Old 05-09-2012   #81
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,910
Well, the debate goes on, doesn't it?

While following the wristwatch thread, I am salivating over the Omega watch and, of course, anything else in the mechanical watch world.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...47#post1875347

Then it struck me...the same Leica bashers have yet to turn on other luxury goods products such as Omega, BMW, Mercedes. It is definitely a functional luxury piece at a high price.

But then, the last I looked, Nikon has cameras priced about the same as Leica M bodies. And Hasselblad. Where are the blad bashers? Or Phase I? There are a lot of expensive photography items out there.

Face it folks, the argument about Leica and high prices isn't going away. This arguing is worse than the film v. digital crap.

If you don't like the prices, buy what YOU want. I am happy with with a 60-year old IIIF. I am elated owning a 50 year old M3. I do lust for an M9 but I am patient. May never own one but that is just life.

For those that CAN buy an M9, please do and like I said above, take care of it, as it may be MY camera one day.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #82
daveywaugh
Blah
 
daveywaugh's Avatar
 
daveywaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
Well, the debate goes on, doesn't it?
Thanks for putting some sanity (and perspective) back into the discussion Dave!
__________________
website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #83
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
The assertion, straight from the top, is that Leica won't make superb products at reasonable cost even in cases where it's technically feasible to do so.
Of course not. Why would they do so when it clearly conflicts with their mission and primary marketing concept? You appear to be indignant about the assertion you quote, although it's only an expression of a business model designed to preserve the most important asset Leica owns: its name.

Making "superb products at reasonable cost" is certainly not the objective of luxury goods producers.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #84
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
The assertion, straight from the top, is that Leica won't make superb products at reasonable cost even in cases where it's technically feasible to do so.
Bentley's superb products at reasonable "pre-owned" costs.

Nikon (synonym for "superb product") to reasonably increase their reasonable costs.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #85
jippiejee
Registered User
 
jippiejee's Avatar
 
jippiejee is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 711
I have this feeling Thorsten knows a lot more than he can disclose. But I think his hint that the M will be the basis for a future variety of different cameras including something 'CL-like' is interesting...
__________________
flickr
flickriver
---
Leica M4-P/M8/M9
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #86
Paul Luscher
Registered User
 
Paul Luscher is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 649
I admit I cringed when I saw the bit about Leica wanting to be known as a "luxury brand." That'll just add to the idea that people who buy and use Leicas do so for snob appeal and status displays. The old joke about Leicas being the toys of retired doctors.

Do think It's a shame Leica doesn't try to make a lower priced model, so that up and coming photogs could get into rangefinder photography (yeah, yeah, I know there's the Zeiss Ikon. But that ain't quite the same as a Leica). Seems a shame the M is often seen as the camera of the rich...and rich old geezers (hey, I'm one--at least as to the geezer part).

Have to see what the M10 offers. Price will be an object for me. M9 cost a bundle, and put a dent in my savings account. If the M10 gets to be $10K or more, well, I'll just hang on to the M9.

Re using film Leicas vs digital Leicas: No real difference in use, though obviously the digital has more features...and no film advance. M9, however, is slightly less aesthetically appealing than a film M, because it is somewhat fatter. There is something about the slim compactness of a film M, for lack of a better phrase, that makes it just right.

Only other thing to add is that Leica M9 gets flak because of its "lack of features," as opposed to a DSLR. But I think Leica knows that its customers want it that way, that they want a "hands-on" camera in which they're in control of setting up and getting the shot, rather than leaving everything to a bunch of integrated circuits. Kinda like the motorcycle racers I see on their stripped down,manual-everything bikes--the last thing they'd want is a loaded-up Honda Goldwing....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #87
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by jippiejee View Post
I have this feeling Thorsten knows a lot more than he can disclose. But I think his hint that the M will be the basis for a future variety of different cameras including something 'CL-like' is interesting...
yes. text seems carefully worded, and at parts a little repetitive. anyway, not a long wait anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #88
Ryan1938
Registered User
 
Ryan1938 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
Well, the debate goes on, doesn't it?

While following the wristwatch thread, I am salivating over the Omega watch and, of course, anything else in the mechanical watch world.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...47#post1875347

Then it struck me...the same Leica bashers have yet to turn on other luxury goods products such as Omega, BMW, Mercedes. It is definitely a functional luxury piece at a high price.

But then, the last I looked, Nikon has cameras priced about the same as Leica M bodies. And Hasselblad. Where are the blad bashers? Or Phase I? There are a lot of expensive photography items out there.

Face it folks, the argument about Leica and high prices isn't going away. This arguing is worse than the film v. digital crap.

If you don't like the prices, buy what YOU want. I am happy with with a 60-year old IIIF. I am elated owning a 50 year old M3. I do lust for an M9 but I am patient. May never own one but that is just life.

For those that CAN buy an M9, please do and like I said above, take care of it, as it may be MY camera one day.
I'm a watch guy too... I used to love Breitling watches and still have one. However, the brand took a major turn towards fashion in the past 20 years. What used to be a tool watch for pilots is now more of a fashion statement for rappers and style moguls. Huge pieces that place functionality second to style.

I'm now more into Sinn watches. A german company that is absolutely focused on function before anything else. And, of course, you pay for it...

I hope Leica isn't heading the way of Breitling. I don't mind the crazy prices if the focus remains on the simplicity and elegance of taking pictures with a hand made mechanical piece. If the M10 is essentially just an M9 with an upgraded sensor, I'd be happy.

I'd be even happier if they'd limit the number of different special editions and other shenanigans Leica has become famous for. I think it would actually be great for the company to focus on their glass, real production numbers, and a smaller line of digital bodies... Focus on photography, not style or fashion... but what do I know...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #89
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,910
Thanks for the Sinn watch reference...they look very nice!

I happened onto these recently and please, don't get started on watches!

http://www.botta-design.de/en/einzeigeruhr-uno-24.html
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #90
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
I don't think Leica has much of a choice. They're in a position similar to the mechanical watch industry, as others have mentioned.

Judging from old advertisements & price sheets dating back to 1920s, Leica always marketed itself to the wealthy, it's just that back in the days of mechanical cameras, all good cameras were expensive & 35mm was even more of luxury product (Zeiss Ikon Contax cameras, for example, were more expensive than Leica). With the advent of the SLR (easier to manufacture than RFs), electronics, etc., people now can get a good camera for much less money. So while Leicas, after adjusting for inflation, don't cost much more (if @ all) than they did in the past, the competition has gotten much cheaper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Luscher View Post
I admit I cringed when I saw the bit about Leica wanting to be known as a "luxury brand." That'll just add to the idea that people who buy and use Leicas do so for snob appeal and status displays. The old joke about Leicas being the toys of retired doctors.

Do think It's a shame Leica doesn't try to make a lower priced model, so that up and coming photogs could get into rangefinder photography (yeah, yeah, I know there's the Zeiss Ikon. But that ain't quite the same as a Leica). Seems a shame the M is often seen as the camera of the rich...and rich old geezers (hey, I'm one--at least as to the geezer part).

Have to see what the M10 offers. Price will be an object for me. M9 cost a bundle, and put a dent in my savings account. If the M10 gets to be $10K or more, well, I'll just hang on to the M9.

Re using film Leicas vs digital Leicas: No real difference in use, though obviously the digital has more features...and no film advance. M9, however, is slightly less aesthetically appealing than a film M, because it is somewhat fatter. There is something about the slim compactness of a film M, for lack of a better phrase, that makes it just right.

Only other thing to add is that Leica M9 gets flak because of its "lack of features," as opposed to a DSLR. But I think Leica knows that its customers want it that way, that they want a "hands-on" camera in which they're in control of setting up and getting the shot, rather than leaving everything to a bunch of integrated circuits. Kinda like the motorcycle racers I see on their stripped down,manual-everything bikes--the last thing they'd want is a loaded-up Honda Goldwing....
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #91
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,022
The envious discussion and bashing will never end. There are indeed lots of people who just buy a Leica because they want to show off that red dot. Leica welcomes their money, too.

Their small numbers (batch size) does not allow for competitive pricing. They are in a luxurious niche and have to try to survive. There are a lot of used lenses out there that can be used on a M9. My prime FD glass (1.2/85L) was last usable on my 2 T90's and that was that. New system, new lenses, sadly enough...

The first thing I did when I unpacked my (used) M9 was to tape over the dot with black tape. I put a Giotto screen protection (0.5mm Schott glass) over the screen and am a happy camper having saved $1000 for not buying a M9P. A grip, a thumbs up and a self made sling complete the set up - ahhh forgot that dark red Tom A. softie .

Going on and about a street music festival last weekend, no one but a professional photographer exhibiting prints for sale recognized that thing as a M. Lot's of folks out there lugging around big SLR's carrying them like a baby with two arms because they are too heavy for one hand. And of course almost all had there sunshade attached in reverse, not to increase the bulkiness of there camera and zoom combination even more.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #92
Paul Luscher
Registered User
 
Paul Luscher is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
The envious discussion and bashing will never end. There are indeed lots of people who just buy a Leica because they want to show off that red dot. Leica welcomes their money, too.

Their small numbers (batch size) does not allow for competitive pricing. They are in a luxurious niche and have to try to survive. There are a lot of used lenses out there that can be used on a M9. My prime FD glass (1.2/85L) was last usable on my 2 T90's and that was that. New system, new lenses, sadly enough...

The first thing I did when I unpacked my (used) M9 was to tape over the dot with black tape. I put a Giotto screen protection (0.5mm Schott glass) over the screen and am a happy camper having saved $1000 for not buying a M9P. A grip, a thumbs up and a self made sling complete the set up - ahhh forgot that dark red Tom A. softie .

Going on and about a street music festival last weekend, no one but a professional photographer exhibiting prints for sale recognized that thing as a M. Lot's of folks out there lugging around big SLR's carrying them like a baby with two arms because they are too heavy for one hand. And of course almost all had there sunshade attached in reverse, not to increase the bulkiness of there camera and zoom combination even more.

That's one of the funny things about a Leica. It's supposed to be a status object, but hardly anybody even notices it when you're using one. Took a filmer M out the other day, and nobody bothered to look-even when I was shooting up close. To most folks, it just looks like some kind of winky-dink "happy-snapper".

Hmmm...ya could argue the if you wanted an ostentatious status display and/or to impress people that you're a "serious photographer," you might do better to carry around a monstrous Canikon with a huge lens mounted on it.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #93
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,372
I was going to post a gnarly comment on the useless 'Leica-should' debate but then I remembered:


I don't care.
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #94
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzardkid View Post
I was going to post a gnarly comment on the useless 'Leica-should' debate but then I remembered:

I don't care.
Amen Brother!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #95
pieter
Registered User
 
pieter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Hmmm have to say this article by Thorsten Overgaard managed to bring out the worst of what Leica is and stands for. It almost makes me wish they didn't make such amazing camera's.
Thankfully I also know of that other side of Leica, that of pure joy of photography unhindered by silly in camera gadgets. That side that speaks to my adventurous and rebel heart. But I have to admit that there is also that luxury brand side of the Leica story. That side that seems to love its own pompous glory and seems proud of the fact that it would never release a "cheap" camera that everybody could afford. As if that's something I would be afraid of.

Sadly that might well be the fear of many Leica owners: a world where everybody would have a Leica. Oh the horror. Thankfully that will never happen, or so Leica seems to reassure us. Thankfully Leica is mostly unknown to the world. Only a select few of illuminati will know what that camera is, that is hanging around your neck.

Ah well, I guess if Leica needs to be a luxury fashion company in order to be able to keep making the most amazing and daring cameras in the world, then so be it, and more power to them.
__________________
pronkphoto.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #96
davidtan
Registered User
 
davidtan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Age: 30
Posts: 74
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.

I'd love to have a Leica, but I can't reason why I'd spend that much to have one. I suspect that this state of mind is shared among some naysayers of the brand. It's a normal reaction though; an item being expensive can be counted as a fault. But a high price can also be a plus; Leica can probably be considered a Veblen good in that it's pricetag signals it's perceived quality. What helps Leica in fostering this consumer mindset is that it's one-of-a-kind; there are no other M-mount full-frame digital rangefinders. It's flagship camera benefits from that mystique of the rangefinder style, the professional standard of the full-frame sensor and it's compatibility with a legacy of lenses.

Suppose Cosina Voigtlander makes an M-mount full-frame digital rangefinder. How would Leica, and the rangefinder community, react?
__________________
dtanlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #97
hausen
Registered User
 
hausen is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 910
Dave I can understand your lust for Omega, my Seamaster Planet Ocean Chrono leaves home most days with me and my M9. Am a sucker for the luxury brands
__________________
David
Auckland, NZ

Far too many cameras & lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #98
Araakii
Registered User
 
Araakii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
Suppose Cosina Voigtlander makes an M-mount full-frame digital rangefinder. How would Leica, and the rangefinder community, react?
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.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #99
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,022
As for a little diversity from the dry discussion, a shot taken on my first nigth out with the new toy and it's only from the jpg file, obviously far below the limits and downsized for posting to ...you know.
But anyway :
Attached Images
File Type: jpg GM&CW.jpg (44.3 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2012   #100
davidtan
Registered User
 
davidtan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Age: 30
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Araakii View Post
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.
__________________
dtanlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #101
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
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.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #102
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
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.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #103
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
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.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram

Last edited by furcafe : 05-10-2012 at 06:51. Reason: Correction
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #104
BobYIL
Registered User
 
BobYIL's Avatar
 
BobYIL is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
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! )
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #105
davidtan
Registered User
 
davidtan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Age: 30
Posts: 74
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?
__________________
dtanlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #106
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #107
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,910
While waiting...check out this podcast:

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


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #108
ramosa
B&W
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobin View Post
He is like a knowledgeable and skilled Ken Rockwell.
Best quote of the day. No question.
__________________
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Leica MM1, Cron 35, Cron 50mm
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #109
Araakii
Registered User
 
Araakii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post

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.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #110
davidtan
Registered User
 
davidtan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Age: 30
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Araakii View Post
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値l say it plainly again, as I致e said it plainly before: Leica doesn稚 need to change anything if they don稚 want to. I知 not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn稚 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稚 pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can稚 dare question the order of things and ask 展hy??
__________________
dtanlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #111
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
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/

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
I値l say it plainly again, as I致e said it plainly before: Leica doesn稚 need to change anything if they don稚 want to. I知 not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn稚 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稚 pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can稚 dare question the order of things and ask 展hy??
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #112
Araakii
Registered User
 
Araakii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
I値l say it plainly again, as I致e said it plainly before: Leica doesn稚 need to change anything if they don稚 want to. I知 not entitled to buying a cheap Leica, just as much as Leica isn稚 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稚 pretend to accept everything at face-value.

Leica is expensive; I can稚 dare question the order of things and ask 展hy??
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.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #113
davidtan
Registered User
 
davidtan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York, NY
Age: 30
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by furcafe View Post
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痴 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葉o the off-putting of outsiders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Araakii View Post
There are enough wal-marts and canon in this world.
Snob effect like that.
__________________
dtanlog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #114
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 4,310
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidtan View Post
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.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-10-2012   #115
Hoool
Registered User
 
Hoool is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...9c8o2_1280.png
__________________
M9, M6 TTL, 50lux, 35lux FLE, 28elmarit
________________________________

http://paweldziurka.tumblr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2012   #116
albygentle
Registered User
 
albygentle is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Araakii View Post
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.
  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 15:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.