Collectors Should Be Shot (or at least, they should learn to shoot)

BrianShaw · Aug 24, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Making sensible choices in acquiring the minimum of equipment suited for the goals set is good for your photography. Then make sure you use it a lot...I mean a lot. Experience, with a thought out goal will make you a more sucessful photographer. Excess equipment is a burden..it ties up funds, uses up space and complicates decision making. And makes you less competent in using the equipment due to lessened familarity in using it.

I didn't understand the notion of owning less than you need either. Nor do I agree with the not owning if you can rent. Claire says it right here, IMHO.

Lachlan Young · Aug 24, 2006

BruceN said:
Frankly I can't think of anything I could do with a Leica that I can't already do with my OM-1 and Zuiko glass. And with results of at least equal quality. I'm sure I'll be barbecued for that, but I stand by it.

Bruce

PS - I'd still like to have a Leica, but I'm certain I'll never be able to justify the expense.

Don't bother witha Leica, the Zuiko glass equals the best of Leitz - some, most notably Mike Johnston, would argue that the Zuiko 50mm f2 Macro is the best 50mm you will ever use bar none!

In price terms I have a late model Zuiko 50mm f1.4 which was in exceptional condition and cost about £70($130ish) secondhand - it produces images IMHO as crisp as those from top of the range Summiluxes .

The Leica is good for low light which is where SLRs fall down. There is however an alternative - the Kiev 4a (don't laugh). If you get a good one they are pretty darn good and cheap!

Perhaps the most important test of a lens is whether it gets vital images onto film consistently and sharply leaving the photographer free to make the relevant artistic decisions - my Zuikos have never let me down.

Enjoy your Zuikos!

Lachlan

Lachlan Young · Aug 24, 2006

df cardwell said:
My teachers' advice on buying gear:

"Spend as much as you can afford,
on as little as you need"

"Buy a camera like you would buy would buy a pair of shoes:
you want to play tennis, buy tennis shoes;
you want to go dancing, buy dancing shoes."

"Get the camera you are comfortable with.
If the winding lever pokes you in the eye
don't buy it."

And finally,

"Don't buy it if you can rent it.
Don't rent it if you can borrow it.
Don't borrow it if you don't need it."

My own feelings are that we buy a camera to make pictures,
and the more crap we have, the harder it is to make a good picture.

Having the most toys wins ?
THAT is one of the most evil beliefs you can possibly have.

Finally, if you are a Collector, fine.

Collect Leicas, Martin Guitars, Tiffany lamps, whatever.

But if you are a PHOTOGRAPHER, posses less than
what you need to make your pictures.

.

Perhaps one of the best object lessons in the effective use of minimal equipment would be to look at any issue of Picture Post. Its photographers produced consistently outstanding work using old pre-war screw mount Leica III/IIIa/IIIb cameras equipped with similar vintage 3.5cm, fast 5cm and occasinally 13.5cm lenses. If you look at Bert Hardy's or Thurston Hopkin's work you rapidly realise that the technical sophistication of Life Magazine pales into insignificance when viewed alongside the raw, visceral work these minature camera pioneers produced week in week out on obsolete cameras.

Lachlan

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

Lachlan Young said:
Don't bother witha Leica, the Zuiko glass equals the best of Leitz - Lachlan

Not a view universally held; indeed, some reputable sources have said that they were among the worst from any major manufacturer, not least because of variable quality control and less robust construction than most.

I'm talking about the original OM-series: I don't know about current stuff. But I do know that one friend who used an Olympus and 5 lenses for a professional glamour shoot in the 1980s (equipment loaned by Olympus) reckoned that the zoom was the only acceptably sharp lens. Admittedly that didn't include the macro lens you mention.

He wasn't the only one to be unimpressed: very few professionals in London had much time for them in those days, and those who did were mostly people photographers whose priorities were rarely maximum sharpness.

On my own very limited experience, I found some of the reflex lenses to be good (but not outstanding) and others mediocre, but it's a very long time ago and I've forgotten which lenses I tried (on a friend's OM-1, and on my own half-frame Pen F). On the other hand the fixed 25/2.8 on my Pen W is impressive.

None of this means that I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa, but I thought it worth mentioning that there are two views on the question of Zuiko quality.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

BrianShaw said:
I didn't understand the notion of owning less than you need either. Nor do I agree with the not owning if you can rent. Claire says it right here, IMHO.

I'm with you and Claire. The closest I ever had to a 'teacher' was the late Colin Glanfield, who was my 'gaffer' when I was an assistant. His view was that it's as well to own whatever you need, so you are comfortable with it when you need it.

Colin ran an advertising studio, and although he wasn't one of the 'big names' he managed to run a Porsche 911 (from new as a company car) and a Maserati Ghibli (bought a couple of years old from the MD of an ad agency), so he must have been doing something right.

Cheers,

Roger

moonman-54 · Aug 24, 2006

Collectin Leicas.. hmmmmm ... I love to shoot with Leica M, had one before my business went belly up. Now I'm living on survival pension and can't get my hands on decent tools when collectors are keeping the prices up and buy everything from auctions.

I've been told by a big seller that there's a collector in Finland who has some 200 Leicas, all M-series+shitloads of lenses to them.

Mark Layne · Aug 24, 2006

Seriously, the old P4 Rover was a nice car, a '59

Roger, was this similar to the Rover 90?
I used to put my Minx in for service just so I could borrow the garage loaner Rover 90. Its low gear had the most seductive whine.
Mark

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

Mark Layne said:
Seriously, the old P4 Rover was a nice car, a '59

Roger, was this similar to the Rover 90?

Yes, the P4 was the standard 50s/early 60s Rover, made as 60, 75, 80, 90, 95, 100, 105 and I think 110. It may have been introduced as early as 1948 and ceased production around 1963 or 1964. Most has the straight six: a couple had the four.

Early models had the sloping boot; the 75, as I recall was the 'Cyclops'; the lat, I think, were the 80 (four) and 100 or 110. Mine was a 105S (for 'sport', a slight exaggeration, though it would cruse at 95-100 mph under ideal conditions).

The four-speed box (with overdrive on many, including mine) was described as

4 Top
3 Middle
2 Low
1 Emergency low

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

moonman-54 said:
... collectors are keeping the prices up and buy everything from auctions.QUOTE]

Once again, I don't agree. Collectors don't touch 'user' Leicas unless there's something unusual about them (mis-engraving, very early, that sort of thing). The price of a 'user' M-series is a simple reflection of the price that they're very good cameras and seriously expensive new. At a few hundred quid a decent M2 is a bargain.

Cheers,

Roger

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 24, 2006

I'm glad I live in a city where I don't have to own a car, but I do have two Linhofs.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

copake_ham said:
No matter how well-build a Leica camera body is in relation to other high-end competitors - it is not WORTH the price differential. To me, I want to feel that I have gotten true functional value for what I paid!

Dear George,

Not worth it -- to you. It's a matter of opinion. I can equally well emphasize that is is worth the price differential -- to me. I could even use capital letters. Doesn't change the argument.

I don't buy Leicas to show off the red dot (which only my M4-P has anyway). I buy them to use (two in the last 25 years!), because I am happiest using them and I get my best pictures with them. I therefore get 'true functional value' from my Leicas.

Have you ever owned one? Most people who say they aren't worth the money, haven't.

Cheers,

Roger

moonman-54 · Aug 24, 2006

Roger, that's a mighty fine theory... the truth is that Finland is a very small country and there are lots of collectors and "collectors" who seem to have an obsession to buy anything stamped Leica. Leica is however only one example, same goes to many other gizmos that may sometimes be really rare.

Leica doesn't bother me any longer though, I have found an affordable substitute in russian copies. They have some good lenses and you can buy a bucket full of houses for a fraction of what one Leica costs and you always find at least one that actually works and does the job.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

moonman-54 said:
Roger, that's a mighty fine theory... the truth is that Finland is a very small country and there are lots of collectors and "collectors" who seem to have an obsession to buy anything stamped Leica. Leica is however only one example, same goes to many other gizmos that may sometimes be really rare.

Leica doesn't bother me any longer though, I have found an affordable substitute in russian copies. They have some good lenses and you can buy a bucket full of houses for a fraction of what one Leica costs and you always find at least one that actually works and does the job.

You're probably right about modern 'collectors' -- but I'd still maintain that the current prices for used 'user' Ms are a fair reflection of the usefulness as cameras.

Cheers,

Roger

moonman-54 · Aug 24, 2006

Roger, I have a different opinion of that. For the price of one Leica, I get a pile of copies, a pile so big, I couldn't dream of carrying them. They all have the same basic functionality as a "camera obscura" between the lens and the film, so....

copake_ham · Aug 24, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear George,

Not worth it -- to you. It's a matter of opinion. I can equally well emphasize that is is worth the price differential -- to me. I could even use capital letters. Doesn't change the argument.

I don't buy Leicas to show off the red dot (which only my M4-P has anyway). I buy them to use (two in the last 25 years!), because I am happiest using them and I get my best pictures with them. I therefore get 'true functional value' from my Leicas.

Have you ever owned one? Most people who say they aren't worth the money, haven't.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

It is not me alone who says it's not worth the price. Simply put, in the immediate pre-digital era (say since 1970), relatively few professional photogs - regardless of field - used Leicas. While you may be one of the exceptions - by and large, regardless of field of endeavor, over the past several decades, most of those who made their living with their camers did not opt for Leicas. Obviously they didn't think it was "worth" the price even though a top quality camera is a tool of the trade.

Whatever the logic behind it - years ago Leica decided to position itself in the market place as a luxury good. The fact that the company has long been in financial trouble - under several different owners - suggests this may not have been the wisest business strategy.

I do think the M-8 will be a temporary bail-out as their loyal luxury buyers flock to own one - but I do not think it will help them much in the longer run.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

moonman-54 said:
Roger, I have a different opinion of that. For the price of one Leica, I get a pile of copies, a pile so big, I couldn't dream of carrying them. They all have the same basic functionality as a "camera obscura" between the lens and the film, so....

We disagree here. A Fed or Kiev or Zorkii -- and I've owned several of each -- is so far from a Leica that it's comparing fish-paste with caviar. I don't care for fish-paste and I can't afford caviar, so I buy neither. But a Voigtlander Bessa-R is salmon or trout eggs, and I can afford those, and I like them, so I buy them.

Cheers,

R.

moonman-54 · Aug 24, 2006

Roger, I'm sooooo sorry to disagree again. I've always repaired and tuned my own cameras and there is not so much difference between commiecameras and Leica that it would explain the price difference. It's true that Leica is better done and prettier and if I was born with a Cadillac in my mouth, I'd probably shoot with Leica. The thing is that I'm living on survival pension and I would have to save about a 100 years or so to get one.

So ... I have to settle for the ugly sister but I can always close my eyes and the orgasm for a good shot still feels the same.

If cameras made the picture, who would need photographers?

Chan Tran · Aug 24, 2006

I don't own any Leica as for many picture taking situations they are not as good as the Canon or Nikon SLR's. With that said, I think the Leica is worth its price. I don't know if I ever get a Leica but I know for sure I will never buy any of the copies that Moonman 54 mentioned.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

copake_ham said:
years ago Leica decided to position itself in the market place as a luxury good.

No, I think it always was. For the first 15 years or so, it was rarely taken seriously. The war doesn't really count, so we'll discount 1939-1945. Only in the (very) late 40s, all the 50s and early 60s was it a mainstream camera. Since then it's gone back to luxury.

My own view is that it's a dinosaur, something that can't be made to the same standard any cheaper. The relatively primitive but very long-lived shutter; the excessive degree, by modern standards, of hand-assembly; CNC machining the top plate from a vast slab of brass -- yes, it's an expensive way of doing things. But there is always a market for things that are hand-made as well as possible, as (for example) a Patek Phillippe watch or a Hesketh motorcycle (or indeed a Gandolfi) demonstrates.

I'm just very grateful that the dinosaur survives, and at such an affordable price (a lot more affordable than Patek Phillippe, which I would argue is in a similar class).

It's also a very, very good camera. I'd ask again: have you ever actually owned one?

Finally, I'll turn your own argument back on you. Clearly it is worth the money, or Leica would not still be making cameras. Opinions of why it is worth thev money may vary, as indeed may reasons: some will buy it as jewellery, some to take pictures. But if it weren't worth the money, no-one would buy it.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

moonman-54 said:
If cameras made the picture, who would need photographers?

True. But different photographers are happiest with different cameras. I'd go for a Nikkormat or an old Nikon F before I'd go for a Zorkii or Fed or (especially) Kiev. As I say, I take the best pictures with the cameras I'm happiest with.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

Chan Tran said:
I don't own any Leica as for many picture taking situations they are not as good as the Canon or Nikon SLR's.

Very true. And in other situations the Nikon or Canon SLRs aren't as good as M-series Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

firecracker said:
in Leica-obsessed Japan, things may be different from where you are.

Sorry I missed this post earlier. Little though I know of the Japanese market, everything that I do know leads me to believe that you are right.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

moonman-54 · Aug 24, 2006

At last you came up with something I can second. I loved to work with M4 but I have never liked Nikon even if I had several of them, Nikkormat, F and F2. At the moment, I could maybe afford a Nikon but I like more range finder cameras and Fed does the trick as one. Besides, if you dig into knowledge, you will find extremely good russian lenses to them.

Lee Shively · Aug 24, 2006

Who gives a hoot in hell what camera someone else uses? As long as it's a film camera, I mean. I kind of resent being told the cameras I choose to use aren't worth what I paid for them. That's my decision to make, not anyone else's. If they weren't worth it to me, I wouldn't have them. It comes down to each person's choice and, if you're happy with your choice, that's all that should matter.

Roger Hicks · Aug 24, 2006

moonman-54 said:
...extremely good russian lenses...

Oh, dear, we disagree again. The 135/4 is OK and the 85/2 has a certain charm, but they're pre-war Zeiss designs and the performance in any objective sense is wildly inferior to current Voigtlander designs, which are widely regarded as being on a par with the last generation of Leica glass. Subjective performance is another matter but subjectively I think they're pretty bad too (clearly you disagree).

This desn't stop anyone taking good pictures with them -- after all, if you accept its limitations, and are a good enough photographer, you can take good pictures with a Box Brownie -- but I'd suggest that 'extremely good lenses' is wild hyerbole.

Cheers,

Roger

Collectors Should Be Shot (or at least, they should learn to shoot)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency