Brilliant digital stuff - why bother with Leica?

Another esoteric philosophical question I'm afraid:

 

Why on earth would anyone in their right mind buy a manual Leica when

there are such feature-packed digicameras for sale? Two such cameras

were reviewed in PopPhoto:

 

1) Pentax�s Optio 430. Comes with a world-time alarm clock with a

database of 62 cities. It also has �free autofocus� for low light.

�You have to fiddle with not one but two menus, then set the focusing

point on the screen, then enter your selection with three button

presses...� Shutter lag is just over a second.

 

2) The �genuinely impressive� Casio QV-4000: its Best Shot mode lets

you choose from over 100 pre-sets. Need to know how to take a baby

pic? Easy. Just program a baby. Image quality is �professional�.

 

So just how can cameras like the Leica, whose only virtues are

reliability, quality and simplicity, possibly compete? Perhaps this a

design question: how can any "simple" product compete with something

that does dozens of different functions yet costs a fraction of the

price?

The term feature-packed makes the hairs on my back stand up. A camera is tool, not a toy.

I thought Vuk settled this yesterday :^)

David: I guess a succinct response would be: do you enjoy using

your camera and derive satisfaction in thinking through a

photographic problem OR do you consider your box a glorified

point and shoot ? There is plenty of

room,photographically-speaking, for both philosophies in my

opinion.

>>>>So just how can cameras like the Leica, whose only virtues are reliability,

quality and simplicity, possibly compete? Perhaps this a design question: how

can any "simple" product compete with something that does dozens of

different functions yet costs a fraction of the price? -- David Killick , September

12, 2002; 05:22 A.M. Eastern<<<<<

 

How, indeed?

My vote goes for the latest Leica/Panasonic Digicam

 

It reminds me of the M6 (sort of), brillant construction, ease of use and great colors.

 

You have not mentioned it, though....

Because people like their Leicas. Because "feature-laden" doesn't translate into "better". The Leica M is a highly- refined, well-made, very effective tool for making pictures. The digicams you mention are made to be sold on their features. Not on their capability, a subtle but important different.

Because not everybody likes their photography (or life, for that matter) digitized and homogenized.

Well if you like the concept of *planned obselesance*, by all means go digital and buy a new digicam every 2 or 3 years, now that I think about it that is the whole Japanese camera industry with 35SLRs, etc, bring out new models on a regular basis with new *fantastic* features that we just have to have. For me, I am quite content with my old, obselete Leica Ms.

Good one, David.

Control: When I take pictures I want to control all its aspects and do not want any automation. Developing my own films (B&W) I can also control somewhat the way information is recorded on them.

I could use cheaper manual products, but I enjoy using a well crafted tool.

David,

This isn't a serious post, is it?

If it is, ask yourself why "professionals" haven't abandoned their Nikons &

Canons & Leicas for serious work.

There's a place for digital 35mm cameras (I own two). But film-based cameras

still kick butt if you're looking for information rich photographs.

For every tool, a time & a place. Perhaps in another couple years your

question can be asked with a straight face, but not today. And even then, the

Leica will always be admired for its strange ability to "merge" with a

photographer; it remains the ultimate imaging tool for many of us.

This is like arguing over whether a pickup truck or submarine (OK, VW bug) would make a better family vehicle. It's a question of what you would enjoy having and using.

 

(OT a bit: For those who did not like the comments a few days by someone about the snooty nature of some comments. "Digitizing your life") You know this forum (the computer you are using to reach it) and your car and your satelite and everything else under the sun that you use now is digital. Why not your camera if it makes it better. Personaly I welcome the idea of digital improving our ability to record the moment. If film can be beat, so be it. I just don't agree that it can be yet. Someday something will because film isn't the be all end all I hope.

 

I just hope that Leica has not left us M owners with very expensive boat anchors when film is beat.

yea, why bother?..

see, the prob is that you take the reviews in PopPhoto too seriously :-)

Imagine trying to get a digital camera repaired in 50 years; because if it works; it is worth more to a collector!

Kelly,

 

The question is will there film at a reasonable price 50 years down the line. Or will that be the cause that forces us into the arms of digital.

A propos Pentax Digital Optio 430. My son has had to return his to Pentax twice - pictures skewiff - all exposures wrong. He now has a Sony Digital which is very good. My other son bought an R8 - which one do you think is happier with his photography ? You got it right first time - digital is too slow and expensive.

David - I like your subtle irony :)

LOL! What's not so funny is that there are people who take the kind of reasoning in the initial post seriously. On the general (unarchived) forum one time, someone was questioning why anyone would pay so much for a Leica when something like an F100 would do so much more for less money and was obviously a better value. When I pointed out that some of us measure value by how well something does the things we need it to do (rather than the sheer number of things it can do), that seemed to strike him as a genuinely novel concept.

I'm not nearly as worried about whether film is obsolete 50 years from now as I am about CDs being obsolete five years from now. People have such short memories: Who has a 5.25" floppy drive handy? Or a mag tape drive? My mother's new Mac doesn't even have a floppy disk drive. The whole digital revolution is driven by planned obsolescence, but 35mm film will be available for a LONG time.

 

Hey, if it comes down to it, it's not that tough to make your own emulsion...

<I>So just how can cameras like the Leica, whose only virtues are reliability, quality and simplicity, possibly compete?</i><P>I think the real question is "do people who buy these digicams really give a damn you use a Leica".

I'm amazed that in this forum nobody's come up with what I think is a much more compelling answer: you can't get any background blur with that kind of digicam. If you want decent bokeh you have to go with a DSLR, which are bulkier than a 35mm rangefinder and no longer a fraction of the price.

I totaly hate being battery dependant! My Weston Master IV and V light meters give me readings in about the lowest light levels I'm willing to hand hold with Tri-X. I hate the thought of having to click my way through a "program" when it's just so damned easy to turn a dial. You can do it in the dark, you can do it without looking. I like to push a button and hear a click "right now", not the whirring of servomotors trying to decide what they should focus on. I like being able to print 40+ year old negatives from my files. Digital, when you factor in the equipment cost, cost of computer programs, the cost of constantly upgrading to the latest SuperCam, it would have been cheaper to run film through the same Leica that's been making money day in and day out for over thirty years.

It's all good to make fun of two crappy digital cameras like the Optio and the QV-4000. They are nothing more than glorified point and shoot cameras. It's when you get into the D30/1d/d1/x/h realm that things get a bit more murky. I have had plenty of digital shots published that you wouldn't be able to pick out from the film images in the magazines. Mind you, 4 color printing on magazine paper is a lot different than making a 16x20 on fiber. But my point is still valid.

 

Of course, there's no digital equivalent to a Leica M yet.