So... what makes Leica people so different?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I participate in several forums other than this one, forums geared towards my other camera brands. I notice that people in my Nikon oriented forums are different than the Leica people in that they seem to automatically adopt a "new is better" attitude, and are quicker to sever ties to the past. There are people in this forum who use M3s and M2s, and their inputs and opinions are as respected as the guy with the newest M6 TTL. Yet in the Nikon forums, when I mention that I use manual focus Nikon cameras and lenses, seek out old used Fs and F2s instead of the latest "wonder plastic", I am ridiculed as a dinosaur... afraid of progress. It is amusing to watch people trade in their cameras every 6 to 9 months for one with the next higher number... one that adds two features, but eliminates three... all in the name of "progress". People are putting new lenses on order from their Nikon dealer, going on a waiting list, for lenses that have no history or feed back yet. These folk are dumping year old zooms because one was announced with 4 more millimeters... even though they also lose a stop. But we have folks here who are using chrome Summicrons from the 1960s, and feel no need to "upgrade", even though there may be four versions beyond the lens they use, each reputed to improve on the previous version. One of my secret pleasures is the continuing thread in the Nikon forum where people complain about their 3 month old cameras and try to determine what serial number was the cut-off for correction of various defects. People mention that they had no problems with the camera they traded in for the new one... So why the trade in? It is like you are wearing a lime green leisure suit if your camera in more than 2 years old there... how out of touch you must be. So... what makes Leica people so different? Is it a generational thing? It would be interesting to do an averaging of the ages on various forums. Is it that Leica has always been more evolutionary than revolutionary? It took 15 years of M6 production to do anything radical... if you call a viewfinder magnification and larger shutterspeed dial radical. Nikon use to average a decade between new "pro" models. Now the race with Canon for the fattest instruction book doesn't allow that long of an interval. And if you are talking about the amateur range from both Canon and Nikon... keeping up with the latest model would make your head spin. Six months to a year, your camera is out of production. It is always a breath of fresh air to come back to this forum and have an intelligent dialog... where everyone is equal, valid and centered. You get the feeling that the discussions and thoughts on this forum today will be similar to what will be happening here in 20 years, and a lot of us will be still holding the same cameras in our hands... Or am I a dinosaur?

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 07, 2001

Answers

I am a new M6 TTL owner/user, after dumping my Canon EOS A2 outfit. After 2 months of steady use, I became so enthralled with the camera that I acquired a 1952 IIIf RD that I use concurently with the M6. I even derive a perverse pleasure out of loading the IIIf ( I use a spent phone card as a guide). The IIIf lens is a 1953 Summaron 35 1:3.5 that gives me beautiful results. I have happily joined the ranks of those who rebel against planned obsolescence and have opted for intimate involvement with the picture taking process. I think "our" ranks will keep on growing.

Jean-David

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), January 07, 2001.


I bought a Nikon N90S when I was doing some work for a few car magazines because I thought the AF would help me when I was shooting fast. I got mixed results with it at first, and didn't get any more action shots in focus than I did with my M3. The Nikon does do really well in fill flash mode on a sunny day when I am doing people shots and don't have control of the light like I want to. The meter does well on auto, and I think the camera is a keeper. Its a nice companion to my old M rangefinder. Both are capable of superb images. The two portraits I posted last week were from the Nikon with the 85mm lens.

If either camera was seriously damaged or stolen, I'd probably replace it with an identical model. I looked at the newer Nikon's with all kinds of things blinking at me in the finders and got a kick out of stuff they pack these things with that no one needed last year but can not live without now. But on the other hand, I have gotten somewhat spoiled by the ease of operation of my N90, and often grab it instead of my Leica.

Its fine with me if people want to constantly buy the latest and the greatest if they can afford the stuff. Its great in that it keeps a huge amount of quality equipment on the used market.

If I'm happy with the results I get with a camera, I just keep using it. I recently sold my Leica R7 outfit. Even though I loved the superb feel and operation of the camera, I had a hard time getting consistantly sharp images with it. I tried 2 different screens, practised holding the camera still, and kept shooting, but I ended up getting more keepers with the Nikon N90s. I was sad to see it go, but the images are more important to me than the cameras that make them.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 07, 2001.


Odd how different people get such different results with the same (virtually) equipment. Not long ago I dumped a bunch of Nikon A/F gear to switch to a Leica R3 w/90mm Summicron. I had tried the Summicron on a friends advice, and was stunned at the noticable improvement in contrast and saturation over the Nikkor zooms I was using. But the camera I use the most is a IIIg, though-be-it outfitted with the new 35mm Asph that Leica brought out last year. A camera that has served faithfully for 40 years gets most of my personal use. In the years I've had this camera I've had a number of plastic 'wonder- cameras' pack it in after thay had far fewer frames than my old stand- by. It's a shame we're brought up in world where newest is 'always best' to many people. Good thing we don't toss over our partners and children with the same regularity.....oops, actually many of us do now!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 07, 2001.

Al,

I use a new M6 TTL and don't consider myself a "Leica snob". I think that the reason some of the other users (particularily die-hard Nikon and Canon users) think that we are snobs is because Leica equipment is expensive relative to other equipment. But it lasts, and lasts, and lasts... For instance... look at all the great Nikon AIS prime lenses for sale now at bargain basement prices. Now I used Nikon in the past and my opinion is some of those AIS prime lenses are "to die for". Now, those same lenses are being literally thrown away by "enthusiasts" who lust after the latest and the greatest? Oh well, their loss IMHO. For myself, I will always be a USER. I know what I want... and that is a camera system that challenges me to become a more intuitive photographer. After using the rangefinder Leicas I just can't go back to the SLRs. The M camera just forces you to see the world in a different manner than an SLR... and if you can accept that then there is great potential in the system for helping you become a more creatively intuitive photographer. I think a lot of Leica users are in love with the ideals of greats such as Henri-Cartier Bresson who preached a minimalist approach to photography as a vehicle to greater spiritual awareness and expression in the medium. Just give me the basics (abeit the best of the basics) and let my experience, my mind, and my imagination do the rest. Who needs a sophisticated matrix meter when I was already born with a good one? And like many M photographers (hopefully) let me make MY mistakes on film so that I can better appreciate the process of my evolution. Let me be in 100% control of the medium.

Sorry to preach but that's how I feel about my art. Besides, after 20 years the auto-everything SLR guy who has upgraded his entire outfit 3- 4 times over will have spent at least twice what I did for my "buy and appreciate for a lifetime" M outfit.

Cheers,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 08, 2001.


BTW: I don't think that its a generation thing.

FYI I'm 29 years old (smack generation X) and I've never owned an auto- focus SLR and never will. There are people that appreciate the art of photography in all age groups.... its not just confined to rich baby- boomers.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 08, 2001.



Go to www.egroups.com and sign up for the Nikon MF mailing list. Lots of non-judgmental, helpful, well-informed people. Scan the archive there as well.

-- Joe Brugger (jbrugger@teleport.com), January 08, 2001.

I'm 23, and very much a dedicated Leica user. For awhile I was really on the digicam/technology treadmill (being a techie by vocation and disposition), but it just so happened that, on a trip through the UK last summer, I left my Nikon digicam in an Edinburgh taxi never to be seen again. For some reason, after I came home and collected my insurance money, I decided to go in the complete opposite direction: instead of replacing my old camera with the latest greatest technological marvel, I got an M6 with a 35mm Summicron. That turned out to be one of the better decisions I've ever made...

For me, the appeal of the M6 is exactly what people like David Alan Harvey say it is: it reduces the process of taking pictures to a few simple actions and allows the photographer to concentrate on capturing the "defining moment" rather than on what metering mode the camera is in or what all the menu options do. It is also comforting to know (as Al points out) that my M6 will never require me to worry about such things as firmware updates, system errors, and planned obsolescence. My Leica is one of the few things I own that I can actually envision using for the rest of my life!

-- Buzz Andersen (landerse@du.edu), January 08, 2001.


I think it is that we Leica users seem to know what is important in photography. For me, auto-everything is not necessary. I changed last year from a Minolta-AF system to an all-manual R6.2 and I can say that I do not miss AF or AE at all; if anything the R6.2 is easier to use, and has almost the same spec as the first Leicaflex!

At the end of the day, Leica invest all their research & development where it matters - in the glass on the front of the camera. If you need autoeverything, then go for the R8.

-- Simon Coates (michael@scoates.freeserve.co.uk), January 08, 2001.


I use Leica M for most travel, Leica R (6, 6.2 and 8) for most general photography, and Nikon AF for wildlife. Each has its forte to be exploited. If it weren't for the compactness of 35mm outfits, or the zooms, or the long AF lenses, I would undoubtedly use my Hasselblads exclusively. My lenses are a mixture of old and new. I buy them for what they can offer in terms of photographic solutions, not because they are just new or because some self-appointed authority with his own website says they are better than the old ones.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 08, 2001.

I started photography with manual cameras (no choice at the time) in the 70s. As time went by I upgraded to more automated models. About 10 years ago, I went into a kind of dry spell: I had a good auto-everything camera but did not take pictures anymore, or so few... In fact it seemed I was not interested in taking pictures anymore. I decided to get rid of my gear and bought a good point and shoot (a Leica minilux). I began to take a lot of pictures again. Pretty soon I used only the manual features of the minilux and took more and more pleasure at shooting. I had a kind of insight: For me, manual (and total) control is what makes picture taking enjoyable. Also, the camera has to be small to be carried with you as much as possible (no big zoom). This is how I decided to buy an M6. I carry the beast fitted with a 35 mm 'cron everywhere: I go to work with it, do shopping with it... I really fully enjoy taking pictures again.

To go back to what you said about Nikon, I think there is a pretty large number of F2/3 users/fans who do not want to hear about the new plastic things... If none exist, maybe you should try to start a newsgroup or newsletter dedicated to these cameras?

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), January 08, 2001.



The easy answer in relation to the M Leica's is the Ka-click (sometimes Ka-wirr-click-wirr) sound. Addictive.

Another answer is that we are people who get attached to our things. I really liked my Canon T90, but sold it when it became apparent that Canon would not support this long term. I have a mechanical watch for the same reason. It is not as acurate as a swatch, but it is hopefully the last watch I will ever buy.

The better answer is that once you take the time to get used to one, you realise that what it does well covers a good proportion of general photography. You realise that a 70's summicron can do most photos a 28-70 2.8 can do at 1/4 weight , 1/8 the bulk and 1/4 the cost and still have less distortion and a stop faster. A 70's summicron is not the sharpness limit if you are shooting handheld.

What it doesn't do well, Close up, flash, very wide or long lenses are reason many Leica M uses have an SLR system as well. SLR Systems are incredibly flexible, but you are paying a price in excessive weight and complexity if you want a natural light photo of someone with a "normal perspective".

I was shooting some natural light photos of my daughter and was amazed how well the split image RF works in the 1.5-2 meter range. I just set focus once and rocked back and forward to keep her eyes in focus. My EOS 50 is pretty useless for manual focus (even with the 85/1.8) and it's AF while good it is not perfect.

Modern AF lenses feel like disposable junk. The 25 year old summicron still has that tight "gliding on precision bearings" feel. The 2 year old EOS 85/1.8 and 28/1.8 have that "built to a price gliding on plastic" feel which guarantees it won't see it's 25th birthday.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), January 08, 2001.


I figure it's the images. The equipment is only a means to the image. I've only found it useful to look at people as documentary photographers, portrait photographers, still life photographers, conceptual photographers, etc. I've never found it useful to divide up the world by tools. Is there a Stanley vs Mikita way of looking at carpenters? I don't think so.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 08, 2001.

In my view, Leica people tend to value the quality of their equipment more than its functionality, and are more interested in the results than in the technology that was used to produced them. I have owned Olympus OM equipment for almost 20 years and never felt disadvantaged as its specifications fell further and further behind those offered by the SLR market leaders, Nikon and Canon.

I recently acquired a used Leica R system, consisting of an R7 body and four lenses: 24 Elmarit, 35 Summicron, 60 Elmarit macro and 90 Elmarit. Whilst not 'state of the art' by Nikon/Canon standards, the R7 is a _big_ step up, technologically, from my OM-2S and OM-2n. However, that wasn't why I bought it - in fact, I only found out about the R7's specifications after I got it home. No, I bought it to be able to use Leica glass (and, also, because I made the mistake of picking it up and playing with it in the shop - and I couldn't put it down again!)

I think that those people who find themselves on the treadmill of having continually to update their equipment are differently motivated. Many hi-fi buffs used to be like that: they were more interested in the equipment itself than the music it reproduced and they _had_ to have the latest and best. It's an affliction, IMHO, that leads to dissatisfaction and an empty bank account. I hope I never have to replace my R7; it isn't a wunderbrick but I don't want one of those. The weight, size and price of the R7 seems quite reasonable when I compare it with the Canon EOS 1V and the Canon's additional features are not attractive to me in the slightest degree. Maybe I'm also a dinosaur?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.


Q. "So... what makes Leica people so different?"

A. Smaller residual cash reserves.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 09, 2001.


Actually I don't think the difference is in us using Leica equipments. I have buddies who are still very happy and productive using the Fs and F2s, much like you. But I don't think they participate in the online forum, at least one of them do not even own a computer or work with one! I cannot speak for everyone, but I am quite comfortable with what I am using I find very little need to change my equipment for something that offers very little over what I already have. The newer stuffs are just too unecessarily complicated. I also prefer to have complete control over what I want to do with my cameras, and I find the thought of surrendering decision making to a chip rather moot. I want to know that I made the picture, or that I screwed-up. I don't want to have the suspicion that it was the computer in the camera that took the photos, or the excuse that it was that computer who screw it up. That's how I learn and progress. But I did borrow an EOS with a huge IS lens when I want to do some nature stuff sometime ago, simply because I don't have the equipment myself. And having actually used it, I know it has it's purpose for existence. As Jeff said, it is the image that matters most, and as long as I am still able to coax them from my antiquated equipment, that's fine. Dinosaurs? I think more like supremely adapted. Of cause, I hereby state that I do not rule out the possibility that I might spring for a state-of-the-art do-everything auto-everything image and mental-state stabilised wonderflex one day. That's the beauty of tomorrow, everything is possible:)

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), January 09, 2001.


As someone above mentioned, it has more to do with why one gets into photography in the first place. I'm a member of a local group of photographers who reularily recruit for new members. Our emphasis is on gallery showing and publication and we have a questionaire we give all prospective members. One question goes like this: "You wake up at night and your home is ablaze. By the exit are your camera cases to one side, and to the other, all you lifes negative. Which do you save?" A fairly telling question as to whether a person is more interested in the technology of photography, or the photographs the cameras allow. I've found Leica users all tend to save the negs and let the insurance buy new equipment.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.

I read a report on home fires recently and it said that number one item that anyone takes out of their house is photographs. So I don't think this proves anything.

Owning something makes one nothing other than the owner of that something.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 09, 2001.


I'd grab my negatives, photographs, and then my Leicas!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), January 09, 2001.

Q. "So... what makes Leica people so different?"

A. In addition to smaller cash reserves we also spend on other items such as overdraft protection... etc.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.


Hi Jeff, in response to your thinking our question proves nothing. I am fairly sure the statistics you've read also include all the people who value thier treasured family photographs, which many people do save. Our questionaire however is aimed at (for lack of a better term), artists, and their tools v.s. there art. You'd be surprised how many responses we get (about 20%) that they would save the cameras because they feel they can always take more photographs, invalidating the value (in my opinion) of what they've already taken. What our question does prove is that there are techies out there that buy into the 'newest is bestest', thinking that a great photo is only $$$ away.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.

This has something to do with Leica camera:

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 09, 2001.

Leica styling does not change much overtime, hence there is no great urgency to upgrade.

I've never known a photographer who cared about the styling of the camera for more than five minutes.

Leica camera keeps value quite well, since it does not depreciate fast, that is second reason for lack of incentive to trade in old camera in a hurry.

I've never known a photographer who was concerned about depreciation of cameras (other things, significantly more expensive, maybe...)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 09, 2001.


Jeff, the biggest market segment for Leicas, and for any cameras, is the amateur segmemnt, the hobbyiss not the pros.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 10, 2001.

Ferrari designer Sergio Pininfarina collected almost all Leica M and R cameras, he considers Leica as the acme of "timeless beauty"

What makes Leicaphile different ?

Appreciation of things of beauty--- A thing of beauty if a joy for ever

Any photographer who with a Leica in hand, and does not appreciate its design beauty, and forget about it in 5 minutes, has little sense of beuaty, for them, photography is just a another job

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 10, 2001.


Jeff, I for one (and many others I think) do consider styling when making a purchase. Another word for styling can be ergonomics. Styling as far as flashy colors or whiz-bang gadgets may be of no concern to a photographer, but if a camera is styled so that it falls easlily to hand and fits comfortably when shooting definitely does matter.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 10, 2001.

Style is also another important point... when viewed in context of ergonomics.

Sorry to get all "new age" on you guys again but when I think of the ergonomics of the Leica M I think of the M in terms of "spiritual cybernetics". A cybernetic device is something that enhances the natural physical ability of the user and in the case of the M the way that the simple controls (aperture/ shutter speed) fall naturally at hand enhances the way we (at least I) take pictures. Come to think of it.... I don't think I'd ever consider any camera that substituted buttons for dials. Dials are just soooo much more intuitive than buttons used to toggle between functions on a digital screen. And it is this intuitiveness that allows photographers to experience the camera as a natural extension of one's desire to create images. Call me a "Leica snob" but the ergonomics of the M are the most natural that I have ever experienced (a close second would be the Nikon F3).

To me at least... that element of picture taking is VERY important.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 10, 2001.


Ergonomics and style are two different things.

The comment about Pinanfarina is most revealing.

I don't really give a who collects camera and what cameras they collect.

Obviously there is a camera collectors' contingent, but I always thought they were for making photographs. And I'm a lot more interested in seeing photographs on the walls than cameras. Anyone with money can collect any cameras.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 11, 2001.


Jeff, to coin a well known phrase..."methinks thou doth protest too much"...you seem to have the 'my way or the highway' attitude. Photography can be different things to different people. It's a big world Jeff...there's room for all of us!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 11, 2001.

Only a moron would completely dismiss any particular way of doing something.

Yes, leicas are wonderful camera for lots of reasons. For many people they encourage slowing down and concentrating on the moment at hand. For many others they are a hole to throw money and frustration at.

Rangefinders are great and I will always have one. Canon/Nikon USM/AF-S lenses and top of the line bodies are great and I will always have one. For sheer image quality, nothing in the 35mm world can touch med. or large format. It all comes down to horses for courses. I will 99.99% of the time get better action photography shots with my F5 than anyone with a M6. But I'd rather not have that F5 if I were trying to photograph inside a silent Menonite church service.

Chosing to ignore technology just because it changes quickly is like wanting to use the pony express because FedEx is too fast. And ignoring the simplicities of the past because they are "out of date" is like only watching crappy sluggish "netcast TV" and never reading a book. Both people will be missing something important.

-- Josh Root (Rootj@att.net), January 12, 2001.


A British mag in a review on the M2 commented: "these will still be going when oil reserves have run out and Man has colonised Mars." Exactly. Let's hope there will still be film. Another comment: "Cameras are just a tool, but choosing the right tool makes a difference." To me, my old M3 just feels comfortable - more so than my minilux. Oh, and rangefinder focusing is so easy. The M6 looks tempting solely because of its built-in meter. Pros at the paper where I work use Nikon F5s and D1s. They are versatile and ultra rugged, but it's interesting how many pros seem to eschew matrix metering in favour of manual. The big Nikons look too heavy for my amateur or semi-pro stuff. Amateur AF SLRs and PSs seem loaded with geewhiz gimmicks that hold no appeal whatsoever. I think Nikon is not totally technoholic though -- the company deserves praise for keeping its 1959 lensmount, unlike Canon. The reliability of the old Leica M cameras is testimony to their superb construction. I too find them aesthetically pleasing, and why not? I agree style is different to ergonomics. The Canon Elph APS camera for example is stylish, but how fiddly is it to use and does it come up with the goods? I am not keen on show-off technology that is jampacked with unnecessary features, whether it be cameras, stereos or remote controls. I would opt for simplicity and purity of form following function. To sum up the whole Leica approach I guess you could say: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" A generational thing? Well, I'm 38 but I think it's refreshing how many young people appreciate classic, proven technology, and are not just taken in by the latest throwaway fads. Newer is not always better. Sure, as one writer comments above, it's dumb to ignore either the old or the new; a

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), January 12, 2001.

I recently came across a 1930 Leica B with a Compur shutter which I traded for cash and an M2 with 50mm Summicron. My father had owned the same in the early 60's, so for me it was the ability to "bond" with my father (who died when I was 5 years old). Subsequently, I have found that the M2 has really forced me to think far more about composition and exposure; much more than any electronic AF SLR than I have ever owned. I use my camera as a hobbyist and not as a means of earning a living, but have already found myself abandoning my SLR in favour of the Leica. As the years progress, I can only imagine that I will continue to use it more intensively. It truly is a joy to own, use and operate.

-- Hamish Speirs (speirs@fuse.net), January 19, 2001.

I met a guy at a camera store the other day who told me he owns 30 Leicas. One of them according to this man is a "collectors edition" and has been sitting in a box unopened for a very long time with the original plastic. This is the market and mindset that continues to drive the prices of good used Leicas sky high. As I left the store, I thought to myself, what a waste of some really great equiptment.

-- Tom (shanggy@aol.com), February 06, 2001.

This discussion is similar to the one that goes on in golf...buy the lastest $500 driver and hit the ball straighter and gain 30 yards off the tee. If you don't have a swing, you ain't gonna hit any straighter or farther no matter how much money you spend on equipment. Spend it on lessons...

Or, "any tool in skilled hands will yield acceptable results."

-- Jeff Voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.


Not quite true, Jeff. As a kid, I tried to use my dad's handsaw. I couldn't cut a straight line. Try as I might, I couldn't get it to go straight. It would always curve off to the left. My dad would tell me that "the true craftsman" (whatever that is) could cut a straight line with it; or that it's a poor workman who blames his tools, etc. He had a lot of fantasies about what the "true craftsman" could do, such as making a dining room table with only a pen-knife. When I grew up I got into serious woodworking, and found out that a properly "set" saw cuts straight; a badly set saw won't. Not even if James Krenov uses it. So, my amended saying is, "It's an inexperienced craftsman who doesn't recognize when the tool is the problem." I can pick up a Stanley No. 60 1/2 P plane, or a Leica, and know it is right for me.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 15, 2001.


What makes Leica people so different?

It is the shared value of an unyielding pursuit for excellence; It is the imitimate appreciation for honest quality; It is the collective idealism for the ultimiate photographic image quality; It is the fraternal statement that values truth and beauty over cash reserves.

In a nut shell, like all things in life, it is the "attitude," that makes the difference.

Stephen

-- Stephen Lo (stephen.lo@sap.com), August 28, 2001.


We are not so different. Stop giving us airs :-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), August 29, 2001.

I have talked with more than one photography(camera) retailer who admitted that he rather not stock/sell Leica equipment. Reason: the (potential) Leica buyer has a reputation of never being satisfied, neurotically obsesed with detail, perfection etc etc. Time consuming hard to please customers! Surprise/fact/not true, take your pick!

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), August 29, 2001.

> Surprise/fact/not true, take your pick!

Over the years in the shop I saw about an equal mix, but each side was just about to extremes. One group had Leica gear that looked like it'd been beaten with hammers but they didn't care, they just kept happily using it, while the other group pretty much wouldn't even dare to pick up their equipment for fear of putting a fingerprint on it.

The Leica owner who had only a few minor marks on his gear was rare.

I hardly ever saw Leica customers go through that agonies that so many NiCanon customers went through in making buying decisions.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 30, 2001.


John, that's because

1) Leica owners have few equipment/lens choices (M camera owners anyway) compared to CanNic owners.

and more importantly

2) They know what they want for certain-all the lenses in the M line! The only agony comes from not being able to afford it.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), August 30, 2001.


I don't really like to separate people in different camps and we have heard it all before in regards to operating systems, motorcycles, hi- fi, whatever. Different strokes for different folks. I prefer mechanical cameras and I like manual Nikons as well. I also respect and very much like the EOS system when I need AF. I like the modern Rollei 6008i over the Hasselblad. I like the $30 digital watch over the very expensive mechaical IWC my wife bought me even though we know which one will last longer. I'd like to think I belong in the camp that takes decent pictures regardless of equipment.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), August 31, 2001.

I have bought a Titanium M6 and f1.4, 35mm lens, a R6.2 and a 25-70mm len for 6 years. I 've made less than 10 rolls of film with them (only 1/5 of the pictures are well taken). But I enjoyed very much by just holding them and veiwing them from different angles. The feeling is the same as of my appreciation of my violin which can last for hours without feeling bored.

Peter Chow (pmschow@netvigator.com

-- Peter Chow (pmschow@netvigator.com), November 22, 2001.


Al, to make a long story short, how about me just saying that some of the best things in life are always best at a certain time in history, and after that they just get worse and worse. How about all of Germany itself? Some people think so. For example before, between, and after two world wars. And then again only up to 1989.

PS: No, you are not a dinosaur, or, at least you are not the only one around here.

PPS: I think I'll now have to make a big down payment somewhere on a giant trophy for you, Al, as your posting here is likely to get the biggest number of answers of all time.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), November 22, 2001.


To this may I add: every posting with (too) many answers deserves a Mike Dixon shot. Just to keep our attention. Thanks in advance for your consideration Mike.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), November 22, 2001.

we r not different, we just happen to use leica.

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 18, 2002.

From my relatively recent and simplistic Leica viewpoint; you can drive from New York to New Orleans in a Ford Escort or a Ferrari. The difference is who has the most fun and enjoyment in getting there......

Obviously the more experienced (and better-heeled) driver would choose the Ferrari, but if the overall experience (and outcome)is the same to both, who cares?

-- Hamish Speirs (speirs@fuse.net), April 04, 2002.


Car analogies never work and this one is no exception. A better analogy would be whether you'd rather listen to music using a true high-fidelity system or a boom box.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

I´m with you Jeff, I mean a camera is to take pictures... but tell me, you understand about design... it can be a piece to admire too, is it?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

I have to go along with Ray. Many analogies never work and the car one certainly isn't the only non-exception. I always like to say that I love Leica because here, oldness is often better than (or at least just as good as) newness. I love the mechanics here. But many things today are more electrically oriented. Getting into music, I have a huge number of LPs but I prefer my CDs. I have a PC in the kitchen (for all my recipes) but it has Windows 3.11. For me, that's too old.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 05, 2002.

I have an opportunity to go to Cancun later in the Summer and am pondering whether to take my M2. Last thing I want is someone mugging me for it. I always keep it in a camera bag (Tamrac Pro-8, with my SLR) and only take it out to shoot, but I have heard of instances where folks have been held up at gunpoint for their cameras. Does anyone have an insight into this ?

-- Hamish Speirs (speirs@fuse.net), May 15, 2002.

My wife and I were in Sonoma CA this march and I was in need of some film. My wife struck a conversation with one of the locals and toward the end asked where we could pick some up. The gentleman, who was an elderly Polish immigrant, said "your husband needs some film for his Leica?". At that point, my ears perked up, as I keep my stuff in a very nondescript bag and had not taken it out to that point. I asked him- how did he know I had Leica eqmt? He replied " You don't look cheap- only wealthy men or good men own Leicas". I am in eternal gratitude to the gentleman as I will never have to justify the Leica thing to my spouse- who actually condones the habit. To answer your question I end with an Eddie Murphy quote " the sickness runs deep".

-- Sal Ortega (sal_ortega@hotmail.com), May 16, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ