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

[John Koehrer]

I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.

Sure, in '54 you could get an M3 w/summicron for $330. I don't have information on what a lllf cost new but it was certainly less thamn the M. What was a decent wage? $80-100/wk? It was and is an expensive toy/tool and has always been that way. Arguing about whether on not it has the relative value is foolish because opinions are not fact based but based on belief.
I've owned Leica & Nikon and they both had their place. I still don't think there's anything that handles like a Leica

 

[naturephoto1]

George,

You know that I use the Leica R series cameras- R8, R7, R4SP. I believe that there are many more professional users of Leica M and R series cameras than you may expect. Both systems are wonderful, mechanics (including focusing) unlike any other 35mm lenses made, and the lenses are generally designed to be used wide open with less abberation than those generally made by their competition. Yes Leica may be a Dinosaur in its design, manufacture, and mechanics. But few 35mm cameras and lenses are made so much by hand today.

Rich

 

[DBP]

I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.

The major change for Leica is not how expensive it is, not how good it is but the amount of other choices that are less expensive and that may well be viewed by the buyer as better value.

If the cameras are going to sit in the book case and not be used for taking photographs then there are a lot of good choices. If you need a very durable RF camera that will be very reliable and which has available very good glass fully usable at every aperture that comes in very durable mounts then a Leica makes a very credible choice and a good value.

If you work in good light and do not need a camera for heavy duty service that will be used at moderate apertures then a Leica may not be your best choice.

Being mad at Leica for making such a good product that you lust after and can not afford is a waste of emotion.

In 1950, Olden camera in New York was advertising the following prices:

Leica III C coated f/2 Summitar $385.00
Contax IIa f/2 Sonnar $385.00
Contax S f/2 Biotar $475.00
Retina IIB f/2 $197.63
Kine Exakta II f/2 Biotar $186.00
Argus C3 with Flash $69.58
Argus A2 $37.50
Pacemaker Speed Graphic 4x5 RF f/4.7 $249.00
B&J Press 4x5 f/4.5 $118.00
Rolleicord IIB coated Xenar $118.00
Ciroflex Rapax Synchro $113.70
9x12 Linhoff $176.00

At the time, median family income in the US was $3,00 per year, or $250 per month. So a new Leica represented almost seven weeks gross pay. In 2002, median household income was $44,389 per year, or $3,699 per month. B&H was listing a Leica M6TTL at $1750 after rebate, and the 50/2 for $995, for a total of $2745, or roughly three weeks gross pay.

 

[copake_ham]

.... In 2002, median household income was $44,389 per year, or $3,699 per month. B&H was listing a Leica M6TTL at $1750 after rebate, and the 50/2 for $995, for a total of $2745, or roughly three weeks gross pay.

Hmmm.

Guess there has been a heck of a lot more inflation from 2002 to 2006....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...653&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...059&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation


Oh, sorry, they don't sell the M6TTL anymore.

Did someone say "luxury goods"!

 

[copake_ham]

George


As for a Zeiss 35/1.4... they don't make one.

Yes, df, I can read the catalog too and you are correct that Zeiss does not make a 35/1.4

They do make a 35/2.0 - so if you cannot adapt for a stop via shutter speed or, if need be, a push, then on absolute speed Leica wins....by a stop.

But that f/stop goes for a heck of a price.

A Leica/Leitz (what do they really call them nowadays) 35/1.4 will set you back $3400:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...312&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Now you could settle for just a Leica 35/2.0 and only have to spend $2200:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...723&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

But then again, if your willing to "slum it" and buy a cheapo Zeiss 35/2.0 you only need to drop a grand ($1000):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...549&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Did someone here say Leica only sells "luxury goods"?

 

[firecracker]

One of my concerns for choosing a right camera, lens(es), etc especially when I'm traveling overseas is to meet the adequacy of the cost of the equipment I carry. For this, I don't like the western standard at all, which is so money-driven and completely disregards the reality out there. It's not so much about the currency rate and/or inflation, but it's just the kind of capitalist mentality that we sometimes cannot get out of, which cannibalizes my soul.

I'm leaning towards a primitivist-end of an anarchist life in a way because I believe photography isn't something that involved complicated technology. It's much like writing poems, drawing with charcoal on a piece of paper, which you use very common and simple tools that are widely available in everyday life to project and depict the images you have in your head.

Maybe I'm just too odd...

 

[Sparky]

One of my concerns for choosing a right camera, lens(es), etc especially when I'm traveling overseas is to meet the adequacy of the cost of the equipment I carry. For this, I don't like the western standard at all, which is so money-driven and completely disregards the reality out there. It's not so much about the currency rate and/or inflation, but it's just the kind of capitalist mentality that we sometimes cannot get out of, which cannibalizes my soul.

I'm leaning towards a primitivist-end of an anarchist life in a way because I believe photography isn't something that involved complicated technology. It's much like writing poems, drawing with charcoal on a piece of paper, which you use very common and simple tools that are widely available in everyday life to project and depict the images you have in your head.

Maybe I'm just too odd...

I like your style and way of thinking.

I look at equipment trends as 'fashion trends'. It really CAN be reduced to that, I think. So - the trick is to buy very 'unfashionable' equipment cheaply -as long as it's really truly good equipment (for your purposes!).

 

[Roger Hicks]

The 35 Summilux is a passport to another world, and if you are enough of a photographer to use it, you can make good pictures. Nothing touches it. Roger: do you have in more wine left ? I'm coming over.

Dear Don,

Which is why I replaced my original 35/1.4 IMMEDIATELY when it was stolen in India 20+ years ago. I've since tried the aspherics, and they're better lenses with less coma, but they're also a lot bigger -- as is Voigtlander's 35/1.2 -- so I put up with the shortcomings of the pre-aspheric for the tiny size.

I don't think there are more than four or five dozen bottles left but I can always restock if I know you're coming over.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why would this lens perform less on a R2A or R2M etc.?

Will this Summilux lens really produce a such a more superior image than a Zeiss at one half the price? (Sh*t, that last phrase rhymes!).

Dear George,

For the first, yes. The RF base on the R-series is marginal with ultra-fasts, and the Leica focuses faster and easier. So does the Zeiss but I find the Leica a much more comfortable camera to use. Part habituation, part that I like the Leicavit, don't like the base-mounted rewind and much prefer the Leica meter.

Fot the second, no, but the Zeiss is also half the speed. Once you have used a 35/1.4, a 35/2 is like cold rice pudding. I sold my 35/2 Summicron for exactly that reason.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I believe that if one goes back to the early years of Leica and Contax that they were probably even much more dear than they are today.

The major change for Leica is not how expensive it is, not how good it is but the amount of other choices that are less expensive and that may well be viewed by the buyer as better value.

If the cameras are going to sit in the book case and not be used for taking photographs then there are a lot of good choices. If you need a very durable RF camera that will be very reliable and which has available very good glass fully usable at every aperture that comes in very durable mounts then a Leica makes a very credible choice and a good value.

If you work in good light and do not need a camera for heavy duty service that will be used at moderate apertures then a Leica may not be your best choice.

Being mad at Leica for making such a good product that you lust after and can not afford is a waste of emotion.

Dear Claire,

A substantially perfect analysis, I'd say.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I also wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I believe that there are many more professional users of Leica M and R series cameras than you may expect. Rich

Dear Rich,

I think the point is, the professionals just use 'em and don't agonize about it, therefore you don't hear about 'em.

I'm in the odd position here of being a 'paid amateur', writing mostly (though not exclusively) for amateurs but using cameras in much the same way as many professionals. As I said in an earlier post, you buy the tool that you believe does the job best.

Years ago, Linhof UK reckoned their customers were 50/50 pro/amateur. I've never asked Leica but I'd guess it's similar. Something a lot of people forget is that for a professional, a Leica is unlikely to be his only camera. Rather, it'll be one he uses for some jobs, and (very often) also for his personal photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

George,
... I believe that there are many more professional users of Leica M and R series cameras than you may expect. ...

I believe among the leading professional users was (hopefully still is) the National Geographic magazine, whose staffers would regularly set out on safari with twenty or so Leica R bodies, chosen for their durability and the very nice telephoto lenses. These guys would apparently think themselves lucky if they returned with even one body working, the rest having been mashed in buffalo stampedes, eaten by crocodiles, etc. A few more customers like this, and Leica would have had no problems!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger says he can (or cannot) afford Leica bodies (only Cosinas) because Leicas are "caviar" and he can only afford salmon eggs. But then, didn't he say he had Leicas elsewhere in this thread?

And, wait a minute, didn't Roger just review the R2M in that magazine?

Go back, George, and you'll see that I seconded Lee's point that 'afford' is a question of priorities. I can afford Leicas because they are worth the money to me; I cannot afford caviar because there are other things on which I prefer to spend the money.

Likewise, I could afford one or at most two bottles of Bollinger Millesime champagne a month, but I prefer to have a bottle of plonk every day. You can afford a Leica, but you choose not to because it's not worth the money to you.

What puzzles many of us is your belief that your priorities are right, and ours are wrong.

As for the relative performances of the cameras, under many circumstances the two will be indistinguishable. At the limits, as Don said, they probably will be distinguishable. As for the 'out of the box' point, my M4-P (my first new Leica) came out of the box 25 years ago. I'm still using it. Much as I admire Voigtlanders, I wouldn't expect that sort of longevity. Yes, I could replace them as they wore out -- but why not buy the best on day 1.

Besides, technical image quality and even longevity are not the entire story. I can get better technical quality from almost any roll-film camera I own. What I can't get from medium format is a camera that I like to use better than any other camera I have ever used; that I can use almost instinctively; and which, therefore, gives me my best pictures.

Put it in terms of clothes. In the days when I had to wear suits, I had them made to measure. They were more comfortable than off-the-peg, and looked better. They didn't keep me any warmer or drier, but I preferred them. Fortunately I gave away my last suit in 1987.

Finally, no. I haven't reviewed the R3M, just the R3A (I live in hope for the R3M -- I've been offered one for review but George at Shutterbug has to agree). I've also reviewed the ZI. My review reckoned that the Zeiss Ikon is about twice as good as the R3A, and half as good as a Leica -- or as Damien Demolder put it in the AP review, if all three were made by the same manufacturer, their prices would fairly accurately reflect their position in the market. Frances actually prefers the ZI because she can hold it steadier.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan


Today's Leica is meant for shooting at the margins of what may be caught on film. Shoot from a tripod on a bright sunny day, and almost anything will be good enough. Shoot wide open in low light with dazzling light sources in the scene, and you can throw out alnost every lens on the market: they all fail. Which is why people are justified in buying $3000 lenses for 35mm.

My big photographic interest is recording the lives of ordinary people. It's what drew me to making pictures almost 40 years ago. Now, when you turn on bright lights, or take out a flash, you don't get the image you might have in normal, everyday lighting. Long ago, you had to push film and hope for the best. Today, you CAN use an f/1.4 lens and 400 film, and record amazing detail, in gentle tonality. AND not spend a long time in the darkroom, or on the scanner, making a satisfying image. The 35 Summilux is a passport to another world, and if you are enough of a photographer to use it, you can make good pictures. Nothing touches it. This is saying no more than should be obvious: learn your craft, be committed to what you do, have a compelling urgency to your work, and use the right tool for the job. And go shoot pictures. Tell stories. Be a creative force for good before the maniacs blow the world to bits.

I know exactly what you mean - whether my 50mm f1.4 Zuiko is a specially good example or not I don't know but it has always performed superbly in low contrasty light with powerful light sources - I have a picture where a 'mini-mac' arc lamp was shining almost directly into the lens yet the picture prints with a minimum of flare. A good lens hood is of course the other part of the story...

Anyway I much prefer older lenses in larger formats as I find them less 'clinical' than the latest Schneider/Rodenstock etc

Lachlan

 

[Roger Hicks]

Guess there has been a heck of a lot more inflation from 2002 to 2006"!

Not so much inflation as the collapse of the dollar.

When Dubbya came to power, a euro cost at most 95 cents. Today, it costs about $1.33. So a 3000 euro camera has gone from $2850 to $4000.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,
It could be be made much cheaper ! With absolutely the same quality standard. But not in Germany. This is the wrongest place at all for the production of this Dino. Zeiss did it better at this point, which is decisive when we talk about worth the gap or not.

Bertram

Dear Bertram,

Possibly; I am not convinced. Here, we do get into the question of brands and luxury. For example, I still wear Levis 501s -- but they have cheapened the brand both literally and in popular perception by having them manufactured outside the USA. They started going downhill when they dropped the old guarantee of 'A new pair free if they rip'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

One of my concerns for choosing a right camera, lens(es), etc especially when I'm traveling overseas is to meet the adequacy of the cost of the equipment I carry. For this, I don't like the western standard at all, which is so money-driven and completely disregards the reality out there. It's not so much about the currency rate and/or inflation, but it's just the kind of capitalist mentality that we sometimes cannot get out of, which cannibalizes my soul.

I'm leaning towards a primitivist-end of an anarchist life in a way because I believe photography isn't something that involved complicated technology. It's much like writing poems, drawing with charcoal on a piece of paper, which you use very common and simple tools that are widely available in everyday life to project and depict the images you have in your head.

Maybe I'm just too odd...

As you might expect, I feel much the same way, except perhaps with more anarcho-syndicalist leanings.

Something that has occupied me for some years, though, is exactly how this fits into current capitalism. Could it survive without the people who queston it? Probably not, without collapsing into revolution as it polatized between rich and poor. But equally, could we actually afford Leicas if it were not for the very rich to whom they are mere toys or something to collect?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mark Layne]

Dear Don,

Which is why I replaced my original 35/1.4 IMMEDIATELY when it was stolen in India 20+ years ago. I've since tried the aspherics, and they're better lenses with less coma, but they're also a lot bigger -- as is Voigtlander's 35/1.2 -- so I put up with the shortcomings of the pre-aspheric for the tiny size.

I don't think there are more than four or five dozen bottles left but I can always restock if I know you're coming over.

Cheers,

R.

Roger
If Cardwell comes back on this thread remind him that he will soon have another option for getting over to your place-the rocket launch pad.
Meanwhile I now leave for Pictou by conventional transport.
cheers
Mark

 

[David H. Bebbington]

For example, I still wear Levis 501s -- but they have cheapened the brand both literally and in popular perception by having them manufactured outside the USA. They started going downhill when they dropped the old guarantee of 'A new pair free if they rip'.

Cheers,

R.

I remember them! I think they sold for 5 gold nuggets a pair?

 

[Lee Shively]

Someone brought up the question of why use Leica bodies when Leica lenses will fit on cheaper bodies (like the Voigtlander and clones by Cosina) and, after all, the only reason to use Leica cameras is to use the Leica glass. (Did I get all that in? )

While I do consider Leica lenses as fine optics, my main reason for using Leica rangefinders are the cameras themselves and not the outstanding characteristics of the lenses. The way I shoot pictures, I'm not getting the full benefit of the Leitz lenses anyway. Hell, I never got the full benefit of the lens on any of the point and shoot cameras I've owned. Horror of horror, I even use a couple of Voigtlander lenses on my M6 bodies!

Benefits of the Leica camera to me are: small size and light weight, almost silent shutter, ability to allow handheld exposures at ridiculously slow shutter speeds, constant view of the subject and beyond, outstanding build quality...I could go on. But mainly, I can carry two Leica M6 bodies with 35mm and 50mm Summicrons attached, a 20/4 Voigtlander, a 90/4 Elmar-C, tiny Sekonic meter, full complement of B&W filters, 20+ rolls of HP5 film, various and assorted little extra items, a couple of terry cloth towels and a cell phone and still have room for my check book, a paperback book, a few travel brochures and still have more space to spare. All this in a beat-up Pro Hadley shoulder bag that's half the size and weight of the F2 Domke I use as a day bag for comparable Canon EOS or Pentax 645 equipment.

Further, it was brought up that Leicas only synch flash at 1/50 second. True. I've never used a flash with my Leicas. Since I bought them both used and they both came with the little plastic plug in the PC sockets and unscarred hot shoes, I must assume the previous owners didn't use flash either. In my opinion, putting a flash (or a motor drive) on a Leica rangefinder is like putting deep-tread mudgrip tires on a sports car. They might fit but they really detract from the machine's strong points.

Are there things I don't like about Leicas? Sure. The bright-line frames are not 100% accurate at all distances, the rangefinder patch on my M6's sometimes flare out under some light conditions, I'm always smudging the front of the viewfinder, I can't easily see the entire 35mm frame while wearing glasses, using a 90mm or 135mm lens is a pain and I get nose grease in the eyepiece when using the 20mm finder. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few other nitpicks. But they're pretty much inconsequential compared to the strengths. Would I give up using SLR's totally in favor of a Leica RF? No, but I wouldn't give up the Leicas in favor of an SLR either. Since we humans are adaptable, I could live with either but I'd really rather have both available.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I remember them! I think they sold for 5 gold nuggets a pair?

What? Woukd that have been at the tent next to Big Susie's whore-house?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hell, I never got the full benefit of the lens on any of the point and shoot cameras I've owned.

Same here!

Horror of horror, I even use a couple of Voigtlander lenses on my M6 bodies!

Same here again... and so on through the entire post. I love the image of mud tyres on a sports car -- I'll steal that one -- and I'll second the gripes too, though the M2s and MP are better for flare-out than my M4-P, and of course the frames can't be accurate at all distances unless they vary in size.

Cheers,

R

 

[Cooki]

Talking about photography is like dancing about architecture.
Get off you chairwarmer and shoot.

 

[firecracker]

As you might expect, I feel much the same way, except perhaps with more anarcho-syndicalist leanings.

Something that has occupied me for some years, though, is exactly how this fits into current capitalism. Could it survive without the people who queston it? Probably not, without collapsing into revolution as it polatized between rich and poor. But equally, could we actually afford Leicas if it were not for the very rich to whom they are mere toys or something to collect?

Cheers,

R.

I see where you're coming from.

A few days ago, I saw a liitle business report on Japanese TV when Toyota was celebrating its 40-year aniversary of its most popular 4-door sedan family car. I remember I grew up seeing my father driving this car: He had always had it, always updated to the latest model when it's out, and utilized it as a trusty familar car for most of his life. It never had any trouble as far as I know, but it took us to a lot of places wherever we wanted to on the road.

This Toyota car was a working-class and/or middle-class car in terms of its built quality and its use back in the 70s and 80s, but it certainly did far more than that for many people like my family. As I look back now, it was probably almost a class-free vehicle, and what I like about is the fact that it didn't choose the drivers.

Of course people have different tastes and choose or not choose certain products, but their choices were there at least. And to my eye, this particular car was (and still is perhaps) something equivalent to the overall quality of Nikormats or FMs. These Nikon cameras just as an example are common tools and the good services for the maintenance can be easily found almost everywhere.

I'm not saying all Leicas have to be that way, but the cameras and lenses as tools in general probably do need to stay in the price range where everyone can reach, which is my response to the original question of this thread also. And the prices for the used ones should come down as they wear out.

But at the same time, the tools shouldn't be "bargained", either. Throwing out what's still fully functional and usable based on the market agenda is like half a step to committing suicide and so harmful to the environment. That is a real disgrace to what we call "civilization."