What's the big deal.... [about Leica]

[bkorites]

Haris-

You wrote "..talking education accessing, health care accessing.."

Scuse me, but I was under the impression most of the world was trying to get into the US, not out of it.

If you think any US citizens can't go to college because they don't have the money you are mistaken. First, all states have a state college system with free or low cost tuition. Second, those who are admitted but cannot pay are given some form of financial aid either reduced rates or low interest loans. I taught in our college system for eight years and I never heard of anyone being denied access because of lack of funds.

Education up to the college level is free for all citizens, even illegal non-US residents. The schools along our border states are filled with illegals from Mexico and Central America getting a free education paid for with the taxes of working US citizens.

Regarding health care, one of our major hospitals in New York city has a 2 billion dollar annual budget. Half of that is spent treating people who have no health insurance. There's a hospital in Texas that serves as virtually the maternity ward for Central America. Women from Nicaragua, Guatemala and wherever who are near delivery get on a plane, fly to Texas, get the world's best maternity care, then they fly back home leaving we US citizens to pay the bill. Even Canadians, who are so proud of their socialized health care system, come to our hospitals because of their quotas and waiting lists.

PS: All Nobel prize winners in the sciences this year were US citizens.

 

[kb244]

Dear Karl,

Of course. You pay shipping both ways, with 100% deposit against loss/theft -- say, $10,000 for my Alpa with 38/4.5 Biogon -- and an undertaking to return it within 72 hours, and I don't see any great problem...

The point is that as you get older, 2 years seems closer and closer to 'a couple of months ago'.

Cheers,

R.

I've never heard of an Alpa, my co-worker eyes got big though when I mentioned it, something bout how its a very very fine made camera.

 

[Dinesh]

......Even Canadians, who are so proud of their socialized health care system, come to our hospitals because of their quotas and waiting lists.

Actually, we come down there for the inexpensive beer!

 

[Jim Jones]

1) First off, who leaves a camera around for years and expects it to work great sitting around. . .

Good point, but with a faithful M2, lots of cameras are going to sit idle. The Canon 7 shutter does seem O.K. after several idle years. So did my 1938 Leica, the last time I looked. One problem with early post-war Leicas was disintegration of the curtains. I also dropped a Leica and had a sharp-edged particle get wound up in the curtains, perforating both. Otherwise, the shutters are durable and repairable. Neither Canon rangefinder system has survived anywhere as well as the Leica. I did like the Canon P well enough when I didn't have a Leica. The 7 was better, although I bought it mostly for the fast lens. The Canons seemed more reliable than several other Japanese cameras of that time. They just aren't Leicas (and didn't cost as much).

 

[kb244]

Good point, but with a faithful M2, lots of cameras are going to sit idle. The Canon 7 shutter does seem O.K. after several idle years. So did my 1938 Leica, the last time I looked. One problem with early post-war Leicas was disintegration of the curtains. I also dropped a Leica and had a sharp-edged particle get wound up in the curtains, perforating both. Otherwise, the shutters are durable and repairable. Neither Canon rangefinder system has survived anywhere as well as the Leica. I did like the Canon P well enough when I didn't have a Leica. The 7 was better, although I bought it mostly for the fast lens. The Canons seemed more reliable than several other Japanese cameras of that time. They just aren't Leicas (and didn't cost as much).

Or as my co-worker said, he could drop one of them leicas off a ladder accidentally and it'll miraculously survive the fall. Now I haven't owned the Canon P long, or been alive long enough to have ever owned them when they came out. But I think its one of those 'underated' things, the 50mm f/1.8 chrome (or RF style) lens appears rather nice, probally bout the same as a summaron that I've tried next to it (a 50 summicron may be a totally different story all together). The canon P I have right now has some shutter crinkles but still works just fine, I think sometimes its the way people handle a camera that can make all the difference, and it goes back to the "Whats the big deal". Like why do I want to spend several thousand dollars when I can have something really close for a fraction of the price. Also I think the Canon P is a very close if not beats out most of the screwmount leica bodies (lens aside), but not likely a M body. I'm still young so I'll keep the Canon P for some time, upgrade to a voightlander lens or maybe a leica lens, then eventually a leica body if I feel the need or "itch", probally a M6 (or M3). But right now the cost just doesn't make sense.

 

[Confusion Circle]

With Leica rangefinders? At or around $1000! I am a novice by all means (35mm SLR only) and am looking at trying out other cameras/formats. I apologize for the navitiy of my question. But what gives?

Leicas are fantastic cameras & lenses. I bought one and am very satisfied. I thought I could never afford a Leica system either, but I got the idea to sell one of my cars to get it....and so the Lexus had to go... Best idea I've ever had.

 

[frank]

I wonder if the original poster also questions the high cost of certain luxury or performance cars in relation to a Pontiac Sunbird or Dodge Neon?

 

[JosBurke]

I had an M3 a year or so ago and sold it from lack of use---what a mistake--sort-of---due to my own pi**ing and moaning a bought an M2--I find I prefer the M2--not quite as fancy but a very very fine camera. 50 mm DR Summicron and a 35mm Elmar--I'm well pleased----The M2 has a smoother operation than the M3 likely due to a CLA not long ago and it fits my hands very well. Regrets---None !! I have a nice Nikon F that is nice too but lacks the smoothness and is kinda clunky but a great camera still. I tend to agree that the Leica is a luxury/top of the line thing and since it's my addiction I'll go with the Leica---and stick with the Leica. Why settle for almost as good ??? I've found I really like the M5 too--!!

 

[PKM-25]

Raucous:


My Toyota Tacoma, on the other hand, gives me great pleasure because I know it's probably the finest piece of engineering on four wheels.

I have driven Toyotas all my life. I had an especially good year in 04, so I opted to buy a new car for cash. I had a 90 4-runner with 240,000 at the time, so I wanted something I could travel and do my project with, but at the same time, I wanted it to look good when I picked up clients.

I was just about ready to buy an Audi A4 when I test drove the 05 Tacoma. The thing blew my mind, it was a simple decision. I love it! I charge my Hensel Porty strobe using the outlet in the bed.

I got my Toyota because it repsresented the best combination of quality and performance and style in that order.

I got my M6 and two stellar aspheric lenses because it well represents the best combination of qualty, performance and style....in that order.

Dude....it is SO the glass. The images I get from those two little lenses are that much better, hands down.

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

If you think any US citizens can't go to college because they don't have the money you are mistaken. First, all states have a state college system with free or low cost tuition. Second, those who are admitted but cannot pay are given some form of financial aid either reduced rates or low interest loans. I taught in our college system for eight years and I never heard of anyone being denied access because of lack of funds.

Then you didn't hear much. One easy example: a single mother from an economically-depressed urban area. Who's going to pay for child care? Her rent? Food? You could just as easily translate that to an individual in rural areas, or a single white male. It's easy to pretend that getting a college education while supporting oneself is a cake-walk, but it bears no relation to reality.

If loans and grants were a guarantee that 'everyone' could attend school, then we'd have universal higher education - we don't, for numerous reasons. People can't secure loans allowing them to eat and attend school. FAFSA, for one, punishes working students (even past the age when it's not supposed to) by requiring a large amount of their income go to tuition - great, if one has mummy and daddy footing the bill. Not so much if one doesn't.

But some people have a hard time conceiving of post-adolescent life without the family teat...

Education up to the college level is free for all citizens, even illegal non-US residents. The schools along our border states are filled with illegals from Mexico and Central America getting a free education paid for with the taxes of working US citizens.

Let's just ignore the quality of education concerns (ie South-Central High and Yuppie Hellspawn High don't offer the same life chances), and point to the major falsehood here: in Texas, the longest of this porous, evil border, school taxes are drawn largely from local property taxes. That's one way you perpetuate a class system in education.

In the other states, and for the rest of Texas' share, education is paid for by the economy propped up by these hordes of illegals ruining American life.

(Funny how it's always the fault of the impoverished immigrant - never the boss who hires and often mistreats him, huh? Can't put the blame on capitalism, nosiree.)

Regarding health care, one of our major hospitals in New York city has a 2 billion dollar annual budget. Half of that is spent treating people who have no health insurance.

Well, then, it might be a good idea to provide them health insurance. People with insurance cut illness off before it becomes serious enough to require hospitalization, drastically reducing the overall cost.

But some people are too stupid to look that far ahead.

There's a hospital in Texas that serves as virtually the maternity ward for Central America. Women from Nicaragua, Guatemala and wherever who are near delivery get on a plane, fly to Texas, get the world's best maternity care, then they fly back home leaving we US citizens to pay the bill.

Hahahahaha. I'm sorry. They FLY here, to deliver in this unnamed hospital and then FLY back? In the age of 9/11? Despite, clearly, being able to afford a rather large airline bill that would pay for a fine hospital in Central and South America (you realize there are hospitals in Central and South America right? They even have ELECTRICITY!). Where do they stay in the meantime? Which hospital is this?

You are a fool and a bigot.

But an entertaining bigot, so cheers.

Even Canadians, who are so proud of their socialized health care system, come to our hospitals because of their quotas and waiting lists.

I love the smell of urban myths in the evening.

 

[kb244]

The main thing I don't like about the spendy brands now days (and I guess it's true with anything that gains market recognizability) is that the names like Leica, Carl Ziess, so forth are being cheapened by slapping them onto whatever digital camera manufacture can pay for the name such as Sony or Panasonic.

The other annoying thing is a while back I borrowed a Leica IIIc with a 50mm Collapsible Summicron, and the Tmax 100 roll that I shot in it still sits on my desk for few months now, and while I've developed everything else, I still have not developed that roll, it just sits there... taunting me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Scuse me, but I was under the impression most of the world was trying to get into the US, not out of it.

Only those who haven't been there. According to the INS, the figure of one in three immigrants returning to their native land has been constant for over 100 years (you can check this on Ellis Island -- I was surprised too). After allowing for those who are too poor, or too proud, or too sick or too dead to get home, my guess is that half those who immigrate would go home if they could; maybe more.

As for illegal immigrants having their education paid for by hard-working Americans, don't forget the Americans whose education is paid for by hard-working illegal immigrants, many of whom pay taxes but get nothing in return.

The maternity ward stuff is pure fantasy. Check American perinatal mortality rates. They are higher than any other rich country. 'Finest care in the world?' Every survey I've ever seen puts France at the top of that particular league. A good friend (American-born) is a doctor in the United States and is not impressed by American health care. And as another poster has pointed out, do you REALLY believe that women who can afford to take airplanes as if they were taxis are going to stiff a public hospital over the bill?

For that matter, check how many lawyers' wives go to Canada to have their babies, simply because American hospitals are too afraid of malpractice suits to admit them.

The simple truth is that the United States is a country much like any other, with advantages and disadvantages. It looks pretty good from the Third World, no doubt -- indeed, there's an interesting book called 'Los Angeles, Capital of the Third World' (Simon and Schuster 1991) -- but most thinking Europeans have to make a rather more balanced judgement; and those for whom health care is a priority often tend to prefer Europe.

So yes, of course we'll 'scuse you. After all, it's no crime to be ill-informed.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[André E.C.]

Only those who haven't been there. According to the INS, the figure of one in three immigrants returning to their native land has been constant for over 100 years (you can check this on Ellis Island -- I was surprised too). After allowing for those who are too poor, or too proud, or too sick or too dead to get home, my guess is that half those who immigrate would go home if they could; maybe more.

As for illegal immigrants having their education paid for by hard-working Americans, don't forget the Americans whose education is paid for by hard-working illegal immigrants, many of whom pay taxes but get nothing in return.

The maternity ward stuff is pure fantasy. Check American perinatal mortality rates. They are higher than any other rich country. 'Finest care in the world?' Every survey I've ever seen puts France at the top of that particular league. A good friend (American-born) is a doctor in the United States and is not impressed by American health care. And as another poster has pointed out, do you REALLY believe that women who can afford to take airplanes as if they were taxis are going to stiff a public hospital over the bill?

For that matter, check how many lawyers' wives go to Canada to have their babies, simply because American hospitals are too afraid of malpractice suits to admit them.

The simple truth is that the United States is a country much like any other, with advantages and disadvantages. It looks pretty good from the Third World, no doubt -- indeed, there's an interesting book called 'Los Angeles, Capital of the Third World' (Simon and Schuster 1991) -- but most thinking Europeans have to make a rather more balanced judgement; and those for whom health care is a priority often tend to prefer Europe.

So yes, of course we'll 'scuse you. After all, it's no crime to be ill-informed.

Cheers,

Roger

Ditto!

PS- As for welfare states, check Scandinavian ones and put your feet on the ground, in that particular issue, the US are way behind Europe!

Cheers

André

 

[eddym]

Some people actually make a living out of needing a quiet shutter.

Matter of fact... I do dance and theater photography. I've been shooting Leicas for 20 years, and it is the only camera that is quiet enough to use in a theater during a performance.

 

[Bromo33333]

Then you didn't hear much. One easy example: a single mother from an economically-depressed urban area. Who's going to pay for child care? Her rent? Food? You could just as easily translate that to an individual in rural areas, or a single white male. It's easy to pretend that getting a college education while supporting oneself is a cake-walk, but it bears no relation to reality.

My wife is going back to school - she went to community college for 2 years, and now she is at a University. All paid for with loans. THis is how people do it here - and you can borrow enough to do it. And given 70% of the population have some form of higher education shows that the system certainly works in getting people educated. Rarely are financial considerations the main driver.

But PLEASE, don't get into a 'my country is better than yours' argument - they became tiresome in the Cold War with US vs. USSR, and they resemble a couple of bigots battling each other.

Most Western systems 'work' - the US has never believed in large public assistance and wealth redistribution - it is a matter of philosophy, economic efficiency (squeeze every last drop out of it) and political will. So, things you would expect to see without large income redistribution and well funded welfare systems are about that way.

In Europe, they DO believe in large amounts of public assistance and income redistribution (though its changing there as well). Hence, the things you would expect to see with large public redistribution, are there.

And the big answer is: SO WHAT. Both system work, and niggling about this and that is a waste of time.

But some people have a hard time conceiving of post-adolescent life without the family teat...

Or the government one ...

Hahahahaha. I'm sorry. They FLY here, to deliver in this unnamed hospital and then FLY back? In the age of 9/11? Despite, clearly, being able to afford a rather large airline bill that would pay for a fine hospital in Central and South America (you realize there are hospitals in Central and South America right? They even have ELECTRICITY!). Where do they stay in the meantime? Which hospital is this?

There are people from other countries that do this - no lie. But again - so what.

You are a fool and a bigot.

Actually you BOTH aren't showing yourselves at your best.

 

[Bromo33333]

The simple truth is that the United States is a country much like any other, with advantages and disadvantages. It looks pretty good from the Third World, no doubt -- indeed, there's an interesting book called 'Los Angeles, Capital of the Third World' (Simon and Schuster 1991) -- but most thinking Europeans have to make a rather more balanced judgement; and those for whom health care is a priority often tend to prefer Europe.

I would tend to agree with this bit -

Most Europeans have a very distorted view of the US, and the US people have a very distorted view of Europe. Both are wrong. I have seen and lived in both (well, the UK, not 'Europe'), and both are well functioning societies.

The US isn't the third world by any stretch, any more than Europe is - and both areas have large areas of immigration where all the well meaning bits of the state don't work quite as well for one reason or another.

Both Europe and the US (and Canada which puts both to shame) have large immigrant populations - and whether 1 in 3, 2 in 3 , 1.2 in 3 or whatever go back in either case - it does not diminish the fact that there are still large immigrant populations. And from my observations, the US government while not particularly immigrant friendly, the US tends to be more open to it than Europe. Not that this matters very much.

My point? The US vs EU comparison is a waste of bandwidth.

What does this have to do with Leica?

 

[André E.C.]

What does this have to do with Leica?

Leica is European?

Cheers

André

 

[kb244]

Leica is European?

Cheers

André

What about them Canadian Leica's ? (CL?)

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I'm still young so I'll keep the Canon P for some time, upgrade to a voightlander lens or maybe a leica lens, then eventually a leica body if I feel the need or "itch", probally a M6 (or M3). But right now the cost just doesn't make sense.

As long as the Canon P and its lens produce the images you want, that's what it was designed to do. There's no need to change. If you expect to be mostly involved in digital photography, a big investment in quality film gear is risky. If you are still young and hope to use 35mm film for a long time, the cost of a Leica does make sense. I bought into the Leica system when overseas and it was affordable. It was pure dumb luck, because I didn't have that much sense.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What does this have to do with Leica?

More people to photograph... Also, it bears on the cost/price of Leicas. High German labour costs (because of high social costs) combine with a weak dollar (boom and bust adventurist capitalism) to make Leicas look a lot more expensive in the USA than they look in Europe. Go back to the exchange rate when W. first came to power and a $5000 camera falls well below $4000.

Apparently, gross immigration to the UK is 1500 people per day; emigration is 1000; so it's still a country of net immigration, with a big immigrant population. Always has been: among my oldest and/or dearest friends I have those with Hungarian ancestry, Channel Islands ancestry, Gypsy ancestry, Maltese ancestry, French ancestry and even a few Welsh. Among my own ancestors, there are probably as many Bretons and Normans as English.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 1000 UK emigrants per day are Britons going to France and Spain (and to a lesser extent New Zealand, Australia, USA) because if my suspicions are correct the 'Britishness' of Britain is much diluted by the flow. I do not necessarily condemn this: I remember the Britain of the 1950s.

I fully agree that the 'my country is better than your country' debate is utterly worthless, but I'd suggest that 'the good bits versus the bad bits' does merit some bandwidth, having lived and worked in the UK (as you say, not really Europe), France and the United States. On balance -- and it's marginal, and I'm doing some facy footwork at the moment on taxes -- I prefer France, though I accept that this may be making a virtue of necessity. But one little story sums it up for me.

When my wife Frances Schultz was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000 (in the UK), the second time she broke down in tears, the nurse (an emotional vampire) said, "It's perfectly understandable." Frances said, "No, you don't understand. These are tears of relief. If I were still in the U.S., I's be facing cancer and bankruptcy. Here it's only cancer."

Our American doctor chum said that Frances received cancer care that met the best practice standards of the American Medical Association. And what did it cost her? Not a penny over her (very modest) National Insurance contributions.

This may help explain why we are so keen on socialized medicine, and why we think it is so important. A rich country can, and should, afford to look after all its citizens, as a matter of course, in the face of catastrophic bad luck such as cancer.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

What about them Canadian Leica's ? (CL?)

Yes, but... My Canadian M4-P, bought new, is the worst Leica I have ever owned: by Leica standards it is rough and poorly finished.

Admittedly, though, Leicas are a bit like sex: the worst is still better than the alternatives.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kb244]

...
This may help explain why we are so keen on socialized medicine, and why we think it is so important. A rich country can, and should, afford to look after all its citizens, as a matter of course, in the face of catastrophic bad luck such as cancer.

Cheers,

Roger

Theres the "ability" then theres the actual willingness to put forth the money for that ability. And believe me no country is perfect, every have their ups and downs, there are some things that happen in Canada that I hope never happen here in the US and there are some things that I'm sure Canada hopes they never see up there that we have down here far as legislation goes. Also I lived in Germany for three years and Panama for a year so I'm not exactly a stranger to other government issues. Though as an American, I will say there are some priorities we need to get straight.

....Like which camera we need to import more of.

 

[Bromo33333]

More people to photograph... Also, it bears on the cost/price of Leicas. High German labour costs (because of high social costs) [...]

That high cost in Germany is hurting them overall - a 10%+ unemployment and sending jobs to the East (Europe and Asia).

And I think even a few years ago - Leica was REALLY expensive. I don't remember when they weren't, though they are positive bargains compared with Alpa!

Apparently, gross immigration to the UK is 1500 people per day; emigration is 1000; so it's still a country of net immigration, with a big immigrant population. [...]

The UK is a "multi-cultural" society like it or not. I saw it in Cambridge in the 90's - and I understand it is greater even now (since when I lived there, if you were to go to the Midlands, or North the influx wasn't as great as it is today).

Funny thing that I remember the 1970's when there was a lot of hand wringing about the "brain drain" with lots of people (even working class folks) going to Germany for the good jobs and high pay, and a lot of others emigrating to Canada, the US and Australia. Now, after the economy has got so strong there, it has completely reversed!

I fully agree that the 'my country is better than your country' debate is utterly worthless, but I'd suggest that 'the good bits versus the bad bits' does merit some bandwidth, having lived and worked in the UK (as you say, not really Europe), France and the United States. On balance -- and it's marginal, and I'm doing some facy footwork at the moment on taxes -- I prefer France, though I accept that this may be making a virtue of necessity. But one little story sums it up for me.

France is a wonderful place (though with all the taxes, I can see how that is painful ). I found the UK to be a great place to live as well, though I never enjoyed the taxes and high prices in comparison to the pay.

Not having first hand experience with France, I can't say, but the NHS was both maddening and great - the fact your health care was "paid for" already was great, the queues, less so. When I was there limited private practice was allowed, and was (relatively) inexpensive and the service was good and quick. I don't know how it works today, but it was a nice supplement if you didn't want to or "couldn't" wait.

20 years ago, I would say the US system was the best in the world - but with all the regulations limiting care (thanks to Medicare) and rampant inflation (15%+ per annum), employers dropping or limiting care, and HMOs' - I am not so sure. In some cities, emergency rooms and hospitals closed because of the non paying customers - and it is illegal to turn someone away due to a lack of payment. I even think the hospital in Marin County in California (very wealthy county) closed for similar reasons - meaning if you need emergency care, you will have to go to San Fransisco, or another county.

But don't think for a second this is "free market medicine" because it isn't. It is a mess of regulations, lawsuits, drug companies, and so on. In some ways the US system is subsidizing the world by paying so much for so little (I am thinking of drugs, here).

But due to the problems with the US first "go" at Universal Health Coverage in the early 1990's by the Democrats - Congress flipped into Republican's hands in '94 in a large part due to this proposal. So painful it was to the Democrats, I doubt there will be any political will in any elected party to do this unless there was some huge public health crisis that would have been prevented, or dealt with better by universal care of some kind.

When my wife Frances Schultz was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000 (in the UK), the second time she broke down in tears, the nurse (an emotional vampire) said, "It's perfectly understandable." Frances said, "No, you don't understand. These are tears of relief. If I were still in the U.S., I's be facing cancer and bankruptcy. Here it's only cancer."

Was she a US citizen or something? Without insurance, a diagnosis like that would put someone in bankruptcy for sure. In the US, though, bankruptcy is trouble - but the laws, even today, aren't as strict as some countries. Cold comfort, I know.

Our American doctor chum said that Frances received cancer care that met the best practice standards of the American Medical Association. And what did it cost her? Not a penny over her (very modest) National Insurance contributions.

Even in Thailand, I found the hospitals there clean and the care seemed pretty good. Completely private, though. No money, no treatment.

This may help explain why we are so keen on socialized medicine, and why we think it is so important. A rich country can, and should, afford to look after all its citizens, as a matter of course, in the face of catastrophic bad luck such as cancer.

I will agree - but only up to a point. Too much State, and the economy tends to drag in my opinion. France right now is facing some trouble due to this, and Germany too, as well.

Also, "catastrophic coverage" insurance is not too expensive in the US. And would cover cancer treatments, car accidents and other things above a certain amount of money.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Theres the "ability" then theres the actual willingness to put forth the money for that ability. And believe me no country is perfect, every have their ups and downs...

Absolutely. That was my point, really.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kb244]

...
Heck - maybe the US should get back in the business? Revive Graflex?

To what end though. At least Leica has a digital or two, and teamed up with panasonic for their market. If a graflex company of some sort would been revised, I can't think of what they'd do to survive or compete, and not like Kodak would want to team up with them. No offense to the kodak lovers (I could care less bout their stuff lately aside from emulsions), but the last time kodak ever made a serious contender of a camera was the Kodak Ektra, or least their finest attempt at a camera.