I wonder what non-photographers and "point-and-shoot" amateurs see when they look at a Leica or Contax or whatever fashionable camera that photographers tend to drool over. I don't know what they would regard as head-turning, but what photographers regard as beautiful or desirable has to be a learned response. I think anything besides an SLR or point and shoot has to catch people's attention.
As far as build quality goes, I have a Leica IIIf and an OM1. The Leica shutter curtain has a hole burned in it by the sun. The OM1 does not, since it's made of metal. So score one for Olympus.
OM shutter is cloth too, but it never gets burned since it's SLR so sun gets deflected by the mirror. As for other question, what do people think when they see Porsche or Rolls Royce? That it's expensive, fancy and stylish. I guess same happens when they see Leica.
OM shutter is cloth too, but it never gets burned since it's SLR so sun gets deflected by the mirror. As for other question, what do people think when they see Porsche or Rolls Royce? That it's expensive, fancy and stylish. I guess same happens when they see Leica.
My mistake, but the mirror does make the difference in any case. As for sports cars and Rolls Royces, they're obviously quite big and flashy. I don't see how the general public can distinguish between a Leica and other similarly styled rangefinders. Why wouldn't they have the same reaction to a FED or a Nicca? I once had a person ask me if my Mamiya C3 was a Rolleiflex. When I explained it was a Mamiya, I think they were less impressed in spite of the Mamiya being the better camera. So perhaps the reputation as a luxury good precedes them, the fact the Mamiya has interchangeable lenses and can focus down to a few inches just doesn't impress as much.
My mistake, but the mirror does make the difference in any case. As for sports cars and Rolls Royces, they're obviously quite big and flashy. I don't see how the general public can distinguish between a Leica and other similarly styled rangefinders. Why wouldn't they have the same reaction to a FED or a Nicca? I once had a person ask me if my Mamiya C3 was a Rolleiflex. When I explained it was a Mamiya, I think they were less impressed in spite of the Mamiya being the better camera. So perhaps the reputation as a luxury good precedes them, the fact the Mamiya has interchangeable lenses and can focus down to a few inches just doesn't impress as much.
On one hand, those few who own capable and expensive gear just love showing it off. Tourists included. On the other hand, as a guy from FSU country, I can say that most of my compatriots can differentiate Leica from FED quite well. Kiev-2 from Contax - not so well, however.
Those famous people who are promoting film in a hipster way are good for Ilford, Kodak, Adox ... and for all of us. True, Contax T2 will be more expensive, but that is ok. Full manual cameras will not (they most probably don't know how to use it). The same goes for the whole Lomography movement - you don't need to like the way the film is promoted and used there - but the true is that Lomo is good for the industry, and on the end for all of us.
I completely agree. I do have Nikons for certain types of photography that I do but MOST of the time for me, it's a point and shoot zone focused auto exposure camera. Nothing but fun. I get to experience the actual experiences and not get caught up in the actions of photography. It mimics more closely how we did it when I was little "smile! Click..." move on.