Why?

[efreed2754]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some are sensitive Ivan becuz no one wants to hear their children are ugly!

[pgk]

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?

Its your incorrect use of the word 'flawed'. I would not suggest that a screwdriver is flawed because I cannot hammer nails in with it would I. And that's because its the wrong tool for the job. I would need a hammer wouldn't I?

 

The same is true of cameras. Each type has its own niche. If you select the wrong camera for the type of photography that you are doing, it is not flawed, its is the wrong type of camera. Hence you would be better off with something else. By all means suggest that modifications to existing models may make them more versatile, but to suggest that they are flawed indicates that they are unfit for the purposes for which they are currently used effectively, because they lack features, and is clearly incorrect.

[earleygallery]

Its your incorrect use of the word 'flawed'. I would not suggest that a screwdriver is flawed because I cannot hammer nails in with it would I. And that's because its the wrong tool for the job. I would need a hammer wouldn't I?

 

The same is true of cameras. Each type has its own niche. If you select the wrong camera for the type of photography that you are doing, it is not flawed, its is the wrong type of camera. Hence you would be better off with something else. By all means suggest that modifications to existing models may make them more versatile, but to suggest that they are flawed indicates that they are unfit for the purposes for which they are currently used effectively, because they lack features, and is clearly incorrect.

 

Ah, but what about a hammer which has a weak handle, and is prone to snapping when hammering in a nail? Or a screwdriver with a poor casting so it doesn't fit any screws?

 

Some products are flawed, and there's no harm in pointing those flaws out. Even if it's a Leica!

[pgk]

Ah, but what about a hammer which has a weak handle, and is prone to snapping when hammering in a nail? Or a screwdriver with a poor casting so it doesn't fit any screws?

 

Some products are flawed, and there's no harm in pointing those flaws out. Even if it's a Leica!

Absolutely! But my M9 works exactly as I want it to and takes the images as I require it to so.

[Ivan Muller]

Its your incorrect use of the word 'flawed'. I would not suggest that a screwdriver is flawed because I cannot hammer nails in with it would I. And that's because its the wrong tool for the job. I would need a hammer wouldn't I?

 

The same is true of cameras. Each type has its own niche. If you select the wrong camera for the type of photography that you are doing, it is not flawed, its is the wrong type of camera. Hence you would be better off with something else. By all means suggest that modifications to existing models may make them more versatile, but to suggest that they are flawed indicates that they are unfit for the purposes for which they are currently used effectively, because they lack features, and is clearly incorrect.

 

Not sure if I agree with you totally on this one...once again I can only judge a camera from my point of view and how I would use it and how I approach photography which might be totally different from your approach. In the days of film I tried and usually succeeded in using my 4x5 for every assignment including documentary photography and people. My first exhibition at the Market gallery in Johannesburg was a documentary shot with a calumet 4x5 and rotating back on 'flawed' 127mmm kodak ektar lens. It worked for me, was there better tools for the job, sure, depending on who you would have asked...

 

Please notice not once have I ever said that you have the wrong tools or anybody else here, or that the M, S or X is rubbish. All I say is that for me, its not the right tool...flawed or not....

 

for example my x1, I recon its flawed because of slow af, much slower than anything else on the market, also because of the fixed lens, dust on the sensor can only be removed via a service, then lcd is of such low resolution that mf is not possible, flash is a flawed design as many many has broken, mine included, I would have preferred to have exp comp on top of body as iso adjustment, imo Leicas design over functionality is a flaw, the fact that the lens cannot take filters nor a hood imo is a flaw, as is slow start up time.

 

So you may ask why did i buy such a flawed camera and why am I using it? Because i got it dirt cheap, i wasnt aware of some of the flaws until i started using it, I like it because it fits in my small billingham bag and therefore I can carry it everywhere I go, image quality is good and i got around viewing the lcd because I could get a ovf, which is also flawed imo...

 

So you see, in my situation at the time I wanted a small camera that would fit in my bag with as big a sensor possible, and taking my budget into consideration. At that time it was a good decision , flaws and all...so in my case it was not which tool would have been better, I already have that tool, but which tool was convenient...but they are all the same tools rather like a small hammer as opposed to a 12pound heavyweight, my need was to hammer something and a screwdriver would not have worked... but hey if a screwdriver works for you, who am I to judge its your decision alone to make. The only result that matters to me is the final photograph, the how and why and with what is of passing interest only, I am more interested in the photograph than in the tool used to make it...

[pop]

.... you fall right into the category of Leica owner that I asked the 'why' question about originally.....

 

.. which in turn confuses me. He said that the rangefinder with its manual focus was one of the main attractions - for him. Why should you feel confused or even feel the need to comment on the fact that some people prefer this kind of camera and other people other kinds? Where does brand loyalty enter the equation?

[Ivan Muller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.. which in turn confuses me. He said that the rangefinder with its manual focus was one of the main attractions - for him. Why should you feel confused or even feel the need to comment on the fact that some people prefer this kind of camera and other people other kinds? Where does brand loyalty enter the equation?

 

just read my original question, and all my subsequent posts.....I really don't have the energy to explain myself all over again.....

[pop]

Ivan - I did indeed read your initial post (again) before replying.

 

You ask why people so strongly defend a brand (Leica). Later, you tell us that you think Leica flawed because they have rangefinders and no autofocus, to which Syed responds that (a) he prefers the rangefinder over autofocus and that ( if you don't like rangefinders you should use other products which are closer to your needs.

 

I do not understand how you make this into "brand loyalty" on Syed's part. Liking or not liking rangefinders does not require any emotional engagement at all. It either works for you or it does not. If it does not, there's no point in paying the premium associated with that expensive opto-mechanical part. On the other hand, if it does work for you, I see no reason why you should not buy one if you can afford it.

 

I really can not see where brand loyalty enters the discussion. I can not see, either, where Syed's response can be read as such.