So, in summation, Leica has made a couple of cameras that you don't want and don't want to pay for, and that makes them (insert favorite synonym calling their intelligence into question here) because... why? You firmly believe you're their target market? You bought a couple of their lenses on the used market and now they owe you? It will fulfill your life's ambitions to shoot a digital rangefinder and Leica refuses to make it affordable for you? They've shown a willingness to play into a niche market but left your niche out? Not luxurious enough for you? No Hermes store in your area?
It seems to me like your invectives would be better hurled at the companies who are allowing Leica to run free in the marketplace with absolutely zero competition, but I guess it's somehow simpler to bash a brand for doing what they do, and you get the added benefit of insulting anyone who owns or wants to own one of their digital rangefinders. It doesn't matter to you that our own M8 and 9 shooters have fairly objectively cataloged every drawback of the cameras here, and have managed to find ways to produce some wonderful images and enjoy the shooting experience none the less. To me, that doesn't just make the bashing (insert your chosen synonym for bratty child-like behavior here), it makes the bashers (insert your chosen polite synonym for flaming assholes here).
Of course there are people who carry Leica RFs as jewelery, and, so far as actual photography is concerned, would be just as content with a simple point and shoot. That's true for every brand that makes a luxury... oh, sorry... "professional" model camera. But what those people buy is based on who they're trying to impress and what they have to spend to do it. By and large, I don't think those people come to a place filled with jaded, hard to impress shooters, so if your posts were aimed at them, you might want to consider moving on to a place where you'll find them.
KaaX wrote:
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.
I was making two separate points, which is why I said "both." The "time keeping method," which was probably an odd way to put it, is very much about luxury and isn't necessary. That's just about being interested in a cool mechanical object. I'm just saying that there are a few somewhat practical reasons to own such a thing, as well. My Rolex will certainly outlive my Casios in most cases, and it is a good value if it is used for a lifetime, which I intend...assuming my family sells the watch after I pass. I've had even G-Shock Casios not last 10 years.
Either way, I'm not making any excuses for owning such a thing, other than I like it. I think Leica ownership is similar, but there is a lot time spent trying to prove that it is more accurate at telling time than a Casio.
If I sell one of my prints for 400 bucks I'm happy. If I could put a red dot on 25 copies and sell them for 25 grand each, why you would see something faster than the speed of light.
On the other hand there are lots of people who think 25g as chump change. Wasn't that many years ago where Saudi sheiks were giving out Rolex watches as tips. A friend of mine received one, and I'll admit, I was slightly jealous.
What's the story with Rolex guys? It is not even a luxury brand. People who really understand watches don't buy Rolex.
As for Leica being a luxury brand, that IMO is a ridiculous claim. They do make the Hermes editions from time to time, but their regular stock cannot be more utilitarian. It has been used in wars and conflict areas, and still is. Their prices may seem high to some, but I wonder if they make the same margins as Canikon, probably not, because their manufacturing costs are very high.
FlyPenFly wrote:
They sure do for vintage. Check prices for a good milsub or pn Daytona. Well above $100,000.00.
The prices are high because someone is willing to pay. As far as I'm concerned they don't make anything worth collecting. Their best model pales in comparison to the worst commercial model of Patek Philippe, Blancpain, JLC, IWC... etc.
edwardkaraa wrote:
What's the story with Rolex guys? It is not even a luxury brand. People who really understand watches don't buy Rolex.
Rolex is well known in Asia, especially in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Mob bosses like it a lot, because it can be turned into cash much more easily than gold.
KaaX wrote:
I think you're a bit confused between producing status symbols for the top 1% and thinking outside the box.
The Leica MM is an exercise in marketing, perceptions of prestige, and producing Veblen goods (Google is your friend). The thinking is entirely inside a pretty, gilded, and bow-tied box.
That pretty, gilded, and bow-tied box is definately outside of your box.
This is a silly thread that has nothing to do with photography. People buy what they want and can afford - get over it. If a particular item is important to you and you can afford it, then you have every right to own it. We all have different priorities, many people us give up other things to get the items that we want, so what, that is OUR choice.
Any brand could be slammed for its high end products, there is hamburger and there is steak, that is the way of the world...
freaklikeme wrote:
So, in summation, Leica has made a couple of cameras that you don't want and don't want to pay for, and that makes them (insert favorite synonym calling their intelligence into question here) because... why? You firmly believe you're their target market? You bought a couple of their lenses on the used market and now they owe you? It will fulfill your life's ambitions to shoot a digital rangefinder and Leica refuses to make it affordable for you? They've shown a willingness to play into a niche market but left your niche out? Not luxurious enough for you? No Hermes store in your area?
It seems to me like your invectives would be better hurled at the companies who are allowing Leica to run free in the marketplace with absolutely zero competition, but I guess it's somehow simpler to bash a brand for doing what they do, and you get the added benefit of insulting anyone who owns or wants to own one of their digital rangefinders. It doesn't matter to you that our own M8 and 9 shooters have fairly objectively cataloged every drawback of the cameras here, and have managed to find ways to produce some wonderful images and enjoy the shooting experience none the less. To me, that doesn't just make the bashing (insert your chosen synonym for bratty child-like behavior here), it makes the bashers (insert your chosen polite synonym for flaming assholes here).
Of course there are people who carry Leica RFs as jewelery, and, so far as actual photography is concerned, would be just as content with a simple point and shoot. That's true for every brand that makes a luxury... oh, sorry... "professional" model camera. But what those people buy is based on who they're trying to impress and what they have to spend to do it. By and large, I don't think those people come to a place filled with jaded, hard to impress shooters, so if your posts were aimed at them, you might want to consider moving on to a place where you'll find them....Show more →
+42
i'm not mad at leica, they're doing what they do (and have done for decades). i'm pissed at canon/nikon/sony/pentax/olympus/panasonic/samsung/ricoh for not at least making a halfhearted effort to grab a completely open market (ok, maybe a little mad at fuji too).
also, i'm a big fan of the limited addition leicas – it's like super rich people subsidizing the company so they can work on something cooler (and hopefully less gaudy). it seems like they're a pretty smart investment too, so i can't really make fun of the buyers. i think limited edition leicas definitely beat the market in most cases.
also, please people! enough with the watch comparisons! it's pure gibberish to me.
edwardkaraa wrote:
What's the story with Rolex guys? It is not even a luxury brand. People who really understand watches don't buy Rolex.
Sorry, but in my definition, being a luxury brand, and being the best (or among the better), isn't the same thing.
For example, I would argue that Bentley cars are the best, certainly they aren't as fast as a Ferrari, neither as luxurious as a Rolls Royce, but I would not argue that they are a luxury brand.
It's luxury because it's desirable and expensive. The end, there is no other definition.
PS: I don't own a Rolex, neither they are my personal preferences, but most people who say shit about Rolex, as well as Leica, don't have the MONEY, neither understand what makes a camera good, or good watch.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The prices are high because someone is willing to pay. As far as I'm concerned they don't make anything worth collecting. Their best model pales in comparison to the worst commercial model of Patek Philippe, Blancpain, JLC, IWC... etc.
I certainly agree in terms of Patek and JLC, but the others use ETA movement in the majority of their watches, which is part of why Rolex is still in high regard. I would never buy a Rolex over a similarly priced Patek, but something like a steel DateJust has a much lower buy-in point for a watch with in-house movement, and they hold their value very well. Plus, Rolex in-house movements, while not being overly complicated, are extremely good. There aren't a lot of watches with in-house movement that you can touch for under $10K, and, many who are interested in watches aren't interested in those with parts dropped in by the Swatch company, no matter how much they're modified.
Granted, to me, there are only a few Rolexes worth buying, like the steel Datejust and Sub. From there, I agree that something like Patek is the way to go...but that's where big money starts. As I mentioned earlier, then we're talking Leica M Hermes level, or we're talking Mercedes vs. Bentley, or whatever.
It's all silly, really. Sorry for the diversion.
May 12, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
You don't buy a Rolex because you need a good watch. It's like buying a necklace, earrings or jewellery. Rolex or jewellery are accessories for men and women. And the Rolex watches went out of fashion a rather long time ago for the people that can afford those watches. 99% of the people with a Rolex on their wrist wear a copy ot knock-off watch
As someone deeply involved in the watch industry and who own or have owned a few Blancpains, JLCs, APs, Rolexi, etc.
It's a really incredibly naive notion to dismiss Rolex because they are common or copied. People who own and operate watch companies love Rolex and some of their favorite watches are in fact various Rolexes.
As someone deeply involved in the watch industry and who own or have owned a few Blancpains, JLCs, APs, Rolexi, etc.
It's a really incredibly naive notion to dismiss Rolex because they are common or copied. People who own and operate watch companies love Rolex and some of their favorite watches are in fact various Rolexes.
FlyPenFly wrote:
As someone deeply involved in the watch industry and who own or have owned a few Blancpains, JLCs, APs, Rolexi, etc.
It's a really incredibly naive notion to dismiss Rolex because they are common or copied. People who own and operate watch companies love Rolex and some of their favorite watches are in fact various Rolexes.
Rich people who spend thousends of dollars on an expensive watch, they don't like to see everyone on the street wearing the same watch
If you stay in S.E.Asia or China you will have ten people coming up to you every day of the year and like to sell a Rolex
I've had even G-Shock Casios not last 10 years. 
Sorry for the diversion.