NYT bit on Leica

[semi-ambivalent]

CGW's link went nowhere. Was it to this?


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/f...ebrities.html?ref=technology&_moc.semityn.www

s-a

And yes, that should be 'Leica'.

 

[Two23]

Dang, looks like I'm in style now. Who would have thought it?


Kent in SD

 

[Double Negative]

Aha!

 

[semi-ambivalent]

"“I liken it to the wonderful Lacoste shirt. They last a long time, they are precision made and they simply don’t go out of style.”"

I once bought Lacoste polo in the late 1970s. What a joke, made no better than a Land's End polo aimed at scum like me. And their color combinations stunk; now very out of style. The NYTimes is just doing its job seeding first tier spending behavior to the second tier cool people. Movie stars, usually one paycheck behind, rent this stuff for their planned public walkabouts.

I hope it works. I have a Leica, love it. I want them to stick around. Meanwhile I spend most of my time recreationally abusing my Nikon, who has no illusions about her looks...

s-a

 

[AndreasT]

Yes Leica is not a camera, it is a accessoire. I have one ( actually two a m3 and r8 ) and also love it although outdated by a million years it will always be my first choice.
It is funny the reaction I get on the street. But sometimes I actually want to hide it away because it is so "in".

 

[SuzanneR]

And yes, that should be 'Leica'.

Thread title fixed.

 

[naeroscatu]

Awesome, one film camera made it to the mainstream I love this quote:
“I’ve learned that the guessing — maybe the intuition — of the settings is what makes a photograph special,” - Yeah, keep trying this is like the lottery. You eventually win but you have to play long enough...