EJohnE Posted February 24, 2011 Share #61 Posted February 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Cool to see a couple 80-89 elders using the internet! Patronising young pup! It is a pity Leitz chose the name Leica instead of Leika which is rather ugly, but people who think Leica is "Leesa" or "Lisa" might then recognise the existence of such a "quant relic" of a forgotten or never known past. Who has pinched my Dufaycolor? Geriatric, grizzling John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Hi EJohnE, Take a look here Members' ages. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ganzosrevenge Posted February 24, 2011 Share #62 Posted February 24, 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! The MP and M3 are my dream cameras (moreso an M3), though at some point I would love to own a screwmount as well. As I've said about the reliability and solidity of these cameras, I also think that it is the automation that has - to some extent - taken away from the ability to learn to "paint by light" if you will. If we look at what was built in the screwmounts, the M-series, the 'Flexes, and the Rs, it wasn't intended to be a technological whiz-bang a la the Japanese (the Flexes are famous for being "slow" to evolve, basically rangefinders in an SLR format), there was a belief that "this product" is the ultimate of the ultimate. In light of a photo world where it's known that evolution will render today's S2 or M8 / M9 or DMR or any digital for that matter, obsolete... the manual nature of an old film camera is a simpler, more didactic machine that teaches you exposure, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, compensation, etc. It's exactly this reason that when arts programs cancel classes such as painting, photography (analog), etc. in favor of graphics design, photoshop, digital photography, that I get the feeling that the photography shared by those such as adams, avedon, cartier-bresson, etc., where an image is painted by light and AgX crystals (and maybe some dyes), a person selects what he / she wants as the favored topic of that image, etc., that I feel more than a little upset at what my demographic desires. Digital when it's completely automated feels impatient, sure we can set quasi-ISO and quasi-aperture, but where's the enjoyment of the setup for the moment, learning not only the fact that increasing ISO increases noise, but WHY, the peculiarities of films through the decades (ie: why in the 1950s 25 speed was low-grain, but because of advances in technologies, 100 and 200 speed can now give much the same grainlessness), the learning HOW to develop, etc. Any digital camera can simulate a grain-structure through pixels and "noise", but they get moire usually from the arbitrary straightness of the pixels. a Tri-X @ 400 shot is going to look noticeably grainier than a T-Max at 400, not because of ISO, but because of the inherent grain structure, something that pixels can't simulate (true grain structure of silver halide crystals strewn about). What good is knowing how to pixelate or mosaic in photoshop when a 20-something cannot explain how a photo goes from a moment to a light and chemical multi-part reaction to an enlargement on silver media? It is because of this that to me, regardless of brand (nikon, leica, canon FD / FL, etc.) that it's key that we teach not only ourselves, but those who come after us how these machines work. As painters clamored that the advent of photography reduced the value of portraiture and nature-recording as an art, why is there not the same clamoring over the advent of a medium that reduces further the value of perspective, composition, etc., from hands to a computer? (NB: i know that with DSLRs manual control can be turned on, but realistically, how many keep it on all the time?) Is it because the rest of our society has become automated as well? Microwaves, e-mail, pre-packaged foods, etc., as much as automation has improved our lives, the film camera has become akin to the vintage car that we display, or perhaps take out for a sunday drive, but we find too old to use daily; when the truth is, that an old-fashioned film camera has lasted decades, is considered the pinnacle of craftsmanship of its time (the Leicaflex and the M-series and the Fs of Nikon), and who's to say that what isn't honed in a manual fashion can't be used to improve our photos in the digital realm? Photoshop? Long live film, may it be shot until the last emulsion, hide, and silver conglomerate is developed and the dev / stop / fix / hypo baths go dry. Jason (25, film lover, and PROUD) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted February 24, 2011 Share #63 Posted February 24, 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? That’s a very interesting question. I have no idea what the answer is but I do know that Leica itself used to make assumptions about who their customers were. Here’s an example from my M4 instruction book which dates from the end of the sixties (not 1860s, as you might suppose). After welcoming me to Leica ownership it continues with a paragraph starting: “As a LEICA man you have the benefit of a universal photographic system . . . .” Forty years isn’t long enough for assumptions like that to have disappeared completely, even if they are less likely to be expressed in public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share #64 Posted February 24, 2011 Because men tend to post on Internet forums more than women. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #65 Posted February 24, 2011 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. There's still hope for the future then... Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sprow Posted February 25, 2011 Share #66 Posted February 25, 2011 Old enough to know better but too young to resist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stanjan0 Posted February 27, 2011 Share #67 Posted February 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I started this photographic journey 79 years ago on 2-20-32 and I started with a Roloflex at 17 while in the US Navy. In the sixty's I met the then president of the Konica Camera company which was located in Queens County just off the GCP he was kind enough to loan me camera's and lens for my then job. Upon returning those body's and lens he gave them to me for my private use. I asked him why his answer was we only sell brand new equipment. I used those camera's till I went into my own business then I bought a load of Nikon equipment which I mainly still have. Now at my age they are just too heavy to lug around so I bought the Leica M9 with few lens and that ladies and gents is my camera Odyssey.You would think with all of those am I a great shooter with a camera probably not but, with a gun much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangee Posted February 27, 2011 Share #68 Posted February 27, 2011 As an interesting side poll, we might ask at what age did you become a Leica owner? I bought my first — an M6 — as a 50th birthday present to myself, as the result of a legacy. The M8 was another notable birthday and the M9........ I just got on with it, using my kids' inheritance; time may be getting short! Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 27, 2011 Share #69 Posted February 27, 2011 ... and I feel someway disturbed to see my decade (50-59) overtaken by the younger one... :D WE HAVE CAME BACK TO THE TOP !! No strange... "old" people is more keen to stay quiet at home, surfing a bit on the Net, in rainy weekends... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
57andrew Posted February 27, 2011 Share #70 Posted February 27, 2011 Old enough to know better but too young to resist. Or as one wag put it, "as old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 27, 2011 Share #71 Posted February 27, 2011 new and improved statistics 52.15+-12.42(sigma) the distribution is pretty close to a Gaussian shape, i.e. we are completely random in our behaviour:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinEB Posted February 27, 2011 Share #72 Posted February 27, 2011 iangee is right. It would be interesting to see the age distribution for when people bought their first Leica (together with the year to link to current age). Mine was a 3-lug M5 in about 1975 when I was in my mid-twenties; before wife and family. I have swapped bodies down the years: M6 TTL, M8.2 (briefly), now M9, but still have the M6. Starting to think some days it would be good if I could swap my own body for a newer model. Regards Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share #73 Posted February 27, 2011 I thought that you were going to say that you were thinking about swapping the wife... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 27, 2011 Share #74 Posted February 27, 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). There ya go. The last HD I built from the ground-up. Made of years 1946, 56, 66 and some of my own handmade parts. Done before blister-packed bolt-on goodies were available. Sold long ago to an IBM engineer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted February 27, 2011 Share #75 Posted February 27, 2011 There ya go. The last HD I built from the ground-up. Made of years 1946, 56, 66 and some of my own handmade parts. Done before blister-packed bolt-on goodies were available. Sold long ago to an IBM engineer. :eek: what a masterpiece! Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted February 27, 2011 Share #76 Posted February 27, 2011 There ya go. The last HD I built from the ground-up. Made of years 1946, 56, 66 and some of my own handmade parts. Done before blister-packed bolt-on goodies were available. Sold long ago to an IBM engineer. Now that, is a proper motor-sickle. :cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaraldL Posted February 27, 2011 Share #77 Posted February 27, 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. Regarding Leica's marketing: Bought my first new M (6) at the age of 30. Don't think I ever read a Nikon or Canon brochure. Instead of that using my father's M3, my grandfather's IIF (?) was the inevitable entrance to photography in real capitals. Nice spin off for the Leica marketeers from 1935. ...and I'm not wearing a Patek Philippe. Harald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangee Posted February 27, 2011 Share #78 Posted February 27, 2011 It's probably better than not waking up in the morning tough I'd sooner wake up tough than weak ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangee Posted February 27, 2011 Share #79 Posted February 27, 2011 I am surprised at the small number of over 70s shown; I am wondering if they do not waste valuable time reading forums? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted February 28, 2011 Share #80 Posted February 28, 2011 Not everyone over 70s is computer literate... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.