True, you got the point. I think you know where I'm coming from though. There is simply no other
FF camera on the market. At the moment Sony or Ricoh brings a FF solution for M lenses,
I don't give a stick about Leica. I got all the M lenses I want and that also kind of makes me feel
like an idiot investing in this company so much... But no regrets, lenses are amazing
and they will not stop being amazing even if used on another camera, which I'm doing anyway
True. So now what?
Is this where number /chart geeks put their money where their mouth is or actually develop perspective and remember they are hobbyists?
Oh, I forgot. Hobbyists are the target market because they have no perspective.
So, this is turning into another Leica bashing thread. Fair enough. It just adds to their status that people get so emotional when discussing this brand.
As for me, I can't afford most of their products, but I don't feel the need to bash them. I will buy the M10 (too late to buy the M9 now) once available. I don't buy Leica lenses because I find the ZM to be cheaper, very close in performance, and with more character. I will surely buy an eventual FF RF body from Epson, Cosina, or Zeiss if someone decides to make it.
I have to admit, something about black and white just makes Huff's photos look a lot better than they normally do. Maybe it was because of shooting in a new city.
Before you read his thoughts just look at the images, they're far better than his usual work.
Yep - way to many bitter people and Leica bashing happening. I think the main reason is that so many people (at least on FM) really, really want a FF mirrorless camera which is reasonably priced. If this is indeed one's goal - just move along and ignore the recent announcement. And keep waiting.....
FlyPenFly wrote:
I have to admit, something about black and white just makes Huff's photos look a lot better than they normally do. Maybe it was because of shooting in a new city.
Before you read his thoughts just look at the images, they're far better than his usual work.
snowboarder wrote:
Agree 100%. The problem is not only the elitism, but just plain and simple bad quality
of their cameras. I guess M9 used the electronics from M8, now MM uses the electronics from M9.
What are those people doing all day beside looking at each other and telling themselves how great they are?
It reminds me an old dingy luxury hotel, where they charge $5000/night, but the TVs are old 80's CRTs
and the carpet stinks. But they used to be famous and they have "old charm"
Doesn't matter a Holiday Inn behind the corner has high speed internet, brand new LCDs
and a better and friendly service for $129/night.... ...Show more →
Why do you care so much? You don't even own a leica, how can you be so sure the quality sucks? Did you ever use one?
Is it because they did not introduce a full frame TTL M10 with EVF, AF and all the other NEX features for 3000 euro you were hoping for? To kick you out of that dream, they never will.
Take a look in the leica topic, or at other leica websites and you will notice most user are more than pleased with the M9 as it is. The people who don't have one seems to be the biggest shouters.
Ontopic, in the leica forum they say the current V5 summicron will be kept being produced next to the new APO one.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I have to admit, something about black and white just makes Huff's photos look a lot better than they normally do. Maybe it was because of shooting in a new city.
Before you read his thoughts just look at the images, they're far better than his usual work.
They seem fairly untouched where, with his color photography, he really pumps the contrast and color tweaks so the processing is painfully apparent.
That aside, there's a nice purity to the way the Leica M9-M draws. Can't really put my finger on it. The tonality maybe? It just seems right where converting from color can feel like an approximation.
Leica has always been more expensive than the competition, but, at this point, Leica has turned into a luxury brand like Rolex. It may not be the best at telling time, but some prefer its method of timekeeping. The problem for me is that both Leica lenses and Rolex watches hold their value nicely throughout the course of their lifetimes, but the M digital cameras are still digital cameras at heart that become utterly replaceable in the matter of a few years. It's a little tougher for me to justify their digital cameras like I could their film cameras. If their M digital cameras were both incredibly built AND on the forefront of digital/electronic technology, it'd be a little easier to swallow, especially since their lenses are on the forefront of technology.
I'd say the difference between a Rolex buyer and a Leica buyer is that you never hear Rolex buyers say that their watches keep better time than anything else on the market. You can buy a better timekeeping instrument, but that's not the point. I think it'd be more refreshing to see M9 users admit the same, especially considering the print sizes most of us use.
douglasf13 wrote:
Leica has always been more expensive than the competition, but, at this point, Leica has turned into a luxury brand like Rolex. It may not be the best at telling time, but some prefer its method of timekeeping.
Um. I think it actually goes "may not be the best at telling time, but some use it as a way to signal their wealth and high social status."
The goal of luxury goods is to provide not functionality but exclusivity.
snowboarder wrote:
... There is simply no other
FF camera on the market. At the moment Sony or Ricoh brings a FF solution for M lenses,
I don't give a stick about Leica....a
Agreed.
The only attraction I've ever had to Leica was that if offered FF in a small form factor. The lenses are excellent of course, but not significantly better than the equivalent Zeiss counterparts for me to care.
I'm not trying to brag, just trying to make a point here. I could easily go out and buy an M9 and some nice RF lenses to go with it without a second thought, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much on a camera. Its just excessive. Just like I will never buy a Rolex, even though I could afford one. I eat a bagged lunch every day at work while others go out to lunch every day. I drive a 7 year old CRV. I don't consider that a sacrifice, I just don't have a desire for the "luxurious". I love to travel, but I'm happy staying in a Holiday Inn or in a hostel or even tenting it, even though I could afford much nicer accommodations. That's just who I am.....and Leica doesn't square with that. For my sister in law, its got to be the Weston or the Ritz; a Leica would be perfect for her.
I hope I haven't offended any Leica users but that's just the way I feel.
douglasf13 wrote:
Leica has always been more expensive than the competition, but, at this point, Leica has turned into a luxury brand like Rolex. It may not be the best at telling time, but some prefer its method of timekeeping. The problem for me is that both Leica lenses and Rolex watches hold their value nicely throughout the course of their lifetimes, but the M digital cameras are still digital cameras at heart that become utterly replaceable in the matter of a few years. It's a little tougher for me to justify their digital cameras like I could their film cameras. If their M digital cameras were both incredibly built AND on the forefront of digital/electronic technology, it'd be a little easier to swallow, especially since their lenses are on the forefront of technology.
I'd say the difference between a Rolex buyer and a Leica buyer is that you never hear Rolex buyers say that their watches keep better time than anything else on the market. You can buy a better timekeeping instrument, but that's not the point. I think it'd be more refreshing to see M9 users admit the same, especially considering the print sizes most of us use....Show more →
Agreed. It is easy to see the value and quality of most of Leica's lenses. That they are finally engineered pieces of equipment is not contestable.
Leica digital cameras however, seem like really really bad jokes. From their overpriced Panasonic rebrands, to their laughably obsolete "mid priced" cameras, to their stupidly overpriced pompous, condescending, "luxury" limited editions, Leica cameras no longer represent the part of photography that they used to.
I agree with you. I actually do shoot a film Leica + a couple lenses, but I hate the image that goes with it. I just like the small form factor of the camera and lenses. It's really tops when traveling or trying to keep it light. I eat a bagged lunch every day too (reusing the bag as well :P) and drive a 10 year old car.
I should just sell it all and get a 5DIII, but it's just so big.
KaaX wrote:
Um. I think it actually goes "may not be the best at telling time, but some use it as a way to signal their wealth and high social status."
The goal of luxury goods is to provide not functionality but exclusivity.
I'd say both. My Rolex is essentially indestructible, will probably outlive me, and I wear it for everything from yard work to weddings. If I were to wear it for a lifetime than sell it, I'd probably make money on it. Granted, a distinction should probably be made between my rather "pedestrian" steel Rolex and a platinum one full of diamonds. I guess that's when you get into Hermes Leica territory.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'd say both. My Rolex is essentially indestructible, will probably outlive me, and I wear it for everything from yard work to weddings. If I were to wear it for a lifetime than sell it, I'd probably make money on it.
I'd argue that neither durability nor resale value have much relationship to the "method of timekeeping" :-) You're saying basically that your Rolex is good value -- which may or may not be true depending on a lot of things including context, the meaning of "good value", etc.
However with respect to *functionality*, I bet your Rolex is inferior to my Casio. This is true both for direct functionality (Casio is more accurate) and for being able to do something other than just tell the time.
Having said that, I would most certainly agree that functionality is not the end-all of everything. There is a bunch of things I use because I just plain like them even though I could get a better deal or better functionality elsewhere. So if someone says "I shoot a Leica because I get a warm feeling inside me when I pick it up", that's perfectly fine. He feels that way and who am I to tell him it's right or wrong. But if someone else says that he shoots a Leica because it adds an exquisite sophistication to his images that only those with good taste and developed appreciation for fine things in life and art can discern -- well, ahem...
