly.
Sadly I do believe Leica encouraged people to believe that by some mysterious magic they could ignore the reality of technology, and their Leica digital cameras would never become antique technology.

Fully digital equipment does not all wear out, in fact the fewer mechanical parts, the longer it may last. I have owned four iPhones, 3 iPods, none wore out. My original iPod from 2001 still works, it only has two moving parts. That digital Nikon you don't care about may last 30 years or more.

I have (until recently) owned Apple, SGI, and NeXT computers from the 80's, they all worked perfectly until I sold them all in 2003, when I moved my studio. Functioned exactly the same as the day they were new. But frankly compared to the newest Apple offerings they are ridiculously slow, and most were B&W, no color.

Leica may choose not to treat their cameras as disposable, but they will absolutely be eclipsed. Only the user can decide when they are "obsolete."

The computer that Berners-Lee at CERN used to "invent the internet" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpT3VVJbolM

Apple computer from 1976: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKiMPCRILpc
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2015   #91
David Murphy
Registered User
 
David Murphy's Avatar
 
David Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Age: 60
Posts: 2,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonatto View Post
I was thinking today about the prices of Leica bodies and lenses today, and the amount of alternatives available that, when pixel comes to pixel, deliver the image.

In 1969, an M4 with a 35mm and 50mm sum micron set would set you back about $700. In today's dollars, about $4600.

The modern equivalent will cost you just under $12.000 at Adorama.

Leica relies today on a heritage built by working photographers of all different walks in order to sell what can only be understood as luxury products.

In doing so, I wonder if they've not completely alienated a generation of photographers who now turn to alternatives?
Interesting point, but I don't think Leica either alienated or particularly pleased any professional photographers then or now - maybe some amateurs. The de facto standard professional 35mm camera in 1969 was not the Leica M4, but the Nikon F (typically equipped with an eyelevel unmetered prism). A few less healed pros made do with Nikkormats or Pentax's. Most amateurs then wanted the F too (and many had to settle for a Nikkormat, which is why it was invented).

I don't know who the typical Leica buyer was in 1969, but I imagine he was typically a very well off person with very good taste - and perhaps even a decent photographer, but unlikely a working professional.
__________________
Canon L1, Leotax S, Bessa R2C, Konica Autoreflex T, Canon FX, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F, Exakta VX, Miranda Automex II, Leotax K3, Yashica Mat LM, Leotax S, Pen FT, Rollei 35S, Ricoh Singlex TLS

http://legacycamera.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #92
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
. . . Let's not try to reason a simple opinion into extremes to prove its right or wrong, it's really not worth it. No need to declare absolute truths here, IMHO.
The question, as phrased, was "Has Leica alienated photographers", not "Has Leica alienated you personally."

As lss put it, "Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?"

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #93
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
Just to be clear: a Leica these days being unnecessary for anything else than showing off alongside a fountain pen or to sell expensive workshops with mostly applies just to yourself then?
Hi,

To be fair/logical you'll have to specify the make and model of the fountain pen. Then we could compare it with a make and model(s) of Leica.

Point being we all know about Leicas as sold these days but the term "fountain pen" covers a multitude of sins; some cheap and practical and some not so cheap. As for the alternatives to fountain pens they are often dear and often don't always work straight away the second time you pick them up...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #94
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,188
What other company has had the balls to produce a camera that costs close to ten grand and only shoots black and white!

Just sayin' .........
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #95
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
Why insulting? Wired just agreed with what everyone was saying, they were not in the least an original source.

We all got our information, and mis-information, from the press and interviews which to this day, seem self-serving on both sides. No way to know where the truth lies, and to top it off Lee never went to court.

This 2008 Wall Street Journal article has always seemed the most balanced to me. But it too, is not nuanced. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122152...9231?mg=id-wsj

Why Lee was there at all, is the same question Steve Jobs must have wondered about John Scully.
Hmmmm, interesting, I wonder what his opinion of the Leica/Panasonic versions was... It really wound me up.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #96
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
Leica may choose not to treat their cameras as disposable, but they will absolutely be eclipsed. Only the user can decide when they are "obsolete."
Truth in this for many things...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #97
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
 
Tompas's Avatar
 
Tompas is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ostfriesland - Northwestern Germany
Posts: 496
Leica hasn't alienated me -- on the contrary, how cool is a company that makes digital cameras that only do B/W or have no LCD screen?

They cost more than I am willing to spend on any camera, but that's my attitude and not their fault.
__________________
-- Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #98
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
 
rogazilla is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: RTP, NC
Posts: 66
If we are talking about M mount Rangefinders, it is really a choice. as mentioned by many, photographers left RF to SLR back in the days. We see to some degrees DSLR users are moving to mirrorless today. Not sure Leica alienated them but rather photographers pick a different tools.

I swear by OVF but don't deny EVF where I can see the result without having to 'imagine it'. Call it lazy but it is effective. The current generation that grow up using cellphones will probably find EVF even more at home and who knows if they will do away with VF in the next 10/20 years when they are able to show on the back LCD in full color even in strong sun light.

back on topic, how many film rangefinder leica sells annually back in say 70's versus the digital ones they sell today? I think that will paint a better picture on whether they alienated anyone.

As far as price people out, that is subjective to individual. Leica has always been expensive, I don't think that's news. For some of my friend who gets a new cell phone every 6 months or someone who gets a new iphone every year, over the course of 6 years they could have bought a m9 or 2? But they dont think chasing that new cell phone tech is expensive... Or my friend who's into cars who buy and sell on craiglist then put work and money into parts, easily spend enough to buy a few M bodies and several lenses.

Like many have said, they all take pictures and you pick the camera you want to use and pay the price you think is fair for the tool. No point in criticize other people's choice or even justify your tool of choice versus theirs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #99
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUJ View Post
Certain types of professional photographers have moved away from SLR cameras during the last few years.

John
Practically all ....
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #100
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
I always thought it was partly\mostly intentional of Leica to alienate people so as to keep up the appearance and brand recognition of being a "luxury camera" with "exclusive clientele". Whatever that means. Maybe Lenny Kravitz or Brad Pitt can fill us in

That aside, I really dont care about any of that, nor even really the image quality (good or bad), and old tech. To me, growing up with other film rangefinders (yashica gsn, various medium formats, etc) and very recently getting back into photography with the digital "rangefinder" fuji's, did nothing more than reaffirm all I wanted was a real rangefinder.

Like any camera, the 240 has its quirks and shortcomings, but it certainly is a very fun and engaging camera to use, for me. When I go out for "results" shooting under pressure, such as going on a big trip with a tight schedule, I'll generally grab the fujis because of the WYSIWYG of the EVF's and generally faster operation, but when I go out to just enjoy the physical act of photography, there's no question in what I take. That's not to say I can't get results with the Leica, it just saves me a few seconds when I hit the play button on the back, change a setting I have assigned to a function key, or when I need to keep things lightweight.

Any digi camera will have a shortened lifespan compared to a film camera, and I really dont think that's a totally fair comparison. However, of all the companies\cameras out there, I might have the most confidence in being able to get a totally new sensor installed in my M240, in 15 years, than anything else out there. Granted it has had its share of issues, but it does sound like there will be a good amount of support for the M9 sensor for a digital camera thats now already 6+ years old. I really cant think of too many other things in the electronics\computing\hardware side of things that has that sort of support, certainly not even Apple feels the same way about their things.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #101
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
....

With Macs to be more limited in terms of use.
Quite true if, and only if, one is seriously involved in computer gaming.

Otherwise this is an out-of-date conclusion.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #102
mlu19
Registered User
 
mlu19 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
+1 pechelman

Let's hope Leica would never start selling at Walmart.com like today's Apple. Leica is a status symbol to me, in history and now. We buy into the brand.

I'm still waiting for OP to define his term of 'photographers'.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #103
lucasjld
Registered User
 
lucasjld is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Age: 25
Posts: 44
I do find alienating the other Leica cameras though, those compact rebranded cameras or Leica M special editions.

What the hell is Leica M Kravitz? Or that Panasonic stuff? Just like Hasselblad.

Also, comparing to a Rolex? It's "just" a watch.
Leica went digital. And in the digital world of photography, every year we have new ISO performance, megapixels, "backlight" stuff, processing etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #104
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 2,973
Leica can do whatever they feel is right for them and so can I. I don't see the problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #105
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 472
Wait until you see rappers hangin Leicas around their necks in their videos...
Then you are really gonna see the prices skyrocket...hahaha!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #106
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
My belgium relatives have some Apple Pro Station. Huge price tag and it was needed for work. They are using it as only home PC now and I never seen video so good from Web camera as from their Mac on Skype connection to Canada. It is kind of luxury to use professional computer for home needs.

Mac laptops seems to be luxury comparing to regular laptops. With Macs to be more limited in terms of use.

Leica rebranded Panasonic cameras seems to be in luxury category.
RF aren't, because where is no other digital and film (soon) RF in-production cameras on the market.
That old Mac Pro is much slower than a new, inexpensive iMac. Things change fast. You have just not seen fast video on a 5k iMac.

You might be right about the PC laptop, the Mac only does not run old-fashioned inventory programs (used by small grocery stores and the like), many large businesses now have modern apps running on Apple iPads. Although a lot of those older PC apps, even at mom and pop stores are now on Windows tablets.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #107
Hsg
who dares wins
 
Hsg is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
My belgium relatives have some Apple Pro Station. Huge price tag and it was needed for work. They are using it as only home PC now and I never seen video so good from Web camera as from their Mac on Skype connection to Canada. It is kind of luxury to use professional computer for home needs.

Mac laptops seems to be luxury comparing to regular laptops. With Macs to be more limited in terms of use.

Leica rebranded Panasonic cameras seems to be in luxury category.
RF aren't, because where is no other digital and film (soon) RF in-production cameras on the market.
Quote:
Apple Watch Edition effectively is a $10000+ wrist computer.
The hardware inside a digital Leica camera and the software running it are the same as any other digital camera, the only difference is the outer shell.

Is the outer shell in a Leica really worth that extra money?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #108
rogazilla
Level 2 Newb
 
rogazilla is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: RTP, NC
Posts: 66
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsg View Post
The hardware inside a digital Leica camera and the software running it are the same as any other digital camera, the only difference is the outer shell.

Is the outer shell in a Leica really worth that extra money?
That's like saying the hardware inside a VW diesel and the software running it are the same as any other cars, the only difference is the outer shell.

Is the VW outer shell really worth that extra money?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #109
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 651
In terms of the M platform, they're pretty much the only game in town, so they can almost operate how they like.
Although I'm curious to know what impact the Sony's have had.

But the M's aren't the only cameras they make, and with the other stuff, they do actually have to compete, and I don't really think they do. The Medium format stuff is being hassled by the likes of Pentax, and the Q (the only one I'm really interested in) comes in a couple of years after Sony's full frame compacts, and after the 28mm fanatics have bought Ricoh GRs (I know there's a sensor size difference, but there's also a £3500 difference too).

The M's cater to a specific group of people who choose to work that way. The rest of their range has to stack up against the stuff that photographers use to get the job done, and I don't think they do, even if only in terms of price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #110
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,796
The regard for Leica M cameras among professionals is quite high at the moment.

It doesn't mean they are suited to every task.

But the money factor is a doorway to all sorts of bizarre takes. I am a member over at Mflenses. You should have seen the furor when I bought a 28 cron and showed it to them a few years ago. But the truth is gradually sinking in. They still hate the prices, but no longer deny the quality.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #111
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 348
As a hobbyist, my last new Leica camera purchase was in 1985 (M6 & 35 'cron v.4). Shortly thereafter, purchased a 90 Tele-Elmarit 'thin' at a local/regional department store with a photo dept. (crazy! I know) - the 90 was either $280 or $380. Since then, I've been retrograding: purchased used in mint condition - M2, Summaron, IIIf-RD, Summitar and various accessories, viewfinders. Couldn't be happier. Their new offerings are interesting but don't attract me much - but I wish them well.

They also make superb binos - glorious to look through. Purchased new in the '90's an 8x32 Trinovid and 10x25 BCA Trinovid. The 10's are great for concerts.

I still own all.
__________________
M6 Classic | 35 Summicron | 90 Tele-Elmarit | 135 Tele-Elmar
M2 | 35 Summaron-M
IIIf RD | 5cm Summitar/SBOOI
IIIf RDST/Leicavit | 5cm Collapsible Summicron/SBOOI
Rolleicord Vb (Type 2)
Argus C3 (brick)
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #112
David Murphy
Registered User
 
David Murphy's Avatar
 
David Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Age: 60
Posts: 2,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
What other company has had the balls to produce a camera that costs close to ten grand and only shoots black and white!

Just sayin' .........
...........LOL!
__________________
Canon L1, Leotax S, Bessa R2C, Konica Autoreflex T, Canon FX, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F, Exakta VX, Miranda Automex II, Leotax K3, Yashica Mat LM, Leotax S, Pen FT, Rollei 35S, Ricoh Singlex TLS

http://legacycamera.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #113
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,341
I no longer shoot with Leica M after moving from film to digital. Looking back, besides initial ridiculously high cost outlay, my biggest gripe was that they needed more frequent routine servicing than I ever had to do non-Leica cameras. Insult to injury! Besides the added expense, turnaround wasn't exactly quick given the relatively few service techs I would trust to do the job right the first time. To fair, I did find their early SLRs like the SL to be rugged and reliable requiring no more service than my Nikons.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2015   #114
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 348
Sorry, I just purchased this Crazy! I love their old stuff!!
__________________
M6 Classic | 35 Summicron | 90 Tele-Elmarit | 135 Tele-Elmar
M2 | 35 Summaron-M
IIIf RD | 5cm Summitar/SBOOI
IIIf RDST/Leicavit | 5cm Collapsible Summicron/SBOOI
Rolleicord Vb (Type 2)
Argus C3 (brick)
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2015   #115
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
According to any of several inflation calculators (google "What is the equivalent value of money today?"), something which cost $700 in 1968 should cost between $4800 and $12,000 today purely due to inflation, depending on which indices are used.

From that, it seems your example of an M4+35+50 lens equivalent costing about $12,000 is right in line with what it should cost, albeit at the high end of the scale.


Not much to complain about there... I remember clearly a Nikon F Photomic FTn selling for about $450-$500 in 1969, which seemed fabulously expensive then, and Leica M and 'Flex cameras being the next tier up price-wise. My brother's new Datsun 510 in 1970 was purchased for $930 out the door.

Today's prices are on a different scale. So are today's incomes, thankfully.

G
It's all relevant - everything costs more these days. Why? the value of the dollar is in the toilet. Compare the price of a gallon of gasoline in 1967 to 2015. Like everything else, gasoline is a commodity; its price is an indicator of the relative value of the dollar (or whatever national currency you are looking at).

Regarding those who rage against Leica because of the cost of M lenses and bodies - do they rage against Ferrari because Ferrari automobiles are not being sold at the same price as Toyota Corollas?
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2015   #116
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisycheese View Post
It's all relevant - everything costs more these days. Why? the value of the dollar is in the toilet. Compare the price of a gallon of gasoline in 1967 to 2015. Like everything else, gasoline is a commodity; its price is an indicator of the relative value of the dollar (or whatever national currency you are looking at).

Regarding those who rage against Leica because of the cost of M lenses and bodies - do they rage against Ferrari because Ferrari automobiles are not being sold at the same price as Toyota Corollas?
1967 was the height of the "gas wars" in the US, I bought gas as low as 19 cents that year in the midwest, but the published averages were under 50 cents until the Arab Oil Embargo raised prices to 55 cents. Oil was about $12 a barrel.

At today's price of about $2.30 per gallon it is currently a bargain, it really should be about 2.50
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2015   #117
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
1967 was the height of the "gas wars" in the US, I bought gas as low as 19 cents that year in the midwest, but the published averages were under 50 cents until the Arab Oil Embargo raised prices to 55 cents. Oil was about $12 a barrel.

At today's price of about $2.30 per gallon it is currently a bargain, it really should be about 2.50
I thought the Arab Oil Embargo was in 1974-1976.

The current low price of oil is due to the oil producers/vendors manipulating the market to keep industry hooked on using their products. They're scared ****less that solar and other power sources will obviate their existence, something that I cannot be more delighted by.

As a global civilization we need power, but we need to obtain it without the toxicity and detrimental effects of oil. Keeping the price of oil artificially low has constrained research money for the development of alternative power sources for decades.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2015   #118
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I thought the Arab Oil Embargo was in 1974-1976...

G
It was, but prices remained steady from 67 or so until rising 10 years later.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2015   #119
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,388
I've had two Leicas, the last one for 52 years. But I have to agree with the OP, I see something similar that happened in the US about 10-15 years ago. Then every upwardly mobile male bought a Harley-Davidson Motorcycle. I think that is the market now for Leica.

Recently, I had my IIIf at a car show and a guy with a digital Leica asked, 'What kind of camera is that?' My camera even had a Leica lens cap????????????????
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2015   #120
gilgsn
Registered User
 
gilgsn's Avatar
 
gilgsn is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sarasota Florida
Age: 49
Posts: 193
Hello,

I owned an M4-P, M2 and IIIc.. Great cameras, and pretty cheap used.. Even had a Summilux 35mm Pre-Asph, which I stupidly sold. Nothing beats a film Leica IMHO. I will get another M2 as soon as I will be in a position to easily develop film again.

The digital models, no way. The prices are way too high compared to the competition. There is the problem of long term reliability as well. You can almost always fix a film Leica. Parts availability for digital models is a problem. Is your camera sensor going to be available in ten years? Would the camera last that long anyway?
There are a numbers of cameras on the market today that are as good or better than a Leica, and you can even use Leica lenses on some with an adapter. Sure, you won't get the rangefinder, so what? EVFs are so good now, it hardly matters. Yes, I would prefer a Leica, but at four times the price? No. As to the new non-rangefinder Leicas, I'd rather get a Panasonic, thank you. The former are no more than overpriced consumer models.

Alienated? By the digital models, yes. Maybe in the sense that I would probably not (never say never) buy a new digital Leica. A used film M though, hell yes!

When is someone going to invent a thin 35mm sensor and data storage system that fits in a film cartridge?

Gil.
__________________
Lumix GM5.
I dearly miss my M2!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gilgsn/
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.