tom0511 Posted February 12, 2018 Share #41 Posted February 12, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi everyone. I year ago I switched to Leica from Nikon. I now own an m246 and SL. I have the the 50mm APO Summicron for my M camera, and the 24-90 and 90-280 for my SL. I also have the R 100 macro and S 120 APO macro. I would like your educated responses as to why you all believe that Leica is better than say Nikon, Cannon, Fuji etc. We all know that Leica is a luxury brand. And I , frankly, struggle with did I make the right decision. I like what I get from Leica in IQ. I do rely on the final print for qualification. But do you all believe that there is value commensurate with the premium Leica charges. Can anyone help me validate my decision ? Is there superior sensor technology? Is there better density in the color etc of the Bayer pattern? Does Leica do a better job of extracting color, light etc from there pixel pitch . I’m not for trolls to just say “look st the i images” , I am looking for those who have made a concerted decision based on empirical data as to why....Leica I am seriously looking at Fuji but I have questions about their glass, quality etc. I’d love to hear what those of you who made a serious analysis as to “Leica” vs “other”. Thoughts, comments? Thanks My reasons to use Leica are... + I like the relativly simple user interface and menue system. Also the cameras are not overloaded with buttons like some cameras from other brands + for my taste IQ in regards of color and overall lokk is to my taste. I had the feeling with Nikon and Canon I had to move around sliders in post much more, not allways getting the result I liked. + having multiple cameras from one brand with the option to exchange lenses is an advantage + I like the build quality and design + Sl Zoom lenses have a very usefull range; the 24-90 is the most flexible top IQ lens I have used. But: I dont think it is a BETTER camera per se. I believe it does suit me better than other cameras. And Leica is certainly not the best value for money. But what do you gain if you switch to Fuji if you have allready invested your money in Leica? Switching systems is most of the times burning money. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2018 Posted February 12, 2018 Hi tom0511, Take a look here Why is Leica better?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted February 12, 2018 Share #42 Posted February 12, 2018 This is true, but then most of those people don't spend three month gross median salary on a camera and one lens. I know one better; some hobbyists hoard top M and R lenses and than use them on Sony mirrorless cameras as they consider RF so old school and generally Leica cameras are technologically backward. Lenses produce famous Leica glow and legendary bokeh, providing bokeh can be captured and boasted about the rest of the image doesn’t matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 12, 2018 Share #43 Posted February 12, 2018 I know one better; some hobbyists hoard top M and R lenses and than use them on Sony mirrorless cameras as they consider RF so old school and generally Leica cameras are technologically backward. Lenses produce famous Leica glow and legendary bokeh, providing bokeh can be captured and boasted about the rest of the image doesn’t matter. Well the real travesty there is using a Sony...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 13, 2018 Share #44 Posted February 13, 2018 I appreciate the passion everyone has towards loyalty of their investment . I get it. Again, and in the simplest terms, what does Leica offer over the competition, which commands a premium in price. Very simple...emotion aside. It won't matter what research you do. Nobody is ever going to buy a Leica--any current Leica--based on a specification sheet. Since this is the SL forum, I'll comment on the SL in particular: - Autofocus is competent, but not up to the standards of the best Nikon, Canon, or even Sony have to offer - Resolution, in terms of megapixels, is lower than what Nikon, Canon, and Sony have to offer - Flash capabilities are sadly lacking - Weather sealing is very good, but no better than Nikon and Canon - The viewfinder is exceptional and in terms of spec's is equal to or better than the Sony--4.4M dots is better, refresh rate is lower; Canon and Nikon use optical viewfinders - High ISO performance, despite the lower resolution/larger pixels, is actually a touch worse than the best from Sony and Nikon - Support for professional users is not comparable to Nikon, Canon, or even Sony - Lenses are as good as any out there, but the options are seriously limited; they don't even have a current macro lens - Frame rates are lower than Nikon, Canon, and Sony, especially if you expect autofocus between frames Basically, every maker out there with a full frame system camera has better specifications than Leica. Forget whether Leica should be charging a premium, they shouldn't even be invited to the party based on the specifications above. So why are they able to sell any SL's at all? Several reasons... - If you happen to own a bunch of Leica 'M' or 'R' glass and want to use it on a mirrorless body, the results are consistently better than with other options, primarily due to the thinner stack of glass over the sensor - If you primarily focus manually, that viewfinder is really exceptional and could be a reason on its own to choose the SL - The camera does have a more "inspiring" build quality than anything from Nikon, Canon, or Sony; there is just less plastic involved Then, there is one factor that, for me, is the clincher. And this one won't show up on a specification sheet. The ergonomics on Leicas really suite me. The menu structure, the minimalist controls, the lack of features is, for me, an actual advantage. I seem to "think" the way Leica "thinks." I know that's emotional, not something from a specification sheet, but it's still true for me. I'll give you a concrete example from my past... Many years ago I was a Nikon shooter. I learned photography on Nikons. I used Nikons. I owned a bunch of Nikon lenses. Then, for a while there, it seemed all the innovation was on the Canon side. Eye controlled focus point selection? Canon. Pellicle mirror for high frame rates? Canon. Ultrasonic motors? For fast, silent AF? Canon. Customization buttons? Canon. I decided to sell everything I had and start shooting with Canon. What was the result? Worse pictures. Dramatically worse. And not just for a month or two while I was learning the system. I gave it a solid year. And it wasn't that the technology was half baked or that the lens quality wasn't there. I just couldn't get used to the change in the UI. I was always looking in the wrong place for the light meter. I would have to think about how to change a control on the camera rather than just make the change. I was a really bad photographer with Canon, and that made a much bigger difference in the end results than any small differences in technology. The same is true right now with Leica and any other brand. Leica doesn't lead in any technical area at all--not one. They are competitive on lens quality, but not variety. They are competitive on viewfinder. In everything else they lag. But for the most part, those technical areas have little if anything to do with the quality of the pictures. There are exceptions, of course. If I wanted to do single shot astroimaging, for example, there is no doubt in my mind I'd get a Sony A7-S. If I wanted absolutely bullet proof autofocus above all other features, there is no question I would choose Nikon (at least this month). I'm sure there are a hundred other specialized requirements that one brand or another meets particularly well. But for general use? I'd take the SL in a heartbeat over anything from Nikon, Canon, or Sony (as long as I was OK with the size of the 24-90). It is less cluttered and therefore faster for me to control. I don't need to remember, "Now how do I..." or "Where did they put..." It just makes sense to me. The 'M' is even better, though with all the limitations of a rangefinder. I never have to think about how to make the camera do something. I just have to think about the composition, the light, the perspective, and my vision of how the picture will turn out. And that improves my image quality. There is nothing special in the sensor; nothing special in the autofocus; nothing special in the size or weight; nothing special in the number of shots on a battery; nothing special in the service; nothing special in the colors (though there are, at least, some differences here); nothing special in the resolution; nothing special in the high ISO performance; nothing special in the image stabilization; nothing special in the frame rates. But it's good enough not to hold me back in all of these areas. And the lenses are among the best. Mostly, though, it's the ergonomics for me. They let me enjoy the picture taking in a way that Canon, Nikon, and Sony don't. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #45 Posted February 13, 2018 Perhaps the more challenging question is not why are Leicas better but rather why are so many Leica photographers so bad? Such a condescending attitude... Must be nice to be so great that you can put others down. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fang Posted February 13, 2018 Share #46 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) My reasons (excuses) for Leica are totally non rational but emotional, feeling and excitement of having and using Leica and of course I love the photos taken by my Leica cameras. Edited February 13, 2018 by Fang 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 13, 2018 Share #47 Posted February 13, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is true, but then most of those people don't spend three month gross median salary on a camera and one lens.Leica products are made in Portugal and in Germany. Buying Leica maintains jobs in Europe instead of moving more manufacturing jobs to Asia. And, we like to spend a lot more on Leica products because we make money the old fashioned way, we earn it. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #48 Posted February 13, 2018 WELL Leica products are made in Portugal and in Germany. Buying Leica maintains jobs in Europe instead of moving more manufacturing jobs to Asia. And, we like to spend a lot more on Leica products because we make money the old fashioned way, we earn it. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ I could quote Porter's The Competitive Advantage of Nations here but I'm not sure it would stop someone who knows or cares very little about truth, beauty and love from spending $10,000 on a camera he or (less likely) she doesn't know how to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 13, 2018 Share #49 Posted February 13, 2018 WELL I could quote Porter's The Competitive Advantage of Nations here but I'm not sure it would stop someone who knows or cares very little about truth, beauty and love from spending $10,000 on a camera he or (less likely) she doesn't know how to use. Somebody has issues. More comparisons coming with that Sony 24-70 G Master-I’m-a-bit-soft-wide-open. Just because you insist. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #50 Posted February 13, 2018 Leica products are made in Portugal and in Germany. Buying Leica maintains jobs in Europe instead of moving more manufacturing jobs to Asia. And, we like to spend a lot more on Leica products because we make money the old fashioned way, we earn it. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ What goes around, comes around! There should be no need for such concerns. With us living in a world aided by current communications technology it only means businesses get harder to maintain profitable unless perceived by consumers as valuable. I’m certain that a significant amount of Leica camera’s revenue comes from buyers in China. But if Leica decides to move its production facilities to China to take advantage of lower manufacturing cost, it would stand to loose more than gain due to brand dilution. More importantly, Leica must understand well what its customers want and there it can succeed. Not everything made in Europe will win. And not all made in Asia will win either. Everything has its place in time. Minotti sofa. Makes most of the manufacturing in Asia. Ships back to Italy for final assembly then reship final products world wide. Besides, strip the camera and I am not surprised that most of the electronics come from Asia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #51 Posted February 13, 2018 Such a condescending attitude... Must be nice to be so great that you can put others down. It's not condescending, it's just true. I respect and admire anyone who, with very little money or resource, makes the effort to explore the world and try to understand it. Those people tend to be compassionate and understanding and we need more people like that. I have no issue with anyone's level of talent, only with their aspiration and motivation. If you're motivation is to simply own the most expensive product money can buy because it's a status symbol then that says something about your character and it may be an economic necessity that we have people willing to buy such expensive products simply so they can have them (and take really bad photographs with them) but it's not going to stop people from calling you out for that fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 13, 2018 Share #52 Posted February 13, 2018 So much negativity in your posts. Wait till you see those soft corners on the Sony 24-70 G Master-I’m-a-bit-soft-wide-open. You’ll feel a lot better. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #53 Posted February 13, 2018 It's not condescending, it's just true. I respect and admire anyone who, with very little money or resource, makes the effort to explore the world and try to understand it. Those people tend to be compassionate and understanding and we need more people like that. I have no issue with anyone's level of talent, only with their aspiration and motivation. If you're motivation is to simply own the most expensive product money can buy because it's a status symbol then that says something about your character and it may be an economic necessity that we have people willing to buy such expensive products simply so they can have them (and take really bad photographs with them) but it's not going to stop people from calling you out for that fact. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions..... where do you get the information on all these forum members that lets you make these comments? You must be fairly certain about their own shortcomings, and your own virtues, to make such judgments. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 13, 2018 Share #54 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) It's not condescending, it's just true. I respect and admire anyone who, with very little money or resource, makes the effort to explore the world and try to understand it. Those people tend to be compassionate and understanding and we need more people like that. I have no issue with anyone's level of talent, only with their aspiration and motivation. If you're motivation is to simply own the most expensive product money can buy because it's a status symbol then that says something about your character and it may be an economic necessity that we have people willing to buy such expensive products simply so they can have them (and take really bad photographs with them) but it's not going to stop people from calling you out for that fact. 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone'........ You are fond of rather broad and challenging statements ..... response to which will no doubt have Jaap appearing with red writing again .......... What any of us buy, our motivations, and what we produce are entirely personal choices. If we choose to post crap, that's up to the individual. I've no problem with you not clicking 'thanks' or posting that you think it's rubbish. However, telling your neighbour his wife is ugly may be true, but don't be surprised if you get a punch in the nose ..... Edited February 13, 2018 by thighslapper 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 13, 2018 Share #55 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Perhaps the more challenging question is not why are Leicas better but rather why are so many Leica photographers so bad? Can you give the definition what is " bad "is in your view? For instance, do you think your own photos, which you have posted on flickr are also " bad " or are they " good " enough ? If you say: " so many Leica photographers so bad " . does this implies, that they are worse than other brand users? Is it your purpose to imply that the price of the gear gives one the obligation to be " good " in a way? Do you also think that this for instance would apply for other arts also. Would it be forbidden to use a Steinway piano if you only can play " Chopsticks" . I know a man who plays a Stradivarius violin, but the music he plays is not considered " good " by a lot of contemporary artists in the same brand. Should we be angry , that he has such a fine instrument misusing it for " shitty ' music? I think we'll better not start about cars and " bad " drivers in expensive cars.... My mothers father knew a man in the neighborhood, next to the small town Eindhoven where they lived, who very much wanted to paint, but he made terrible bad paintings in the view of the farmers in the village which was called Nuenen. He spend all his money on buying expensive paint and canvasses. It was a very poor community and people did not see why he spent all his money on this and pitied him for being such a loser. Really depressing images he made at this time. He left the neighborhood, went to France and died a few years later. His name was Vincent. Edited February 13, 2018 by jaapv 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 13, 2018 Share #56 Posted February 13, 2018 I would like your educated responses as to why you all believe that Leica is better than say Nikon, Cannon, Fuji etc. But do you all believe that there is value commensurate with the premium Leica charges. Can anyone help me validate my decision ? Is there superior sensor technology? Is there better density in the color etc of the Bayer pattern? Does Leica do a better job of extracting color, light etc from there pixel pitch . I’d love to hear what those of you who made a serious analysis as to “Leica” vs “other”. Thoughts, comments? To answer the last question first: We buy any 'luxury' product (the definition varies considerably, but cameras fall into this category for most people) on the perception of what it does for us and our image of ourselves and how it interacts with this image. If I'm totally honest I could probably use a much cheaper camera and produce as good images on it as on an expensive camera - if that is the yardstick by which cameras are measured is their final output. But of course it isn't. We are complex creatures and what appeals to us is rarely as simple as something that 'does the job' or is 'fit for purpose'. Its far more enigmatic than that. To answer your previous questions (in order): Leica isn't 'better' unless you believe it is. Value is a subjective term. Whether Leica charges a premium depends on your perspective. Only you can answer this for yourself. No. No. No and No. Its easy if you just shoot M cameras - no alternative if you want to use a rangefinder. For the other models its down to perception again and each of us will have a different analysis (I only shoot M so I'm exempt ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #57 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Can you give the definition what is " bad "is in your view? For instance, do you think your own photos, which you have posted on flickr are also " bad " or are they " good " enough ? I could give you examples but that wouldn't be fair. My criticism, which is not unique to me, is based on the work I see posted around various places, here included. I suppose you could generalise it as 'boring snaps of this and that usually with gratuitous use of 'bokeh' for the sake of it'. The results are cloying, sacharine and show a lack of imagination and a lack of any motivation to develop an imagination or any effort to explore something important about the world. My own work is for you and others to judge and I am very happy for you to criticise it, pull it apart, say what you think is weak about it. Indeed I would sincerely welcome that; feedback and criticism is important. My aspiration is to be a better photographer and a better person and I'm trying to use photography to do that by engaging with people randomly in the hope that I can understand alternative perspectives and experiences. I'm not sure this results in 'good work' but it certainly feels like a 'good process', at least in terms of motivation, asipiration and the willingness to try and be better. If you say: " so many Leica photographers so bad " . does this implies, that they are worse than other brand users? It's hard to say but it feels like that is the case. As we commented above, the same problem possibly applies to other brands it's just that other brands don't cost $10,000 for a camera and lens. Is it your purpose to imply that the price of the gear gives one the obligation to be " good " in a way? I think if you're going to spend the equivalent of three months average salary on a camera and lens then yes, you have a moral obligation to do that equipment justice. That sounds odd I know but photography is at least aspirationally, an art form, and as an art form, it has something important to contribute to the world. If the images you take don't at least suggest you've tried to contribute something positive to the world, then the world won't stop turning and perhaps no one will die, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to look at you and draw a negative conclusion. It speaks to your character; the world is full of rich, vacuous, shallow people. That isn't a crime but it is morally questionable to live your life in such a way. But this is a big leap from my simply, and at least partially jokingly suggesting that Leica shooters tended to be conspicuous in their lack of talent or application. Do you also think that this for instance would apply for other arts also. Would it be forbidden to use a Steinway piano if you only can play " Chopsticks" . I know a man who plays a Stradivarius violin, but the music he plays is not considered " good " by a lot of contemporary artists in the same brand. Should we be angry , that he has such a fine instrument misusing it for " shitty ' music? I think we'll better not start about cars and " bad " drivers in expensive cars.... I would never 'forbid' anyone from doing anything of the sort, we live in a (mostly) free society after all. Similarly, I'm not angry at anyone who might buy a Steinway to play Chopsticks or a Strad' to play Three Blind Mice, just massively disappointed that something cabale of such beauty and inspiration is used for such a facile purpose. It disappointing. It's indicative of someone who hasn't grown up and taken responsibility for their life. My mothers father knew a man in the neighborhood, next to the small town Eindhoven where they lived, who very much wanted to paint, but he made terrible bad paintings in the view of the farmers in the village which was called Nuenen. He spend all his money on buying expensive paint and canvasses. It was a very poor community and people did not see why he spent all his money on this and pitied him for being such a loser. Really depressing images he made at this time. He left the neighborhood, went to France and died a few years later. His name was Vincent. As far as I can tell the point of your story here is to illustrate the concept of unrecognised genius for which Van Gogh was as famous after his death as he is for being recognised a genius. It is indeed a sad story when someone who has real talent is overlooked because fashion prevents people from seeing the real beauty and truth in their work. I think if anything this parable illustrates my point; when society becomes materially obsessed it becomes shallow and vacuous and fails to recognise what is truly beautiful. Edited February 13, 2018 by geetee1972 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 13, 2018 Share #58 Posted February 13, 2018 I could give you examples but that wouldn't be fair. My criticism, which is not unique to me, is based on the work I see posted around various places, here included. I suppose you could generalise it as 'boring snaps of this and that usually with gratuitous use of 'bokeh' for the sake of it'. The results are cloying, sacharine and show a lack of imagination and a lack of any motivation to develop an imagination or any effort to explore something important about the world. My own work is for you and others to judge and I am very happy for you to criticise it, pull it apart, say what you think is weak about it. Indeed I would sincerely welcome that; feedback and criticism is important. My aspiration is to be a better photographer and a better person and I'm trying to use photography to do that by engaging with people randomly in the hope that I can understand alternative perspectives and experiences. I'm not sure this results in 'good work' but it certainly feels like a 'good process', at least in terms of motivation, asipiration and the willingness to try and be better. It's hard to say but it feels like that is the case. As we commented above, the same problem possibly applies to other brands it's just that other brands don't cost $10,000 for a camera and lens. I think if you're going to spend the equivalent of three months average salary on a camera and lens then yes, you have a moral obligation to do that equipment justice. That sounds odd I know but photography is at least aspirationally, an art form, and as an art form, it has something important to contribute to the world. If the images you take don't at least suggest you've tried to contribute something positive to the world, then the world won't stop turning and perhaps no one will die, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to look at you and draw a negative conclusion. It speaks to your character; the world is full of rich, vacuous, shallow people. That isn't a crime but it is morally questionable to live your life in such a way. But this is a big leap from my simply, and at least partially jokingly suggesting that Leica shooters tended to be conspicuous in their lack of talent or application. I would never 'forbid' anyone from doing anything of the sort, we live in a (mostly) free society after all. Similarly, I'm not angry at anyone who might buy a Steinway to play Chopsticks or a Strad' to play Three Blind Mice, just massively disappointed that something cabale of such beauty and inspiration is used for such a facile purpose. It disappointing. It's indicative of someone who hasn't grown up and taken responsibility for their life. As far as I can tell the point of your story here is to illustrate the concept of unrecognised genius for which Van Gogh was as famous after his death as he is for being recognised a genius. It is indeed a sad story when someone who has real talent is overlooked because fashion prevents people from seeing the real beauty and truth in their work. I think if anything this parable illustrates my point; when society becomes materially obsessed it becomes shallow and vacuous and fails to recognise what is truly beautiful. Thank you for " the big picture " you give , but IMHO you've missed my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 13, 2018 Share #59 Posted February 13, 2018 That's very touching. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9FSKSS/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 14, 2018 Share #60 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) I could give you examples but that wouldn't be fair. My criticism, which is not unique to me, is based on the work I see posted around various places, here included. I suppose you could generalise it as 'boring snaps of this and that usually with gratuitous use of 'bokeh' for the sake of it'. The results are cloying, sacharine and show a lack of imagination and a lack of any motivation to develop an imagination or any effort to explore something important about the world. My own work is for you and others to judge and I am very happy for you to criticise it, pull it apart, say what you think is weak about it. Indeed I would sincerely welcome that; feedback and criticism is important. My aspiration is to be a better photographer and a better person and I'm trying to use photography to do that by engaging with people randomly in the hope that I can understand alternative perspectives and experiences. I'm not sure this results in 'good work' but it certainly feels like a 'good process', at least in terms of motivation, asipiration and the willingness to try and be better. It's hard to say but it feels like that is the case. As we commented above, the same problem possibly applies to other brands it's just that other brands don't cost $10,000 for a camera and lens. I think if you're going to spend the equivalent of three months average salary on a camera and lens then yes, you have a moral obligation to do that equipment justice. That sounds odd I know but photography is at least aspirationally, an art form, and as an art form, it has something important to contribute to the world. If the images you take don't at least suggest you've tried to contribute something positive to the world, then the world won't stop turning and perhaps no one will die, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to look at you and draw a negative conclusion. It speaks to your character; the world is full of rich, vacuous, shallow people. That isn't a crime but it is morally questionable to live your life in such a way. But this is a big leap from my simply, and at least partially jokingly suggesting that Leica shooters tended to be conspicuous in their lack of talent or application. I would never 'forbid' anyone from doing anything of the sort, we live in a (mostly) free society after all. Similarly, I'm not angry at anyone who might buy a Steinway to play Chopsticks or a Strad' to play Three Blind Mice, just massively disappointed that something cabale of such beauty and inspiration is used for such a facile purpose. It disappointing. It's indicative of someone who hasn't grown up and taken responsibility for their life. As far as I can tell the point of your story here is to illustrate the concept of unrecognised genius for which Van Gogh was as famous after his death as he is for being recognised a genius. It is indeed a sad story when someone who has real talent is overlooked because fashion prevents people from seeing the real beauty and truth in their work. I think if anything this parable illustrates my point; when society becomes materially obsessed it becomes shallow and vacuous and fails to recognise what is truly beautiful. Are Leica photographers below average? I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest they are. The brand appeals to enough people that you will certainly get a range of skills, but there are plenty of bad shots taken with Nikon, Canon, and Sony full frame/professional cameras. It would take some work to convince me that Leica shooters are any worse than anyone else. They span the gamut. As far as criticism goes... If it is solicited, feel free to be as harsh as you feel necessary to make a point, especially if the criticism is constructive, if it offers some insight into what one might do differently. I'm all for that. But unsolicited criticism? That must meet a higher standard. I was taught as a child and I firmly believe that statements about people or the things they value should be, "true, useful, or kind--pick any two." I don't see a general attack against owners of a particular brand ofcamera as meeting those criteria. At best, the criticism might might be "true", but it is certainly not useful or kind. And since you offer no evidence of it even being "true" I would request you refrain from making the criticism. A forum like this doesn't always need to feel comfortable, but a widespread attack, even a mild one like yours, does no one a service. As far as artists having a responsibility to be worthy of their tools... I suppose you could make an argument if the tools were of limited supply. For example, the owner of a Stradivarius who doesn't know how to play is keeping the instrument out of the hands of some musician. The supply is fixed. That I could understand. But manufactured goods? That anyone with the means can purchase? No, I don't agree. If I am a lousy photographer and I want to buy a Leica or a Hasselblad that in no way interferes with a more talented photographer doing the same. And, no, there is nothing childish about it. If I derive pleasure from using a Leica and the money I spent is mine and no one else's, then I see nothing wrong with buying one regardless of the quality of my pictures. If it inspires me to improve my photography because I wish to become "worthy" of my tools in my own mind, so much the better. I'll make one last point. There aren't enough really talented photographers out there to keep any particular camera manufacturer in business and innovating. We should all be grateful that there are a fairly large number of people willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on photographic equipment as the brand would cease to exist if it weren't for well heeled amateurs. Edited February 14, 2018 by Jared 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts