rramesh Posted January 8, 2013 Share #61 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. The unfortunate reality is that the pool of serious photographers buying the M is getting smaller, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Hi rramesh, Take a look here Why?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted January 8, 2013 Share #62 Â Posted January 8, 2013 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. There are plenty of 'go faster goodies' available for other cameras too..... and when different colours were available there was much discussion about whether black cameras were 'pro' versions, etc.. I just think that camera equipment attracts aftermarket manufacturers trying to make sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share #63 Â Posted January 8, 2013 [quote=pgk;2280040 What exactly is 'flawed' when applied to a tool which produces as good images as it does? Â 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. Â Â Paul,I think a camera can only be flawed from someones own point of view...personally I find the M flawed because I don't like the viewfinder nor the loud- (ish) shutter and the manual focus, to name but a few, oh yes and also the price.... You on the other hand might think that the 5d/d800/a99 is flawed because you don't like the moulded shape, nor the low pass filter and the mostly non metal construction and size and the fact that every tom dick and harry has got one etc etc...Of course neither these cameras are flawed, they are just flawed from someones own point of view...but as long as just one person is buying one then its perfect (for him)...and that's probably how I view my camera and you yours...as (almost) perfect! Â Â ok ok I can give you a long list of what I really need and will make my life easier, things like a build in two axis spirit level, quiet shutter, a few more pixels, mf aids for my tilt and shift, a 4x5 aspect ratio...but now I am treading on dangerous ground as these things don't matter one bit to the wise folks on this forum... Â Â Regarding the 'different approach' I view it as a 'difficult approach' I like to make things simple, af, auto exp, nice grip and good price...yes I know I know its the direct opposite from the 'leica approach' ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 8, 2013 Share #64 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Personally I find the M flawed because I don't like the viewfinder nor the loud- (ish) shutter and the manual focus, to name but a few, oh yes and also the price...."Â Â huh? those are some of the primary reasons why we love Leica Ms (well, not the high price...lol). it has just occurred to me, however, that your initial question is more a way to somehow justify non-Leica gear rather than really explore why some of us are loyal to Leica. Â based on what you dislike about leica cameras as written above....you'll be better off with something else! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 8, 2013 Share #65 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Regarding the 'different approach' I view it as a 'difficult approach' I like to make things simple, af, auto exp, nice grip and good price...yes I know I know its the direct opposite from the 'leica approach' ! What on earth could be simpler than a pre-focused M camera with a manually set exposure? All that is needed with such a set-up is to concentrate on composition..... Â For some of the pictures I am taking at present I need to be able to see through the viewfinder during the exposure. Pre-setting the camera as above means that all I need to do is concentrate on the compositional aspects of what I am doing. The right tool for the job and AF, auto exposure and so on would be irrelevant and actually make taking the images far more difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 8, 2013 Share #66  Posted January 8, 2013 Paul,I think a camera can only be flawed from someones own point of view...personally I find the M flawed because I don't like the viewfinder nor the loud- (ish) shutter and the manual focus, to name but a few, oh yes and also the price.... You on the other hand might think that the 5d/d800/a99 is flawed because you don't like the moulded shape, nor the low pass filter and the mostly non metal construction and size and the fact that every tom dick and harry has got one etc etc...Of course neither these cameras are flawed, they are just flawed from someones own point of view...but as long as just one person is buying one then its perfect (for him)...and that's probably how I view my camera and you yours...as (almost) perfect!  ok ok I can give you a long list of what I really need and will make my life easier, things like a build in two axis spirit level, quiet shutter, a few more pixels, mf aids for my tilt and shift, a 4x5 aspect ratio...but now I am treading on dangerous ground as these things don't matter one bit to the wise folks on this forum...   Regarding the 'different approach' I view it as a 'difficult approach' I like to make things simple, af, auto exp, nice grip and good price...yes I know I know its the direct opposite from the 'leica approach' !  Well, to be fair, I know a few excellent cameras offering just those features you need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fang Posted January 8, 2013 Share #67 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) So as a general question, not just limited to the Leica fanboys, why are we so loyal to brands? Just wondering.... Â Ivan, nothing confusing about it. My reason is simple - always wanted a Leica as a boy. Now I have them - I am enjoying the results of using them. Somehow there are always things to learn from using Leica cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 8, 2013 Share #68 Â Posted January 8, 2013 ...personally I find the M flawed because I don't like the viewfinder nor the loud- (ish) shutter and the manual focus, to name but a few, oh yes and also the price.... Then no M for you. No S either given its price. Remain the X2 and PanaLeica cameras. Do you find them flawed as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted January 8, 2013 Share #69 Â Posted January 8, 2013 An unfortunate comparison - the current RR is about the ugliest car I've ever seen... Actually the new RR has a much better engine. Unfortunately that's also the view some have of the new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 8, 2013 Share #70 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Actually the new RR has a much better engine. Unfortunately that's also the view some have of the new M. Â the latest Rolls Royces are glorified BMWs, then again Bentleys are glorified Audis.....both cars, though, are very nicely built cars which celebrate their grand histories. They may not be of pure british blood anymore, but at least they retain some of their character and original emphasis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share #71  Posted January 8, 2013 huh? those are some of the primary reasons why we love Leica Ms (well, not the high price...lol). it has just occurred to me, however, that your initial question is more a way to somehow justify non-Leica gear rather than really explore why some of us are loyal to Leica. based on what you dislike about leica cameras as written above....you'll be better off with something else!  Jip you fall right into the category of Leica owner that I asked the 'why' question about originally..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted January 8, 2013 Share #72 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Jip you fall right into the category of Leica owner that I asked the 'why' question originally..... Â ME? i'm a new Leica owner. Hardly a snob either with my 'all used' equipment. honestly you're not making a lot of sense right now, mate. you're trying to sell yourself 'other' equipment....well then do so! you don't need to affirm to yourself the reasons of why people are loyal to a brand in order to convince yourself the merits of other equipment. It seems to me this thread is more about you trying to convince yourself of something rather than trying to debate 'fanboy-ism'. Â there are LOTS of great cameras out there......go explore them. Don't be so quick to judge people either....it's weird and unhealthy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share #73 Â Posted January 8, 2013 Ivan, nothing confusing about it. My reason is simple - always wanted a Leica as a boy. Now I have them - I am enjoying the results of using them. Somehow there are always things to learn from using Leica cameras. Â Yes of course you are right, I like looking and reading up about them them because the M is really a beautiful camera, if not one of the most beautiful, imo. I had a M2 with a 35mm lens with those little funny 'goggles' on them which I actually enjoyed a lot, it looked quite quirky, even then back in the days of film, I just couldn't get used to the rangefinder and the tedious way of loading film, so after 18months I got rid of it, also had the 90, but the tiny frame in the middle of the viewfinder I found also very unsatisfactory... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share #74  Posted January 8, 2013 ME? i'm a new Leica owner. Hardly a snob either with my 'all used' equipment. honestly you're not making a lot of sense right now, mate. you're trying to sell yourself 'other' equipment....well then do so! you don't need to affirm to yourself the reasons of why people are loyal to a brand in order to convince yourself the merits of other equipment. It seems to me this thread is more about you trying to convince yourself of something rather than trying to debate 'fanboy-ism'. there are LOTS of great cameras out there......go explore them. Don't be so quick to judge people either....it's weird and unhealthy.  My sincere apologies if you found my post offensive, it was not my intention, but looking at it now I can see how you could have perceive it as such, so sorry once again!  I really didn't want to debate the merits or demerits of the m either, I completely understand why people like Leica and why one could fall in love with the camera and the brand, I just didn't quite understand why one could become so defensive/angry etc etc over an 'object' and consumer item...but Cal gave a good explanation, that makes a lot of sense to me at least, and its perhaps in the light of that explanation that I responded to your post in the way I did... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 8, 2013 Share #75 Â Posted January 8, 2013 I am not defensive about owning a Leica and listening to criticisms -- many of which are fair and to the extent they keep Leica moving forward all to the good. As for my feeling about Leica? I grew up with my Dad using a iiif and found it hopelessly old fashioned in the exploding world of SLRs. I mean you could see what we being photographed and you had TTL metering. I used the Canon TL at first then the Canon new F1 but never had an interest in the AF versions. Got to digital late, buying a Lumix in 2006, waiting for some digital camera that wasn't a lug to carry about, was full frame, and respected my abilities to take photos to come about - the M9. I have since bought an M4 which I enjoy even more. Why? Because in this age of computers doing everything and therefore reducing an individuals mark in the result, here stands a product that is, to me, antithesis of that. While bowing to technical opportunities available it doesn't give in to the cookie-cutter machine stamped world in which we live. There is, in the end, for me, a poetry in owning and using a finely crafted instrument, engineered that way from the inside rather than marketed as such by adding touches on the outside, that celebrates rather than diminishes the input of the individual behind the lens. It is really that simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share #76  Posted January 8, 2013 What on earth could be simpler than a pre-focused M camera with a manually set exposure? All that is needed with such a set-up is to concentrate on composition..... For some of the pictures I am taking at present I need to be able to see through the viewfinder during the exposure. Pre-setting the camera as above means that all I need to do is concentrate on the compositional aspects of what I am doing. The right tool for the job and AF, auto exposure and so on would be irrelevant and actually make taking the images far more difficult.   Of course you are perfectly right and all these things work perfectly for you and the way you work and would like to work, and for that i cannot think of a better camera than the M. Unfortunately I am not you so what seems perfectly simple to you is in fact a big obstacle for me, and that's why I prefer different tools...but of course I can also pre-focus my dslr and set the exposure before hand as well, as I often do...and in fact many a time, as I am sure you do too, I don't even look through the viewfinder when I photograph, in fact as you well know, with a large format view camera, there was no other way, perhaps the most basic and simple type of camera of all time...  I also do a lot of technical work ito shift lenses and there is, imo, nothing simpler and easier than looking at a live view lcd to focus and compose with one of those lenses...so I need a system camera more than anything else.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 8, 2013 Share #77 Â Posted January 8, 2013 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. Â 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. Â Many people who have strong artistic and aesthetic sensibilities buy and use well-designed and well-made items to please themselves and couldn't give a damn if anybody else notices. I have many "fancy colored" objects that no one ever sees but which please me personally and privately. Â I couldn't care less if other people notice what I own and use. I purchased them to make myself happy. I think (as James suggests in his post) that a lot of people fall into this category. In addition, there are many high end automobile owners who don't own their cars simply to turn heads, but instead personally enjoy the build quality, design, and performance. I think in general, the majority of people are much more modest about their belongings and themselves. Overall it's the minority who stand out and draw our attention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 8, 2013 Share #78 Â Posted January 8, 2013 I have many "fancy colored" objects that no one ever sees but which please me personally and privately. Â Um, I just now realized that may sound a bit weird, but it's not what you're thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share #79 Â Posted January 9, 2013 Then no M for you. No S either given its price. Remain the X2 and PanaLeica cameras. Do you find them flawed as well? Â Yes any camera that falls outside my budget is not for me, so definitely no S, nor the Hasselblad or Q180, mm, etc etc .....panaleicas, uhm, sensors are a bit small even though I could probably ( just) afford them.... Â x2, well now there is a flawed camera, not as much as the x1, but flawed....but of course only from my point of view! Someone else might think its the perfect totally unflawed camera, and they would be perfectly entitled to their opinion and I would have no problem with that. Â I don't think I can handle more than three cameras, just too much to learn, so at the moment I have the X1, 5d and Zd....all have a purpose and all get used regularly and they all satisfy my needs very well and I make a living from them shooting things as diverse as mines, architecture, interiors, wine bottles annual reports and portraits, I even did a wedding recently. But they are all flawed! But only, as I have said, from my point of view. Â Just because a camera is flawed, doesn't mean to say I won't like it, or use it, or buy it:) Why is that so difficult to understand? and why if I don't like the things that the rest of you like about the M, S X or whatever, am I a leica brasher, 'trying to Justify non Leica gear' or given unsolicited advice that I would be better off with something else? Â So I come back to my original question of why are we so sensitive when someone disagrees with our point of view? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share #80  Posted January 9, 2013 Many people who have strong artistic and aesthetic sensibilities buy and use well-designed and well-made items to please themselves and couldn't give a damn if anybody else notices. I have many "fancy colored" objects that no one ever sees but which please me personally and privately. I couldn't care less if other people notice what I own and use. I purchased them to make myself happy. I think (as James suggests in his post) that a lot of people fall into this category. In addition, there are many high end automobile owners who don't own their cars simply to turn heads, but instead personally enjoy the build quality, design, and performance. I think in general, the majority of people are much more modest about their belongings and themselves. Overall it's the minority who stand out and draw our attention.  And thank God for that! If we were all the same the world would be pretty boring and what would we photograph then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.