sales details for Leica RF

[E. von Hoegh]

I hate gold cameras, they are bling for the tasteless, no matter how wealthy.

Only a New Orleans pimp would buy a gold plated camera.

 

[David Lyga]

Or a wannabee white pimp! And, yes, the gold advertises 'rip me off', just like my deceased uncle who finally stopped having to show off his wealth to every comer when someone finally told him, pointedly, that his three daughters could easily be kidnapped.

Old wealth never had to display itself because wealth, to such, was 'normal'. Every week, after school, my father would drive me and my brother to Stamford, CT (from Wolcott, CT) for our piano lessons with Miss Linda Cappabianca. Only one hour and twenty minutes, merely 60 miles away, made all the difference, as Stamford was full of old money that was not in the least ostentatious. I learned the difference, early on in life, between nouveau riche and genuine 'wealth', and the 'wealth' of Fairfield County was a wealth of: manners, proper disposition towards others (regardless of economic status), and total disregard towards any need to demonstrate financial worth. An inerent desire, indeed, need, there to hold onto things other than mere money, was held in high esteem. Children were brought up to respect all, regardless of crass cash; their manners and disposition proved their real bearing and upbringing. There, even if one did not have money, one had civility and self-worth. We became great friends with this family and to my dying day I will be able to tell the difference between the perception of wealth and the real thing.

The desperate need to display money is the first sign of a private, hidden desperation founded upon yet more desperation. - David Lyga

 

[Andrey]

500 per month when M8 was the latest focus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mwrlb4_tL0

t=3:40

 

[AgX]

500 film cameras per month in 2008.
100-150 M7 per month in 2009.

 

[benjiboy]

Only a New Orleans pimp would buy a gold plated camera.[/QUOTE
A dyslectic one, who bought a warehouse

 

[Dinesh]

You'd be more talented, and more important if you had a Linhof. Like me.

Plus, you'd be able to say "yes, well, my other camera is a Leica".

The problem is you can't walk around with three Technika V's around your neck, that just looks ridiculous.

Having said that, I am willing to give it a shot if it people think that it makes me look like a more talented (and wealthier) photographer.

And while I agree on the idiocy of a gold plated camera, I will often wear a skin tight gold luge suit with an arca swiss baseball hat in order to blend in with the crowd.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Only a New Orleans pimp would buy a gold plated camera.[/QUOTE
A dyslectic one, who bought a warehouse

That was actually a reference to something George S. Patton said, regarding his ivory handled Smith & Wesson revolver. When someone called it pearl handled, GSP responded "only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl handled revolver".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The problem is you can't walk around with three Technika V's around your neck, that just looks ridiculous.
Having said that, I am willing to give it a shot if it people think that it makes me look like a more talented (and wealthier) photographer.

And while I agree on the idiocy of a gold plated camera, I will often wear a skin tight gold luge suit with an arca swiss baseball hat in order to blend in with the crowd.

Of course not. People who use Linhofs have bearers.

 

[benjiboy]

That was actually a reference to something George S. Patton said, regarding his ivory handled Smith & Wesson revolver. When someone called it pearl handled, GSP responded "only a New Orleans pimp would carry a pearl handled revolver".

I seem to remember vaguely reading that before somewhere, I think his S&W revolvers were some of the first .357 magnums that they ever made, George Patton was one of the richest officers in the U.S Army.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I seem to remember vaguely reading that before somewhere, I think his S&W revolvers were some of the first .357 magnums that they ever made, George Patton was one of the richest officers in the U.S Army.

Correct, Elmer Kieth and his cohorts developed that cartridge starting around 1935. Until the introduction of the .357 as a factory item the most powerful production revolver was the 1847 Colt Walker, a cap and ball gun.

 

[David Lyga]

I am so happy that this is not a 'gun nut' forum. - David Lyga

 

[benjiboy]

I am so happy that this is not a 'gun nut' forum. - David Lyga

I'm not "a gun nut" David, my interest is purely academic I don't, and never have owned a gun myself, the only times I have used them was for five years in the Royal Marines as a small arms instructor and in combat and I have no desire to ever touch one again.

 

[Dinesh]

I'm not "a gun nut" David, my interest is purely academic I don't, and never have owned a gun myself, the only times I have used them was for five years in the Royal Marines as a small arms instructor and in combat and I have no desire to ever touch one again.

Hold on, there was a unit in the Royal Marines for soldiers with small arms?

What exactly did you teach them?

 

[David Lyga]

I supposed the same, benjiboy, and did not mean to infer that you were one (a 'gun nut'). You are far too relevant a member of the human race to sink that low. But you have to remember that in the USA whenever there is a mass killing, the call goes out for yet more firepower, not less. True, Switzerland is armed to the teeth but, one has to carefully observe that there guns are not LOVED like they are in the 'free' country called Amerika.

The reason, benjiboy, that you have no desire to touch one again is because in Britain, unlike in the USA, guns are not deemed 'sexy' and an enhancement and affirmation of masculinity. - David Lyga

 

[benjiboy]

Hold on, there was a unit in the Royal Marines for soldiers with small arms?

What exactly did you teach them?

Very funny, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms

 

[MattKing]

Hold on, there was a unit in the Royal Marines for soldiers with small arms?

What exactly did you teach them?

I absolutely shouldn't encourage Dinesh, but I cannot resist ...

Was it how to do push-ups?

 

[FotoFunfDreissig]

Hi there, a few people in this discussion have made me think and made me laugh. Dinesh, E van Hoegh. While others have made comments that i really relate to. 250swb, Trask and others.

I see this discussion pretty much everywhere I turn on the net. The many, who don't own a Leica, ganging up on the few who do. What I don't understand is that it's always specifically Leica. There are many cameras out there that are just as expensive and impractical if you don't know how to use them. I don't know people who would wax that kind of money just to buy a camera so as to be seen wearing a trophy or a piece of jewellery.

I guess this is because that world of glamour and status means absolutely nothing to me, I ignore it and could care less how other people spend their money. If I cared enough to think about it I would find, more of the same kinds of people who have no interest in photography, buying an insanely over the top DSLRs with a Kiddie Fiddler zoom lenses 1 meter long. For no reason other than the appearance of being a great photographer.

In fact the word photographer grinds my gears just as much. I guess by definition we are all photographers, but what makes myself more or less representative of that term than anyone that has a $10 disposable or an iPhone taking shots of there mates at the beach? The fact that I am holding a camera that has more functions or is more expensive? Hardly. Maybe because I hoard film and collect different cameras? Again, No. The person with his iPhone a friend wedding is still a photographer.

Perhaps these attributes people think make me a photographer really just sets me apart as an enthusiast over the next guy. And I have no problem with that convention. I am a photography enthusiast, and this enthusiasm really has nothing to do with the cameras I own, but how I use them.

Anyone can be seen holding a camera, but it means nothing if they don't actually use it. So why is it that these people hating on Leica, share the same distaste for people who use them? I guess it comes down to two things. Either they just don't like using that style of camera themselves, or they themselves are are hooked on this ridiculous world of glamour and status. This would lead me to believe that it is mostly childish jealousy rather than a misunderstanding of others choices.

My original Leica purchase was not as a fashion accessory or something, but because my brother had one, and i loved using it when i was learning about photography. Finally a few years ago, the day came when i could finally justify the purchase of a secondhand m3. Since then I have been hugely involved for many reasons including, their portability, viewfinder framing, and manual operation. As long as Leica keep making good cameras i will continue to use them in my arsenal.

So grow up, use the cameras you enjoy, get over the fact that other people may not agree with you and realise also, that no matter how much cool equipment you own, there will be someone with equipment out there you wish you had. If you have a difficult time dealing with that, you are not cut out for life. Besides what really matters is that you use and enjoy it.

End Rant
Cheers, Pedro

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi there, a few people in this discussion have made me think and made me laugh. Dinesh, E van Hoegh. While others have made comments that i really relate to. 250swb, Trask and others.

I see this discussion pretty much everywhere I turn on the net. The many, who don't own a Leica, ganging up on the few who do. What I don't understand is that it's always specifically Leica. There are many cameras out there that are just as expensive and impractical if you don't know how to use them. I don't know people who would wax that kind of money just to buy a camera so as to be seen wearing a trophy or a piece of jewellery.

I guess this is because that world of glamour and status means absolutely nothing to me, I ignore it and could care less how other people spend their money. If I cared enough to think about it I would find, more of the same kinds of people who have no interest in photography, buying an insanely over the top DSLRs with a Kiddie Fiddler zoom lenses 1 meter long. For no reason other than the appearance of being a great photographer.

In fact the word photographer grinds my gears just as much. I guess by definition we are all photographers, but what makes myself more or less representative of that term than anyone that has a $10 disposable or an iPhone taking shots of there mates at the beach? The fact that I am holding a camera that has more functions or is more expensive? Hardly. Maybe because I hoard film and collect different cameras? Again, No. The person with his iPhone a friend wedding is still a photographer.

Perhaps these attributes people think make me a photographer really just sets me apart as an enthusiast over the next guy. And I have no problem with that convention. I am a photography enthusiast, and this enthusiasm really has nothing to do with the cameras I own, but how I use them.

Anyone can be seen holding a camera, but it means nothing if they don't actually use it. So why is it that these people hating on Leica, share the same distaste for people who use them? I guess it comes down to two things. Either they just don't like using that style of camera themselves, or they themselves are are hooked on this ridiculous world of glamour and status. This would lead me to believe that it is mostly childish jealousy rather than a misunderstanding of others choices.

My original Leica purchase was not as a fashion accessory or something, but because my brother had one, and i loved using it when i was learning about photography. Finally a few years ago, the day came when i could finally justify the purchase of a secondhand m3. Since then I have been hugely involved for many reasons including, their portability, viewfinder framing, and manual operation. As long as Leica keep making good cameras i will continue to use them in my arsenal.

So grow up, use the cameras you enjoy, get over the fact that other people may not agree with you and realise also, that no matter how much cool equipment you own, there will be someone with equipment out there you wish you had. If you have a difficult time dealing with that, you are not cut out for life. Besides what really matters is that you use and enjoy it.

End Rant
Cheers, Pedro

Here's what annoys me about the Leicaphiles. It's the attitude - that they're somehow special, more knowledgeable than non-Leica users. No, not all have this attitude, not even the majority. but enough do - and one clue is telling the rest of us that we're envious - or "childishly jealous" of their choice. Then there's the attitude that Leica is the best in every way, bar none, and if we can't see the difference, we're all dolts and don't matter.
I've owned two M3s, a IIIg, and used an R3, some IIs and IIIs, and a CL. I know Leicas, have CLAd them, and know what the lenses can do. I use Nikons now, because I can afford them and they do things Leicas can't.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

they do things Leicas can't

Yes , Leica can not ruin your photographs like a nikon , I agree.
I used 5 III series Leica and a Leicaflex. There was no internet but seller of 50s to 80s camera journals and magazines. I had no photographer friends and working 16 hours a day 9AM to 1AM. So there was noone to Show my cameras. But surfing the 40 years of magazines , it apperared Leica was the best in 35mm. There was Ektar Linhof Shots , wollensaks , cooke , hasselblads and nikon lenses but best was Leica.

I am quite schocked when I saw Leica bashers here and the status symbol. No sir !

 

[Dali]

Yes , Leica can not ruin your photographs like a nikon , I agree.

I would be interested to know how a Nikon camera can ruin photographs and in what it is different with a Leica....

 

[FotoFunfDreissig]

Wow, Im surprise Hoegh, I give you a compliment and you take what i said as a personal attack.
I guess that is the double edged sword of ambiguous text online, very hard to read.

Just reiterating, I am not a "Leicaphile" nor do i believe that leica is the be all and end all, and use many different cameras that aren't leicas.
I respect anybody for what ever gear they use, I don't care what it is and as long as the are using it.I do see a lot of people really get worked up over people owning leicas, which confuses me, because it doesn't mean anything.

There is a guy i know of who runs a photography blog, more than half of the comments on his blog are, "Rich kid and his Leica" or something similar. Now Im not involved in this blog nor do i know the owner personally, so i don't really care, i think it is sad that people are judging him based on his money rather than his photography. But when nearly every negative comment you see from people bashing online is regarding the cost of the cameras, what else are owners supposed to think other than people jealous of their stuff.

Besides, I see you've owned many more Leicas than me, and you have pointed out to me that you are full of attitude. I am much more interested in finding out why you changed to use to nikon and you could have educated me on that.
I never said i was better than everyone else, but i certainly am better than being worried about what is niche or cool. I just like photographing stuff, I don't care what it is with, nor should you, get rid of your nikon and make a pinhole.

I have noticed the arrogance you talk of, with Leica users and many others also, and it isn't contained to the photography scene,
I just want to see peoples photos and talk about technique and interesting subjects for shooting

Peace

 

[benjiboy]

Here's what annoys me about the Leicaphiles. It's the attitude - that they're somehow special, more knowledgeable than non-Leica users. No, not all have this attitude, not even the majority. but enough do - and one clue is telling the rest of us that we're envious - or "childishly jealous" of their choice. Then there's the attitude that Leica is the best in every way, bar none, and if we can't see the difference, we're all dolts and don't matter.
I've owned two M3s, a IIIg, and used an R3, some IIs and IIIs, and a CL. I know Leicas, have CLAd them, and know what the lenses can do. I use Nikons now, because I can afford them and they do things Leicas can't.

I've never owned a Leica, but owning any camera doesn't make you a photographer, only an owner, any more than owning a Stradivarius makes you a violinist.
In my experience most people own cameras that are better cameras than they are photographers, and I include myself in this

 

[FotoFunfDreissig]

Well ssaid Benji, I wish i were so eloquent.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes , Leica can not ruin your photographs like a nikon , I agree.
I used 5 III series Leica and a Leicaflex. There was no internet but seller of 50s to 80s camera journals and magazines. I had no photographer friends and working 16 hours a day 9AM to 1AM. So there was noone to Show my cameras. But surfing the 40 years of magazines , it apperared Leica was the best in 35mm. There was Ektar Linhof Shots , wollensaks , cooke , hasselblads and nikon lenses but best was Leica.

I am quite schocked when I saw Leica bashers here and the status symbol. No sir !

A perfect example...

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

If Leica is Da Vinci , Japanese cameras are Da Vinci copy and the cheap one. Whenever I see a nikon shot and canon shot , I felt discust about the quality. Yes , they have a special signiture and it makes me like seeing a very ugly woman. Bokeh is too much , no detail in bokeh area , its like waving water , cheap look , colors are soulless , noise is like a pandemic illness on face , tonal values are not strong , lack of depth of field ,
there is always a eye catching non sharp area in the Picture , no shadow or highlight detail , if there is one , other is not there etc etc. They are not for professionals , I am not talking about wedding photography.