That's why Leicas are so expensive

[E. von Hoegh]

"Your iPhone Was Built, In Part, By 13 Year-Olds Working 16 Hours A Day For 70 Cents An Hour"

http://www.businessinsider.com/appl...ce=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bi

"If Apple decided to build iPhones and iPads for Americans using American labor rules, two things would likely happen:

• The prices of iPhones and iPads would go up
• Apple's profit margins would go down"

Apple is a sleazebag outfit and Jobs was no better than any other pusher - he created a need and then sold them the fix.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

You cant design a lens as good as Leica if you dont give 500 times more money for the glass. And all of the Schott Glass and other glass manufacturers expensive glasses are invented by Leica. Noctilux is 10000 dollars and its glass takes one year to cool down when you are decreasing the temperature 1 degree may be per week when keeping the heat equal and continue to burn electricity for 1 year.

This is not a good assembly game but building a boat from cheap polyester or vacuum heated epoxy and carbon or buying 3 meter sail boat or 40 meters jboat.

And you pay for the engineering , whatever computer you ever use , you cant never be sure computer found the final perfect design when stopped. This is mathematically impossible and needs human mind.

Nikon , Canon uses BK7 borax glass and its sensivity is 1/50 of Leica glass.

Summilux took 10 years to design.

And these gentleman drives the all new lens design techniques in mathematics and publish a word per 10 years and change the stream.

I used 6 Leica cameras and I dont ask to anyone but looked to the images of Magnum , Black Star, Life.

We stucked in us law of copyright and nobody sees good examples. That is the biggest drawback of this forum

 

[Felinik]

Apple is a sleazebag outfit and Jobs was no better than any other pusher - he created a need and then sold them the fix.

What makes you think other hardware manufacturers would care a bit more than he/Apple does? As an example, mentioned in the thread before, Vietnam is used by Canon, as well as Pentax, and probably others too, else a DSLR would never cost as "little" as $500-600...

So if Lecia's actually produced in Germany there's, partly, a reason for the high price (I am also very sure there's a huge mark-up just because it's Leica, the brand known to be "the" rangefinder brand).


And yeah, sleezebag, but far from alone about it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What makes you think other hardware manufacturers would care a bit more than he/Apple does? As an example, mentioned in the thread before, Vietnam is used by Canon, as well as Pentax, and probably others too, else a DSLR would never cost as "little" as $500-600...

So if Lecia's actually produced in Germany there's, partly, a reason for the high price (I am also very sure there's a huge mark-up just because it's Leica, the brand known to be "the" rangefinder brand).


And yeah, sleezebag, but far from alone about it.

"Far from alone" is correct. My remarks are partly a reaction to the near canonisation of Jobs after his death.

Sweatshop labor is just one - albeit a major one - of the reasons I generally eschew modern gadgetry.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Apple is a sleazebag outfit and Jobs was no better than any other pusher - he created a need and then sold them the fix.

I disagree. I think he was absolutely the best.

 

[Felinik]

I disagree. I think he was absolutely the best.

Apart from killing the digital music distribution industry, before it even existed, by monopolizing it using bribes and manipulating strategies towards the major labels, and then killing all incentives for people to pay more than $2 for software, AND force software manufacturers to obey Apple in order to be able to even release software for OS X, he was probably a quite nice dude.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Apart from killing the digital music distribution industry, before it even existed, by monopolizing it using bribes and manipulating strategies towards the major labels, and then killing all incentives for people to pay more than $2 for software, AND force software manufacturers to obey Apple in order to be able to even release software for OS X, he was probably a quite nice dude.

Maybe if new bands weren't so quick to settle for whatever bone the labels threw them, maybe if some BIG established bands with their money already made would stand up and say 'this is bullshit', maybe if music buyers had a moratorium on buying new music, I think you'd be amazed at how fast the labels, and the industry, became more fair to those that actually create the product. Maybe if the music the labels put out was worth more than $0.99...

To think that one man destroyed an industry is ridiculous, at best. The music industry needs the kind of near-death experience that Apple had to rejuvenate itself. But it won't happen because, by-and-large, music consumers are either weak willed or don't care.

In the spirit of full disclosure; I despise OS X and I think itunes software is a cluster____. Apple hardware is mostly pretty, and works OK, but only if I can run a Linux or a real BSD on it. Jobs, however, was brilliant.

s-now-where's-that-Mingus-LP-a

 

[Felinik]

To think that one man destroyed an industry is ridiculous, at best. The music industry needs the kind of near-death experience that Apple had to rejuvenate itself. But it won't happen because, by-and-large, music consumers are either weak willed or don't care.

Well, knowing things I can't talk about here (and under NDA), let me just say, many major labels are today regretting they didn't stand up for their value when Jobs came with his "deal" years ago for iTunes Music Store.

Talking about it, how many Android users with a Mac do you think hate Jobs? All of us, as all music+movies purchased through ITMS is useless in Android, as Jobs hated and wanted to destroy Android, there's no software playing media with ITMS DRM coding.

Some smart kids has created a software so you can strip the media of the DRM, and then use it in other media players in your Android client, but hey, that's illegal!!

So yes, destroyed is the right word.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yeah we should've controlled the situation with some kind law or something, get the government involved, people in congress should have written up some law for us that would really take control of the industry, that would have been great. Everyone loved Apple until it got big, everyone loved Google until it got big. I wish the record companies still controlled everything and Microsoft was still king. I miss Win '95.

 

[hoffy]

I thought this was about Leica? We get cained if we talk about scanning, then why the b'duckas are we talking about apple?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here's a thought on Leica.

I love using it, because it feels so good in my hands. The precision and mechanically positive action of the film advance lever, the feel of the shutter release, it's weight and nimble packaging. It feels RIGHT, and nothing could be more important to me, because when I'm this comfortable with the camera, I almost forget that it exists, which puts me in a better position to make good photographs.

Technically? I seriously have to look up whether the frame was shot with my Pentax or Leica, because using a Leica enlarger and enlarging lens I can't see the difference, even at 16x20 print size.

Does that tell you something about having a Leica preference? Nobody else has to agree, of course, but since you can't read my mind I thought I'd offer my honest opinion.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Here's a thought on Leica.

I love using it, because it feels so good in my hands. The precision and mechanically positive action of the film advance lever, the feel of the shutter release, it's weight and nimble packaging. It feels RIGHT, and nothing could be more important to me, because when I'm this comfortable with the camera, I almost forget that it exists, which puts me in a better position to make good photographs.

Technically? I seriously have to look up whether the frame was shot with my Pentax or Leica, because using a Leica enlarger and enlarging lens I can't see the difference, even at 16x20 print size.

Does that tell you something about having a Leica preference? Nobody else has to agree, of course, but since you can't read my mind I thought I'd offer my honest opinion.

Thomas,

This is fortuitous because I, a Nikon user exclusively since my first FTn in about 1973, just bought an M3. And I must say, as a mechanical device it is something else. I've been playing with it and even at that it is an instant joy. Jeez, I don't even have a lens for it yet. Will my pictures be the greatest ever because of this camera? Perhaps, but I really doubt it. It will be different, this rangefinder business, and I'm standing pat with a 50 Summicron so there will still be a lot of WA use for which I'll want Old Paint. As much as I like it already I really doubt I'll be swept away into a rapturous Leicaland. But it is a damn fine machine. Two completely different beasts.

Leica is to Cartier-Bresson as Nikon is to Hemingway.

s-a

 

[davela]

Right now I own almost no Leica gear as I'm putting my kids through some expensive schools - and a man has to do what a man has to do to support his kids!

In the past though I've owned the M1, M2, M3, M4, M4P, several bottom loaders, the more common Leica LTM and M mount lenses, much of the Visoflex system, two Leicaflexes, etc. This is damned good stuff too, all of it, and I miss it. Yes other 35mm film camera systems are pretty rugged, can and do produce excellent results, (Voigtlander, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc. you name it), but nothing has quite the fit-and-finish and elegance of Leica in use, IMO (the early Nikon SLR and RF system is a close second). The lenses are all good to outstanding, the build quality and the ergonomics are superb. Classic Leica gear is well-oriented to the knowledgeable amateur or professional film shooter who has a good grasp of photographic basics, such as exposure, depth of field, focusing technique, etc. Leica engineers superb glass and mechanics, truly useful and sometimes unique accessories, but gizmos and gadgetry are not in their domain.

For those who like very fine gear and if money's not a problem AND if total control of the photographic taking process matters, the Leica system is the ticket.

 

[davela]

Your experience mirrored mine to some degree. My first Leica experience was with a IIIf and a Summitar. I wondered what all the hullabaloo was about and why one would want to struggle with such a basic camera (by modern 35mm standards) till I got my first roll of film back, and I was simply blown away by the quality of the lens. I also had sort of an epiphany with the M3 when (not long after the IIIf experience) I handled a minty early example in a camera shop with a rigid Summicron mounted on it. I'd never seen a camera, yet alone a rangefinder, which was made so well, had such a superb viewfinder, such a bright rangefinder patch, and such precise mechanisms. It's the real deal that's for sure.

Thomas,

This is fortuitous because I, a Nikon user exclusively since my first FTn in about 1973, just bought an M3. And I must say, as a mechanical device it is something else. I've been playing with it and even at that it is an instant joy. Jeez, I don't even have a lens for it yet. Will my pictures be the greatest ever because of this camera? Perhaps, but I really doubt it. It will be different, this rangefinder business, and I'm standing pat with a 50 Summicron so there will still be a lot of WA use for which I'll want Old Paint. As much as I like it already I really doubt I'll be swept away into a rapturous Leicaland. But it is a damn fine machine. Two completely different beasts.

Leica is to Cartier-Bresson as Nikon is to Hemingway.

s-a

 

[blockend]

The only time I worry about whether to buy a Leica, is when I have time on my hands. Sitting at home on a winter's evening all that precision and glass assumes a significance it doesn't have when I'm out shooting with a camera. On such nights I think of trading my other gear in, or seriously annoying my wife and buying an M6 and a Summilux. When I have a camera with me, I couldn't care less what it is within reason. I draw the line at third party zooms but know my 50mm 1.4 or 28mm 2.8 Canons, Nikons or Yashicas aren't at a disadvantage in the real world. In fact they're fine because if someone does take exception to me sticking a lens in their face I won't have written off five grand and I'd just buy another without troubling our budget or my conscience.

If I had a Leica there'd be no excuse for taking lousy photographs and when I did I'd feel every penny. So I console myself with the fact that while Leica make beautiful cameras, they're for other people.

 

[benjiboy]

That's very true, if you have the best equipment that money can buy, and your picture are still crap and don't do the gear justice you have no excuses, nowhere to go. and nothing to aspire to, which is why more people when considering purchasing equipment should ask themselves " am I a good enough photographer to justify owning the equipment ?", not the other way round, I personally consider all my cameras and lenses to be much better gear than I'm a photographer, and I've never owned a Leica.

 

[mike-o]

Other than the cache´and the mystique of Leica, are the lenses and cameras that much better? I've never shot with a Leica before. Any opinions?

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion. A speed graphic with its larger negative will blow away anything a Leica can produce. Any good quality 120 shooter will beat Leica's best. My Yashica body with a very affordable Zeiss 50mm lens will give me something that is probably at least 90 percent the quality of a Leica negative.

 

[mike-o]

Apart from killing the digital music distribution industry, before it even existed, by monopolizing it using bribes and manipulating strategies towards the major labels, and then killing all incentives for people to pay more than $2 for software, AND force software manufacturers to obey Apple in order to be able to even release software for OS X, he was probably a quite nice dude.

I recognize your sarcasm, but must add that a man who will not recognize his own child is not a "quite nice dude" in my book. As for his brilliance, he wasn't smart enough to undergo the medical treatment that would have saved his life when he had the chance.

I do like some Apple products, but the notion that we should worship either Apple or Jobs is just idiotic. It's a business, and while it has better products than say Microsoft, it and Jobs had no more morals than Microsoft and Jobs certainly did a lot less for humanity than Gates is doing now. I can almost forgive Gates for foisting that giant fraud called Windows on the public. Well, almost, but not quite.

The people I really admire are the programmers who create the wonderful open source software that I use everyday. Steve Jobs never gave me nothing for free.

 

[mhanc]

Word. My ULF kit blows away the Leica. Problem is I keep missing the decisive moment when using it !!!

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion. A speed graphic with its larger negative will blow away anything a Leica can produce. Any good quality 120 shooter will beat Leica's best. My Yashica body with a very affordable Zeiss 50mm lens will give me something that is probably at least 90 percent the quality of a Leica negative.

 

[mike-o]

I miss Win '95.

Sado-masochism is an illness. Get help.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's very true, if you have the best equipment that money can buy, and your picture are still crap and don't do the gear justice you have no excuses, nowhere to go. and nothing to aspire to, which is why more people when considering purchasing equipment should ask themselves " am I a good enough photographer to justify owning the equipment ?", not the other way round, I personally consider all my cameras and lenses to be much better gear than I'm a photographer, and I've never owned a Leica.

Yes, never has the quality of any of my cameras (excluding the Holga) let me down. It's always the other way around - I don't do my equipment justice. I do find that to be a refreshing reminder to think about. Ultimately, though, it's about doing the picture justice, and as somebody said that is 95% about the person behind the camera (and doing the printing), and 5% about equipment.
I still maintain, however, that the equipment we are most familiar with and that feels natural and intuitive to use, will probably bring the best results, whatever that equipment may be. I love shooting with my Spotmatic too, and will soon have a lens for it again. It doesn't take much away from the photographic experience compared to the Leica, but doesn't feel as intuitive, but the quality of my prints don't suffer because I use it instead of the Leica. Not a chance.

 

[Jim Jones]

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion. A speed graphic with its larger negative will blow away anything a Leica can produce. Any good quality 120 shooter will beat Leica's best. My Yashica body with a very affordable Zeiss 50mm lens will give me something that is probably at least 90 percent the quality of a Leica negative.

I've used Leica, Nikon, large format, and 120 cameras, and agree that the larger film has advantages in image quality, but not in convenience and in the range of available and fast lenses. For some uses, Leica rangefinder cameras are the best in the World. Other cameras are better for other uses. It's pointless to quibble about which is best without defining the use and the preferences of the user.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion. A speed graphic with its larger negative will blow away anything a Leica can produce. Any good quality 120 shooter will beat Leica's best. My Yashica body with a very affordable Zeiss 50mm lens will give me something that is probably at least 90 percent the quality of a Leica negative.

For some things, (most things actually),I prefer the quality I get from my 35mm cameras than I got from my Crown Graphic and Osaka 4x5 cameras, using a 210mm Schneider APO. It's a matter of what you're after. I often don't find I get enough texture in my prints from large format film. I like the grain, and its presence in the picture. I crave it, especially for portraits.
The only time I like a really smooth tonal gradation negative is when shooting landscape where there's a lot of sky in the photograph.
Resolution wise, the large format lenses can't compete with the 35mm lenses, and if you're shooting something like TMax 100 or Acros you can actually measure this (which has been done in the 1990s at Hasselblad's old factory in Sweden), so the advantage of the larger negative becomes mostly about tonal transition and gradation.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion.

Yes, as are Porsches.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Grossly overrated, in my humble opinion. A speed graphic with its larger negative will blow away anything a Leica can produce. Any good quality 120 shooter will beat Leica's best. My Yashica body with a very affordable Zeiss 50mm lens will give me something that is probably at least 90 percent the quality of a Leica negative.

And a dumptruck will move more gravel than a Bentley R-type Continental.