09-18-2012, 08:34 PM
I have to refuse Klaus´s comment. I certainly wouldn´t compare Leica to Ferrari.... Ferrari is still one of the absolutely top performers among all sport cars available, often setting new benchmarks in overall (balanced) performance, design and implementing the latest (F1) technology. Leica isn´t any of this in these days.
Some people certianly long for style, class and a unique mark of their "superior ego/being"... Usually this is marked as snobbery. Well, I don´t have a problem with them as I don´t have a problem with these people buying Rolex watches or an ultra modern painting for $100000 comprising just a smudgy line and a dot. It is their money, their right and their joy of course.
However, it is fair to call a spade a spade: Leica IS going the snobbery way today, selling an outdated technology for ridiculous prices. Yes, I can hear you talking about the quality, history etc. Well, to your surprise, I don´t think Leica was actually overpriced back in the old film era. Their M3-M7 were top performers, tested for lifetime endurance and reliability. I used to keep an official testing method of Leica M cams at that time: "...freeze test: -30 degrees Celsius for 48 hours, +70 for 72 hours, acceleration and rotation in various axes giving 6 G-force" etc. I wonder which camera (incl. Leica M9/M(10)) would survive it today ;-) Add the top-quality, unrivalled lenses at the time and spending extra money for this exceptional engineering achievement that would last and work for decades made a certain sense even for enthusiastic amateurs.
Today, the situation is quite different. Take the M-E/M9 - an obsolete sensor (obsolete even at the time of the M9 release 3 years ago) with average dynamic range and very poor low-light performance is still the most expensive part on the camera. The rest is simply funny: outdated and slow electronics, a sub-par display like something from an entry-level point&shoot camera, rangefinder without any improvement from the 50s (look at Fuji ;-), extremely hard to focus properly in the low-light with the rangefinder (even the composition frames in the viewfinder are almost invisible), focusing more or less suitable for static scenes only, smaller viewfinder than was on M3 from the 50s, some lenses´ vignetting in the viewfinder, bad auto white ballance... And talking about any "lifetime endurance, investment or the tested extra durability" sounds even funnier with digital Leica as it does with any digital camera full of sensitive electronics. So for what do they actually want $6500 OMG..?!
Now the latest Leica M.... In fact, Leica is presenting 2008 technology as something revolutionary and exeptional. Plus the old Olympus EVF for double the price just for the "LEICA EVF2" sign on it. Do you think the M(10) will have better IQ than D800E...? I don´t. As for the lenses, no doubt they are still excellent today. They want an astronomical sum of money for one, too. OK, they are excellent but I just doubt they are that better than the high-end offerings from Nikon/Canon for half/third the prices. Situation is different to the 60s, 70s and 80s today. But I may be wrong here.
Don´t get me wrong, thought: Digital Leica DOES deserve its place today. The exeptional concept of relatively small body, full frame sensor and ultra fast, world-class and unbelievably small lenses is something unique and deserves recognition! Actually, I LOVE this concept, I do, indeed. But not that much regarding the price and snobbish positioning which actually drives me away from Leica because today the Leica prices DON´T reflect the added value of top engineering, exceptional reliability and durability and the lifetime investment any more. Of course Leica is and will be making money because it offers that kind of snobbery which many people long for. Like the pure snobbery when Leica is selling Panasonic compact cameras just with a red Leica logo on it for double prices - I think there is no need to add anything else.
p.s. I was shooting with Leica
Some people certianly long for style, class and a unique mark of their "superior ego/being"... Usually this is marked as snobbery. Well, I don´t have a problem with them as I don´t have a problem with these people buying Rolex watches or an ultra modern painting for $100000 comprising just a smudgy line and a dot. It is their money, their right and their joy of course.
However, it is fair to call a spade a spade: Leica IS going the snobbery way today, selling an outdated technology for ridiculous prices. Yes, I can hear you talking about the quality, history etc. Well, to your surprise, I don´t think Leica was actually overpriced back in the old film era. Their M3-M7 were top performers, tested for lifetime endurance and reliability. I used to keep an official testing method of Leica M cams at that time: "...freeze test: -30 degrees Celsius for 48 hours, +70 for 72 hours, acceleration and rotation in various axes giving 6 G-force" etc. I wonder which camera (incl. Leica M9/M(10)) would survive it today ;-) Add the top-quality, unrivalled lenses at the time and spending extra money for this exceptional engineering achievement that would last and work for decades made a certain sense even for enthusiastic amateurs.
Today, the situation is quite different. Take the M-E/M9 - an obsolete sensor (obsolete even at the time of the M9 release 3 years ago) with average dynamic range and very poor low-light performance is still the most expensive part on the camera. The rest is simply funny: outdated and slow electronics, a sub-par display like something from an entry-level point&shoot camera, rangefinder without any improvement from the 50s (look at Fuji ;-), extremely hard to focus properly in the low-light with the rangefinder (even the composition frames in the viewfinder are almost invisible), focusing more or less suitable for static scenes only, smaller viewfinder than was on M3 from the 50s, some lenses´ vignetting in the viewfinder, bad auto white ballance... And talking about any "lifetime endurance, investment or the tested extra durability" sounds even funnier with digital Leica as it does with any digital camera full of sensitive electronics. So for what do they actually want $6500 OMG..?!
Now the latest Leica M.... In fact, Leica is presenting 2008 technology as something revolutionary and exeptional. Plus the old Olympus EVF for double the price just for the "LEICA EVF2" sign on it. Do you think the M(10) will have better IQ than D800E...? I don´t. As for the lenses, no doubt they are still excellent today. They want an astronomical sum of money for one, too. OK, they are excellent but I just doubt they are that better than the high-end offerings from Nikon/Canon for half/third the prices. Situation is different to the 60s, 70s and 80s today. But I may be wrong here.
Don´t get me wrong, thought: Digital Leica DOES deserve its place today. The exeptional concept of relatively small body, full frame sensor and ultra fast, world-class and unbelievably small lenses is something unique and deserves recognition! Actually, I LOVE this concept, I do, indeed. But not that much regarding the price and snobbish positioning which actually drives me away from Leica because today the Leica prices DON´T reflect the added value of top engineering, exceptional reliability and durability and the lifetime investment any more. Of course Leica is and will be making money because it offers that kind of snobbery which many people long for. Like the pure snobbery when Leica is selling Panasonic compact cameras just with a red Leica logo on it for double prices - I think there is no need to add anything else.
p.s. I was shooting with Leica