An Open Letter To Leica

[TimF]

clicky

[El_Sid]

That should earn him plenty of abuse......

I think he's made a number of valid points though I'm not entirely in agreement with the EVF thing - mind you I suspect that I'm probably swimming against the tide here - and I think I have to have to agree that digital cameras don't have to be designed to look like film gear. The only caveat is that any alternative design has to be practical, as good or better than the existing option rather than radical for the sake of it and genuinely advance the usability of the camera - possibly not something that applies to a recent example...

[TimF]

That should earn him plenty of abuse......

Surprisingly, you might feel, there's actually been some discussion along similar lines on the Leica forum.

I'm no lover of EVFs; the ones I've had the "pleasure" of using have been dismal, and I fully agree with you that they must be equally as good, if not better than an optical equivalent before any credence should be given (and by better, I don't mean overloaded with vast amounts of irritating 'information', usually in indecipherable hieroglyphics!).

[Benchista]

That should earn him plenty of abuse......

I think he's made a number of valid points though I'm not entirely in agreement with the EVF thing - mind you I suspect that I'm probably swimming against the tide here - and I think I have to have to agree that digital cameras don't have to be designed to look like film gear. The only caveat is that any alternative design has to be practical, as good or better than the existing option rather than radical for the sake of it and genuinely advance the usability of the camera - possibly not something that applies to a recent example...

Early digital compact cameras weren't designed to look like film gear, but they were a swine to use - thing is that a camera shape is actually quite a good shape for a camera.

[Clive]

"Early digital compact cameras weren't designed to look like film gear, but they were a swine to use - thing is that a camera shape is actually quite a good shape for a camera."

I concur.

[TimF]

And a "different view".

In this one, I like much of what he says concerning a zoom viewfinder. As for the rest......... huh?!

[GeoffR]

I am no fan of range finder cameras, though it has to do more with parallax than with utility. I don't much like EVFs either so if Leica want my custom they need to do something different. A large monitor for composition is a non-starter, for the same reasons I won't buy a compact camera without an optical viewfinder, it is a good way to induce camera shake.

I believe that combining the output of the sensor with an optical viewfinder is possible and if anyone can do it Leica can. Question is can they do it at a realistic price?

[TimF]

.... and a third viewpoint.

[nspur]

.... and a third viewpoint.

Did we hear from Ken Rockwell yet?

[filmlover]

One point I've not seen mentioned on this string, is the pricing of Leica's digital products. With the S2 in the UK being marketed at around £15,000 body only, do Leica see their future clientele as being Russian oligarcs, or members of the Saudi Royal family?
Certainly they no longer cater for the practitioners of photo-journalism, since even the cost of the new M9 will be off putting to the average UK pro., already struggling with downward spiralling fees in these tough economic times.
Thankfully Kodak, with their excellent newly launched "Ektar" colour neg. range, and Ilford with their traditionally superb FP4, enable us film users to carry on competing quality wise with their M2's & M4's for many years yet, leaving the over-priced, over-hyped world of digital to the fashionistas of the photography world.

[TimF]

With the S2 in the UK being marketed at around £15,000 body only

The S2 is a medium format camera (or near as damn it), so the 15K ticket is about par for the course.

The same charge could be levelled at the likes of Hasselblad and Phase One, but seeing as these kinds of cameras are aimed principally at the kinds of studio photographers whose annual film, processing and printing budgets were of the same order of magnitude, your argument doesn't hold any water.

It's sad that medium format photography (in digital form at least) has moved out of the sphere 99.99% of amateurs move in, but there's still a goodly number of film bodies.

As for the M9, Leica have severely underestimated the demand for both it and the accompanying lenses, so there's a big shortage of both right now. The waiting list for the M9 is of the order of 3 months. The demand for (and unavailability of) lenses across the board suggests that, contrary to what you say, there are many people coming new to the marque.

[gollum]

The S2 is squarely aimed at the market hasselblad has to itself, so 15k is about par for the course IMO and it will claim some of that market.
Most people wouldn't think twice about spending that kind of money on a new car or in my case a Harley

[filmlover]

[quote)

The same charge could be levelled at the likes of Hasselblad and Phase One, but seeing as these kinds of cameras are aimed principally at the kinds of studio photographers whose annual film, processing and printing budgets were of the same order of magnitude, your argument doesn't hold any water. (quote)

Yes, but film costs, processing & printing, would be included on your invoice, so you'd get these costs back.
It's far more difficult to claim realistic "editing" costs from clients (as many pros will testify) when they know you haven't incurred film/processing expense. In fact, magazines/newspapers will not pay digital editing expenses.

Also film purchase costs are incurred gradually throughout the course of a year. Rather like the costs of filling your car with petrol. Yet if someone came up with a realistic electric car needing no petrol, but costing three times as much up front, say £45,000, I think most people would baulk at that.

I don't know who exactly is buying all these M9's to create a shortage as you say, most pros I know are struggling to pay for a couple of Nikon D700's.

[TimF]

Yes, but film costs, processing & printing, would be included on your invoice, so you'd get these costs back.

You may have better knowledge than me, but so far as I'm aware in recent years it has been more and more common for clients to pay fixed rates for jobs (part of the woeful trend towards regarding photography as something to be had on the cheap, culminating in getting some keen amateur at the firm to do it for nothing). Your comment about it being difficult for pros to get payment for all the post-processing work strengthens that I think.

As for who is buying M9s see here for example (AP news item dated Sept 11, 2009). Ivor at Red Dot is quoted as saying most are amateurs, which I'm sure is the case. He's told me that many orders have been for a camera plus one or two lenses (normal ones rather than exotica like the 21 and 24 Summiluxes etc), which does suggest newcomers.

[filmlover]

[quote)
You may have better knowledge than me, but so far as I'm aware in recent years it has been more and more common for clients to pay fixed rates for jobs (part of the woeful trend towards regarding photography as something to be had on the cheap, culminating in getting some keen amateur at the firm to do it for nothing). (quote)

You are correct here, one of the downsides of new technology is the impression given that "anyone can do it".
Consequently markets are shrinking, particularly in the magazine/newspaper field, where, for instance a writer undertaking a travel feature will be told by the editor..."Do a few pics on yer digi while you're there"....They would sooner have a second rate picture for free than pay for a first rate one by a professional. (And sadly, these days, many picture desks can't tell the difference).
I'm not surprised that your contact at Red Dot cameras says that most customers for the M9 are amateur enthusiasts...(I'm glad his business is doing well, specialist camera dealers are all too rare these days.) His amateur customers are probably earning twice as much in their day job as the professional, who somehow has to survive in an industry where in some areas (mainly media) fees have not risen for 10 years, before digital takeup, when a new Nikon FM2 film camera cost around £250.
In the current "cost-cutting" climate, most professional freelances working in London in the news media/magazine area, by the time all outgoings are calculated, would be better off financially as a bus driver.

[TimF]

His amateur customers are probably earning twice as much in their day job as the professional

Probably an underestimate! The shop is in Old Street, nicely located to pick up all those city workers with their fat bonuses. Serendipity rather than deliberate planning I think. He does have a number of photo-professional customers I believe.

[filmlover]

[QUOTE]

The shop is in Old Street, nicely located to pick up all those city workers with their fat bonuses.

Well if they've substituted buying mansions in Surrey for Leica M9's, I suppose it proves some of them are accquiring culture!
He has a very nice website, actually showing pictures of his stock from several angles...I was eyeing up a s/h M4 the other day..