Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don's argument is very good for the DMR, but I challenge the very concept that anyone must or even should justify their choice of possessions, and especially that "the majority of professionals'" choices need be at all relevant to an individual's choices. (1) First, as for your nasty and needlessly insulting language, I'd wager that compared to the median incomes of our various respective countries, many or even most of the people on this mailing list are "rich amateurs." But what could be *better* than to be a "rich amateur?" Resources and freedom. Sounds so very good to me. I'll take an extra helping of that, please. That's surely better than being, conversely, a "poor professional," (and many, if not most, of working photographers relatively are). They are often obligated to take any and every photo job that shows up to put food on the table; obligated, by your logic, to use the least expensive camera gear adequate to the task - cost/value, right? Thrift is a virtue, but there is no particular virtue in living in the grip of necessity, as "the majority of pro's" likely do. Don't get me wrong, I was buddies with some stringers back in Ukraine, and one of my very best friends is a professional photographer. He likes it. I admire him for it. He uses Linhof, Mamiya and Nikon gear. I guess I'd better call him up and let him know the error of his ways, clearly out of step with "the majority of pro's." LMAO. But, for me, I can't imagine a better way to harsh my photo buzz than if I were to do it for a living. What pro's do is not only irrelevant, it's almost irrelevant to me by principle. (2) Majorities and Poseurs. Um, there was just a reference to a well known photographer, Guy Mancuso, who switched from Canon to the DMR - for his own, clearly articulated reasons (it's a good read). It's completely ludicrous to say that he's made the "wrong" choice or is some kind of poseur because he doesn't use what "the majority of pro's" use. I read an article where David Alan Harvey said he doesn't like "pro" bodies at all, because they weigh too much. Now, sheesh, DAH is much more famous and much more talented than "the majority of pro's" - but I for one, am going to let him off the hook this time on his gear choices. What "the majority" does or uses is usually completely irrelevant and is no indicator of whether something has more or less value for any given individual. (Usually, the rare exceptions being compatibility, network effects and so on that can impact individual choices.) (3) The majority of WHO? Do you mean folks who shoot for newspapers and magazines? Why? Should we naturally admire and emulate most those who generate photos for small, crappy reproductions in publications that are completely disposable food for landfills? (Yes, I'm hyperbolizing again.) Why? I don't. I like some classic PJ work, and I respect people who chose the PJ profession. But I do not consider this style of work the paragon of photographic activity. By no means. I just don't. Why not the majority of nature shooters? Better, why not instead poll the majority of "pro" photographers whose work hangs in museums or commercial galleries? Hmm, I wonder what the "cost/value" leader will be there? Sinar vs. Arca-Swiss vs. Linhof - quite a battle of the bands. Who cares? It's a nonsensical question with a meaningless answer. Tools are useful to the individual, and aside from self-doubt, there is no external doubting of the utility of these tools for that individual. We may speculate, gossip and snipe, but there's no rational attack of those choices. (Yeah, now I sound like a utilitarian; not by mistake.) (4) Poseurs. If you have some psychological hurdle to jump regarding amateur photographers with some money in the bank - again, I refer to your "rich amateur" epithet - I'll just speculate that you are gonna feel way out of place among Leica folk. (And no, I'm not particularly rich by any means.) But really, Leica gear just IS NOT particularly good bling bling anyway!!! Few folks even know the brand anymore. Compared to highly automated cameras, they're hard for most people to use. Everyone is into digital. Even all but one of the fun stories I could tell about girls and cameras concern my Nikons, not my Leicas - not good bling ;-) I've heard this comparison to bling like fine watches over and over regarding Leica gear, and I think it makes no sense, at least in our contemporary society. Maybe Leica was "sexy" back in the 60's or something? Dunno - I was still in diapers. People pick Leica gear for all kinds of reasons. Their *own* reasons, which are by definition the *best* reasons. Marx's "use-value" be damned. A pure collector's purchase of a piece of Leica gear that never breaks the shrink wrap is 100% as valid as a working photographer's purchase of the same piece of gear. It might not be valuable to you or me if we're not collectors, but that's completely immaterial. There is no meaningful or rational casting of aspersions. (5) The very notion that one must justify their possessions in any was is foolish. My modest guitar collection costs more than what 90+% of working musicians can likely afford. Typical of adult amateurs players. Unfortunately, typical of most working musicians. But, very good for me - and I have zero concern with or for the working musicians. Their issues are their issues; God bless 'em. Having something just means that you have it, usually because you can afford it (or inherited or found it). Plain and simple. There is *no better* justification. Get over it. You, or I, have roughly a 0% chance of convincing anyone else that your, or my, particular choices of anything are somehow the best, universally applicable or otherwise worthy of emulation. But we don't have to. We all have *our own* good reasons for making the choices we make, and using the gear that we individually determine is best for us. I said in a prior email that I admired your sense of thrift. You might in turn admire my appreciation for fine mechanical craftsmanship. (That's hypothetical; it's not at all why I happen to like Leicas) In summary, I think it very rude to negatively characterize perfectly nice folks who chose to use Leica gear, R or otherwise. It serves no purpose, is inaccurate and is unecessary in any case. Scott p.s. I own Leica M gear because it's small, offers full manual control and offers a variety of great smallish lenses in different FL's. There's a story, but my M kit is actually a substitute for a nice P&S. No fooling. I'm ill, so small is important to me when walking around. Weird, go figure! My reasons, i.e., the very *best* reasons - for me. Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > Scott, > Did I say "Cost" or "Cost/Benefit"? Your first three points make my > case - it is for rich amateurs, for those who buy Hermes ties - if it > is of any solace to you, I buy a lot of their ties, its part of my > professional get up, and therefore it is essential. But show me where > the DMR is in use professionally extensively (there are always a few > odd exceptions) . Any guy wanting to use Leica R lenses would > logically do so on a Canon body, which gives him overall maximum > flexibility. I think the first reason why Leica's cameras get bought > is that it is a part of the owners image (especially the a la carte > stuff), and not as a professional tool - like a Patek Philippe watch > or a Montblanc pen (or Hermes ties!!). It is a perfectly valid reason > to own something, but for some strange reason, people dont accept that > as their prime motivation... > Cheers > Jayanand Govindaraj > > > > > Scott McLoughlin wrote: > >> Wow, you're big on the whole "how much it costs" thing. >> >> I really do think this is an admirable quality!!!! Many of our >> proud, too highly leveraged U.S. consumers could use a healthy >> dose of thrift :-) >> But different folks find themselves in different economic >> situations, especially regarding different things and how they >> value them. >> >> So there are some folks (1) for whom cost is not an issue or >> (2) for whom cost is an issue, but starting a higher price points >> or (3) for whom cost is not an issue, but only for a select >> few product segments in their overall spending habits and of >> course (4) for whom nearly any incremental improvement is >> very worthwhile, say, professionally, and therefore cost be >> damned. >> >> I hope that makes sense. I guess one could say that whether >> or not a DMR is important and worth it depends very much on >> the person, their economic resources, what they value and >> hence, how they allocate those resources. >> >> Scott >> >> p.s. Over on photo.net, when folks would continually ask whether >> or not they "should" buy a Leica, I always chimed in that reason >> #1 should be "I can afford it." Then it's safe to consider the other >> reasons. >> >> >> >> Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: >> >>> Dont you think, in the world of professional photography (Doug Herr >>> excepted), that the DMR is irrelevant? If cost/benefit does not >>> enter an equation, then it is just an instrument for rich amateurs >>> to gush over each other, like Linn turntables or Lamborghinis - a >>> status symbol, to be sold at a high price, in low quantities, to >>> keep the cachet alive. Classic Hermes marketing. I have yet to read >>> a comparision of the DMR with anything anywhere, either in print or >>> online, in a non specialist site. A Leica rangefinder is pretty >>> unique, a Leica SLR much less so. >>> Cheers >>> Jayanand Govindaraj >>> Chennai, India >>> >>> David Young wrote: >>> >>>> Felix wondered: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> What's the nature of the difference >>>>>> > between the DMR and a D70/D200? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cost? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is, obviously, a firmware difference between the Nikon and >>>> Leica digital cameras/backs. I like the colouring of both, though >>>> the DMR seems to be closer to a Kodachrome... more muted colours >>>> than,say, Fujichrome, but a wee bit more accurate, too. >>>> >>>> But the HUGE difference is that every APS-C format digital SLR out >>>> of Japan has an Anti-Alaising filter, to reduce Moire patterns in >>>> the photos. The DMR, in keeping with it's MF format heritage (it >>>> was designed my Imacon - the big 6x6 camera back maker), does not >>>> have one, and used software to solve the problem, if need be. As >>>> AA filters work by making the final image a bit "fuzzier" (for lack >>>> of a better word) the DMR will deliver much finer detail than any >>>> of the Japanese DSLRs - pixel for pixel. >>>> >>>> As a result, the DMR is most often compared with the 16 mpixel >>>> Canon 1DS MkII, in terms of resolution. Not bad for a 10.2 mpixel >>>> camera back. :-) >>>> >>>> And, of course, the DMR accepts Leica glass. True, the Canon's will >>>> do that, with an appropriate adapter, but only with stop down >>>> metering and no auto-diaphragm. >>>> >>>> And when you compare the 1 DS MkII, to the Leica R9 with DMR, even >>>> new, the Leica is not a lot more, so I'm not sure cost enters into >>>> an "apples to apples" comparison. >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> David Young, >>>> Logan Lake, CANADA >>>> >>>> Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/ >>>> Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)