!Nomad64 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #41 Posted February 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I believe that Leica is quite well known, if nothing for historical/mythological reasons. Have you noticed that they run very little advertising? Ferrari, car makers extraordinnaire run no advertising at all... Personally speaking I was well aware of the brand since I was 15, as although I had "only" a Canon LTM the books on which I studied technique were Leica-centric. "The Leica way" by Andrew Matheson, for instance. Or an edition of 1955 of the Photography Annual. But I had to wait until I was 28 to afford my first Leica, a 2nd hand R5 which was stolen 7 years later. And I had to wait for another 10 years before I resolved to buy my 2nd hand M8. To be sincere, if someone had ever told me in my youth that one day I'd plunge 8k€ on a camera and 3 lenses I'd have told he was nuts... Cheers Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Hi !Nomad64, Take a look here Members' ages. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JeTexas Posted February 23, 2011 Share #42 Posted February 23, 2011 !Nomad64, Genova is much closer to Germany than Oklahoma where I grew up. Leica is not a well-known brand by those in the U.S. aside from those in the industry. In fact, in the movie Eurotrip, one of the actors carries around a Leica M6. When I showed my younger brother my Leica a few months ago, his comment was, "I thought they just made that camera up for the movie!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMacD Posted February 23, 2011 Share #43 Posted February 23, 2011 Demographics of forum Leica owners match with owners of Harley Davidson motor cycles. Both expensive versus competition, with cult like following. Recent difference is Harley sales declined when required financing dried up during the downturn. Leica with new products has taken off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 23, 2011 Share #44 Posted February 23, 2011 Personally I would not want to be seen dead on a Harley Davidson, maybe a ca. 1950 model with no superfluous chrome parts - if forced - would be OK(ish). Most of my motorbiking friends (in the same average demographics) are into Honda Fireblades, Aprillia's, BMW and/or like me Ducati 916 and 'higher'. But to each their own. New statistics 52.04+-11.97, we got very slightly younger:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted February 23, 2011 Share #45 Posted February 23, 2011 The interpretation of the result is difficult. To me it confirms that pros are not widely using Leicas anymore (but we knew that before). Maybe de distribution among the different age brackets is not because of affordability. Maybe it's simply that photography as a hobby is rather picked up at a "more advanced age"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiILX1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #46 Posted February 23, 2011 This is very interesting. The big question in my mind is whether or not the under 30s can't afford a Leica or if they just don't know about Leica. Looking at my own experience, even working in media and being on the cutting edge of technology, Leica never hit my radar until age 30. That tells me, Leica marketing isn't even attempting to appeal to the younger demographics. Of course, the question then arises, could I have been able to afford a Leica even had I been aware of them? That's hard to say. I sacked away pennies for months to finally buy my first digital camera in 2001, which was the FujiFilm FinePix f4700 zoom (Fuji FinePix 4700 Digital Camera Review: Intro and Highlights). It cost me almost $800 at the time, and I had no clue that Leica was distributing a rebranded version of their own because there's very few camera stores in the U.S. that even bother to carry Leica. If something like the X1 had been available at the time, there's a good chance I would have saved up for it, but the M8 was still a few years away and had I even known of the film M cameras, they would have still been out of reach considering I was paying around $6 for a roll of film and $6 for developing costs several times a week, and the reimbursement checks for those were always incredibly slow in coming. Also, at the time I was always chasing the "do-it-all" gadget. That line of Fujis had built-in audio recording -- great for interviews. They could do short video clips for the web site (although most people were still on dial-up at the time and barely had the bandwidth to watch a video). They also doubled as web cams for video chatting when plugged into the computer. It wasn't until much later that I realized a dedicated device for each worked far better than one Frankenstein mashup of a camera. Leica probably has it right, though. You spend your 20s and 30s learning to shoot on cheap cameras. Then you buy a Leica once you're able to appreciate the image quality. I'm a 26 year old grad student and indeed, I saved up for the X1. Very happy with my purchase. Seeing how my images compare with my canon and nikon friends who carry such big equipment, I'm infected with the Leica brand image. Cool to see a couple 80-89 elders using the internet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted February 23, 2011 Share #47 Posted February 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Demographics of forum Leica owners match with owners of Harley Davidson motor cycles. Both expensive versus competition, with cult like following. Recent difference is Harley sales declined when required financing dried up during the downturn. Leica with new products has taken off. There is strongly growing demand for Leica products in Asia (particularly China). The Harley markets were more North America and Europe, both of which with economies still struggling. This might explain some of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 23, 2011 Share #48 Posted February 23, 2011 Interesting... the skew has changed just in the past 5 hours... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted February 23, 2011 Share #49 Posted February 23, 2011 I am in the 60/69 line, being 62. But sometimes I feel 99 and sometimes I feel 19... robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 23, 2011 Share #50 Posted February 23, 2011 The next question (and we don't need a poll to notice this trend) is why there is such a giant skew towards males in the forum. I know there have to be just as many female photographers out there. Why don't they use Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiILX1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #51 Posted February 23, 2011 Hahahahaha I think we all know the answer. And that answer could be used for whichever turned out to be true: 1) More men use Leica or 2) It's the same but more men post on the Leica forum... I'm of course not suggesting it's any one of us... just an explanation for the number differential in general Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 23, 2011 Share #52 Posted February 23, 2011 Right, but I'm looking for the underlying cause of why more men use Leica. What makes a 40-something-year-old man who enjoys photography finally buy a Leica whereas a 40-something woman will choose a Canon or Nikon? Maybe it's comparable to the mid-life crisis convertible purchase? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiILX1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #53 Posted February 23, 2011 It's just speculation, but I think you may be onto something haha. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christakis Posted February 23, 2011 Share #54 Posted February 23, 2011 I'm 25 on Friday. My friends think I'm crazy for buying a Leica. They couldn't justify paying so much for a camera yet, I did. Alright, I wont be buying another one for years to come but I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Of course priorities are important. I couldn't buy it before buying a very nice engagement ring for my (now) fiancee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 23, 2011 Share #55 Posted February 23, 2011 I'm wondering if this poll might indicate that one must be basically 40 y.o. to afford a Leica... I hope to join within the year, though ! Magic coincidence (and we are both Italians...) : from your name.. looks you are born in 1974... the year I touched for the first time a Leica (an old IIIb) !! and bought my first one in 1983 (a very used IIIc)... I am of 1956... should I had not been content with a used... I'd probably had to wait ten years... reaching your present age... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 23, 2011 Share #56 Posted February 23, 2011 Interesting... the skew has changed just in the past 5 hours... Regards, Bill ... and I feel someway disturbed to see my decade (50-59) overtaken by the younger one... :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 23, 2011 Share #57 Posted February 23, 2011 And who's younger than ten? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiILX1 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #58 Posted February 23, 2011 X1s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted February 23, 2011 Share #59 Posted February 23, 2011 Now I see why the forum has labeled many members here as "Erfahrener Benutzer" and why many people here refer to me as "Kind". Are you the one who's ticked the 0-9 box? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el fotografo Posted February 23, 2011 Share #60 Posted February 23, 2011 It is refreshing to hear your insight and opinion. I also have a L-flex and F3HP that I bought as a present to myself when I finished grad school. I'm in the middle of the survey range and occasionally see younger people with M cameras in NYC. I think the concept of multitasking that is so prevalent especially among younger people can be translated to the idea of using digital bodies, adapters, legacy lenses and several software programs to create a visual image. (the digital mash-up) I work in a design field and many of the recent graduates in my office are extremely facile in using several programs to generate an single idea. The approach of using a decades old Leica with all its quarks- film, processing, no meter, not instantaneous, single focal length lenses- must appear so foreign and unpredictable to younger folks, if they know about them at all. The upside is there are fewer people to compete with in online auctions! That, or they don't know how to find good Leica bargains. An M1 or a Ig is just as much a Leica as a IIIf RD ST or a MP (both incarnations). Also, even if a body can be acquired inexpensively, the issue then becomes the lenses. College kids don't usually think "all that partying could have bought me a nice user M4 or M6 with a summarit" but rather "how much zoom extension does my vario-elmar get when i have an R-mount that wants it". I'm 25, so my perspective may be a bit skewed, but I see a lot of my peers (college-aged students) who have become so subservient to the automation a digital camera provides that the presence of either of my film SLRs (the Flex or the F3HP) causes head-turning of various degrees. Those on here who shoot exclusively Ms or LTMs or Rs may have experienced this when someone college-aged or younger sees them studiously setting aperture, exposure length and film speed by hand for each roll / shot (applicable setting for applicable photographic event). To these students (most of whom aren't art majors, or set foot in a photo class where there is more emphasis on the subject than load / shoot / develop), this whole perspective seems antiquated when they can pull out a tiny-sensor'd camera, shoot, and put up their debaucheries on facebook for all to see. Perhaps then, I'm 25 physically but a bit closer to those in their 40s and 50s from a photographic perspective. I've been shooting film since I was 3 or 4 (started on a basic point and shoot), got my first SLR at the age of 9 (a K1000), and developing since 10 or 11. The digital camera I have is my first and I didn't acquire it until June 2010, and that was because my girlfriend felt that digital was far superior to film (i've since reformed that somewhat with my ADOX CMS 20 shots ). Feeling a solid mass that you know has decades of stories, and decades more to write, the overall solidity and the authoritative "kathunk", combined with being the artist through setting the aforementioned aspects of the shot, and even being able to pick how you want your picture to look within an ISO (grainy, smooth, classic, modern, etc.) are all things missing out in the younger group's idea of "photography". Photography is the objective form of painting, you're still the artist, but your easel and canvas freeze the moment rather than you freezing it. - Me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.