Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<<FWIW, I'll toss my penny's worth (ain't even worth 2 cents) into the fray >> doesn't count.. . <<A less expensive Leica M seems like a reasonable idea and there is a precedent for it, isn't there? Wasn't that the idea of the M2?>> <<Personally, I view Leica M cameras three ways: 1.) As extremely useful tools for documentary photojournalists and others who appreciate the particular strengths of a rangefinder camera. 2.) As a status symbol or piece of jewelry for the well-heeled "sophisticate" 3.) A fine camera chosen by photographers with impecable taste (I'll leave it up to you to decide which category suits you best)>>> A combination of 1,3 and a bit of 2. But also (4) As a system that some get entirely nuts about and don't leave home without it for any number of reasons. <<<Assuming the above characterizations hold any water at all, only the first rationale for purchasing a Leica is threatened in any way by lower-cost, perhaps more modern alternatives (alternatives, mind you, not competitors).>> Agreed. #1 is the #1 threat that is the issue. If in isolation. I do find it difficult to isolate the 3 above. I'd think they would all result in the other being the case. At least #1 and #3. <<A "SHOOTER" might very well select a Konica or Minolta or whatever rangefinder if the camera offered the right combinations of features and at least reasonable feel and quality -- especially if it would mount Leica M lenes! >> A shooter AS shooter doesn't need a Leica. Again this is an isolated abstract notion of a shooter. But to think of the M6 as "Necessary" is far from the hard definition of necessary. What percentage of professionals (hired, jobs, whatever) use Leica because of #1? Many. But again a professional can be all three just like anyone else, but so what we can still make statements as such. Too bad for those stuck in #1! But what percentage of 'users' pro, whatever - use because of #1? A small fraction. I can't relate to someone who falls only under #1. These are the people who threaten the abandonment of Leica! The reliance is by a thread; tools done for jobs. If only #1, using a Leica comes down to such a simple reason that variable changes and another camera will do fine. Or "Hypothetically" it would be fine* This percentage who are strictly #1 are not infected with the leicabug I suppose. I find it strange to think that an M6 is used by people only for #1. It's rational! How many of us have been rational about Leica! Or worded more properly, I find it very strange that #1 doesn't then bring on #2 #3. or #4, 5 or 6. #1 can be the primary reason but that's it? <<<Those who must have a Leica would probably not be swayed.>>> They would be swayed in terms of Leica being any 'less' Leica - you know what I mean, or you are #1... If you are saying that the change in mechanism, design, ect, there would be some not swayed but these would be very few in all groups - status I think would drop and 'fine' #3 - would also be a problem. To think they'd just jump on the Leica bandwagon whatever happened - 'less expensive' has the effect of less 'fine' and 'less status' I think, not sure. #2, #3 would be the most resistant I think. After all these are the majority (i.e. they wouldn't already be so obsessed) and the alternative has more implications than just using another tool - if a person in #1 used some 'different Leica that most would be upset about, and everyone said his work has improved would he care? "Leica" is not important - it's the camera that's important to this person. BTW I'd hate to think that the definition of "Leica" - what is Leica? is a dispute. Otherwise we are truly nuts and the list should shut down immediately. <<The more the merrier I say. A quality manual focus rangefinder with interchangeable lenses IS an extremely useful tool -- red dot or otherwise. I'd like to see some alternatives. I don't particularly care if Leica makes them.>> I agree with everything but the last line. It is possible for Leica to take all sorts of avenues (which they have...sort of) and still be Leica. They can have an M10 or D1 with whatever in it - that's good, they could make it good. Alternatives, or even so called 'copies' or competitive or whatever are nothing bad - I wouldn't mind seeing Leica coming out with stuff that left people with mouths dropped- marketwise concerns aside! The product, if superior in itself to it's competitors would be fun in the simple sense. There must however be certain things that are improved but not altered in this large sense (I CANNOT draw the distinction here! where is the line between changing improving and becoming different? I DINT know - I DO know that this is the center of all this stuff even though it's so obscure - is the R8 a Leica!? - yes but not the R9! No one wants to seriously answer these questions ( or seriously assume they are even truly answerable), only to talk leica which is what is being done. Is it? Still, most Leica users *do* care if it's not a Leica - unless #1, #2, #3 can all be satisfied with the change - which for many would mean the practical and economical standards involved would invoke less enthusiasm (already leica people). If not clear, yes I am defending the irrational Leica Nut (or maybe just being defensive). Rational too but not only. 3/2 asph is rational! So is everything else. The current Nocti is used "if you need the extra stop(s)" It's true but then again not a sole reason at all that they are bought or actually needed. As for not caring if Leica makes them, then it's irrelevant to even bring Leica into the situation. If it's not a Leica, then alternatives take on a new meaning. I anticipate thoughts such as Leica hasn't been Leica for xx years and assembly production stuff and other pointers at this being nothing new. It's still an issue that's persistent with great weight. It would appear that the alternative desired is just that a different camera be available as an alternative which would attract those using Leicas now. But not caring is not a reflection of Leica interests - but camera needs. Again, a #1 person, magically a rational pro. << I sure would like to see them use the Leica M mount, though. I suspect even a few folks with impeccable taste might carry around some other brand M-mount camera for a color camera or other times when the electronics would come in handy.>> Yes there would be many. But "other times" "come in handy" - which preserves whatever Leica is to them at the moment. Some consider the R8 to be a "failure" in the competitive sense. If that WERE the essence of the R8 it would be a huge failure for the simple reason that it's half-ass. But who said it's supposed to be anything of the sort? It's not an attempt at being a whole ass? The marketing certainly compounds what we think Leica is doing. I'd like to see an explicit change is that direction with no "R" or "M" in the name. Adaptable though, at least backwards adaptable. THIS is just thinking! I'm not proposing anything that Leica should do. Just what would be nice to see without considering the money involved or anything else in reality. I was earlier I think. <<Now, the Leica R camera . . . I've never quite figured that one out.>> I've never figured any of this out. also the R isn't defined as sturdly as the M making it very difficult to refer to it within borders, like the M. Bob (also thinks calling anyone Herr is a little strange) McEowen herr eno >>>--------------------------- Na Archive