Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,976   Posts: 1,523,651   Online: 1119
      
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteZ8 View Post
    Also, and perhaps more importantly, designing products for hand assembly gives engineers much more latitude in design. When designing for automated assembly, or rapid assembly on a line, the same level of fit and finish simply cannot be held, even if the techniques to make the individual parts would support it. Rapid assembly simply does not allow itself the ability for close tolerances, hand fitting, 100% quality control, complex assemblies, or other fine tuning techniques. Concessions must be made in a more "design for manufacture" environment.
    That is probably true in theory, but if it is true, then both hand assembly standards and buyers' expectations have gone down the tubes in recent years. Because I guarantee you can give me today's best made hand assembled whatever, and I'll find five flaws in about two seconds. 100% quality control, if it ever existed, is a thing of the past.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    That is probably true in theory, but if it is true, then both hand assembly standards and buyers' expectations have gone down the tubes in recent years. Because I guarantee you can give me today's best made hand assembled whatever, and I'll find five flaws in about two seconds. 100% quality control, if it ever existed, is a thing of the past.
    I can guarantee that if you look at a handmade Holland & Holland gun (just one example among many) you won't find any flaws no matter how long you look. Quality control is alive, well, and happy. You're just buying crap.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 09-05-2012 at 01:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Other than the cache┤and the mystique of Leica, are the lenses and cameras that much better? I've never shot with a Leica before. Any opinions?
    Define "that much better". First, each Leica camera and lens will perform just like every other Leica camera or lens of the same type. Second, you are paying a fair amount of money for that last, elusive 5% or so of performance. If you understand and value what it takes to attain this last little bit of performance - and also value the performance - then yes they are worth it.

    Hasselblad had very similar QC back in the film days, with very similar results.

  4. #14
    Kvistgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Svendborg, Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Other than the cache┤and the mystique of Leica, are the lenses and cameras that much better? I've never shot with a Leica before. Any opinions?
    Depends. If you are unable to hold the camera still, or refuse to put it on a tripod, you're no better off using a Leica than any other camera. I shoot with an M6, and results are regularly good, but never good enough to justify the ridiculuous price tag (I bought mine 7 years ago following a small financial windfall, and have been wondering ever since if that was a wise decision).

    Now, there's a great deal of mythology and romantic lore attached to a Leica. Rest assured that all that stuff sits on the outside of the camera - so it is the first thing to be rubbed off as soon as you start using the camera. What you are then left with is a nice little manual camera, very portable, rock solid, and it has that special feel of a 100% mechanical piece - but judging by results alone, it's not worth the premium outlay, in my opinion.
    S°ren

    "We are much more likely to act our way into a new way of thinking than think our way into a new way of acting." - R. Pascale

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Newtown, PA USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Other than the cache┤and the mystique of Leica, are the lenses and cameras that much better? I've never shot with a Leica before. Any opinions?
    Will a $10,000 Rolex tell better time than a $10 Timex?

    At the end of the day you're still shooting a 35mm camera which, no matter the quality of the camera or lens, will never be as good in terms of absolute quality as even a mediocre medium format camera. True there are some shooting environments were a camera like a Leica (although not necessarily a Leica) are preferred, but what you are paying for is of far greater value in terms of intrinsic value than absolute photographic value. And if that is worth the extra cost than I suppose it's all worth the money. Is a negative from a Leica going to be $6,000 better than a Nikon? Not even close.

  6. #16
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    711
    Images
    21
    You mean "it's hand made, not by underpaid asian labour", as the rest of the gear is...
    That┤s the reason why I prefer Gitzo over the many chinese copies.

    At the end of the day you're still shooting a 35mm camera which, no matter the quality of the camera or lens, will never be as good in terms of absolute quality as even a mediocre medium format camera.
    Perfectly true. That is why I never bought a Leica though I have much sympathy for the company.

  7. #17
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,909
    Images
    6
    Again. I never shot with a Leica, but I worked for a photographer that used one. I printed his negs on a Focomat and the prints were brutally sharp. Personally, too sharp for me. I'd imagine some like the sharpness and can pay for it.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    879
    Images
    565
    Leica's have always been expensive but the prices that their lenses are getting these days are just absurd. I'm sorry but 3500$ for a 35mm lens is stupid and means that people (like me) who would actually use the equipment as it was intended (taking pictures other than ones of your cat) can't come close to affording it. I've owned an M2 for five years and love using it but shoot with Nikon or Canon lenses.

    The demand for even the older Leica lenses is now even bigger with a lot of them going to dingbats (idiots) who stick them on the tiny sensor digital cameras and then take pictures (of their cats) and yammer about the lovely bokeh.

    I'm done with my rant now.

  9. #19
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,909
    Images
    6
    I guess it comes down to what people want to spend their money on. I'm a value consumer. Aways trying to find the sweet spot between quality and price. Nikon or Canon fits the bill. I'm perfectly happy with a regular coffee for only $1.50 while some don't have a problem dropping $5 for a Vente, Grande vanilla soy latte with a double shot.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    295
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by illumiquest View Post
    Leica's have always been expensive but the prices that their lenses are getting these days are just absurd. I'm sorry but 3500$ for a 35mm lens is stupid and means that people (like me) who would actually use the equipment as it was intended (taking pictures other than ones of your cat) can't come close to affording it. I've owned an M2 for five years and love using it but shoot with Nikon or Canon lenses.

    The demand for even the older Leica lenses is now even bigger with a lot of them going to dingbats (idiots) who stick them on the tiny sensor digital cameras and then take pictures (of their cats) and yammer about the lovely bokeh.

    I'm done with my rant now.
    I fully agree but a cat shot with a Leitz lens is no more a cat, it is a Leicat.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin