pgk Posted January 6, 2013 Share #41 Posted January 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) In this digital era, in my opinion it is the optics and sensor that matter irrespective of the name on the camera. Whillst I agree, I do find the combination of Leica glass and the M9 sensor to be particularly appealing for the sort of images that I am currently shooting. Far more so than those from my 5D2 and similar Canon glass, although this combination is extremely competent too. If another manufacturer came out with a £1k rangefinder with as good a full frame sensor as the M9 I would consider it. However I have my doubts that this price could be achieved given the potential sales such a camera might expect, remembering that the rangefinder mechanism, viewfinder, framelines and sensor are unlikely to be cheap items to manufacture by anyone for low volume production. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2013 Share #42 Posted January 7, 2013 I have become a big fan of the optical qualities of small, compact Leica M lenses, however I am still to be convinced about Leica M digital cameras which I feel are too costly and might attract unwanted attention resulting in theft and occasional jealous remarks; after all some people cover up the red rondel and the M9P avoids the red rondel. I think the Gestalt of a Leica M has faded from the perception of the general public. I carry a digital M everywhere and rarely if ever get it commented upon; maybe once every three months,if that. Mostly I get pitying "old duffer with his pile of junk" type of looks from blokes with their Canikon fertility symbol in front of their belly.To the extent that I was astounded when a young saleslady at Jessops recognized the Monochrom for what it was. Come to think of it, on the occasions I carry my iii-f (too few:o) I get far more response. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #43 Posted January 7, 2013 .... Canikon fertility symbol in front of their belly. Come on Jaap! Now you sound just like the leica person I was talking about in my op:) why when I have a canonikon its a fertility symbol but when I have my leica I 'get it' ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #44 Posted January 7, 2013 What are you trying to prove exactly? Leicas are the only digital rangefinders in town. If Rolex were the only mechanical watches available, you would buy one if you can afford it or you'd choose a cheaper Seiko or Swatch instead. I am not trying to prove anything I just asked a simple question... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2013 Share #45 Posted January 7, 2013 Come on Jaap! Now you sound just like the leica person I was talking about in my op:) why when I have a canonikon its a fertility symbol but when I have my leica I 'get it' ? Depends on your belly, and the look you give me. Please switch on your tongue-in-cheek detector. I am describing a type that is as real as the Noctilux-toting status hunter. Just more numerous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #46 Posted January 7, 2013 Whillst I agree, I do find the combination of Leica glass and the M9 sensor to be particularly appealing for the sort of images that I am currently shooting. Far more so than those from my 5D2 and similar Canon glass, although this combination is extremely competent too. If another manufacturer came out with a £1k rangefinder with as good a full frame sensor as the M9 I would consider it. However I have my doubts that this price could be achieved given the potential sales such a camera might expect, remembering that the rangefinder mechanism, viewfinder, framelines and sensor are unlikely to be cheap items to manufacture by anyone for low volume production. Paul of course you are right in that your leica appeals to you more than your canon does for a certain type or for that matter all of your photography...thats your choice, you are the photographer and you should, if you can, use the tools that works best for you... In the days of film I almost always preferred my zone vi wood folding view camera to the sinar and the hasselblad, I tried to shoot everything on 4x5 including people....I am certain the sinar was 'better' in every way...I just preferred the zone vi.....now if someone said that my zone vi was 'crap' that's also cool, each to his own, I just have never had the desire to 'defend' my choice or to 'put down' someone elses... hence the reason for my original question...why are some people so defensive? (not just leica owners, but they do seem a bit more sensitive than most)...and of course Cal gave us the answer:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #47 Posted January 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends on your belly, and the look you give me. Please switch on your tongue-in-cheek detector. I am describing a type that is as real as the Noctilux-toting status hunter. Just more numerous. Come on Jaap! couldn't you tell that my detector was on? I even provided an emoticon, just in case:) ...more numerous yes but if we had to look at it in percentages probably equal....btw over here 'm's' are as 'skaars soos 'hoender tande' and in fact I have seen more in the days of film than now...although in Europe they seem more 'common'. When in Stresa, Italy last a guy photographing the sunset with his m even came over and showed me his image on the lcd...but we both had a good laugh when I insisted, and he agreed ( probably because I looked more professional with my, canon, tripod, kitchen sink and all:)) that my image was going to be even better than his....it was a brief but rather pleasant exchange between two photographers with no look of superiority given by anyone....alas here on the forum where we are all faceless things can get quite heated... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 7, 2013 Share #48 Posted January 7, 2013 ...I just preferred the zone vi.....quote]You've obviously never tried a Gandolfi, a proper, hand-built British camera...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #49 Posted January 7, 2013 ...I just preferred the zone vi.....quote]You've obviously never tried a Gandolfi, a proper, hand-built British camera...... What! me use an overpriced elitist camera only made for the greedy 1% ??/ ( and its not even made in Germany! ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 7, 2013 Share #50 Posted January 7, 2013 I am not trying to prove anything I just asked a simple question... Then you must have learnt a couple of things about yourself if you did not know the answer already... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share #51 Posted January 7, 2013 Then you must have learnt a couple of things about yourself if you did not know the answer already... As they say you are never to old to learn... No I didn't know the answer, I am really not an expert in human behaviour...but I think Cal hit the nail on the head....actually its quite a revelation to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 7, 2013 Share #52 Posted January 7, 2013 I carry a digital M everywhere and rarely if ever get it commented upon..... My experience too. In fact I've used my M digital for jobs where the client has been concerned because the camera I was using didn't meet their expectations of a 'pro camera' (too small and snappy-like). The best reassurance I could give them was the price - which did made them feel suitably reassured (though it should really be the images which I supply, but that's afterwards.....). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 8, 2013 Share #53 Posted January 8, 2013 As they say you are never to old to learn... No I didn't know the answer, I am really not an expert in human behaviour...but I think Cal hit the nail on the head....actually its quite a revelation to me... Now to examine the phenomenon where some people actively dislike the brand or take opportunities to highlight anything they see as an issue and their comments are couched in provocative or emotive language yet they participate in the brand forums. Any response at all that does not fully accord with their attitude or questions their assumptions or methods generates a predictable further accusation of "fanboy", or apologist or similar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted January 8, 2013 Share #54 Posted January 8, 2013 I can bet you that if you saw a Rolls Royce on the street, whether from the 40s or current, you will turn your head. Of course, for any one person liking it there will be many who dislike its opulence, its antiquated look etc. Leica brings the same reaction in people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted January 8, 2013 Share #55 Posted January 8, 2013 Ramesh, see posting #25 above; but the consumerist ethic expressed in your post is even more egregious than the one I was responding to above. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted January 8, 2013 Share #56 Posted January 8, 2013 I think this interview sums it up well. "Ultimately Leica is about passion. Everybody who owns a Leica has had a certain moment when they were exposed to the brand and where they get, as we call it, “infected by the virus”. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/263791-forbes-leica.html?highlight=forbes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 8, 2013 Share #57 Posted January 8, 2013 Is it because most Leica owners are very wealthy and thus important people and thus never 'wrong'? is it because they cost so much and therefore must be 'better than the rest'? Or because after we have spend so much money on the tool we are loath to admit that it might be flawed? To get back to the OP's queries. I've just looked up the prices of top end Canon and Nikons and they are in the same ball park as Leicas. And some of their lens offerings are considerably more expensive. So the wealth bit doesn't really come into it given that the majority of (high end) cameras are owned by (obviously well-heeled) amateurs. As I've commented in other posts elsewhere in the forum, the 'better' bit is more about the photographer and using the appropriate tool than the tool itself. What exactly is 'flawed' when applied to a tool which produces as good images as it does? I suspect that Leicas are viewed differently (by those who consider them at all) because they represent a 'different' approach as much as anything else. In my own case I owned my first M (having previously used my father's IIIC) over 30 years ago, and I have always enjoyed the rangefinder way of working (in fact I can honestly say that the Leica M is the camera I have most enjoyed using over the years and I've shot on a huge variety from Hasselblad to Ebony to Nikon, Canon, Contax (MF and 35mm), Olympus OM and many more besides), and have preferred to take my own path rather than have it dictated by fashion/others whenever possible. I suspect that this comment will resonate with others here? Undoubtedly Leica market on a kudos derived partially from the past and also within a collectable market too - few companies would pass up opportunities to add 'value' and sales by producing special editions to complement other sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2013 Share #58 Posted January 8, 2013 I can bet you that if you saw a Rolls Royce on the street, whether from the 40s or current, you will turn your head. Of course, for any one person liking it there will be many who dislike its opulence, its antiquated look etc. Leica brings the same reaction in people. An unfortunate comparison - the current RR is about the ugliest car I've ever seen... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 8, 2013 Share #59 Posted January 8, 2013 I can bet you that if you saw a Rolls Royce on the street, whether from the 40s or current, you will turn your head. Of course, for any one person liking it there will be many who dislike its opulence, its antiquated look etc. Leica brings the same reaction in people. The difference here is that people will buy a RR to turn heads, but I really don't think that any (OK many) photographers buy a Leica for the same reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 8, 2013 Share #60 Posted January 8, 2013 but I really don't think that any (OK many) photographers buy a Leica for the same reason. I think you underestimate this, James. Hence, the market for red silk straps, fancy half-cases and all the hand wringing about paint colour and the size of the red dot, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.