Will this brand ever move into the present?

[John Ricard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/28/2021 at 8:14 PM, carlosmcse said:

If you had a camera company and you had some of the best photographers in history shooting your camera, wouldn’t you invite them to talk about their careers and shooting with your camera and the historical events they captured with it?

Nikon has that.  Canon too. I wouldn't trot out the old guns any more often than those brands do.  With Leica, the fascination with the past is obsessive.  As I pointed out earlier, the brand acts as if they are the only camera company with a history.   Sort of like things would be if it were just Leica and Sony making cameras today.  Then Leica's approach would make sense.  But with Nikon having such a proud history in photography, the Leica approach to marketing doesn't make sense to me.

 

[bherman01545]

3 minutes ago, John Ricard said:

Nikon has that.  Canon too. I wouldn't trot out the old guns any more often than those brands do.  With Leica, the fascination with the past is obsessive.  As I pointed out earlier, the brand acts as if they are the only camera company with a history.   Sort of like things would be if it were just Leica and Sony making cameras today.  Then Leica's approach would make sense.  But with Nikon having such a proud history in photography, the Leica approach to marketing doesn't make sense to me.

 

I don’t think that Leica thinks that they are the only camera company with ‘history’ I do however, think that Leica has been true to their roots (more with the M Cameras) than many other companies, perhaps at the expense of some technological advancements, but that was their choice and it was by design.

There are photographers using 50-60 year old Leica lenses (for a particular vintage look) on their M10Rs

Besides, many photographers don’t shoot with only one system. I know many who shoot with a Sony, Canon or Nikon for their ‘paid’ work, and Leica for their personal work

-Brad

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[trickness]

37 minutes ago, John Ricard said:

Nikon has that.  Canon too. I wouldn't trot out the old guns any more often than those brands do.  With Leica, the fascination with the past is obsessive.  As I pointed out earlier, the brand acts as if they are the only camera company with a history.   Sort of like things would be if it were just Leica and Sony making cameras today.  Then Leica's approach would make sense.  But with Nikon having such a proud history in photography, the Leica approach to marketing doesn't make sense to me.

 

Now you’re just trolling.

 

[adan]

4 hours ago, John Ricard said:

.....the Leica approach to marketing doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't have to - it just has to make sense to Dr. Kaufmann.

Whose philosophy you can get a taste of in this interview, starting about 24:20 minutes in.

 

[evikne]

1 hour ago, adan said:

It doesn't have to - it just has to make sense to Dr. Kaufmann.

Whose philosophy you can get a taste of in this interview, starting about 24:20 minutes in.

 

A very interesting video! I haven't seen it before. 

[dkmoore]

I use Leica M cameras because they are beautiful and fun to use. 
 

I think that is far more important then animal AF unless of course you are paid to photograph animals. 

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use Leica M cameras because they are beautiful and fun to use. 
 

I think that is far more important then animal AF unless of course you are paid to photograph animals. 

[Guest]

The Dr kauffman video answers the OP's question fully in my view.

The brand is in the past,present and future all of which are relevant to leica and its customers in my view.

 

 

[John Ricard]

For those of you lucky enough to live in Boston, you can see a Leica sponsored film all about Jim Marshall by registering here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/exclusive-jim-marshall-film-screening-leica-gallery-boston-tickets-191284486047?fbclid=IwAR0hbG-jm76QGT132SqwaupSumhX_9yOwp2fD5O1Rs_VheIHmQkH4DFClQI

Great news for those of you who can’t get enough of him.

[Camaro5]

I recently took my MP 240 into the mountains of Utah along with a couple of Summicron lenses.  The landscape images I got were great and it was not any kind of burden to carry around and use.  The 10,000 foot elevation was a bit of a challenge, but it wasn't because of the camera.  

It's been said that the M is best suited for certain types of photography, and that may be true, but to me it's a camera I love using in any situation.  It records what you point it at, and in fine fashion.  I've had bells and whistles I never used on other cameras.  To me the M is the essence of photography and it's basic approach is why I like it so much.  

[Michael Markey]

On 10/5/2021 at 3:27 PM, John Ricard said:

Nikon has that.  Canon too. I wouldn't trot out the old guns any more often than those brands do.  With Leica, the fascination with the past is obsessive.  As I pointed out earlier, the brand acts as if they are the only camera company with a history.   Sort of like things would be if it were just Leica and Sony making cameras today.  Then Leica's approach would make sense.  But with Nikon having such a proud history in photography, the Leica approach to marketing doesn't make sense to me.

 

I can`t disagree but personally I find it very interesting .

It`s a strong pull which is why ,of course, they employ it .  

Myself I have to snap out of the nostalgia and ask myself how does this apply to me and what I actually shoot day to day and it so often it doesn`t .

Also in the process the history has got a little massaged .

I would maintain that it was David Douglas Duncan and his work for Life during the Korean war who first brought Leica to international prominence , at least for photo journalism .

Life asked what the heck he was doing using a medium format camera in a theater of war ,the quality was that good.

Thing was though the lenses he was using on the Leica bodies were made by the new Nippon Kogaku company .

So , yes history is interesting and important  (but don`t rewrite it) and don`t let it get in the way of the day job .

[blaze]

 Companies will only produce products that they can sell. If they don't sell they go out of production. 

Im fed up of people moaning about Leica. If they are not for you Don't buy them.

If they are for you Join the end of the long queue to Buy one.

[charlesphoto99]

On 9/22/2021 at 7:02 AM, John Ricard said:

I got an email from Leica yesterday that promoted an event at the Leica Store in Washington, DC USA with photographer Neal Preston.  I wasn't familiar with him but it turns out he'll be showing images and sharing stories of touring with, "rock and legends like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Queen".  Why does Leica feel the need to focus on the past so much?  Leica acts as if it was the only brand around in the 60's and 70's.  Nikon could easily boast of their legacy of photographing Woodstock, Apollo astronauts, presidents, etc, but instead they are focused on the present.  I fail to see how this obsession with Jim Marshall and the like helps brand the company as relevant in today's photographic world.

If anything Leica need to focus MORE on their legacy with famous photographers, vs the recent trotting out of B-list music stars that only appeal to wealthy old men trying to be cool vicariously (Nikki Six, Lenny Kravitz, Seal, Andy Summers, etc). 

Anyway, I seriously doubt Preston has ever shot a Leica camera - strange choice. I sat on a panel a few years back with him (I was seated next to Jim Marshall) and he was a bit of a jerk. I tore him a new one when he mumbled about flash photography not being true photography - he had told a story earlier about Led Zeppelin using airport runway lights at their shows in '74. Excuse me, Neil, but how in the hell was I supposed to fit airport runway lights into these tiny dark clubs where I photographed Nirvana and Soundgarden, etc in. the beginning? Needless to say the audience laughed and clapped and he nearly choked on his apology . 

Another big problem with bringing in actual working photographers for marketing is very few of them can afford much of what Leica releases these days. 

[pgk]

24 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If anything Leica need to focus MORE on .....

..... perhaps great modern photos? The cameras are very capable but there is much concentration on 'celebrity photographrs' whom I've never heard of. I'd rather seen great images shot by unknowns because this at least shows that the cameras are capable of good, contemporary photography (which they are).

[John Ricard]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

 

Another big problem with bringing in actual working photographers for marketing is very few of them can afford much of what Leica releases these days. 

I agree the price is prohibitive for working photographers, but I really think the sluggishness and the lack of immediate re-calibration of the rangefinder is as much of a problem.  Photographers WILL find a way to spend a ton of money on gear they really want -even if they can’t justify it in their business.  They are buying 1.4 lenses that cost 4x the price of their 2.8 counterparts even if they aren’t really shooting at lot at 1.4. So I agree the 9k (US price) of a Leica body is a big problem for a photographer shooting $300-$500 gigs, but the fact that the camera isn’t as competent in its ability to simply take photos whenever you want it to is a major problem.  When you look at the image thread on this forum you see a ton of photographs of “stuff” -mountains, hills, waterfalls, barns, signs, etc.  But there are a lot of working photographers that shoot people and when those photographers understand that they can buy a Nikon that shoots hundreds of shots without hitting a buffer while a Leica M shoots 20 or so, I believe they feel that the camera can’t help them compete with their peers.  I complain about this a lot on this forum so I’ms urge I’m seen as a troll at this point, but I’m really just giving my honest take on one reason pros aren’t using Leica Ms for certain types of photography.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

..... perhaps great modern photos? The cameras are very capable but there is much concentration on 'celebrity photographrs' whom I've never heard of. I'd rather seen great images shot by unknowns because this at least shows that the cameras are capable of good, contemporary photography (which they are).

Have you subscribed to LFI? There are plenty of contemporary and, at least to me, unknown photographers published in every issue.

[pgk]

35 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Have you subscribed to LFI? There are plenty of contemporary and, at least to me, unknown photographers published in every issue.

I did for a time but I found that little interested me. I have said many times on the forum that the Leica M is a very versatile camera but it does tend to get pigeonholed by Leicacentris publications and Leica themselves.

[Michael Markey]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If anything Leica need to focus MORE on their legacy with famous photographers, vs the recent trotting out of B-list music stars that only appeal to wealthy old men trying to be cool vicariously (Nikki Six, Lenny Kravitz, Seal, Andy Summers, etc). 

Anyway, I seriously doubt Preston has ever shot a Leica camera - strange choice. I sat on a panel a few years back with him (I was seated next to Jim Marshall) and he was a bit of a jerk. I tore him a new one when he mumbled about flash photography not being true photography - he had told a story earlier about Led Zeppelin using airport runway lights at their shows in '74. Excuse me, Neil, but how in the hell was I supposed to fit airport runway lights into these tiny dark clubs where I photographed Nirvana and Soundgarden, etc in. the beginning? Needless to say the audience laughed and clapped and he nearly choked on his apology . 

Another big problem with bringing in actual working photographers for marketing is very few of them can afford much of what Leica releases these days. 

"Seated next to Jim Marshall" def gets a like 

[adan]

2 hours ago, John Ricard said:

When you look at the image thread on this forum you see a ton of photographs of “stuff” -mountains, hills, waterfalls, barns, signs, etc.  But there are a lot of working photographers that shoot people and when those photographers understand that they can buy a Nikon that shoots hundreds of shots without hitting a buffer while a Leica M shoots 20 or so, I believe they feel that the camera can’t help them compete with their peers.

I don't consider you a troll, but I do have questions about the rationale, and maybe the business model here. And maybe whether it is "NYC-centric," or a narrow view in some other way.

I am not really clear on how fast-repetitive-shooting is a competitive advantage, even for people pictures (which are about 85% of my work).

Can you show me an example of a picture where the "buffer" made a difference?

I grew up in photography in the era (1970s) when camera motors were large/heavy, expensive, and noisy. So I didn't get one until my eighth year shooting. I simply trained myself to be really attentive to situations, gestures, and situations - and really good at nailing moments on the first frame. And still got the same "people moments" as the guys with the motorized cameras. When I did get a winder, it stayed on "S" - simply a convenience to avoid moving my eye away from the finder when winding film.

Was my work "competitive?" All I can say is I kept getting full-time job offers (I quite gig "work for hire" almost as soon as I got my Bachelor's) - and got into a grad school PJ program on my portfolio of "people moments." which led to a career of full-time work, expanding into graphic design and editor jobs.

I added some outside work to my "day" jobs. $300-500 per gig? - hell, I netted $2500 per story, freelancing them over-the-transom to multiple publications. Today I net $4000 per picture (in the form of 25-print editions sold through the gallery).

I shot a self-assigned gig last night for the gallery - First Friday Art Walk event including band concert. Leica M10 with C/V 75 f/1.5 (and yes, in that lighting I did use f/1.5 )

I didn't even get paid directly for that - but I know it will rebound as publicity for the gallery and the bands, leading to more print sales of all kinds for me. Checked my time-stamps, and I was shooting about 1 picture every 15 seconds, at most. (5 hours - 200 shots) Such as:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Michael Markey]

16 hours ago, adan said:

I am not really clear on how fast-repetitive-shooting is a competitive advantage, even for people pictures (which are about 85% of my work).

Can you show me an example of a picture where the "buffer" made a difference?

 

It can make a difference in the stuff I do which is largely equestrian.

Camera technology doesn`t exist in a vacuum and as things like increased burst rate have been made possible changes peoples expectations of what is possible have also changed.  

I`m talking about the customer (although I don`t shoot for pay most of my output is for other people).

So in equestrian terms in addition to wanting a nice picture of the horse they often want a sequence of shots to check leg placement and other technical stuff.

They know cameras can do this .

For years I shot this suff with film M`s .

I know my subject and how it moves  ,my timing is good so I can get a good shot in one take .

That used to be sufficient .... it isn`t now

With  Bif `s  folk seem to want precise wing placement and the ability to make that choice from a number of takes.

Was this a solution looking for a problem ?

Possibly but it isn`t now and this ,of course, all impacts on the rest of the chain ie buffering  .