That will be due to the pixel producing device.
IMHO, collectors are making a mess of the used camera market. Especially when it comes to Leica's. I guess I just don't understand. Wouldn't a Zeiss Ikon ZI fit the bill just as much as a M3 or M4? Does it have to be a Leica, and do you have to give up an arm and a leg, mortgage the farm and relinquish your 1st born to pay for it?
No offence, but the above indicates you do not understand the Leica market, which is composed of collectors and photographers. Collectors pay high prices for special editions and used rare versions in collectable condition. Photographers are the ones buying used and useable Leica's, as well as buying new also.
Au contrair, mon ami! I and many others know all too well the market forces at play with Leica cameras old and new; and many here have deftly identified in their comments those forces.
Leica has astutely taken advantage of their legendary status and supply and demand.
The same forces are at play with the recent announcement by Cosina that they have discontinued their Voightlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 Aspherical lens, which has driven the price up for remaining stock from $899 to $1199. Once existing stock is sold, its a very good bet that these lenses, which have already acquired a cult following will continue to demand premium prices.
No, CV lenses are not Leica lenses but they hold their own in terms of image and build quality.
Too many conspiracy theories here for my liking. If silly collectors want to buy ludicrously priced special editions, then so be it. I don't think for a moment, ordinary Leica users have been priced out of the market.
It seems like there are, broadly, two attitudes about equipment (not just in photography, but probably in all gear-intensive activities). One is "if you give me a plastic promotional camera and a lens made of expired lunchmeat, I'll find a way to make a good photo with it"; the other is "my skills are tuned for nuanced interaction with the finest tools available and that magical unity of worker and tool is my best route to a good photo". Both are legitimate, IMHO, and we see plenty of both on display at APUG (often from the same people at different times---I know Mike Cienfuegos can wear both hats with good photographic results, for instance).
The second group are probably well served by Leicae and similar top-end cameras, even at the high prices the spiffier ones command (modulo the outrageous stuff that's obviously collectors-only). The first are out shooting Zorkis. Probably the passionate adherents of each group are just doomed to an inability to understand one another. It all seems to work out OK in the aggregate.
-NT
Too many conspiracy theories here for my liking. If silly collectors want to buy ludicrously priced special editions, then so be it. I don't think for a moment, ordinary Leica users have been priced out of the market.
Well it it said that Mr S.Gandy had PMed people who inquired indicating the lower price was his stock price and the (20% or so) higher price was the slip between the USD and Yen, between the stock points, when his current stock was sold. Cosina may be able to do another batch if the glasses used are still available, i.e. not quarantined for hazard or availability or materials.
Given they are stopping while there still might be a lens shortage may mean it was not selling. The clue is the 20% hike between stock points.
I would not let possible fact stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
:eek: But how will he stow it when not in use or in a house move?! I also "play" with model trains but try to always keep the packaging for when track isn't set up...
It's a point. The Nikon F was indeed a better system solution than even the world's best rangefinder, well matched to the requirements of most journalists of the time....Then came Nikons, and they took over quickly because they were the first camera system in a long time that was significantly better than or equal to Leicas in almost every way that counted to working photographers.
All that was left for Leica was the legendary status, and, less so, the fact that, although outmatched in almost every way, they were still well-made cameras. When your product is not even close to being able to take on the competition (i.e. Nikon in this case), you can no longer rely on the product itself to keep you in business.
They were phased out? The M is the only 35mm camera I know of that has persisted from 1953 to the present day with a single common mount and unbroken product continuity. If I am not mistaken, its latest iteration is the smallest full-frame digital in the market space, and is selling well. I wonder if any of the photographers who once used the film M's will be using the M9 for their work. I would bet that there will be some who do. SLRs cannot do everything best. It's a fact.The Leica mystique was always perpetuated to some degree by the company, and when the cameras gradually phased out in the wake of Nikons, I think Leitz came to rely on their legendary status to keep themselves in business.
Probably so. One sells however he can. As we all know, many of the most memorable images in history were recorded by great photographers using Leica rangefinders. And those images did not cease in 1959, with the appearance of the F.The sentimentality of those who had grown up with and made their livings on the legendary Leicas of yore was stoked by the company and passed down from generation to generation.
Yes, the early M's really were that good. May they always be as well made. Rock solid, heavy and stable, smooth as butter, quiet as a mouse, unobtrusive, wonderful in available darkness, terrific for candid imaging. A tool that in some few ways cannot be matched by an SLR or a dSLR.Now we have exorbitantly priced cameras that are no better than what the company made when Nikon first blew them out of the water. Think about it.
It wasn't categorically outmatched, and it hasn't been. It became a less suitable match than an SLR for a majority of users. It remained popular for some others for a few very good reasons. How do you compare a wrench to pliers? These are completely different tools. As to how Leica survives, they will have to figure that out for themselves. The M9 and S2 seem to have some promise. I wish them luck, as that is all I have to offer them.How the heck else is a company supposed to stay in business with a product that was handily outmatched fifty years ago?
As I said, one must pitch it however it will sell, always putting it in its best light. Thankfully, the fact that some people buy it for status is wholly unknown to the Leica. It just does what it does. And that's what matters for those who actually use Leica M's regularly.You don't sell the product. You sell something more than the product. The product simply becomes a vehicle for the purchase of status.
Matters not to me. Mine has no red dot. I paid $600 for the camera in the 90s and another $250 for Sherry Krauter to go through it. I have no doubt that if I sold it today, I could recover about that. Now think about this: The cost of ownership would be nearly ZERO. What old Nikon SLR matches that?Make no mistake. Leicas are primarily luxury/leisure items, and have been for decades.
On this we agree mostly. If somebody is dumb enough to buy a gold plated Leica with ostrich skin for a blue zillion dollars, then good for them and Leica. It's nothing to me. If it helps Leica survive, then maybe parts for the M's will continue in manufacture longer.The way I see it, the trick to getting around this overpriced idiocy, and to simply get your hands on an excellent rangefinder camera, is to realize that the company has made no significant upgrades for 90% of truly serious shooters since the M2. If you want a quality rangefinder that simply gets the job done in an old-fashioned manner, don't buy anything past the M2, and do not fall for any of the collector garbage.
Apples vs Bananas I say. Each tool to its own user and purpose. "Outdated" is an irrelevant term if a tool is judged by the photographer to be best for any particular application.Realize that no matter how good everyone proclaims the optics and mechanics of the cameras to be, they are over all an outdated and inferior tool to SLRs.
The public knows what a '61 Cadillac is. They don't know a Leica M from Adam's house cat. For the few areas where a rangefinder (Leica or otherwise) has an advantage, no SLR is its equal. Did anyone ever replace a well appointed tool box with a Swiss Army Knife? The purpose made tools are always better for some specific applications. So it is with the rangefinder....You shoot one for the same reason you drive a '61 Cadillac: because they're fuggin' cool, and fuggin' fun, not because they are the best in the world in a technical sense (though they may have been at the time they were made).
Not me, and not everyone. Some say my people pictures are better when I use the M3 instead of my F or F2. Maybe so. However, I agree with you that the machine does not make the image. That's the photographer's job! Anyone who thinks a camera makes them a photographer probably believes that cookware would make them a chef, or that a Ferrari would make them a world class driver at Le Mans.Everyone is so convinced that having a Leica makes them a serious photographer. Everyone is convinced that they are vastly superior in quality to any other camera. Balls to that.
You are right in that technology does not make one a photographer. I goof just as often with an F, an F2, an M3, or with any of my other cameras. Anyone who feels that an M is a pain to use should just get something else. It is no pain for me. Most folks don't like rangefinders. Okay by me, as long as I can enjoy mine.The proof in pictures says otherwise. People shoot the same crap with Leicas that they do with any camera, and often it is even crappier because rangefinders are such a pain in the ass to use compared to SLRs.
They are good for more reasons than that. As for the bozos, they can simmer in their own mental stew. I like the M because I like using the M and I like the images. That's all that matters to me.Leicas are cool because they are fun and old fashioned. Embrace that, and don't take them so damned seriously. You'll get out cheap, and have a million times more fun and get a million times better pictures than all the bozos paying big bucks for them so that they can think of themselves as serious photographers. Get an old thread mount camera or an early M and you've got everything that was ever good about using a Leica in the first place. You usually escape for well under a thousand bucks too.
You are off the mark in your assessment about objectivity of judgment. I hope for your sake you do not own a Leica M. Fortunately, most folks who dislike them don't, and some who own them actually do love using them.The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it. They've always got to attach some sort of twisted value to it beyond what it actually is: a fuggin' bitchin' old camera that used to rule the world.
It seems like there are, broadly, two attitudes about equipment (not just in photography, but probably in all gear-intensive activities). One is "if you give me a plastic promotional camera and a lens made of expired lunch meat, I'll find a way to make a good photo with it";
It's a beautiful thing when the operation of the camera is almost second nature, almost an extension of the imagemaker. S/he can concentrate on conceptual matters better, no doubt. But that image is created in the mind first, IMHO....the other is "my skills are tuned for nuanced interaction with the finest tools available and that magical unity of worker and tool is my best route to a good photo".
Back in 2001, I bought a Kiev 4a just for the fun of it. I already had an M3. I just wanted to see for myself what the FSU camera craze was all about. I must tell you, I was astonished at the high quality of the images which came from the K4a and its Jupiter 8M, which lens I understand is a Soviet era Sonnar copy.The second group are probably well served by Leicae and similar top-end cameras, ... The first are out shooting Zorkis. Probably the passionate adherents of each group are just doomed to an inability to understand one another. It all seems to work out OK in the aggregate.
I bought a 19 year old M3 when I was 20. I'm now 54 and still using the same camera. I get it serviced every 8 to 10 years and it continues to work flawlessly. Battered and bruised but still hanging in.
Hello Georg.I am shooting with my grandfather's wartime Leica, made in 1940.
It is the call of traditions, authentic photographic experience and quality of craftsmanship, standing far beyond the needs of photography
I wish for everybody here to have that real chance to experience that!
...
Leica is a niche product like high fashion clothes
A Soviet rangefinder is something I haven't handled for years buy the surprise was that they worked at all. IIRC they retailed for around £30 when the cheapest own brand re-badged SLR was £100. Or about the price of an Instamatic, compared to which Zorkis and Kievs were marvels of precision engineering. The word was that the lenses outperformed the bodies but if you were lucky to get one that avoided quality evasion you hung onto it.
Not all eastern block manufacturing was junk. I ran East German motorcycles for twenty five years and they were very well made and reliable.
FSU cameras only appear to be a good value because they were sold below cost of manufacture in the west in order for the soviets to gain hard currency. No R+D on the cameras, poor quality control and very little marketing compared to the Japanese. Still the Japanese could produce excellent cameras to a price. The average Chinon/Ricoh/Cosina of the 1970-s was streets ahead of the Zenit E or the Zorki 4K
Leica is a niche product like high fashion clothes
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?