Re: [Leica] Digital Back - I like the first step!

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>]

Martin Howard wrote:
> 
> Kit McChesney wrote:
> 
> > By analogy--though I know this will get me into trouble--not everyone
> > can or
> > wants to drive an Aston-Martin, but there are those who do, and who are
> > willing to pay the extra money to get what that experience offers.
> 
> Again, you're missing the point: A Ferrari Enzo, or Aston-Martin
> Vanquish offers something that no-one else does: the experience is
> UNIQUE.  If you drop around $1M on an Enzo (should you be one of the
> select few whom Ferrari allows to buy one), it's because it is a
> completely unique product.  The same is true, but to a slightly lesser
> extent, of the Vanquish.
> 
> A 10mp, reduced frame, 35mm digital back 16 months down the line is NOT
> a unique product, other than that it allows you to bolt $5,000 Leica
> glass onto it (and technically, it's not even that, if you care to use
> the right adaptors).  Outside of the three professional news/sports R
> shooters in the world, and the two free backs that are going to be
> given to Luis Castaneda and Bryan Adams, I'm having a really hard time
> understanding who is going to need one, and who is going to be able to
> justify to themselves the price/performance tradeoff.
> 
> And I'm not even sure the news/sports arguments holds water, since the
> R is a manual focus system (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all about
> zone-focussing and how it was done in the 50s.  Ask yourself this: How
> many professional news/sports photogs TODAY use manual focus systems?
> How many use autofocus systems?)
> 
> I'm not concerned that I'll never afford one and it doesn't bother me
> the slightest that there are people who will -- any more than it
> bothers me that there are people who happily pay $1M for a car that
> they'll drive no more than 4,000 miles in and only in sunshine.
> Couldn't care less.  What I find bizarre is that Leica as a company
> choose to pursue an overpriced, outdated technology, for a minimal
> market, without actually offering any benefit over competitors of any
> kind -- except, of course, a red roundel.
> 
> Or maybe they just consider themselves in a league of their own and
> they don't have competitors.
> 
> Whatever.  I should know better than try to argue reason when it comes
> to this brand.
> 
> Quite honestly, though, I don't really care.  They might as well have
> designed a digital back for the Null Series for all the difference it
> makes.  They'll probably offer a special Leica-embossed Firewire cable
> for $350 as an accessory.
> 
> 'nuff said.  I'll spare you all my ramblings on this from now on.
> 
> M.
> 


Wow Martin! So much stuff said here better than I'd expect to ever hear
it said anywhere it's just i don't agree with the part on Sports
Photography and Leica R being mutually exclusive because of manual
focus. 
On list I've mentioned a really well  done action exuding shot on the
cover of Popular Photography of a skier going over the top of a snow
bank. He was in the air with lots of snow flying. Turned out the
photographer pre focused to the spot in the air he expected the skier to
be at and clicked when he got there. How rare is this type of shot in
sports photography I don't think that rare. Medium Well.
The last time i shot "sports" I was lying on my back at the back end of
a plywood ramp as these skateboard guys went up it and into the air and
over me. I had to turn the AF off and just focus to 4 feet. Worked out
great! I'm sure I'm not the only one who shoots sports and has to turn
the AF half the time. Most of my shooting of such stuff was during the
pre AF world. I don't recall any focus problem. On a contact sheet how
many times did I or anybody miss their focas? Not the point I know. ...
Two things in the consideration:

A person who is so much into the look of his shots from an optics point
of view that they spend all this extra money for Leica R or M even.

A person who is willing to be able to be "seen" as being equipped with
gear not up to the job as it is certainly perceived that AF is crucial
to the job.  Sure they've got amazingly expensive glass. But they are
the one who has to focus it!! I think a lot of what Pros and serious
amateurs get is an image thing. The way THEY look I mean. They need to
have what everyone else has or their whole operation, their whole
persona is suspect. 
With times being a little tough to begin with who needs that?!!!! 
Its not as if its impossible to take a decent picture with a Canon or Nikon.

This is why Ted tells us how it used to be hard in a sea of
photographers at an event to spot the Leica ones and now it is not hard
it is impossible.

Another is as I believe Nathan and others have told us; four out of ten
bodies jam and need to be redone. They send you a loaner and that jams,
It's hard decision getting into that. Lots tell you to just get an old
R7 or R6. But that's no fun.


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabinergroup.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html