Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] SHARPNESS (long)
From: tedgrant@islandnet.com (Ted Grant)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:51:16 -0800

Dominique Pellissi quoted and wrote:

>What Erwin certainly does is convincing people like me to spend their money
>on new unaffordable Leica lenses instead of the affordable 2nd hand
>'any brand' ones. Not that I will ever discover the 'differences' myself
>with my handheld photography ;-)>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Dominique,

Sorry not me on that part. :) However, I do agree with it.

>>>>>>If sharpness is not the main criterium, why buy Leica lenses ? Nikon or
>Canon lenses are 3 or 4 times less expensive.>>>>>>>

Well that's true and I agree with you. But if you start out with the
finest, sharpest there is, the mere fact you are working with the best
allows more slack in technique than needing to be "precisely correct" with
the other manufacturers to achieve the same quality.

>Do you know that only 15% of Leica buyers in the world are professionals>>>>>

Yep! And the rest want them but can't afford them nor buy them simply
because they are too expensive. Or because they lack some of the features
the others have ie: auto focus and high speed motors.

<<<<<<So 85 % of pros have answered to my question.They don't buy Leica.
>That's the strategic problem for Leica Camera : how to conquer
>professionals who are, in essence, rational because they earn money with a
>camera ?>>>>>>>>

I've always earned my keep with cameras and I've used Leica for the major
part of my career and yes I've choked and coughed at the price sometimes.
But I can't afford not to have them, nor can I afford to get out and buy
something else.

As you point out many Pros do not buy Leica, not because of quality and on
that basis I imagine most would have Leica. However, the "cost factor" is
the first reason, no question. But then if cost weren't a factor in cars I
imagine a greater number of people would be driving Mercedes or BMW'S than
Fords.

How to over come the "cost factor?" Well I guess they could lower the
quality standards, that of course would be stupid as they'd loose their
best selling point, certainly on the glass.

>If I were a  young pro, I'd never buy a Leica gear : too expensive, son.>>>>>

Well that's true today, dad. :) I sure would hate to be starting out these
days, but if I wanted to use Leica bad enough I'd use some logic and work
my way into it with used gear or save the money until I could afford new.

>Even "old" pros are reluctant. Some months ago the French photographer
>Jeanloup Sieff tried the 24 M. He answered to Leica : "Its price makes me
>move back a bit" (son prix me fait un peu reculer").He didn't buy it.>>>>>

Yep and he was right with many of the lenses for any old or new pro. But I
go back to the Mercedes, if they gave me one to try I'd love it, but I too
would "move back  a bit" because of price. But that doesn't mean they
should lower the price just because I would like to buy one.

I don't suppose there is a simple solution to the price thing, simply
because you either buy Leica because you can afford it, or you can't afford
it (most on the LUG) but some how you manage to save and scrimp until you
can.

I for one as an old pro, used the save and scrimp method for many of my
Leica purchases over the years, as I believe in the glass and what I see
that it does for me. An acceptable "sharpness" (whatever that constitutes)
that I don't see in other manufacturers lenses.

Not sure that this adds anything to the "SHARPNESS" topic or not.
ted



Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant