Old 08-19-2019   #81
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Leica M is now about the same price, Maybe a little more. So does that make Leica M now a bargain compared to the Nicanons?
I would say that those high end canon / Nikon film mechanical cameras were a lot closer to a film M than the latest high end digital counterparts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #82
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Leica M is now about the same price, Maybe a little more. So does that make Leica M now a bargain compared to the Nicanons?
Not really. You are comparing the Leica M with the most expensive Canikon, not the technically comparable, like the $1500 Nikon D750. I think you are better off sticking with your argument that, regardless of cost, the Leica M fits your vision and the way you work.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #83
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I have said this before; Leica Ms have always been expensive. When I bought my Canon F-1s (I still have 3 of them and they still work) IIRC Leica M at the time cost twice as much as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. Leica M is now about the same price, Maybe a little more. So does that make Leica M now a bargain compared to the Nicanons?
Leicas have always have been expensive, but they were the same price as comparable equipment.

The original price of a Canon F-1 was 78,000 yen body only, which was about $289.50 in 1972 ($1,776.97 adjusted for inflation).

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film78.html
http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-c.../Canon_F1.html

The Leica M4's original price was $288 ($1,767.76).

https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...prices.221733/

I think one of these days I'll have to make a chart of Leica M prices compared to other cameras to show how their prices diverged over time. That'd be interesting!
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #84
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 8,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
OTOH, building cameras and lenses that last for decades with only a minimal amount of attention etc is not exactly taking advantage of their customers.

I've had my CL for decades and still use it, other cameras (SLR's) have been and gone...

Regards, David
Yes, my Zorki 4K has been excellent.
So has my Minolta SR1s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #85
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 8,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I have said this before; Leica Ms have always been expensive. When I bought my Canon F-1s (I still have 3 of them and they still work) IIRC Leica M at the time cost twice as much as the top of the line Canons and Nikons. Leica M is now about the same price, Maybe a little more. So does that make Leica M now a bargain compared to the Nicanons?
I think that makes the Nicanons a bargain, and the Leica still very expensive.
How much is a Nikon F-1 worth now? $150? How much is a Leica M4? $1000?

What this tells you is the smart thing to do is buy used.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #86
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,032
I have only bought used Leica cameras so far. You get around the inflated new prices. M3, M6, M8, M9, IIIf, Standard.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #87
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Not really. You are comparing the Leica M with the most expensive Canikon, not the technically comparable, like the $1500 Nikon D750. I think you are better off sticking with your argument that, regardless of cost, the Leica M fits your vision and the way you work.
No because technology doesn't = better. Top of the line would be just as fair a comparison now as it was in the late 1970s. I would argue that the Canon F-1 or the Nikon F-3 are far superior cameras to what Nicanon produce today and were less than half the price of Leica M at that time. I had DSLRs for a decade and hated all the crap that was on them. Complicated menus and stuff that has nothing to do with making good photographs and more to do with having the latest and SO CALLED greatest.

I also owned Hasselblad 500 C/Ms and they were a lot more expensive than top of the line SLRs and most other medium format systems at the time.

This technology further separates the photographer from the process thus making it easier for someone without technical skills to make technically average photographs under average conditions. Many good photographers do not want to be separated and still want the control. We should all be glad there is still an option like that available.

All that stuff on my so called advanced DSLRs got in the way of me creating. The camera companies like car companies have convinced the public that the more stuff on a camera, like a car, the better value it now becomes. And because of new technology changing if you don't stay on the gadget go round you are somehow less or have become out dated and need to upgrade ever year or two. This is in Nicanons best interest to see folks upgrading ever two or three years. With the way cameras have been for the last 5 or so years they are all perfect capable.

As Ernst Haas once said " The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."

And a great quote by Edward Weston and is jsut as true today as it was when he said it well over 60 years ago. "The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."

All the digital cameras around now and ones that have been around for a few years now are all perfectly capable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #88
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I think that makes the Nicanons a bargain, and the Leica still very expensive.
How much is a Nikon F-1 worth now? $150? How much is a Leica M4? $1000?

What this tells you is the smart thing to do is buy used.
If I still had a darkroom I would still have a 500 C/M and I still have my Canon F-1s. I would probably pick up an M 3 but my I don't have a darkroom anymore and my clients all moved me into digital in 2005. I am fortunate that my work pays for any equipment I need. Price, of course, is always a concern but I have moved from DSLRs to all Leica digital M and did so a few years ago with absolutely no regrets. Finding equipment that works for me is, in my opinion, priceless. Well maybe one regret that I couldn't go Leica M digital when I first went digital. Leica didn't make a full frame digital camera at the time. In fact they didn't have a digital camera at the time IIRC.

For my business, write offs, insurance, and reliability used wouldn't be so smart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #89
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
Leicas have always have been expensive, but they were the same price as comparable equipment.

The original price of a Canon F-1 was 78,000 yen body only, which was about $289.50 in 1972 ($1,776.97 adjusted for inflation).

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film78.html
http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-c.../Canon_F1.html

The Leica M4's original price was $288 ($1,767.76).

https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...prices.221733/

I think one of these days I'll have to make a chart of Leica M prices compared to other cameras to show how their prices diverged over time. That'd be interesting!

When I bought my New F-1s in 1982 they were $525 a piece, The price of a Leica M4P IIRC was around $1000. I remember the price being about double because I was actually thinking about buying one.

In the late 1970s I paid almost $500 for the old F-1.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #90
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I think that makes the Nicanons a bargain, and the Leica still very expensive.
How much is a Nikon F-1 worth now? $150? How much is a Leica M4? $1000?

What this tells you is the smart thing to do is buy used.
What would have been the better investment? A new Canon New F-1 cost $525 in 1982 and sells today for maybe $250 in mint condition. What does a good condition M4P go for now? Probably more than what you originally paid for it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #91
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
What would have been the better investment? A new Canon New F-1 cost $525 in 1982 and sells today for maybe $250 in mint condition. What does a good condition M4P go for now? Probably more than what you originally paid for it.
Both are equally good if you have been out there making photographs with them for almost 40 years. What else could give you that enjoyment at such a great price for that extended period of time? And in your case, you could have made money with both of them too!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #92
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 8,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
What would have been the better investment? A new Canon New F-1 cost $525 in 1982 and sells today for maybe $250 in mint condition. What does a good condition M4P go for now? Probably more than what you originally paid for it.

Let's do some math using an inflation calculator:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

A Canon F1 that cost $525 in 1982 would be the equivalent of $1400 today.
It is worth $250 today so 'you' have lost $1150.

A Leica M4P that cost $1000 in 1982 would be the equivalent of $2659 today.
It is worth $1000 today so 'you' would have lost $1659.

You would be ahead by $500 with the Canon.

Interestingly a Leica M-A today (the closest equivalent to the M4P) is $4700. Which is $2000 more than the adjusted for inflation price of the M4P.
Which circles back to the original topic.

p.s. I have the M-A and it is wonderful. But I bought it used!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #93
NaChase
Registered User
 
NaChase's Avatar
 
NaChase is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Alamo, CA
Age: 31
Posts: 513
A Leica M lens or body, much like a Rolex or Ferrari, is a Veblen good, which helps explain the price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
__________________
Nick

RF Cameras: Leica M2, Leica M3, Leica M5, Leica M6, Mamiya 7II,
RF Lenses:
75mm Summilux, 50mm DR Summicron, 50mm "Millennium" Nikkor, 35mm Zeiss Distagon 1.4, 35mm 2.8 Summaron, Mamiya 43mm, Mamiya 80mm, Mamiya 150mm


http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is...ong_live_film/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #94
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Not saying that the M-A isn't wonderful. But the M 10 is also wonderful. Back to the original topic Leica doesn't take any more avantage than say Canon or Nikon that have new technology and only release it in bits and pieces every few years to keep the masses buying the latest. That could be said of any of the camera makers. It's business. The key is to find when that technology fits ones needs. Buy and then don't worry about what model has this or faster that. Because you will never catch up. My F-1 is worth half now of what I paid.. Most mint M4Ps are going for a bit more than a grand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2019   #95
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
.. Most mint M4Ps are going for a bit more than a grand.

Then I bought mine at just the right time, before the prices started going back up.


I got my first Nikon back in '73, and remember looking at the Leica's. Seeing as it took a sacrifice of almost a full month of wages to buy the Nikon (Nikkormat FTN with 50/1.4), there was no way I could have gotten an M at that time. Maybe a beat up old Leica II. But I was switching from rangefinders to SLRs anyway.


They are still expensive cameras, unless you can justify the price by using them commercially. That's why I don't think I'll be able to get an M10 unless I hit the lottery, because I'm getting to that age where dropping a few grand on a camera puts a real hurting on my budget. Yes, I have thought about getting something different, but as far as I'm concerned it took Leica a long time to really make a decent digital M, which is embodied in the 10 series. Who knows, maybe I can trade all my other stuff for one.


PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #96
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 439
its called marketing.
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #97
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Both are equally good if you have been out there making photographs with them for almost 40 years. What else could give you that enjoyment at such a great price for that extended period of time? And in your case, you could have made money with both of them too!
Love my F-1s. They are tanks for sure. As much as I love the old F-1 my fav is the F-1 new. Had and still have some great old glass to. I had an 85 1.2 Aspherical (chrome mount) and still have a 55 1.2 aspherical (chrome mount) with the gold coating. Those are wonderful lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #98
Guth
Observational Documenter
 
Guth is offline
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
The camera companies like car companies have convinced the public that the more stuff on a camera, like a car, the better value it now becomes. And because of new technology changing if you don't stay on the gadget go round you are somehow less or have become out dated and need to upgrade ever year or two. This is in Nicanons best interest to see folks upgrading ever two or three years. With the way cameras have been for the last 5 or so years they are all perfect capable.
I don't think that it took any convincing on the part of manufacturers in either industry. When it comes to technology-laden cameras and cars they are simply giving the consumers what they want. In other words, I believe that a majority of people want both their cameras and their cars to do as much of the thinking for them as possible. There are seemingly very few people these days who are interested in fully immersing themselves in the process of operating a camera or driving a car. If more people truly wanted cameras that provided them with full manual input then manufacturers would be stepping up to meet that demand. On the flip-side just think about how few people are still interested interest in driving cars featuring manual transmissions these days. (There aren't all that many.)

As far as the original question goes, I would only take issue with the wording. I would not say that Leica is taking advantage of M users. But I would say that Leica is capitalizing on the fact that they have become an iconic lifestyle brand catering primarily to the wealthy. Given that the Leica brand is epitomized by their M cameras it is not exactly surprising that they are charging a king's ransom for M system gear. That people are willing to pay what they do for M gear in particular (or Leica products in general) these days says more about the people themselves than it does about Leica and what they might be charging in my opinion. Obviously not all Leica users are wealthy. Those who are struggling with current Leica pricing are basically caught in the undertow of Leica's branding success. But as no one is being forced to buy this gear it is hard to think of it as being taken advantage of.
__________________
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #99
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I had DSLRs for a decade and hated all the crap that was on them. Complicated menus and stuff that has nothing to do with making good photographs and more to do with having the latest and SO CALLED greatest.

I suppose it depends on what you use the cameras for. It probably amuses (or horrifies!) the good folks at Nikanon, but I tend to shoot my DSLRs like unmetered manual cameras. Just like my Nikon S2. Sure, there's a nice built-in meter with several metering patterns, many different focusing options, all sorts of flash options, etc, etc but I rarely use any of those. Oh, there's also video mode and (maybe?) GPS and wifi connectivity. I'm not sure if those are even there, but I don't use them anyway. Its easy to ignore all the features I don't use, and they don't get in my way.

I use the menu to check my battery levels.... And to dim the monitor if I'm shooting at night. But just now it occured to me I could probably do the latter via the custom "Fn" button and thus skip the menu entirely. But for the whole rest of the menu? Very rare I need anything in there.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #100
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
I am certainly not wealthy and other photographers that are my friends that are also Leica owners are also not wealthy. Most are like me, working pros. They, like me, use Leica M as tools. I don't hear folks say that about the top of the line Nikons and Canons which are in the same price range and in my opinion have way to many bells and whistles and are heavy bricks. After a full day of a couple of those over your shoulders (voice of experience) you will wonder what the heck you are doing.

Being that photography is my living and does support the family and has since the mid 1980s I have always put money in the tools I need to do my job. In film days I owned several 500 C/Ms as well as Canon 35mm. (F-1s). Again Leica M has ALWAYS been expensive. If you don't buy all the stuff you might be surprised at what you can afford. I know if I had all the money I spent over the years settling I could have bought what i finally ended up with many times over.

So I guess in my case and many other photographers that choose Leica M you could say that we are working pros that Leica M is the preferred tool. They fit the way we see and work.

I paid for my latest M 10 $5800 from Popflash. New in box with full warranty. IDX Mark II at B&H $5500. Nikon 5D DSLR $5996.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #101
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
I suppose it depends on what you use the cameras for. It probably amuses (or horrifies!) the good folks at Nikanon, but I tend to shoot my DSLRs like unmetered manual cameras. Just like my Nikon S2. Sure, there's a nice built-in meter with several metering patterns, many different focusing options, all sorts of flash options, etc, etc but I rarely use any of those. Oh, there's also video mode and (maybe?) GPS and wifi connectivity. I'm not sure if those are even there, but I don't use them anyway. Its easy to ignore all the features I don't use, and they don't get in my way.

I use the menu to check my battery levels.... And to dim the monitor if I'm shooting at night. But just now it occured to me I could probably do the latter via the custom "Fn" button and thus skip the menu entirely. But for the whole rest of the menu? Very rare I need anything in there.
I find it nice to not have it all to begin with. I have had it both ways and by far prefer the way I have it now. Nice to have a real choice other than the one size fits all world that is everywhere out there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #102
chipgreenberg
Registered User
 
chipgreenberg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 145
I think they do take advantage. Of course there are other options out there for you now.

I have a pair of Leica Ultravid binoculars. They are comparably priced, actually a bit less expensive than the the Zeiss and Swarovski competition.

A Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 is half the price. Yes it has a different design factor. It's big. But it's an optically state of the art, manual focus lens from a premium German optical company build to last generations also. And the Milvus is $1000
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #103
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
No because technology doesn't = better....
This technology further separates the photographer from the process thus making it easier for someone without technical skills to make technically average photographs under average conditions....
All that stuff on my so called advanced DSLRs got in the way of me creating.
Please explain how technology "gets in the way". I've heard this said many times. Please give examples. I genuinely want to understand this mindset. It comes up over and over.

You have PSAM modes. Set to "A". You have control over aperture. You roll a command wheel on your thumb. The aperture appears in the viewfinder. You don't even have to look at the lense. Shutter automatically adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.

Same with "S" except "A" adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.

Want to go full manual? S and A? Set to "M". Nothing gets in the way.

Just want to focus on composition? Set to "P". Really nothing gets in the way.

Want to go slow and methodical? Set shutter to "S" (single frame). Want to shoot continuous frames? Set to "C" (continuous).

You can set-up a modern DSLR, mirrorless, what have you any way you want and leave it alone. I have heard this "all this dang tech gets in the way...".

What I have never heard is "how" it "gets in the way"... As I see it, these features are "there" -- use what you want. Don't use what you don't want. You can it up any way you want, and leave it be. Some make it sounds as if you're perennially fiddling with dials.

You don't.

Or you can -- if you want.

I'd rather have these choices/features than not.

I'd counter that lack of technology "gets in the way". I like seeing the aperture in the viewfinder over having to take my eye away to set it. I like choosing variable ISO (or not) instead of being limited to whatever ISO is on the box. I like being able to quickly switch between the varios modes. All of which can be done in an instant. I like having additiona modes that I don't use often or at all but are there if I want them. I like, with the flick of a dial shooting single or continuous frames. I like not having to look at an external light meter and taking my eye off the VF and fiddling with the lens barrel to set aperture. I like autofocus but having the option of shutting it off and focusing manually if I want.

I like slapping a (now) inexpensive radio flash control on the hot shoe, setting the flash to TTL mode, shooting in "M", setting up the flash on a table on a little stand, bouncing it off the wall, and shoot at any aperture/shutter combo and let the flash do the rest in terms of lighting. This tech opens doors for more creativity, as but one example. It eliminates fighting the photons and being forced to shoot wide open or with slow shutter speeds indoors.

All of which lends itself to more creativity. More options = more creative possibilities.

Or? Don't futz with it. Set-up your camera and don't use any of it.

I've used (most of my life) straight manual cameras from SLRs, to rangefinders, to folders that didn't have light meters. I have used modern D/SLRS with many bells and whistles -- it's not that I haven't used all of them and have no basis for comparison. I simply don't understand this "gets in the way" mindset when I have the option of not using any of them in a modern DSLR, setting up the camera as I wish, and never touching another dial or setting if I so choose.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #104
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guth View Post
As far as the original question goes, I would only take issue with the wording. I would not say that Leica is taking advantage of M users. But I would say that Leica is capitalizing on the fact that they have become an iconic lifestyle brand catering primarily to the wealthy. Given that the Leica brand is epitomized by their M cameras it is not exactly surprising that they are charging a king's ransom for M system gear. That people are willing to pay what they do for M gear in particular (or Leica products in general) these days says more about the people themselves than it does about Leica and what they might be charging in my opinion. Obviously not all Leica users are wealthy. Those who are struggling with current Leica pricing are basically caught in the undertow of Leica's branding success. But as no one is being forced to buy this gear it is hard to think of it as being taken advantage of.
This is the sore point of Leicaís reorientation into a Veblen good. The companyís legacy to the history of documentary photography and photojournalism, to photographers and viewers who were interested in and committed to important issues, has been used to do a 180 to market themselves to the most unpopulist, exploitative upper class of a century. Iím too young to feel the full force of this transformation, and I guess they didnít have much of a choice to do otherwise in order to stay in business a decade ago, but it still kind of sucks to have seen part of it.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #105
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Please explain how technology "gets in the way". I've heard this said many times. Please give examples. I genuinely want to understand this mindset. It comes up over and over.
Some people just have to futz with menus if they are there. They can't control themselves. So they buy cameras without menus to compensate for their lack of self control. It is the same nonsense as saying using film slows them down so they can concentrate on making images. They are incapable of controlling themselves with digital options. I have a blender with ten speeds. I only use one. Some people would have to buy a more expensive one speed blender because they can't help themselves. And make up some rationale for why it is better. Or more virtuous. There are even some velben blenders.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #106
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Please explain how technology "gets in the way". I've heard this said many times. Please give examples. I genuinely want to understand this mindset. It comes up over and over.

You have PSAM modes. Set to "A". You have control over aperture. You roll a command wheel on your thumb. The aperture appears in the viewfinder. You don't even have to look at the lense. Shutter automatically adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.

Same with "S" except "A" adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.

Want to go full manual? S and A? Set to "M". Nothing gets in the way.

Just want to focus on composition? Set to "P". Really nothing gets in the way.

Want to go slow and methodical? Set shutter to "S" (single frame). Want to shoot continuous frames? Set to "C" (continuous).

You can set-up a modern DSLR, mirrorless, what have you any way you want and leave it alone. I have heard this "all this dang tech gets in the way...".

What I have never heard is "how" it "gets in the way"... As I see it, these features are "there" -- use what you want. Don't use what you don't want. You can it up any way you want, and leave it be. Some make it sounds as if you're perennially fiddling with dials.

You don't.

Or you can -- if you want.

I'd rather have these choices/features than not.

I'd counter that lack of technology "gets in the way". I like seeing the aperture in the viewfinder over having to take my eye away to set it. I like choosing variable ISO (or not) instead of being limited to whatever ISO is on the box. I like being able to quickly switch between the varios modes. All of which can be done in an instant. I like having additiona modes that I don't use often or at all but are there if I want them. I like, with the flick of a dial shooting single or continuous frames. I like not having to look at an external light meter and taking my eye off the VF and fiddling with the lens barrel to set aperture. I like autofocus but having the option of shutting it off and focusing manually if I want.

I like slapping a (now) inexpensive radio flash control on the hot shoe, setting the flash to TTL mode, shooting in "M", setting up the flash on a table on a little stand, bouncing it off the wall, and shoot at any aperture/shutter combo and let the flash do the rest in terms of lighting. This tech opens doors for more creativity, as but one example. It eliminates fighting the photons and being forced to shoot wide open or with slow shutter speeds indoors.

All of which lends itself to more creativity. More options = more creative possibilities.

Or? Don't futz with it. Set-up your camera and don't use any of it.

I've used (most of my life) straight manual cameras from SLRs, to rangefinders, to folders that didn't have light meters. I have used modern D/SLRS with many bells and whistles -- it's not that I haven't used all of them and have no basis for comparison. I simply don't understand this "gets in the way" mindset when I have the option of not using any of them in a modern DSLR, setting up the camera as I wish, and never touching another dial or setting if I so choose.
Some people just like things to be basic. To be clean, to be designed perfectly. Some people like a Swiss Army knife approach. There is nothing wrong with liking one more than the other. We don’t all photograph the same things the same way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #107
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Some people just have to futz with menus if they are there. They can't control themselves. So they buy cameras without menus to compensate for their lack of self control. It is the same nonsense as saying using film slows them down so they can concentrate on making images. They are incapable of controlling themselves with digital options. I have a blender with ten speeds. I only use one. Some people would have to buy a more expensive one speed blender because they can't help themselves. And make up some rationale for why it is better. Or more virtuous.
I`ve often suspected that to be the case .
Like Nick I use cameras without any meters and I also use a Sony A7R2 .
The Sony just gives me many more options and is thus more versatile .
If I choose to avail myself of those options .
The key word being "if".
The blender analogy is spot on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #108
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Some people just like things to be basic. To be clean, to be designed perfectly. Some people like a Swiss Army knife approach. There is nothing wrong with liking one more than the other. We donít all photograph the same things the same way.
Here's where I think that's wrong. A Swiss army knife does a lot of things crappy. It has a spoon but it's a crappy spoon that's not as good as a single purpose spoon. But SAK spoon gets the job done.

A camera with many functions does all those functions well. I reiterate. You can put it on Aperture priority (or what have you), charge the battery and go. Ignore the other buttons.

That's as clean as it gets.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #109
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Some people just have to futz with menus if they are there. They can't control themselves. So they buy cameras without menus to compensate for their lack of self control. It is the same nonsense as saying using film slows them down so they can concentrate on making images. They are incapable of controlling themselves with digital options. I have a blender with ten speeds. I only use one. Some people would have to buy a more expensive one speed blender because they can't help themselves. And make up some rationale for why it is better. Or more virtuous. There are even some velben blenders.
Proving my point. I have yet to hear a valid, specific/granular, rational explanation or example how how/why a modern electronic camera with many features/functions "gets in the way" or "stifles creativity".

Bolderdash -- the lot of it. You're not being forced to use them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #110
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
I love it when others try to convince others that they are wrong in their choices. I would never try to convince someone else that their choice of tool is wrong for them. I have been shooting all manual for over 4 decades. It is second nature to me. And rangefinders like Leica M are intuitive to the way I see and work. It is that simple. I hated the decade I shot with the over bloated DSLRs that sell themselves as making the process easier(for most that is true) when in fact they get in the way for someone like me. The last thing I want to do is think about what i am doing with the camera when i am working. So balderdash to some is real to others. And I am not using them. Just clearly stating why I choose what I choose.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #111
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Here's where I think that's wrong. A Swiss army knife does a lot of things crappy. It has a spoon but it's a crappy spoon that's not as good as a single purpose spoon. But SAK spoon gets the job done.

A camera with many functions does all those functions well. I reiterate. You can put it on Aperture priority (or what have you), charge the battery and go. Ignore the other buttons.

That's as clean as it gets.
And here is the difference between you and I. I don't want the meter making any exposure decisions for me. The meter sees the world as 18% gray. Rarely what you meter is that. I use the information the meter gives to make my own decisions. And those decisions are usually more based on experience. If what you do works for you great. You have a mountain of those options out there. Nice for photographers like me and others like me to be able to have a different choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #112
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Proving my point. I have yet to hear a valid, specific/granular, rational explanation or example how how/why a modern electronic camera with many features/functions "gets in the way" or "stifles creativity".
Nick, even if it is in someone`s head, it is real to them. Some just do not like superfluous modes when there are models that are exactly like they like.

I use a Sony A7R II sometimes ... it is the craziest thing when it comes to all it offers...it`s way too much. I deal with it, but think it is ridiculous. I do like it though. However, I prefer my Fujis because they are simpler.

We don`t all like the same equipment for the same reasons. Why does anyone have to provide a reason to why they prefer something some certain way other than they just feel comfortable with it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #113
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is online now
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,646
If technology 'gets in the way' then that's the user's problem and not the device's. Nick is correct in my opinion ... it's the mindset that's at fault!

I'm all for simplicity but I can take as good a pic with my D4 as I can with my M240 ... either camera pleases me.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #114
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
If technology 'gets in the way' then that's the user's problem and not the device's. Nick is correct in my opinion ... it's the mindset that's at fault!

I'm all for simplicity but I can take as good a pic with my D4 as I can with my M240 ... either camera pleases me.
I've been supporting my family using all kinds of equipment over the years and always exceeded my clients expectations. I can shoot and have shot with everything from an 8X10 Deardorff to auto everything DSLRs, point and shoots and iPhones. It gets down to preference and what works more naturally with the way I see. I prefer what I am now using over all the other digital options.

Others may like auto everything and for them there are a lot of options. I don't like those options and it is good to have a real choice. The M 240 has to much stuff for my liking, thats why I bought the M 262 instead. Love how simple they left the M 10. They are tools to me and these are the tools I prefer period.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #115
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
If technology 'gets in the way' then that's the user's problem and not the device's. Nick is correct in my opinion ... it's the mindset that's at fault!

I'm all for simplicity but I can take as good a pic with my D4 as I can with my M240 ... either camera pleases me.
I'm with both of you too... I use both simple and complex cameras. However, do not tell you do not have a preference. All preferences are in the mind or as you guys say the user's problem. Why is it a problem though? Everyone has a favorite when they love something enough to be on the forum daily. There is nothing wrong with preferring a simple, stripped-down device even if it is just because it gels with you. I think that is what people are trying to say when they say something gets in the way.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #116
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 124
Why should anyone have to prove to anyone else what is ultimately just personal preference. And yet, here I am. I’m clearly with airfrogusmc on this, and if someone wants to judge my supposed lack of self-control, fine, I would rather be stuck with my personal and ultimately benign idiosyncrasies.

There’s nearly eight billion folks on the planet; shockingly, they’re going to like to do things differently. And given that we aren’t all preprogrammed automatons (not yet), a pure logical reason might not necessarily exist to validate our actions, wants, needs, and desires, no matter how silly, irrational, whimsical, and comical they might seem.

If someone likes the color red but not blue, they like the color red but not blue.

But we actually get this: “You like red but not blue, balderdash! You can’t! There’s no tenable argument or cogent reason why you should like the color red but not blue! For the love of all Gods, your mindset must be at fault. You’re intellectually defective! You should be deported you unsatisfactory scum!”

If someone wants to make such a humble and open-minded assertion, that’s their prerogative, but it’s not really germane to relevancy, now is it? And I actually like the color blue; don’t know why, just do.

Intangibles exists, mysteries exists; it makes things a bit more lively and spontaneous.

I use a Leica M2 and one lens; it’s not to boast about how better I am that I don’t need auto-this or that; it’s simply a clutter averse configuration that I personally enjoy irrespective of any other people’s druthers.

If this bothers someone to the point where they feel justified to make presumptuous quips, then maybe I’m not the only one who suffers from some type of unrestrained compulsion.

For me, as an example, video on a still camera is like a festering glob of odious gangrene—to me! And that’s my opinion; it’s not debatable. For most photographers, video’s inclusion is perhaps nothing short of a godsend, and it’s a requirement if a camera company wants to survive…I get it. That’s fine. It’s called choice. This isn’t a cheerleading contest; there’s room for all!

Look at it this way (back to colors). If you have a car, think about it painted in a color that you despise. Well, then just ignore the paint job; the car performs the same…it gets you to A and B just as well as that other car in your favorite color. Maybe you can, in fact, ignore this; your enviable willpower places you firmly in the homo superior taxonomy. But for many of the little people, ignoring is not always so easy. “But this is not the same! It’s not analogous!” Yeah, actually it is. Ignoring is an action; it’s a verb.

Some people enjoy simplicity in overall design, there’s an attractive elegance that also enhance functionality—for that particular person!!! And golly, I don’t think that this approach is all that radical. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not acquiescing on my appreciation of choice, however nonsensical others apparently find it.

Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this further, because again, it’s a completely subjective issue.

I’m out.
__________________
Smugmug Site

RFF, the best joint to get your fill of rangefinder bashing!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #117
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I'm with both of you too... I use both simple and complex cameras. However, do not tell you do not have a preference. All preferences are in the mind or as you guys say the user's problem. Why is it a problem though? Everyone has a favorite when they love something enough to be on the forum daily. There is nothing wrong with preferring a simple, stripped-down device even if it is just because it gels with you. I think that is what people are trying to say when they say something gets in the way.
Exactly! I also shot with two digital systems for a few years. I shot with Canon and Leica. Sold all the Canon digital equipment and went all Leica M a few years back. Doesn't mean the equipment is bad. Doesn't mean that I think Canon is bad or Nikon is bad of Fuji is bad. It just means that I prefer Leica M and not because I am a dentist or I am a snob or I'm a poser as has been implied in this thread or I can't shoot with other equipment because I can and I have done it very well. I prefer a simple approach and for me Leica M rangefinders are cameras that get out of the way and just let me create. That doesn't mean for the decade I shot with digital Canons before I switch to Leica I wasn't able to make good photographs. I just never liked the shooting experience with those cameras.

In the film days I shot with more than two systems. My favorite by far was my 500 C/Ms. I also shot with Nikon F3s, large format and as I already stated still have my Canon F-1s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2019   #118
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post
Why should anyone have to prove to anyone else what is ultimately just personal preference. And yet, here I am. I’m clearly with airfrogusmc on this, and if someone wants to judge my supposed lack of self-control, fine, I would rather be stuck with my personal and ultimately benign idiosyncrasies.

There’s nearly eight billion folks on the planet; shockingly, they’re going to like to do things differently. And given that we aren’t all preprogrammed automatons (not yet), a pure logical reason might not necessarily exist to validate our actions, wants, needs, and desires, no matter how silly, irrational, whimsical, and comical they might seem.

If someone likes the color red but not blue, they like the color red but not blue.

But we actually get this: “You like red but not blue, balderdash! You can’t! There’s no tenable argument or cogent reason why you should like the color red but not blue! For the love of all Gods, your mindset must be at fault. You’re intellectually defective! You should be deported you unsatisfactory scum!”

If someone wants to make such a humble and open-minded assertion, that’s their prerogative, but it’s not really germane to relevancy, now is it? And I actually like the color blue; don’t know why, just do.

Intangibles exists, mysteries exists; it makes things a bit more lively and spontaneous.

I use a Leica M2 and one lens; it’s not to boast about how better I am that I don’t need auto-this or that; it’s simply a clutter averse configuration that I personally enjoy irrespective of any other people’s druthers.

If this bothers someone to the point where they feel justified to make presumptuous quips, then maybe I’m not the only one who suffers from some type of unrestrained compulsion.

For me, as an example, video on a still camera is like a festering glob of odious gangrene—to me! And that’s my opinion; it’s not debatable. For most photographers, video’s inclusion is perhaps nothing short of a godsend, and it’s a requirement if a camera company wants to survive…I get it. That’s fine. It’s called choice. This isn’t a cheerleading contest; there’s room for all!

Look at it this way (back to colors). If you have a car, think about it painted in a color that you despise. Well, then just ignore the paint job; the car performs the same…it gets you to A and B just as well as that other car in your favorite color. Maybe you can, in fact, ignore this; your enviable willpower places you firmly in the homo superior taxonomy. But for many of the little people, ignoring is not always so easy. “But this is not the same! It’s not analogous!” Yeah, actually it is. Ignoring is an action; it’s a verb.

Some people enjoy simplicity in overall design, there’s an attractive elegance that also enhance functionality—for that particular person!!! And golly, I don’t think that this approach is all that radical. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not acquiescing on my appreciation of choice, however nonsensical others apparently find it.

Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this further, because again, it’s a completely subjective issue.

I’m out.
I agree and nice to have choices sjones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2019   #119
Guth
Observational Documenter
 
Guth is offline
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 200
I did not think that the topic of this thread was about personal preferences so much as it was about the pricing structure of Leica's M system cameras (I'm not even touching upon the prices for Leica lenses). Whether or not some professional photographers prefer the straightforward design of the cameras within the M platform doesn't change the fact that Leica primarily markets to and is dependent upon the wealthy for their well being.

While some people might not like the bells and whistles appearing on the state-of-the-art cameras from the likes of Canon and Nikon, for others they are likely a godsend. I imagine that those photographers focused on subjects like sports photography or nature photography for example have much different needs than someone using a rangefinder camera and those bells and whistles likely make quite a difference when it comes to the images they are able to capture. The ability to shoot 14 fps is bound to yield different results than 5 fps. Different tasks require different tools.

The R&D costs for developing all those bells and whistles surely adds up. Take away a number of those features, decrease the sheer performance metrics,etc. and you have a camera that is less expensive to produce. Yet Leica is still charging two arms and two legs for their digital M's. When I look at what is inside of the M10 for example, the only logic that makes sense to me when it comes to the pricing structure of the digital M's is the velben reference made elsewhere in this thread. Those who are using these cameras as tools of their craft are the ones who I cited as being caught in the undertow. I don't interpret their choice to use these cameras as anything more than a personal preference. The right tool for the job so to speak. I doubt that any professional photographer would find these cameras any less desirable if Leica were to offer them at say half of the price they currently charge. However I don't believe the same to be true for a good percentage of Leica's customers these days. It is possible, maybe even likely that I'm missing something here. I'm open to learning more.
__________________
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2019   #120
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I love it when others try to convince others that they are wrong in their choices. I would never try to convince someone else that their choice of tool is wrong for them. I have been shooting all manual for over 4 decades. It is second nature to me. And rangefinders like Leica M are intuitive to the way I see and work. It is that simple. I hated the decade I shot with the over bloated DSLRs that sell themselves as making the process easier(for most that is true) when in fact they get in the way for someone like me. The last thing I want to do is think about what i am doing with the camera when i am working. So balderdash to some is real to others. And I am not using them. Just clearly stating why I choose what I choose.
Yet? We might tell someone they are wrong in their choices all the time.

Should I smoke? No. Bad choice.

Should I vote to re-elect a certain "person"? No. Bad choice. (Sorry.)

I am morbidly obese. That first gigantic banana split was delicious. Should I order a second? No. Bad choice.

This extends to tools as well.

Should I use the heel of my shoe to hammer in that nail? No. It would probably be a good idea to use that hammer over there.


Sure. I'll tell someone they're making a bad choice. I recon we all do from time to time -- no?

And here again.

There is nothing that gets in the way with modern photography equipment. I reiterate. You can disavail yourself of everything the camera has on offer and just shoot. I reiterate. I have yet to hear a reasonable, rationale account of how modern, many-featured DSLRs "get in the way" or "stifle creativity".

And, yes, it's as okay to make such a recommendation as it is to "suggest" any of the examples I've cited in the post. To do so is nothing personal. And as illustrated, we do this all the time.
  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 17:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.