Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,713   Online: 1253
      
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 100
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    In other words, not all people with money use that money for the misguided purpose of enhancing an ephemeral social status. - David Lyga
    Very true David, and speaking for myself, I would avoid buying any object having a social status, being a camera or a car. You are what you are, not what you buy unless you are moronic enough to believe it.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  2. #22
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,255
    Dali and all: In the seventies, when I was living in NYC, my mother and father came down from Connecticut to visit me. My mother, who was brought up to be entirely sensible and rational, HAD to buy something from Gucci (who she was convinced had the ultimate quality). She bought a dress but was treated rudely, she said. She tried to justify this purchase as to the 'superior' stitching but, after a while, the aura wore off and her premonitions were defeated. She realized that Gucci existed solely for people like herself, upper middle class but not rich, who wanted to ape the super rich with their 'more intelligent' purchases. She talked to many rich people who directed her in the correct direction because THEY THEMSELVES would not buy Gucci. My mother's final denouement came when she came, again, to NYC and had her hair done at Vidal Sassoon. Of course, VIdal, himself, was 'not there' but an assistant did it. It was a hilarious haircut and one that she recovered from only by never again venturing into venues where she had no reason to be.

    Now, moderators of apug might not like this negative plug and, surely, I am not denigrating ONLY those two boutiques, but I am saying that what appears in life to be 'real' is often supported by a proscenium that presents itself, outwardly, as promising more than it delivers. That is the only way I have been able to survive in life as I have never made any money. But I have followed other forms of wealth, like rational thought. - David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 04-15-2013 at 01:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Dali and all: In the seventies, when I was living in NYC, my mother and father came down from Connecticut to visit me. My mother, who was brought up to be entirely sensible and rational, HAD to buy something from Gucci (who she was convinced had the ultimate quality). She bought a dress but was treated rudely, she said. She tried to justify this purchase as to the 'superior' stitching but, after a while, the aura wore off and her premonitions were defeated. She realized that Gucci existed solely for people like herself, upper middle class but not rich, who wanted to ape the super rich with their 'more intelligent' purchases. She talked to many rich people who directed her in the correct direction because THEY THEMSELVES would not buy Gucci. My mother's final denouement came when she came, again, to NYC and had her hair done at Vidal Sassoon. Of course, VIdal, himself, was 'not there' but an assistant did it. It was a hilarious haircut and one that she recovered from only by never again venturing into venues where she had no reason to be.

    Now, moderators of apug might not like this negative plug and, surely, I am not denigrating ONLY those two boutiques, but I am saying that what appears in life to be 'real' is often supported by a proscenium that presents itself, outwardly, as promising more than it delivers. That is the only way I have been able to survive in life as I have never made any money. But I have followed other forms of wealth, like rational thought. - David Lyga
    Completely off topic, and let me apologise in advance but I read this week that Vidal Sassoon and Gore Vidal were both staying at the same health spa a few years ago somewhere in the U.S., and one of the staff got the names confused and Vidal was given an enema that should have been given to Sassoon
    Ben

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    there really are very affluent people who would more than hesitate before buying an MP because, truly, no better pictures are delivered there as opposed to, let's face it squarely, from a K1000 or SRT. Such people seek value in life and, to be truthful, that is how I was brought up, judging value before sexiness.

    In other words, not all people with money use that money for the misguided purpose of enhancing an ephemeral social status. - David Lyga
    So you should be happy you're smarter than the leica owners and much less misguided. Be happy with a pentax behind a takumar.

    But it doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist or isn't worth the money to somebody else. Two subjective realities.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ogden, Utah USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,146
    you guys looking at how many units per day Leica sells are forgetting something -- Leica has never sold a lot of cameras. It's cameras are numbered in sequence beginning in 1925. By 1960 it had made/sold 1,000,000 cameras because that is when the M3 with the serial number 1,000,000 rolled off the line.

    Simple math tells us that over that long period, when Leica was supposedly in its heyday, unlike the trying times many feel it faces now, it sold a whopping 78 cameras a day, including Sundays.

    Meanwhile, companies like Minolta sold a million a year.

    Leicas have always had snob appeal, too, because they were always expensive -- the $350 or so my M3 cost when it was new in 1956 was equal to nearly $4,000 today, a month's wages, which is why my father bought a Kodak.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    496
    Leica quality is for those that can appreciate it.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post

    In other words, not all people with money use that money for the misguided purpose of enhancing an ephemeral social status. - David Lyga
    Well Leica have always been a 'premium' brand, so on that basis we have to assume all those photojournalists working in war zones like Vietnam were more interested in social status than covering the story in the best possible way? Absurd I know, but you said it, you can't suddenly take a camera type that has always cost more than a Nikon and suggest it is only used as a misguided form of one upmanship. Let's throw Hasselblad into the mix while we are talking about social climbing, those astronauts went to great lengths to go up in the world, they could have used a cheaper camera.

    Let's also look at a few more social climbers, Garry Winogrand, Lee Freidlander, Robert Frank, Joel Meyerowitz, who all pathetically used a Leica because it brought them status. The M type Leica is one of the few types of camera always found wherever the world news was happening, one of the few types of cameras at the centre of world media in documentary work, one of the few types of camera at the centre of the 'arts' and the way photography was pushed forward into the Guggenheim etc. And it is still used in each of those areas nowadays. Today there will still be a photojournalist using a camera that is essentially derived from the original 1953 Leica M3. And they are bought for status you say?

    If people wanted status from a camera they could pay much less. If I go out with my MP I would guess that in the last decade I might have been asked once or twice 'what sort of camera is it', and once with my M9 (which looks similar) somebody even asked if I could still buy film for it. If I go out to an event with a DSLR I get numerous questions about what lens am I using, or is this body that much better than the last. So I'll tell you what 'buying status' is in photographic terms, it is the need to be seen with a long telephoto lens on the latest Canon or Nikon, because nobody knows what a Leica is. A one day old MP is an old camera to 99.9% of the world. The only reason to buy one for the majority of photographers is that it still does its required job better than the alternatives. Much of the work it became iconic for is still there, documentary hasn't changed much in output, the arts haven't changed much in direction, publishing may now be niche but content suitable for a Leica is still extant.

    Perhaps the temptation to think of an M type Leica as a status symbol is derived from the quick turnover of modern cameras. Look only at everything inside the bubble of what is available right now and an MP is anachronistic. But unlike the vast majority of modern camera's you can't separate it from its lineage of nearly 60 years. It has always been doing the same types of job, and it has remained at the same relative price point, those things have never changed. Numbers may have diminished, but it isn't realistic to think that it is social status driving more sales than actual interest photography. There are a lot of photographers who over the years have made sacrifices and gone without other things to buy a Leica. Which I think is more a commitment to their belief in their photography than seeing what they might 'get away with' cheaper.


    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    314
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    There are a lot of photographers who over the years have made sacrifices and gone without other things to buy a Leica. Which I think is more a commitment to their belief in their photography than seeing what they might 'get away with' cheaper.


    Steve
    And there is a much greater number of photographer who never felt the need to buy a Leica. A Leica rangefinder might be a good tool but most of the cameras in the last 50 years are IMO much more capable. No, a Leica does not make you a better photographer and I highly doubt I could make any difference in any picture (remember, the photographer does the picture not the camera). If it were true, EVERY professional photographer would use a Leica instead of a Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Contax (you name it). It is so obvious I don't understand why it has to be stated again and again and again.
    Last edited by Dali; 04-16-2013 at 08:53 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  9. #29
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,255
    OK, truce!

    Leica was, and remains, among the best built cameras in the business. One cannot get away with denying that fact. That is why premier brands such as Hasselblad went to the moon and why Leica (with with its quiet shutter) went to war zones. That, 250swb, confirms that these cameras are not always SOLELY for snobs as I might have inferred. But, given the amazing prices today, I think that in MOST circumstances they simply are NOT NEEDED for optimal photos. That is all I had intended to Infer and I think that most reading this post will concur. - David Lyga

  10. #30
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    As far as I am concerned the Leica is an outdated camera.
    However it would always be my personal choice. When people ask my advice which camera to buy, I will all tell them buy the one you like the most. For me the Leica is simply the sexiest camera out there, if M or R. I own thr R8 and use a borrowed M3 which I have been using the last 3 years.
    The camera sure doesn`t make you really a better photographer, but if you enjoy working with a certain tool I do believe you can become a better photographer in an esoterical kind of way.
    It is funny how this discussion comes up over and over again.
    Everybody should use what they like not what others like.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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