Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by chilloutbuddy, May 11, 2012.
Ι would! fuck yeah, what's wrong with that
I love photography, and I love cameras.
There's no Leica badge on the M-Monochrom.
I like it
...but is it modernist?
Fine arts forum?
THIS. IS. OCAU!!!
Stalin wouldn't have.
I have used a Leica (recently, first time with one) and while I enjoyed the novelty of it, and the camera was nice, I just couldn't justify spending that much on that camera. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who spent as much as a large car on a camera.
Additionally, Leica is a brand revelling in its own 'schmuckery', I think phrases such as "Yeah, I'm hipster, but I wouldn't have it any other way" and "They're stuck in a time when smelling your own farts was good for your health" really help to describe about half the people who use their product.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use a range finder on a walk around, they're a lovely camera, but their not worth 8 grand, even with the quality they are built to. Bring it down to 5 and they're starting to be in the right range...
But then Leica do something like this:
I've bitched about this idea in the past, and they're doing it again, with the M9, and slapping a $25,000 US price tag on the box... You want some of the special edition lenses kit one? Okay, $50,000... what a bargain! For this reason, out of principal, I'd probably end up avoiding them.
I think their a la Carte page sums it up: all their example customers are lawyers, conductors, architects and dentists. Not actual photogs. Just yuppies.
Peoples' reactions to Leica always prove my point that's they not photographic tools, simply because Leica gets judged by a different set of criteria. If Canon released a camera at this price with similar specs, they'd get torn a variety of new arseholes, their stock price would crash, and a bunch of their executives would probably commit seppuku.
With Leica? Any faults are dispelled with the massively cognitive-dissonant "It's Leica!" the photographic equivalent of "But think of the children!"
I have driven 2!
I do like the idea of the monochrome camera but... The price. I suppose it's rather cheap to that other $25,000 camera they are releasing.
Like pretty much all of magnum for example?
ok suppose you are leica. And you know that if you made 10,000 collectibles for $50k each, they would pre-sell before you even make them.
You wouldn't make them?
Collectible leicas have exactly nothing to do with photography, they should not even be discussed here. People who buy them are investors, they put them them in sealed bags and hide them away in their safe. Yes, they do go up in price but they dont pay interest. And you cant use them.
It's not just their "collectibles". Their entire product line is built on the basis that their cameras are a "luxury" of some sort. If you read the link I posted earlier there is a quote from Kaufmann himself saying that their business model is built around the idea of luxury.
Obviously there are enough people that are buying into it because they are still afloat.
Funny, I've never met a Leica owner that would talk about crass things like brand and price.
Of course it's a luxury, what else would it be, a necessity?
Who the hell needs 0% light fall off across the frame wide open, like in the new summicron? Photography has been just fine without it.
You dont buy it because you need it, you buy it because you want it. And it's expensive because thats how much it costs to make a lens with stupid specs. Especially in Europe.
Or, to put things in perspective, a 36 megapixel full frame sensor, 4.6 frames per second burst rate and 61 auto-focus points.
That's a fairly specious argument. All cameras are a luxury on that basis. Leicas are not expensive because they cost that much to make nor how good they are. They cost that much because they are branding themselves as luxury items and thats how much they think their target market of poseurs will bear.
And I'd argue that Zeiss make lenses that are just as good or better optically in most cases as Leica for a good deal less.
In any case whatever floats your boat. I'm sure they'll sell plenty.
Everything is priced based on perceived market value. Literally marketing 101.
Who are these poseurs?
give it a go, show your working too.
Sorry, this is wrong.
LOL I dont know why people dont believe me when I say Leica has always been a loss making business
you made me go have a look again, I only went back 6 years because it was getting ridiculous, but there you go:
Therefore Leica could drop it's price by 0.3% and still break even
So basically when you go to Michael's and ask if you can have a $24 discount on this $7,950 Leica dont let them tell you no! Those greedy german bastards
Like I said, if it wasnt for the overwhelming response to the M9 last year and those stupid Hermes editions, Leica would've been Kodak revisited.
That would be the Leica 'Fotographie Haus'...
Leica are poor performers business wise because they simply don't adapt their manufacturing standards, and over-utilisation of ageing techniques that push them behind.
Looking at the S2, a serious camera I even looked at prior to buying into the MF field, it's let down by its poor support, and over demand. By building the S2, Leica have attempted to go the opposite route, building a technologically advanced camera with more modern techniques, with the old school flare. It's a good camera, but it's lens range is poor, and sports a waiting list in the years to get a single leaf/central shutter lens.
On a side note, now that there's a fully support H mount adapter (Hasselblad) with AF and CS support, I'm almost certain the demand for the S2 will increase, but Leica will not (likely) be willing to adapt to that demand. The MF field in Digital is not like the field in 35mm digital. There's no difference in Status between the camera's.
It's their business practice in the M Range that will be their downfall, or their going to have to seriously ramp up their consumer ranges to offset the range finder.
If Canon or Nikon (or any other maker for that matter) came out with a genuine alternative to the M9 even at 3/4 the price, with an M mount, Leica will likely drop the line, or jump the premium up to unrealistic levels (ala 25K for a Hermese edition).
What I'm getting at is, perhaps it's time for Leica to drop the M, or start making it more accessible... Modernise their production, not reduce quality, but modernise where they can, reduce the waste.
I'd agree with that, they need to go back to the days where they had the M4-P manufactured in Canada. They could have that as a budget model for people wanting to get into the M mount range and still keep their German branches making the top of the line models.
They'd probably find they lose a lot less sales to Voigtlander and Zeiss I think. I know I have no intention of picking up a Leica any time soon, if I do upgrade my Bessa it will probably be with a Zeiss instead.
I'll bite who is it?