Is Leica to blame?

Anyone remember the picture of Jim Marshall's old M4 from the brochure

"How revolutionary should your camer be?" that Leica put out a few years

ago? Reading The thread below about "War Horses" which grew into such a

hot debate made me think of that picture. I expect someone will find the

picture of Jim's camera online and post a link here. I searched for about three

minutes and found the PDF. of the brochure, but I don't know how to post a

picture from it.

 

I am sure Leica used this image because they thought it spoke to the

longevity and durability of these cameras, but they couldn't have missed the

cool factor of a camera looking that well loved. Some of use here, myself

included, can see the beauty of the worn camera. For me, it's linked to

function. Scars can be cool. If object does it's job well and continues to do so

even if it gets beat up, fine. And yes, it can even look better- cooler, have

more cache, like Jim's camera, and Sal's. Of course some will disagree with

this idea- Jay did, and it was amusing to see a few folks be amazed that they

agreed with him about anything. I do, and I don't. I admired the worn look of

Jim's camera, to the point that I thought briefly about trying to save up fro a

black paint MP. But I prefer to shoot with M3's, and I sure can't afford black

paint ones. Shitaro's paint jkobs look nice, but I have better things to spend

my money on. Besides, I like comfortable clients, and beat up black paint

won't inspire confidence in anyone (except perhaps another unbalanced

Leica lunatic) as was pointed out.

 

So- how about it? Anybody have any thoughts? Leica sells cameras,

however they can. Like most companies, they have a few ways of reaching

us. But has this whole stupid nostalgia issue gone too far? Can we blame

them, or is it our fault? Is this innocent, unrealted marketing? (Is there any

such thing?) Are they just responding to our whining for brass and paint, or

they pushing it on us?

Yikes! My apologies to ShiNtaro! I'm sure his paint jkobs are great.

yes, no both, maybe, i dont know

>I thought briefly about trying to save up fro a black paint MP. But I prefer to shoot with M3's

 

You probably made the right decision - at least one member has found an MP with a rangefinder that flares up badly.

 

The new MP would get a lot less flak if it retained the rewind crank and a more normal (read "less ugly") covering on both the body and the back door. Likewise for Leica if they did not cut corners in the post M4-2/P finders, or did not try to use up the flaring finders by installing them in random M7s and MPs.

 

We might also put up with the above if Solms at least tried to funnel the profit from endless special editions into a daylight-usable (i.e. at least 1/125) flash sync speed (which, like AE, is a 30+ years old technology.)

Or Leica could resurrect the Compur Summicron if they are afraid to kill their "holy cow" (namely, the 50+ year old, allegedly "silent" shutter). There is zero R&D cost. It will show people what it means to be "quiet" and make daylight fill-flash a piece of cake instead of a form of torture.

 

But of course, it's really too much to ask for.

"did not try to use up the flaring finders by installing them in random M7s and MPs."

 

Don't tell me, you know somebody who knows somebody who works on the production line? Andrew H, you have believed and are repeating a load of crap. Shame on you. The MP finder flares anyway, and doesn't need the old style finder installed in order to do it.

 

Andrew D, I think you are trying to make something out of nothing, or perhaps it was just some people in the previous thread that can't see the wood for the trees. Buy a hammer and use it, you mark the hammer, it remains a usable, but will eventually break. Drive a new car out the showroom and you start to wear the engine, and you don't need to kerb the tyres, reverse into a bollard, or go to sleep at the wheel to trash it. It will eventually wear out. That people therefore have a notion their camera shouldn't wear out, or show wear (if used) is absurd. Honourable battle scars from pro cameras usually mean that the photographer was more interested in putting food on the table than impressing the clients with unmarked equipment. And if you are an amateur, why can't similar rules apply? I clean my camera gear more now than when I was a pro, but if half a chance of the photo of a lifetime turned up, and it was a toss up between a scratch on my MP, or missing it, sod the MP. Walk out of the house worrying about what can happen to your camera rather than the photo you want, and you are clearly using something you can't really afford. Buy a cheaper camera. But Andrew, I think you are confusing nostalgia with the fact that Leica M's have been around in a similar form for fifty years. Age also goes with view cameras, Hasselblads, etc. Nobody thinks these nostalgic. They all work as a camera in a different niche of the marketplace to a modern SLR and other short lived photo goods. So why should Leica try to make the M something it isn't? The best thing that could happen in twenty years time (should photonet still be here) is that Jay and his deciples report back that they have totally worn out their M7's with many hundred thousand exposures each and have just put the remains in the dustbin. But that isn't going to happen because they will still be in the display case.

>Don't tell me, you know somebody who knows somebody who works on the production line? Andrew H, you have believed and are repeating a load of crap. Shame on you.

 

Yet another of your knee-jerk reactions to my blasphemy against the new MP and Solms. Sorry Steve B, looks like you have the monopoly on crap (a.k.a. your very own "common sense") when it comes to your sacred MP: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005vFN

 

Still it's a surprise that you don't call the MP's flaring finder some sort of "sophisticated design" like you did the mis-matched covers (do you know someone or were you on the design team?): http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00528y

 

Andrew D or anyone else can see for themselves whether people and I are "repeating crap" about late M7's in the following threads: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006D27

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006FhZ

Andrew H.

 

Can you let us know where you got the information that Leica were trying to use up old flaring finders by installing them , ramdomly into MPs and M7s? Many thanks.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

This post is an obvious troll, people will find a way to believe what they wish...jf

<<The best thing that could happen in twenty years time (should photonet still be here) is that Jay and his deciples report back that they have totally worn out their M7's with many hundred thousand exposures each and have just put the remains in the dustbin. But that isn't going to happen because they will still be in the display case.>>

 

I agree completely. At best film has maybe 5-6 years left before it becomes an exercise in masochism to buy it and get it developed.

"But of course, it's really too much to ask for."

 

Well it sounds a much more unusual idea to me than the macro-elmar and that seems to be somewhat controversial. Presumably the Compur Summicron will only go up to 1/500th and has a separate, uncoupled shutter release on the lens? How do you release the focal plane shutter too in order to let the light from the compur strike the film etc. etc.? That I do consider an extremely "unusual" suggestion so it probably is too much to ask for and I can't say I blame Solms for not producing such an oddity.

I'm sorry, but what purpose does obsessing about some of these issues serve?

 

Like Chicken Little, Jay has heralded the demise of film in a zillion threads. Now he's

even putting a specific time line to it. Jay doesn't have ulcers, he's just a carrier. He

touts the ruin of Leica because some Bridge Club matrons will critique nice Bokeh and

show off their photos from a $100. P&S with Costco processing. If that were true, I

couldn't sell one single wedding to anyone. Last one I was at featured at least 5

Canon Rebels and 20 P&Ss all in a phalanx behind me. Guaranteed none of them will

look like my shots (see the example shown below).

 

Folks worry about their status as shooters by means of "how worn is my Leica". Think

about how idiotic that seems. I use the crap out of my gear and it is all kept pristine

for resale. Never missed a shot because I was polishing my camera either. NO ONE

I've ever tried to sell a Leica to wanted battle scars on them.

 

Retro? Why not? A camera is a box with a shutter and a place to put the lens.

Everything else is just "sprinkles on the frosting". A vast majority of my own person

best work was shot with 1950's technology and not just Leica Ms. I like the new stuff

and it's sometimes fun, but as far as making that big a difference I don't see it. (this

is excluding longer lens work with IS lenses, which is the only really big deal since

AF).<div></div>

<br>

To put it even more bluntly  -  who cares?

Well said, and well shown. Yes, it does matter when it's about the quality of the print, on a once in a lifetime event.

Well said ,Marc, and well shown. Yes, it does matter when it's about the quality of the print, in a lifetime event.

<<Folks worry about their status as shooters by means of "how worn is my Leica". Think about how idiotic that seems. I use the crap out of my gear and it is all kept pristine for resale. Never missed a shot because I was polishing my camera either. NO ONE I've ever tried to sell a Leica to wanted battle scars on them.>>

 

Right idea, wrong thread. Of course when *I* said I know many pros who use the crap out of their gear and it still looks like new and that battered cameras prove only that the owner is a careless slob, I was belittled and beleaguered by the "experts" here who are convinced that brassy is classy.

It's just like the guys who're "oh, I *never* use a UV filter for lens protection, Leica coatings are unscratchable"--first question out of their mouths about a used lens they're thinking to buy is "any wipe marks on the glass?"

Andrew Hall pointed us in this direction for confirmation that Leica is putting old style viewfinders in new cameras even now. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006D27

 

It would be interesting if he could actually come up with some evidence, but LOL, he was the one who started the rumour!

someone wake me up when this gets interesting...

And while I'm at it Hall, there is every diference between conjecture on the design of a camera, and you spreading blatantly malicious rumours intended to do harm to Leica. Maybe all your viewfinders assertions should be forwarded to the CEO?

"Guaranteed none of them will look like my shots (see the example shown below)."

 

Not all other amateurs are dolts...many are actually here on this site and many can take shots just like you I bet. Sorry Mark but this comment rankles....

Apparently Robin is not aware that the Compur Summicron had a device for tripping both the focal plane and leaf shutters in synchronization. It was sort of a lever that when depressed released the FP shutter to B, then tripped the Compur. Very few photos of the complete assembly exist and on many the tripping device is omitted. The picture of it in the Leica Pocket Book (page 260 of the 7th ed) is not very clear, but if you look closely I believe it is self-explanatory. I believe the speeds were confined to only 1/200 and 1/100.

someone wake me up when this gets interesting

 

long wait, nice snap.