The whoring of Leica

[johnastovall]

I can't believe Leica would allow it's name to be used on a cell phone. It's bad enough they put it on the Panasonic faux-Leica's but a cell phone is too much.

At least they aren't using HCB's name. A small blessing.

[nhabedi]

I don't think they were asked. I guess the name might not be properly trademarked in the US? (Note that the "Leica" suffix is only used in the US and only by T-Mobile.)

To those who don't know what this is about see here.

[andybarton]

There's already a thread about this in the digital section

Incredible balls by Samsung if the name isn't properly registered in the US. But, I can't see the name anywhere on the product in those shots linked via the two links above, or on the other thread.

[Leitzmac]

This is a concern...

Former Governor Spitzer, your new cell phone is ready...

[farnz]

If this is use of a registered trademark that's not sanctioned by Leica it seems foolish of Samsung. Otoh, it could be an effective vehicle for raising Leica's profile in the US, which would be good for Leica in the long run. As they say, there's no such thing as bad advertising.

Pete.

Well, its better to be known, than to be just good.

[likea]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I can't believe Leica would allow it's name to be used on a cell phone. It's bad enough they put it on the Panasonic faux-Leica's but a cell phone is too much.

At least they aren't using HCB's name. A small blessing.

And I can't believe people who can afford Leicas don't have a command of elementary school grammar. It's is an abbreviation for it is. The possessive form is its.

[bill]

Originally Posted by likea

And I can't believe people who can afford Leicas don't have a command of elementary school grammar. It's is an abbreviation for it is. The possessive form is its.

Whilst I cannot abide people who:

a) Indulge in meaningless pedantry on an international forum where English is not the first language for many,

and;

b) start a sentence with a conjunction.

Regards,

Bill

[jhluxton]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I can't believe Leica would allow it's name to be used on a cell phone. It's bad enough they put it on the Panasonic faux-Leica's but a cell phone is too much.

At least they aren't using HCB's name. A small blessing.

The phone doesn't have a Leica logo and the photo reveals the lens not even to be "Leica".

Perhaps some mistake?

Samsung used to own Rollei -perhaps they should have used that name?

John

[masjah]

Originally Posted by bill

Whilst I cannot abide people who:

a) Indulge in meaningless pedantry on an international forum where English is not the first language for many,

and;

b) start a sentence with a conjunction.

Regards,

Bill

Bill - though you don't mind using a "sentence" without a finite verb???

[Says Howarth, as pedantic as always!]

[bill]

Originally Posted by masjah

Bill - though you don't mind using a "sentence" without a finite verb???

[Says Howarth, as pedantic as always!]

I knew someone would pick it up

Regards,

Bill

[joewehry]

Ah, the old madonna-whore complex. A virginal brand with eyes only for us, untainted by the market... and, yet we want Leica to be financially successful so it can continue its legacy and innovations?

C'mon, it's the company with the red dot. Who wouldn't want Leica quality in a cell-phone lens? I'd be the first to get one.

More than saturation, I think what cheapens the brand is when "Leica photographers" present less than quality work. And I don't mean that as an unkind statement to those of us (myself included) who are learning the craft. Instead, it is a reminder to demand the best of ourselves and our images, from the point of exposure to print or electronic presentation.

A Leica does not make a photographer any more than a Mont Blanc makes one a writer. Putting a Leica lens in a cellphone does not cheapen the value of your camera or your photography. Only you can do that.

[earleygallery]

I don't see any reference to Leica as we know them - no logo, no script on the lens. What exactly is the 'Leica' connection here?

If we are going to start picking up every error in grammar/spelling then we'll be here all day and won't have any time to discuss photography related subjects - I wasn't aware that this forum was moderated by English language teachers, nor was I aware that creating a thread/response was meant to be a work of classical literature.

Gee wizz!

[bill]

Eye hav dun a google an fund owt vat this phone iz alsso nown az a "Bresson". Eye fink dat sum dipy Korean mark-it ing prson haz dun the dirtty...

Regrds,

Bil

[elansprint72]

Does it make clear, crisp phone calls? Do you need to fit filters to avoid purple prose?

[masjah]

Originally Posted by elansprint72

Does it make clear, crisp phone calls? Do you need to fit filters to avoid purple prose?

Nice one!

[rob_x2004]

Do you want a filter to cut out all the naughty bits?
The best mobile phone is still the one that is flat and in the glovebox, or lost and dead somewhere.
I was going to say the best one is "somelone elses" but that someone is likely to be gabbering away on the bloody thing like you are supposed to hear too.

[dkpeterborough]

"Wo'-ever!! ... Na' wo' ah meeeen ! Yeah! "

... Hmmmm! ... This is a photography discussion forum not an English grammar class.

INIT?

Cheers

dunk

[earleygallery]

Who's going to be dishing out the gold stars?