Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think Leica got caught up in its story. Most individuals do that too, and Leica does have one hell of a story to tell. In 1958 or '9 when a highschool classmate told me about the features of the early M3 he was planning to buy, I was cutting my teeth on the Retina IIC my mother had bought as, she said, a "family" camera. I thought my friend was describing some technological marvel from the future. I wound up getting one at the PX in Orleans for $254 and change. I didn't know how good it was until I sold it and sent the proceeds to a friendcin Japan to buy me a Nikon F and several lenses (35, 50, 105, 200, and 55 macro). I was never able to duplicate the Leica IQ with even the 55. Leica, I think, got caught up in its story and walked away from the market they dominated with the M3. At that time it was the overwhelming choice of professionals. I think that's because it was the best tool in its class. It was very fast to operate, produced the best images of any 35mm camera (I ran into a studio owner in LA some 20 or so years ago who told me they had quit shooting 2&1/4 and switched entirely to Leicas), stood up to hard use, and came in a very small package. As the SLR tsunami began, Leitz advertised its diminishing list of advantages: quiet shutter, accurate focusing, superior image quality, compact body and lenses, and much shorter shutter lag time than the competition. Leitz sold autofocus to Minolta, and when Minolta's camera debuted with what Leitz deemed a focusing system unworthy of the Leica name, customers were paying premiums to get their hands on it. To take back their leadership role, Leica needs "to giff people vat dey VANT," not what Leica thinks "dey NEED." (See a previous post re German accent.) I really like Leicas...but each time I've been faced with the decision of what to buy to get the job done, I've chosen Nikons or Canons. Oddly, I must say, a dream assignment dropped into my lap several years ago via a referral from a client for whom I'd done a couple of annual reports (using Leica M3 and Nikon for longer lenses). I accompanied someone, who needed photographs to illustrate a book, around the seedier neighborhoods of East LA, and shot photographs in black and white. I made thousands of dollars in just a few days. My choice for this assignment: M3, M6, 35mm F/2 ASPH, 50mm F/2, 90mm Tele-Elmarit, like working with old friends. For working on weekends with a local wedding studio, I bought my first digital, and first Canon, a 20D, upgraded for a subsequent wedding to a 5D, and now, while thinking of M thises or M thats, both Canon and Nikon have announced sensors with top ISO settings of 204,800. I know the IQ will suffer at this setting, but for Leica to be a real player, the discussion -- in the marketplace -- would have to be which sensor is superior at that altitude, Canon, Nikon, or Leica. Instead Leica is now telling us we don't NEED such a high ISO we merely have to use very fast lenses. They also are telling us that we don't really need shirt shutter lag times. And the marketplace "iss telling Leica vat it VANTS." Just imagine: You're shooting a wedding with your M 250 (or pick a number) because it's the only reasonable choice. You see a shot developing at a banquet table lit solely by candles. The table is twenty feet long, champaigne glasses and flower petals are glowing, backlit by the candles, the conversation is lively and animated. Flash would be an obscenity. You can't decide on color or black and white, you have only seconds before the scene dissolves into the ordinary. You set the distance with your depth-of-field scale which, it crosses your mind, you can't do with the SLR you haven't touched in a while, you set your 35 or 28 or 24mm lens to its smallest aperture, select ISO 1,638,400 (gloating because Nikons and Canons can't fly this high) and capture this once-in-a-lifetime shot, action stopped, everything in focus, Leica bokeh turning the candles out of focus across the room into jewels as only Leica glass can do. But Leica "duss not giff people vat dey VANT, it giffs dem vat dey NEED." so we'll just have to pass on that dream for now. Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Richard Man" <richard at richardmanphoto.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Subject: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 12:22 pm No offense to Tina, for every stock photographer that makes money with Leica, there are 10 billions that use Canikon. For every photojournalist that cut their teeth with a Leica M3 or M6, there are gazillions that use Nikanon. You count all the photos hanging on galleries or all the stock photos right now, most of them are not done with Leica equipments. A Leica M 240 will not do any good in the hands of someone who does not understand the light and composition, bokeh be damn. Me? The M9 is my go to camera. For other people, who am I to tell them that my set of 'luxes are the finest picture taking lens ever. Well, at least for dinky 35mm size. Chances are I will pick up a 4x5 to go with my 617 at some point and my $500 lens will eat the lunch off the $10,000 Noctilux... On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM, <tedgrant at shaw.ca> wrote: > A very interesting topic and conversation. I can only offer from experince > of shooting for magaines, wire services, commercial clients, Ad agencies > and any number if various clients. > > Only once was there a question. The assignment required shooting on 4X5 > size film. I showed them a number of 35 Kodachromes shot wth Leicas. AND? > :-) > > They said .... "OK go with your gear it will work perfectly!" :-) > > cheers, > Dr. ted :-) > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at > mac.com> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Leica] Subject: Re: Fuji X 100 versus Leica M9 > > > > >> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:38 AM, jon.streeter wrote: >> >> A friend of mine told me in the '70s that art directors didn't take >>> photographers seriously unless they were shooting with Nikons, >>> Hasselblads, >>> and a few other well-known brands. I never worked with an art director, >>> so >>> I took his word for it. >>> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Greg Rubenstein" <gcr910 at gmail.com> >>> >> >> Simple explanation for all this tech and test stuff: use the right tool >>> for what you're trying to accomplish regardless of brand. You know what >>> works for you -- and your clients, who hire vision and results, not >>> brands >>> and data sheets. >>> >> >> both statements have proven true in my experience. >> >> "Art directors" hire "talent" >> More often than not the "best talent" use the "best tools" >> >> sometimes the art directors (and their agencies and clients) can't afford >> the best talent. >> they then try and hedge their bets by specifying that at least "the >> talent" use "the best tools." >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george at imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com/blog >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/**imagist <http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See >> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for >> more information >> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Leica Users Group. > See > http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for > more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information