Leica Worship

[Two23]

I think the problem is a broader one than Leica. Kevin does seem to spend time reviewing cameras that I and 99.9% of photographers won't ever see, much less use. ..... The broader problem I mentioned is that this is no longer 2005, and equipment no longer generates much excitement, or even interest. We're now back where we were in the 1980s, where what we should really be seeing on Lula are interesting ...articles about photography.

Some great points.  I do appreciate the effort put into writing the reviews, but honestly I just don't see me ever spending over $2,000 on a camera (unless it was made during the Civil War or is a 1920s Leica!     )  All of the last two generations of cameras are really very good--better than the Hassleblad I was shooting just 18 years ago for sure.  There are plenty of places on the internet to read equipment reviews.  What is tougher to find are the more philosophical discussions.  How about this for a topic:  "Are we really better off with a $10,000 camera than a $1,000 one?"  I think you might be right about comparing the current period to the 1980s.  Remember how the Nikon N8008s came out and everybody yawned?  I also think it might be good to expand into a few other interesting photographic genres loosely associated with outdoor photography.


Kent in SD

[jeremyrh]

 At the same time, the site might want to take a small step back from equipment reviews.

TBH I don't see so many equipment reviews here as I did. Of course there are the endless puff pieces about the latest Sony, but not so much other stuff gets reviewed. For better or worse. I used to enjoy reading Michael's reviews, but then I enjoyed reading anything he wrote.

[Paulo Bizarro]

If I remember correctly, back in the late 1990's and early 2000's I have used a Leica:) It was the little Leica CM, a great compact film camera with a fabulous 40mm lens. I would love to have a Leica Q, but can not afford it.

I appreciate the Leica history and their role in photography, and their survival skills. They are "overpriced", but so are iphones, really.

So keep the articles going.

As for the latest "review" style in Lula, well, I honestly find it a little bland and "empty"; just user experiences, really. I appreciate Kevin's feedback, but these days I am much more interested in lenses.

Back in the 2000's, and during the transition from film to digital, Michael had some great articles and reviews, and challenged a few dogmas. But then he was using Canon, so the audience was more numerous:)

[Rado]

I think it's better if people (be it staff or external) cover topics that they are passionate about and do it well, instead of trying to write about everything just because. I don't have a problem skipping all the Leica and Phase One stuff priced out of my range. The latest shooting with the masters series has been great and I hope we'll see more of that type of content.

[E.J. Peiker]

Kevin does seem to spend time reviewing cameras that I and 99.9% of photographers won't ever see, much less use. (Wait! 99.9 would mean one in a thousand would use one of them. I think it would be more like 99.99%, or one in ten thousand.)

Can't agree with this statement even in the slightest.  Kevin spends a lot of time talking about and writing about Fuji and Sony which is clearly MUCH more than 0.1% or 0.01% of what photographers would ever see.

[Kevin Raber]

I write about what I use and I am passionate about.  No different than it has always been.  There a wide variety of articles, reviews, and videos that not only interest me but what I feel is an interest to many of our readers.  I don't review every camera there is.  There is plenty of places for that.  The Leica story was a story that I feel privileged to have told.  So what if you can't afford a Leica or don't want one.  It's a story about one of the companies that defined 35mm photography.  The Charlie Cramer series was our second shooting with the masters.  This required months of work by Chris and it was very generous of Charlie to share his knowledge so freely. The many articles from contributors are such that can't be found on many other sites. 

If you haven't noticed I use Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Phase One.  So, that is what I write about.  I sure hope Nikon and Canon come out with something I want to use soon.  Rumors are circulating and it could be fun.  I love technology and innovation.  Especially when it can make us have more fun taking pictures.

This site as it was for Michael is something myself and the rest of the team are passionate about. We have fun putting it together and sharing.  We have some new fun stuff coming too as well as more content like the Leica story and Charlie series. Any of you reading and making comments are certainly free to contribute articles if you'd like to share your knowledge or interest.  I like to think of this as a special community for those that have an interest in photography.  An audience the size of ours is diverse so not every article or video will be of interest to everyone.  You can bypass them or still enjoy them and learn something new, or maybe just be inspired to try something different.

There is one thing this should all be about and that is getting out and taking pictures.  And more than anything else having fun doing it.  Life is too short, take a photo.

[Joreur]

I guess I should have realised that criticising Leica in any way was bound to ruffle quite a few feathers. However I stand by my original comment that nine articles in two months is a lot. It kind of seemed to me that every time I clicked on to Lula  I was presented with yet another Leica article.

As for Leica itself for its main contribution to photography was the invention/introduction of the 35mm camera. What it offered was a small, highly reliable, highly portable, easy to use camera which became the work horse device for street photographers and war zone photo journalists.It was extremely expensive but at least it served a real photographic need.

Since the end of the film era and the move to digital Leica cameras no longer serve a real photographic need. It seems that they have become “photographic jewellery”. They fall into the same category as very expensive watches like Rolex. Everyone knows that a cheap Casio is a better timekeeper than an expensive mechanical Rolex but the Rolex exists to look good on the wrist and, most importantly, to demonstrate to the world that the wearer is wealthy and therefore someone to look up to.

Leica cameras, although they no doubt produce very high quality images, are not better than Canon Nikon Sony , etc., but they are distinctive and eye wateringly expensive so serve to demonstrate the wealth of the owner like a Rolex watch does.

This market niche requires the cameras to be very well made, very competent, distinctive but, most of all, very expensive.

[KLaban]

I guess I should have realised that criticising Leica in any way was bound to ruffle quite a few feathers. However I stand by my original comment that nine articles in two months is a lot. It kind of seemed to me that every time I clicked on to Lula  I was presented with yet another Leica article.

As for Leica itself for its main contribution to photography was the invention/introduction of the 35mm camera. What it offered was a small, highly reliable, highly portable, easy to use camera which became the work horse device for street photographers and war zone photo journalists.It was extremely expensive but at least it served a real photographic need.

Since the end of the film era and the move to digital Leica cameras no longer serve a real photographic need. It seems that they have become “photographic jewellery”. They fall into the same category as very expensive watches like Rolex. Everyone knows that a cheap Casio is a better timekeeper than an expensive mechanical Rolex but the Rolex exists to look good on the wrist and, most importantly, to demonstrate to the world that the wearer is wealthy and therefore someone to look up to.

Leica cameras, although they no doubt produce very high quality images, are not better than Canon Nikon Sony , etc., but they are distinctive and eye wateringly expensive so serve to demonstrate the wealth of the owner like a Rolex watch does.

This market niche requires the cameras to be very well made, very competent, distinctive but, most of all, very expensive.

I love the fact that nobody takes my cameras seriously, they offer me anonymity and stealth. Nobody has ever recognised I'm using a  camera that is eye-wateringly expensive with lenses that are second to none. Nobody knows I'm using a unique rangefinder camera with a working methodology and simplicity that allows me to just get on with the business of making images. I'm glad that Leica ownership is not the norm, if it were I'd loose that anonymity, stealth and risk being the target of those who covert my cameras.

I judge photographers by their images, everything else pales into insignificance. On that note the following images were made with those "bling", overpriced, overhyped cameras that are thankfully of little or no relevance to the vast majority of photographers and have become "photographic jewellery".











Apologies for cross posting.

 

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness and would be best closed before it descends into acrimony.

Jeremy