Leica in the New Yorker:

Roger Hicks said:

And, of course, being paid by the yard.

Click to expand...

Being that the article appeared in the New Yorker, I think this is a salient observation.

This is why some things, like Leica rangefinders, are desirable. Just like certain Italian cars and motorcycles, there is little to no practical reason to use one. Quite simply we are left with passion.

There are aspects of my Ducati that are wonderful, yet I know it's many shortcomings; these are things I would never tolerate in any other motorcycle. My Swiss watch does not tell time nearly as well as a battery powered quartz movement Seiko, yet I can enjoy wearing it; so I put up with the shortcoming, because it has a style that suits me.

Those who would buy generic, or do things simply because they are practical, or buy things because they are highly rated by Consumer Reports, might miss that there are passionate reasons for taking certain directions. There is no rational reason for using a Leica, nor any other finely made niche product. Indeed, they are not without problems, nor without shortcomings, but they fit the way some people want to take photographs.

I am glad the Ducatis, Ferraris, Swiss watches, and Leica cameras are for the few in the world, to be scoffed at, scorned, or simply ignored by the majority in public. To appeal to a wider audience might mean higher production, and dilution of the concepts behind these things. Those who understand that passion behind these things will appreciate them, though I don't really think it matters if anyone else gets it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

HerrBremerhaven said:

There is no rational reason for using a Leica, ......... but they fit the way some people want to take photographs.

Click to expand...

Seems to me there is your rational reason.
I use an M6 with a 35mm f/2 & I reckon it gets me photos I wouldn't get otherwise. A compact yet high quality camera that is easy to take with me every day, wherever I go. Very simple to use once I understood the best way to operate it. Perfect for street photography at night. There are some expensive products where one needs to consider how long it will be useful for, rather than worrying about the upfront cost. I paid $2,500 AUD for this kit, second hand, but I expect I'll be using it for 10 or 20 years easily, which makes it seem like a bargain.

eddym said:

Being that the article appeared in the New Yorker, I think this is a salient observation.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice the length the first time that I read it, but went back to the article last night - over 6,000 words! I've done a whole special report for the FT on investment in Lithuania in that space. It's not a surprise that he had to wax poetically at times. It almost feels as if he got a call shortly after he'd done an overlong draft and was told that he needed to add another 1,500 words.

Thing is, can anyone point to a better, non-tech article on Leica? I'm interested now in how to explain to someone about something that usually comes down to 'either you get it, or you don't'. Fit and finish are something I'm aware of, i.e. on the Voigtlander Prominent I once owned, the BMWs I've driven. Maybe this is becoming a question for the Ethics and Philosophy section, but it's still about Leica. Any suggestions?

Jim_in_Kyiv said:

I didn't notice the length the first time that I read it, but went back to the article last night - over 6,000 words! I've done a whole special report for the FT on investment in Lithuania in that space. It's not a surprise that he had to wax poetically at times. It almost feels as if he got a call shortly after he'd done an overlong draft and was told that he needed to add another 1,500 words.

Thing is, can anyone point to a better, non-tech article on Leica? I'm interested now in how to explain to someone about something that usually comes down to 'either you get it, or you don't'. Fit and finish are something I'm aware of, i.e. on the Voigtlander Prominent I once owned, the BMWs I've driven. Maybe this is becoming a question for the Ethics and Philosophy section, but it's still about Leica. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Since the Leica threads have been running, I've been trying to think of an analogy, and the best one I've come up with is a Mercedes diesel-powered sedan, which if you drive big miles is one of the cheapest cars around to run (I mean over 200,000 miles and more) and is driven by many people (including countless German taxi drivers, but not me) for this reason, without any regard to the supposed cachet or snob appeal of the Mercedes marque.

HerrBremerhaven said:

This is why some things, like Leica rangefinders, are desirable. Just like certain Italian cars and motorcycles, there is little to no practical reason to use one. Quite simply we are left with passion.

Click to expand...

I have a lovely watch for which I paid upwards of $3K. It is swiss, and mechanical, and if I don't wear it for the weekend it stops, unlike my $20 Casio. No surprise to anyone that both keep excellent time (when powered appropriately). So I "get" the idea of luxury items.

IF, however, I were to run across an article about my watchmaker, claiming "some elegant swiss watchmaker's trick that makes you aware of each passing second, each hour, and invites you to grasp those moments as your own," then even I would by all means feel entirely justified in experiencing digestive motility.

Definitely agree with you on that Bjorke. I bought my Ducati for me, and not to impress anyone else. Unfortunately sometimes these things become fetish objects to be lauded to extremes; which can be quite nauseating.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat