What is the big fuss about Leica

Abdichoudxyz said:
But they were vastly outnumbered by SLR users.
Click to expand...
There's a problem with that assertion.

There were many more rangefinder cameras than just Leica. Brands like Canon, Kodak. Minolta, Voigtlander (the original, German, company) Yashica and Zeiss, to name just a few, sold them in the tens of thousands well into the 1970s. The market for SLRs never got close to the market for the fixed lens rangefinder cameras. For wedding specialists, the market was still almost dominated by the TLR into the 1980s, when I did a few weekends helping out a friend, with my old Rolleiflex F.
Abdichoudxyz said:
The SLR changed photography. For the better, imo.
Click to expand...
That may be true, if you can define "better" in this context, which I'm inclined to think no-one can.

If you can dig out the old production figures for cameras, which were published by the Japanese and German trade associations, I think you'll find that SLRs never accounted for more than 10% by volume even at the height of their popularity - though I'm open to contradiction on that. I find that there are many people who see the camera market in terms of one small slice, whereas it has, for many years, been quite different to how the enthusiast sees it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There's a problem with that assertion.

There were many more rangefinder cameras than just Leica. Brands like Canon, Kodak. Minolta, Voigtlander (the original, German, company) Yashica and Zeiss, to name just a few, sold them in the tens of thousands well into the 1970s. The market for SLRs never got close to the market for the fixed lens rangefinder cameras. For wedding specialists, the market was still almost dominated by the TLR into the 1980s, when I did a few weekends helping out a friend, with my old Rolleiflex F.
Click to expand...
SLRs sold in millions, worldwide. Most companies manufacturing rangefinders stopped doing so. Nikon and Canon stopped producing them in the 1960s. Other brands' ranges survived into the 70s, but sales dwindled until they also stopped. Yes there were one or two models that persevered, like the Olympus XA, but they too were toast once AF P+S cameras arrived. The SLR market completely overtook rangefinders by the 1990s. Rangefinder cameras were often relatively cheap offerings, whilst SLRs were aimed at professionals and more 'serious' amateurs. I thinkyou're looking at things through rose-tinted specs really.
AndrewFlannigan said:
That may be true, if you can define "better" in this context, which I'm inclined to think no-one can.
Click to expand...
Pretty easy really; the SLR system allowed for more accurate focussing, particularly with faster lenses, more accurate framing, it enabled a much wider range of lenses to be used, from ultra wide angle to extreme telephoto. Action, wildlife and sports photography benefitted enormously from the use of SLR cameras. Close up photography is far easier and more accurate with an SLR camera. Loads more.
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you can dig out the old production figures for cameras, which were published by the Japanese and German trade associations, I think you'll find that SLRs never accounted for more than 10% by volume even at the height of their popularity - though I'm open to contradiction on that. I find that there are many people who see the camera market in terms of one small slice, whereas it has, for many years, been quite different to how the enthusiast sees it.
Click to expand...
But we're talking about the present. So 'figures' from 60, 70+ years ago are irrelevant. We're talking about the 'big fuss' around Leica cameras. Which was once justified; they really were the best tools. But they haven't been (in wider photographic terms) for a very long time now. So; much of the 'big fuss' now is about mythical qualities, same as how Rolexes are more 'desirable' than smartwatches, as someone else mentioned earlier. They're not 'better' at the purpose for which they were desinged and made, a cheap Casio is more accurate at telling the time than any mechanical watch. My smartwatch is far more accurate still, and has myriad other features which make it far better 'value' for me than a Rolex. But my smartwatch won't indicate to other people how wealthy I am. Not that I want it to. But anyway. That's no reason to stop making Rolexes. Or Leicas. Or anything else nice.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
SLRs sold in millions, worldwide.
Click to expand...
Indeed they did, some representative claims here: https://knippsen.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-12-classical-slr-by-production.html.

There's a graph on this PetaPixel page ( https://petapixel.com/2021/11/26/ba...e-camera-industry-is-again-a-bit-part-player/ )in the section "What is the Future of Camera Sales and Shipments?" which indicates that although SLR dominance reached a peak of roughly 2:1 around 1979, that had reversed to roughly 1:2.5 in favour of the non-SLRs by by 1998,

I can't find statistics for the period before 1977 but consulting sources like the Wallace Heaton catalogues for the mid 1960s and the adverts in 1950s issues of Amateur Photographer suggests that the SLR was at around that 10% figure I mentioned earlier.
Abdichoudxyz said:
But we're talking about the present.
Click to expand...
Your claims were so sweeping that I assumed otherwise. However, again on that PetaPixel page, it's clear that dSLR sales were a fraction of integrated camera (the nearest equivalent of the low cost rangefinder in price terms) in 2008 and only exceeded them from 2012 onwards, before joining the "death dive" of the dedicated digital camera.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Indeed they did, some representative claims here: https://knippsen.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-12-classical-slr-by-production.html.

There's a graph on this PetaPixel page ( https://petapixel.com/2021/11/26/ba...e-camera-industry-is-again-a-bit-part-player/ )in the section "What is the Future of Camera Sales and Shipments?" which indicates that although SLR dominance reached a peak of roughly 2:1 around 1979, that had reversed to roughly 1:2.5 in favour of the non-SLRs by by 1998,

I can't find statistics for the period before 1977 but consulting sources like the Wallace Heaton catalogues for the mid 1960s and the adverts in 1950s issues of Amateur Photographer suggests that the SLR was at around that 10% figure I mentioned earlier.

Your claims were so sweeping that I assumed otherwise. However, again on that PetaPixel page, it's clear that dSLR sales were a fraction of integrated camera (the nearest equivalent of the low cost rangefinder in price terms) in 2008 and only exceeded them from 2012 onwards, before joining the "death dive" of the dedicated digital camera.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here. This thread concerns the 'big fuss' around Leica cameras. So I have no idea why you're trying to prove some point about sales of camera by type. I'm talking about the development of photographic tools, which is far more relevant to this discussion. In the sector of the market that 'consumed' higher end cameras, SLRs quickly proved to be the more suitable tool to the majority of photographers. For reasons I've mentioned above. Leaving Leica in an area pretty much all by itself, as a manufacturer of 'luxury' photographic equipment. Someone else mentioned Rolexes in an analogy with timekeeping devices; at some point in history, Rolexes would have been considered one of the best tools in that regard, for accuracy, reliability etc. They've since been superceded by tools that are far better and cheaper at that particular job. But there's still a market for Rolexes because people still like nice things. Sames Leica.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.
Click to expand...
I'm simply responding to the claims you made starting at #72.
Abdichoudxyz said:
SLRs quickly proved to be the more suitable tool to the majority of photographers.
Click to expand...
The accuracy of that claim depends entirely on knowing the total number of cameras in use at a point of time and the use made of them. The sales figures are a guide but a poor one, because you need to know how many cameras of each type remain in use at a given time,

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can possibly supply that information to any level of accuracy and we can only discuss it based on our personal experience, so this becomes an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm simply responding to the claims you made starting at #72.
Click to expand...
What, that SLRs became dominant (amongst professional/serious amateur) users because they were better all round photographic tools? It's hardly a secret.

AndrewFlannigan said:
The accuracy of that claim depends entirely on knowing the total number of cameras in use at a point of time and the use made of them. The sales figures are a guide but a poor one, because you need to know how many cameras of each type remain in use at a given time,
Click to expand...
I think you're just arguing against common sense here. I'm really not sure why. I've lost sight of whatever point it was you were trying to make. This discussion was about the 'big fuss' about one particular brand of camera. Several people on here have said more or less what I have, and made points about brand mystique, 'hype', how it is a 'status symbol', etc, whilst also recognising that Leica have and continue to make very high quality equipment. At least one person mentioned that Panasonic now 'own' the Leica brand; perhaps it isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that the brand may well have died had it not been for such intervention. Perhaps it would have persevered anyway. Who knows. The good thing is that it's still around, and providing a choice for photographers. Long may that continue.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
I think you're just arguing against common sense here.
Click to expand...
...and I, with much regret, have come to the conclusion that it is best if I ignore you from now on.
 
Last edited:
What a blessed relief. Anyway. Back to the topic; one comment suggested that Leica has become a 'status symbol'. Certainly, whenever I see someone with a Leica, I can't help but make value judgments I otherwise wouldn't were they using most other brands. Being honest. Knowing just how expensive such things are, I do fond myself wondering just why they choose to use Leica over other brands. Is it becuase the tool suits them best? That they fetishise the brand? Or they want a status symbol? Or any other reason. I totally accept that this is really judgmental, but hey; I'm human. I'm sure not all Leica users are poseurs, and indeed I've known some who are just the opposite. And it's not quite as 'blatant' as say someone wearing a Rolex; humans are inherently 'tribal' in their nature, after all. But if you do choose to use/wear products that have a certain mystique, cachet, whatever, then you must also expect a certain amount of social judgment from others. It's just how we're socialised. When I was trialling the M6, I had several people come up to me to comment on it; I have never experienced quite this with any other camera I've used when out and about. Sure, someone might ask me about photography, but this was all 'oh, a Leica! Nice!' type comments. Rather than anything about actual photography. Kind of put me off tbh. That's not to say I wouldn't use one again, that would be daft. But I do find 'displaying' such a brand somewhat pretentious. Just my honest musings, nothing else. Flame away!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Abdichoudxyz said:
What a blessed relief. Anyway. Back to the topic; one comment suggested that Leica has become a 'status symbol'. Certainly, whenever I see someone with a Leica, I can't help but make value judgments I otherwise wouldn't were they using most other brands. Being honest. Knowing just how expensive such things are, I do fond myself wondering just why they choose to use Leica over other brands. Is it becuase the tool suits them best? That they fetishise the brand? Or they want a status symbol? Or any other reason. I totally accept that this is really judgmental, but hey; I'm human. I'm sure not all Leica users are poseurs, and indeed I've known some who are just the opposite. And it's not quite as 'blatant' as say someone wearing a Rolex; humans are inherently 'tribal' in their nature, after all. But if you do choose to use/wear products that have a certain mystique, cachet, whatever, then you must also expect a certain amount of social judgment from others. It's just how we're socialised. When I was trialling the M6, I had several people come up to me to comment on it; I have never experienced quite this with any other camera I've used when out and about. Sure, someone might ask me about photography, but this was all 'oh, a Leica! Nice!' type comments. Rather than anything about actual photography. Kind of put me off tbh. That's not to say I wouldn't use one again, that would be daft. But I do find 'displaying' such a brand somewhat pretentious. Just my honest musings, nothing else. Flame away!
Click to expand...

I've never had a Leica. I dd have a Cononet and a modern Bessa R and I did get positive comments about both.

I can see why people have a thing for Leica RF's as they're RF's and that matters to some, they're nicely made tactile things and they do look like a camera should :D so yes, I can see the appeal. I don't know anything about their own non RF cameras but anyone who buys a rebranded Panasonic baffles me. I have and have had Panasonics for a long time and they're good enough with their own badge on them IMO.

I used to try and buy myself nice things but these days for not so much money. For example I have a couple of nice watches but to be honest I get just as much pleasure from any one of my small collection of cheap Chinese made mechanical watches. So, I can understand why someone would just want a Leica as it's a nice thing and if they can afford it and if they will get pleasure from it, why not :D
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
What a blessed relief. Anyway. Back to the topic; one comment suggested that Leica has become a 'status symbol'. Certainly, whenever I see someone with a Leica, I can't help but make value judgments I otherwise wouldn't were they using most other brands. Being honest. Knowing just how expensive such things are, I do fond myself wondering just why they choose to use Leica over other brands. Is it becuase the tool suits them best? That they fetishise the brand? Or they want a status symbol? Or any other reason. I totally accept that this is really judgmental, but hey; I'm human. I'm sure not all Leica users are poseurs, and indeed I've known some who are just the opposite. And it's not quite as 'blatant' as say someone wearing a Rolex; humans are inherently 'tribal' in their nature, after all. But if you do choose to use/wear products that have a certain mystique, cachet, whatever, then you must also expect a certain amount of social judgment from others. It's just how we're socialised. When I was trialling the M6, I had several people come up to me to comment on it; I have never experienced quite this with any other camera I've used when out and about. Sure, someone might ask me about photography, but this was all 'oh, a Leica! Nice!' type comments. Rather than anything about actual photography. Kind of put me off tbh. That's not to say I wouldn't use one again, that would be daft. But I do find 'displaying' such a brand somewhat pretentious. Just my honest musings, nothing else. Flame away!
Click to expand...

Is there a 'big fuss' about Leica?
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Is there a 'big fuss' about Leica?
Click to expand...
Not really. Many older people know the name but I'll guess that Nikon and Canon are better known generally.
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Can you show me & others who is making the big fuss? Most including photographers have never heard of Leica TBH
Click to expand...

I suppose one "big fuss" could be the amount of money people are willing to pay but in all of this a "big fuss" amongst a small number of camera/photography enthusiasts is nothing compared to the amount of people who'd rather talk about smart phones.

But generally and in my VHO Leica is held in a high regard by some people interested in photography and/or cameras. Some would argue that there is some special and impossible for them to define quality about the images. I don't buy into that but I do see the appeal in Leica RF's.
 
Last edited:
Jammy Dodger said:
Can you show me & others who is making the big fuss?
Click to expand...
Well. I'm sure you know, seeing as you've posted on a Leica pics thread on here. ;)

I'm not so sure of a 'big fuss'; those are the OP's words, not mine. I'd describe it more as Leica having a disproportionately strong brand identity, based on a bunch of myths and a lot of clever marketing. The desirability of the products is enhanced by historical success and very little else. Leica were once one of the industry leaders, in terms of how effective their products were for many photographers, and how they led the way in terms of optical designs and quality of equipment, but they fell away during the SLR era, and became much more of a niche brand, catering to a much smaller number of photographers. Successful marketing has repositioned them as a great lifestyle product, same as a plethora of other things. That's not to say that they aren't used as intended, but they definitely aren't catering for the wider professional market as they once did. Many people don't buy a Leica because they are the best cameras for a wide range of tasks, they buy them because of the brand. The lenses aren't now any better than other brands; indeed Sony/Zeiss and Nikon are now producing lenses that are superlative, arguably even better, with greater technological advances. For lot less money. Which begs the question; why buy a Leica? What's the 'big fuss' all about?

Jammy Dodger said:
Most including photographers have never heard of Leica TBH
Click to expand...


Leica's brand image is well deserved, based on its historical success. I've noticed quite a number of historical dramas etc on TV, will feature Leica cameras, because they would have been de rigeur at such times. And of course, HC-B and many other famous Leica using photographers. Many people will have heard of brands such as Leica (and Nikon, Kodak,Canon, Olympus, Pentax etc) even if they have no interest in photography, in the same way they'll have heard about Rolex, Rolls Royce or whatever, without even being customers for such brands. Leica is a household name. Maybe not quite as well known as say Rolex or Nikon or Kodak, but well known nonetheless. And certainly most people interested in photography would know about the Leica brand, even if they are relatively very recent to the 'scene'.
 
Flighter said:
Nicely tongue in cheek!
Click to expand...
He does go on ... but very amusingly!

I particularly like: "Or perhaps you already own a Leica and just enjoy mentally masturbating to articles that continue to justify your substantial and tasteful purchase." :LOL:
 
And the end "Thanks for reading, happy shooting and just FYI, all images in this blog were taken with a Nikon" :ROFLMAO:
 
I found this article amusing. Not because it was written to amuse, but becuase it's full of pretentious rubbish. Such as this:

"As though shot on film. The Canon images feel digital, whereas the digital Leica Camera feels analogue"

Please. But it gets worse:

"As a quick aside, one thing you’ll notice when shooting a Leica Camera is your subjects reaction. When they see it’s slender yet solid, Bauhaus design with subtle red dot. They instantly feel affection for it, and you. Making street photography a breeze."

The 'article' is little more than promotional fluff, but it demonstrates the kind of high level pretentiousness that seems to surround the Leica brand. At the end of the day, it's all about taking photographs. Something which other brands can produce equipment for, and which is ultimately down to the skill and talent of the individual. Everything else is just waffle.
 
Flighter said:
And the end "Thanks for reading, happy shooting and just FYI, all images in this blog were taken with a Nikon" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Salt, wound, apply liberally... :naughty:
 
Flighter said:
I shall just leave this here:

https://johnnymartyr.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/imho-leica-m6-ttl-85/

Nicely tongue in cheek!
Click to expand...

Good use of sledgehammer humour there.

The only thing I can add to this is that there is often a mystique around stuff "Made In Germany" and an assumption of quality (arguably) not always supported by any reality.

Despite my reservations about snobbery and unearned praise based on the existence of German Made fairy dust I do still see the appeal and good luck to those who want or own a Leica RF. Those who by Panasonics rebranded as Leica's do still baffle me but to each their own and although I can't see me buying one of those good luck again to those who do.
 
woof woof said:
.... and although I can't see me buying one of those good luck again to those who do.
Click to expand...
There are people who will sell you "Leica Red Dot" stickers and people who will sell you black or chrome stickers to put over the red dot. Just search for "Leica red dot stickers" and prepare to be amazed at the insanity around this one tiny corner of the Cameraverse! :naughty: :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There are people who will sell you "Leica Red Dot" stickers and people who will sell you black or chrome stickers to put over the red dot. Just search for "Leica red dot stickers" and prepare to be amazed at the insanity around this one tiny corner of the Cameraverse! :naughty: :naughty:
Click to expand...

Some of my Panasonic cameras have an "L" on them and some lenses are marked "Leica" too. So I do own Leica kit :D
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
Well. I'm sure you know, seeing as you've posted on a Leica pics thread on here. ;)

I'm not so sure of a 'big fuss'; those are the OP's words, not mine. I'd describe it more as Leica having a disproportionately strong brand identity, based on a bunch of myths and a lot of clever marketing. The desirability of the products is enhanced by historical success and very little else. Leica were once one of the industry leaders, in terms of how effective their products were for many photographers, and how they led the way in terms of optical designs and quality of equipment, but they fell away during the SLR era, and became much more of a niche brand, catering to a much smaller number of photographers. Successful marketing has repositioned them as a great lifestyle product, same as a plethora of other things. That's not to say that they aren't used as intended, but they definitely aren't catering for the wider professional market as they once did. Many people don't buy a Leica because they are the best cameras for a wide range of tasks, they buy them because of the brand. The lenses aren't now any better than other brands; indeed Sony/Zeiss and Nikon are now producing lenses that are superlative, arguably even better, with greater technological advances. For lot less money. Which begs the question; why buy a Leica? What's the 'big fuss' all about?




Leica's brand image is well deserved, based on its historical success. I've noticed quite a number of historical dramas etc on TV, will feature Leica cameras, because they would have been de rigeur at such times. And of course, HC-B and many other famous Leica using photographers. Many people will have heard of brands such as Leica (and Nikon, Kodak,Canon, Olympus, Pentax etc) even if they have no interest in photography, in the same way they'll have heard about Rolex, Rolls Royce or whatever, without even being customers for such brands. Leica is a household name. Maybe not quite as well known as say Rolex or Nikon or Kodak, but well known nonetheless. And certainly most people interested in photography would know about the Leica brand, even if they are relatively very recent to the 'scene'.
Click to expand...

Thanks.............
 
I'd imagine Leica have always been known for making good quality gear which would have to come at a certain price, but when did they start to be seen as a 'status' brand for more wealthy people? Or has Leica always been seen as such?
 
garry71 said:
I'd imagine Leica have always been known for making good quality gear which would have to come at a certain price, but when did they start to be seen as a 'status' brand for more wealthy people? Or has Leica always been seen as such?
Click to expand...
I have some Leica cameras, whilst they are not my most used cameras they are the ones I enjoy using most. I am certainly not a "more wealthy" person nor do I see my Leicas as status. Other than my compact D-Lux Typ109 mine are M9 Rangefinders with no live view no video and not a very good rear screen for chimping. What this means is I don't have any assistance from the cameras (other than the built in centre weighted average metering) when using them and the sensors are older CCD so the highest ISO realistically is 400, 800 at a push. The whole process takes me back in tiome a bit to the days of film only it's like shooting on slide film and although more difficult than with modern digital SLRs or Mirrorless it is very satisfying to get good results. I recently took them out over Dartmoor for a landscape photowalk the Blog story is here https://www.ephotozine.com/user/top...otowalk-18-tavy-cleave--hare---ger-tors-14370 whilst the day's photography was more challenging I found it more rewarding.

I do think that there are some people who have the brand because they see it as you say a status symbol but there are far more of us uot there that just enjoy using them for what they are and how you need to use them.
 
Last edited:
garry71 said:
I'd imagine Leica have always been known for making good quality gear which would have to come at a certain price, but when did they start to be seen as a 'status' brand for more wealthy people? Or has Leica always been seen as such?
Click to expand...
I don't know the answer to that. I suspect it might be entirely anecdotal. But I also suspect it came with the virtual demise of the camera industry in Western Europe. In any case that is what has probably allowed them to survive.
 
garry71 said:
I'd imagine Leica have always been known for making good quality gear which would have to come at a certain price, but when did they start to be seen as a 'status' brand for more wealthy people? Or has Leica always been seen as such?
Click to expand...

They've certainly had a few quality issues over the years.
 
Topsy said:
I do think that there are some people who have the brand because they see it as you do a status symbol but there are far more of us uot there that just enjoy using them for what they are and how you need to use them.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that I see Leicas as status symbols, I was just asking if they'd always been seen as such.
 
Topsy said:
Post edited.
Click to expand...
That's ok, no sweat;)

Reading your post though, made me realise I've never looked at digital Leicas(2nd hand of course!) I have a D70 with a CCD sensor which I really like the look of the pictures. That's enough of that for a film forum anyway!
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Thanks.............
Click to expand...
You're welcome............

garry71 said:
I'd imagine Leica have always been known for making good quality gear which would have to come at a certain price, but when did they start to be seen as a 'status' brand for more wealthy people? Or has Leica always been seen as such?
Click to expand...
I think that's a much more modern thing. As a kid in the 1980s, I was aware of Leica as a premium brand, but it was only in the 90s that I started to notice Leicas being 'worn' as fashion accessories by one or two people. But these were Hipsters, who ruin everything anyway. But I think the real 'status symbol' thing is much more recent, with digital marketing, SM etc. It's impossible to really pin it down to any particular thing, and is largely anecdotal as has been pointed out, but Leica cameras are definitely used as status symbols by some people. Of course, this may annoy those who just use Leicas to take photographs, but it all helps to push the 'value' up to exorbitant levels. And then you have special editions; some limited runs sell for stupid sums of money, and are mostly aimed at collectors. But the fact there is a large collectors market again points to the 'desirability' of the brand. Of course, much of the 'status symbol' thing is about the judgment of others, as I've mentioned before. You might scrimp and save for years, live on beans on toast, to afford a Leica, but you have to accept that others will make value judgments, as you own and display a relatively very expensive piece of kit. Whether that judgment is fair or not is irrelevant. Wear certain status symbols, and it will give off a certain 'image' of yourself. This is life, we judge each other thusly, fair or not.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
You're welcome............


I think that's a much more modern thing. As a kid in the 1980s, I was aware of Leica as a premium brand, but it was only in the 90s that I started to notice Leicas being 'worn' as fashion accessories by one or two people. But these were Hipsters, who ruin everything anyway. But I think the real 'status symbol' thing is much more recent, with digital marketing, SM etc. It's impossible to really pin it down to any particular thing, and is largely anecdotal as has been pointed out, but Leica cameras are definitely used as status symbols by some people. Of course, this may annoy those who just use Leicas to take photographs, but it all helps to push the 'value' up to exorbitant levels. And then you have special editions; some limited runs sell for stupid sums of money, and are mostly aimed at collectors. But the fact there is a large collectors market again points to the 'desirability' of the brand. Of course, much of the 'status symbol' thing is about the judgment of others, as I've mentioned before. You might scrimp and save for years, live on beans on toast, to afford a Leica, but you have to accept that others will make value judgments, as you own and display a relatively very expensive piece of kit. Whether that judgment is fair or not is irrelevant. Wear certain status symbols, and it will give off a certain 'image' of yourself. This is life, we judge each other thusly, fair or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks again for YOUR opinions.
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Thanks again for YOUR opinions.
Click to expand...
No; Thank YOU for your snarky, passive-aggressive response. Most helpful.

AndrewFlannigan said:
I suspect that Leica received a big boost from all the "clones" made by Japanese companies and others.

Mike Eckman has a useful overview of the subject: https://mikeeckman.com/2022/06/japanese-leica-copies/
Click to expand...
I had no idea there were so many 'clones' and copies. Testament to great design. Leica deserve some prestige for that. Helped change the way photogprahy was done, and enabled many more people to enjoy it. The original Leica design must be one of the greatest photographic innovations ever.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I suspect that Leica received a big boost from all the "clones" made by Japanese companies and others.

Mike Eckman has a useful overview of the subject: https://mikeeckman.com/2022/06/japanese-leica-copies/
Click to expand...

Looking at those Leica like cameras (and of course the originals too) they are just lovely things. I think we're on a scale here with some at one extreme seeing cameras as tools and some at the other extreme seeing them as objects to collect and put on display in glass cases with just the occasional fondling :D I suppose we are all somewhere on that scale. I am tempted by these cameras but then I remind myself that my film days are over. I revisited them but it didn't last and they are over.

These days my gear fondling need is met by using old film era lenses and modern manual lenses too on my mirrorless cameras.

Sony A7 with a rather nice Nippon Kogaku 50mm f2 mounted via a cheap adapter.

P1020185.jpg

Yesterday I used a Pergear 35mm f1.4 which is a modern purely mechanical manual lens you can buy for £120.
 
woof woof said:
objects to collect and put on display in glass cases with just the occasional fondling
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that, at all. I have a small collection of film cameras, nothing particularly special, but just nice to have. One of my faves is a Minolta 100 'underwater' camera, all yellow and black plastic, 'scuba' style casing. It's just of its time, has very 80s styling. Worth about £10 max. On an aesthetic level, I really love my Nikon F4s. I really like the industrial look of the thing. One day I will buy a classic Hasselblad, I just love the look and feel of that solid block of aluminium used for the housing. And a brassy old early Leica, I really do want one of those too. And I'll say that I do like the aesthetics of the more modern ones as well. I just cant bring myself to spend all that money on what will effectively be an ornament. But I think in today's world of constant replacement, it's nice to be reminded of when things were built to last.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
I have no problem with that, at all. I have a small collection of film cameras, nothing particularly special, but just nice to have. One of my faves is a Minolta 100 'underwater' camera, all yellow and black plastic, 'scuba' style casing. It's just of its time, has very 80s styling. Worth about £10 max. On an aesthetic level, I really love my Nikon F4s. I really like the industrial look of the thing. One day I will buy a classic Hasselblad, I just love the look and feel of that solid block of aluminium used for the housing. And a brassy old early Leica, I really do want one of those too. And I'll say that I do like the aesthetics of the more modern ones as well. I just cant bring myself to spend all that money on what will effectively be an ornament. But I think in today's world of constant replacement, it's nice to be reminded of when things were built to last.
Click to expand...
Don't buy them to put on a shelf, buy them and use them, unfortunately cameras die in display cabinets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top