Overpriced German Equipment

Dear All,

 

Intrigued by Scott Eaton's blanket dismissal of Leicas, 35mm and

German lenses, I looked at the pictures on display in my living

room. Out of 40 of ours (my wife's/mine, not counting others' gifts)

only 10 per cent were Leica but 75 per cent were shot with German

lenses (Leica, Rodenstock, Schneider, Zeiss).

 

This prompted me to look at one of my favourite books of my own --

that is, favourite among the books I have written and illustrated

with my wife Frances Schultz, namely "Quality in Photography". I

chose it because I have a pretty good idea of what cameras and

lenses were used (only 'pretty good' because my memory is not

perfect).

 

In it I found 39 Alpa shots (Rodenstock, Schneider, Zeiss); 38 Leica

(all Leica -- this was before Kobayashi-san relaunched Voigtlander);

34 Contax SLR (all Zeiss); 31 Nikon (Nikon and old Vivitar Series 1 -

- and I had to cheat by incorporating 3 'guest' Nikon shots by Marie

Muscat-King); 23 Linhof (mostly Schneider though I also own or have

used Zeiss and original Voigtlander); and 17 'other' including

Graflex, MPP, Gandolfi, Toho (all fitted with German glass except

one Nikkor 300 shot), Pentax (Espio 928, SV, Z1), Mamiya (645) and

Olympus (Pen W).

 

Now, in the nature of what I do I have access to a great deal of

kit, and I tend to use whatever I like best and whatever delivers

the best results. I also shoot a lot of colour in 35mm, despite

Scott's assertion that all Leica users shoot exclusively grainy B+W.

 

The book has been reasonably successful, and it's a commercial book

(David & Charles/Amphoto), not self published, so maybe I am not a

complete ignoramus. I freely admit there are many better

photographers in the world, some of them posting right here on

photo.net (look at Rasto Cambal's gallery for a start) but equally I

don't think I am utterly incompetent. My web-site might lead you to

think otherwise but that is all being re-scanned (lack of

understanding on my part about screen gammas and JPEG compression

ratios) and re-organized in the next two or three months. Buy the

books if you want to see better pictures!

 

So here's the question. Are German (and Swiss Alpa) cameras and

lenses overpriced? Or are such high prices the true price of optical

and mechanical excellence? Not just Leicas, remember: any and all

current high-end German cameras and lenses.

 

I hope this isn't deleted as a blatant commercial plug. Of course I

want to sell my books -- I don't eat otherwise -- but I really was

intrigued by the level of bile displayed by young Mr. Eaton (thanks

to whoever provided the link to the portrait), and I'd like others'

views on which cameras and lenses they have used for their most

successful pictures.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

I only have German glass for the Linhof (1960 still good as new) but have German and other (Japanese) lenses for my enlarger (an oft missed factor in picture quality) and of course Leica and CV 35mm camera lenses. Having delved into the guts of many I can say without a doubt the German lenses are better made mechanicaly, that is not to say the CV's (and others) aren't precise and accurate but they won't last as long.

 

When it comes to optical quality (Leica vs CV, I can't really compare the enlarging lenses as I don't use either them for the other format, and the enlargement ratios used are different too) my old 1960's Leica lenses are on a par with the current CVs, never tried a new Leica lens.

 

Camera bodies, my Bessa (R2 and L) will be dead well before my Leicas (M6, M2 & IIIb). This is also based on my internal delvings.

 

Overpiced German Equipment?? No, you do get what you pay for (I might leave the new Ikon out of this though) Especialy second hand, these babies where meant to last, the IIIb even after my metering job is still smooth and reliable at nearly 70 years old, M7 2000UKP 70 years is 55p (a dollar near as damn it) per week. Extrapolated to 10 years for a Bessa, I don't think it will last that long.

 

Roger, hows the SEI??

Hm, that's hard to answer. The price of any equipment is not linear to it's relative quality. I consider my Canon 35/2 as a good lens but my CZ Distagon 35/2.8 as a better one. And here my price/perfection ratio ends. The next step in quality is not worth it for my use and capabilties. Others make use of a Distagon 35/1.4 and other lenses and for them it's worth the price.

And to be true, I don't see which lens was used to make a certain picture. I like it or not, if I like it, I wan't to learn how it was made and if I can't do that it's probably me and not my equipment :-)

A market is a market, whether it is in commodities, people, carpets, camels, derivatives, or cameras. At the end of the day, sny item for sale is worth what someone will pay for it. You look at the bid, you look at the offer, and you look at the last trade. You look at quality spreads. The spread between a titanium body and black chrome, the spread between an MP and an M6, a Canon and a Nikon, between new and used, between mint minus and exc+, and on and on. You get a tulip bubble and a crash, a Nikkei bubble and a crash, a NASDAQ bubble and a crash, a credit spread bubble and a Russian default crisis. I'm not an expert in camera pricing, but I do have a sense of markets and it seems the price differential between Leicas and the rest of the market has been more or less stable over a long period of time, though it has experienced periods of softness. Which means, to me, that there is no Leica "bubble". There is a true quality differential (just compare the density of a leica with 3,000 parts or whatever, to a vc with 600 - that may not be entirely accurate but you get the idea - it's also kind of the difference between a German Tiger Tank and a Russian T-34, but that's another story), as well as a persistent perception or prestige differential. This is totally independent of the film digital debate, which just introduces more market segmentation. When sensor technology issues are resolved (no pun intended) I would expect the quality spread to assert itself between the great Digital M and the Digital Rest.

 

Bottom line - I do think german equipment and Leicas in particular are better made and worth a price spread. Add to that a persistent, positive perception and you have a more-or-less persistent, stable spread. The biggest threat to that spread is not digital, but a) any compromise in standards and b) misconceived adventures that destroy the perception of quality. They have to protect the value of the brand and the quality of the product.

 

One last thought ... a person can say a brand new Leica is "overpriced "by X dollars" and not buy. If he's right, the price of that brand new Leica should sooner or later collapse to the level he thinks it's worth and he can buy it then. If he waits fifty years and the price doesn't come down, I'd say you can't fight the market.

 

I wonder what Warren Buffet thinks about Leica?

Most successful pics taken with Minolta X-700 and Rokkor MD lenses, Contax 139Q SLR and 28mm, 45mm, 50mm & 135mm Carl Zeiss lenses, Ricoh GR1, Contax T2, Rolleicord VB with Schneider lens, Nikon SLR/DSLR and Nikon AF lenses, Yashicamat 124G TLR, Yashica T5.

Roger:

 

While this may not be exactly responsive to your post I have been waiting for an opportuntiy to post a somewhat similar observation of mine.

 

Recently, a gallery owner I know told me that she plans to start selling photography books and she asked if she could pick my brain (not that there's much left of it) about what I liked. I started going through some of my photography books that I had not looked at in years. One of my favorite books is one entitled "World Photography", edited by Bryn Campbell. Published in 1981, it is a compilation of the works of 25 "contemporary masters" accompanied by articles about each one's "work, techniques and equipment", mostly written by the photographers themselves. In re-reading the articles of each photographer I was surprised to see how many of them used or had used Leica equipment either, exclusively, primarily, or at least part of the time. Of the 25 photographers the Leica users included Burk Uzzle, Jill Freedman, David Bailey, Elliott Erwitt, Rene' Burri, Thomas Hopker, Ernst Haas, Joel Meyerowitz, Lee Friedlander, Manuuel Alvarez Bravo, Ralph Gibson, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ian Berry, Andre' Kertesz, and William Klein. Josek Koudelka mentioned using rangefinder cameras but did not mention Leica by name. Two other photographers, Don McCullin and Burt Glinn mentioned no specific camera but aome of their work is of a style that may well have been taken with Leicas.

 

Here is an interesting quote of David Bailey in the book:

 

"Even with 35mm, if you use a camera like the Leica you get a different kind of image than if you are using a reflex. With a Leica I tend to shoot first and think afterwards. With a refkex I tend to think first. It is more obvious, for example, that the image is out of focus, but while you are focusing the picture may be gone. So I use Leicas for most of my reportage photography."

 

I think it is entirely accurate to note that some of the greatest photographs ever taken were taken with Leicas. Certainly, technology has advanced greatly and many photographers, including some from this book, may have moved on to other cameras or technology. However, that does not take away anything from the quality of the superb images that have been produced, and continue to be produced, by Leica cameras and, in fact, still speaks volumes as to the quality of these cameras. Yes, I know it is the photographer and not the camera behind the image, but the fact that so many photographers who produced memorable images relied on a Leica to do so is remarkable testament to these cameras.

 

BTW, this book is filled with great images of high quality printing in both black & white and color. If you ever find a copy of the book I would recommend it highly.

 

Cheers,

 

Dennis

I think a less subjective measure would be to survey the cameras and lenses that were used to make the winning entries in Photo.net's "Photograph of the Week" competition. In my opinion, most of the Photographs of the Week are of very high quality. I have not done a systematic survey of these winners, but my impression is that pictures made by Japanese cameras and lenses (digital and film) far outnumber German ones. This may simply reflect the fact that more photographers have chosen to use Japanese equipment. Still, I think it should be clear to everyone that Japanese cameras and lenses are more than capable of competing with the best Europe has to offer - both on price and performance.

I wonder why Scott bothers to read and post here if he is as negative about Leica gear and users as he appears to be. It would be like me reading and posting on say, a Lexus car owners forum, and always be telling them how over-priced and mediocre their cars are. I just don't get it. No one is forcing Lexus on me, or Leica on Scott. Since I don't care about Lexus cars, I just don't bother with them.

Roger,

 

Interesting question. But why ask it on this forum

To me not overpriced, if you consider for how much longer Leicas will outlast most

electronic Nikons or Canons plus will remain serviceable for decades to come. I recently

sent a 20 year-old lens to Leica USA for service. Came back as new, plus Leica replaced

the dented aperture ring at no extra charge.

 

Image quality is but one of several factors.

'cos we are the best!

Funny I would think the equipment would actually have the least to do with the image. The subect the compasistion the mood the look the art would I think be much more important then if the camera were German or Japanese or an Argus C3!

 

Anyway wouldn't the lens on the enlarger be the one that gives the photograph it's last LOOK.

Sure, why not? Seems that companies build gear for market segments. The Japanese are good at satisfying large mass markets in many product categories. That does NOT mean their stuff is junky. By no means. But it means that much of their gear must be priced to sell oodles and oodles of each item. Whether that's a kit zoom or a relatively expensive Nikkor 28/1.4.

 

The German camera makers seem to try to make money (less money than the large Japanese co's) building and selling far fewer items into small market segments and at much higher prices. Price is thus far less of a consideration in the design of the products.

 

Maybe at the outer boundaries of certain mechanical or optical technologies, the expensive German stuff represents a real capability not enjoyed by their Japanese counterparts. But in general, given the desire and the same design contraints, or lack thereof, I imagine Nikon or Canon could crank out a super-duper mechanical camera designed to last the ages and some optics to rival (maybe not best) their German counterparts.

 

But then, in other aspects of camera technology, particularly automated operation, the Japanese makers seem kings of the hill.

 

In any case, if one can afford nice German gear, and it fits your shooting style - then by all means use it. I like my Leica stuff. I really *don't* see why people get all worked up about it.

Overpriced yes; better, yes. Over the last 30 years I've owned Japanese (N & C) and German lenses and cameras, both digital and film. The German optics look better. Worth it; it's all relative. Personally, I keep returning to Leica M.

<i><blockquote> I am not a complete ignoramus.... So here's the question. Are

German (and Swiss Alpa) cameras and lenses overpriced? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

You ask this in the Leica Forum and what answers do you expect? No I don't think

you're a complete ignoramus....

Who is Scott Eaton, and why do you care what he "dismisses?"

WHy is anyone worrying about what the man in the funny photo says? He's

slagging LEica users off for being gearheads; it takes obviously takes one to

know one. <p>

I believe it was William Morris who said, "have nothing in your home that you

do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful". If you're using your Leica,

as well as fondling it, that statement surely applies, and gives us necessary

and sufficient permission to own one!<p>

Dear All,

 

Thanks everyone for the replies. The points about continuing price differentials and the non-collapse of Leica prices are particularly worthwhile, as was the point about enlargers/enlarger lenses. And the point about the historical lineage of the Leica, and the Bailey quote.

 

While I fully take the point about equipment being secondary to composition, passion, etc., that's a long way from saying it's irrelevant. After all, you can get drunk on methylated spirits or straight malt whisky, but which would you drink for pleasure? My own view is that using top-flight classic gear is a pleasure, and that getting better pictures (better sharpness, more contrast) is a bonus, not necessarily the main reason for buying Leica, Alpa etc.

 

Why ask the question on this forum? Well, it struck me as being as good a forum as any, and better than most. Most of the people in this forum are likely to have owned/used Leicas, so I should avoid the knee-jerk (or just plain jerk) reaction of "Duh, it ain't worth it." Have you ever noticed how many people who say that have never used a Leica?

 

Keep 'em coming if you please; I find the responses quite intriguing.

 

Thanks,

 

Roger

<i><blockquote> He's slagging LEica users off for being gearheads; it takes obviously

takes one to know one. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Are all police rapists and child molesters? Are all firefighters arsonists?

<i><blockquote> I wonder what Warren Buffet thinks about Leica?

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

You notice he is not a shareholder...

<i>Why ask the question on this forum? Well, it struck me as being as good a forum as any, and better than most. Most of the people in this forum are likely to have owned/used Leicas...</i>

<p>

Roger, not wanting to be pedantic, but you're original post was about the quality of German glass. I would have thought the Medium Format forum would have been a more suitable forum

could pick my brain (not that there's much left of it)

 

I found a piece of it and pickled it Dennis: was saving it for you. Unfortunately my dog Brutus thought it was a gherkin and ate it. Sorry about that mate.

 

Of course I want to sell my books -- I don't eat otherwise

 

Can't help you with gherkins Roger.....but if things get tough maybe a cheese sandwich.

 

Things are worth what folks are prepared to pay for them. Banal statement but hey!

Dear Derek,

 

Why do I care what Scott Eaton dismisses? Because I am intrigued to see why various people (including myself) attack or defend a particular viewpoint. There are all kinds of reasons. One reason I do it is because I have a weekly column in Amateur Photographer which is supposed to make people think. Another reason we all do it is fear: fear that our favourite cameras or film will disappear if the financial markets believe the more strident digitalists. Another is pure snobbery (and pure reverse snobbery, which can't accept the excellent). Then there's historical accident: we defend what we know. Or the reverse of that, praising whatever is new, merely because it is new.

 

Obviously I had certain expectations about the answers I would receive in a Leica forum, but I was looking for WHY, not for mere agreement, disagreement or personal insult (Grant). I was also looking for posts like Trevor's, saying what cameras they personally found useful; for posts like Dennis's about what others find useful; and for posts like William's for further research, though a point I'd make there is that by the time a picture has been though the Great Leveller of the Internet there is even less chance of judging its technical (not aesthetic) quality than there is in a book. Overall, as I said a few minutes ago, I have been very grateful for the answers.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Medium Format forum would have been a more suitable forum

 

Stuart you can be so boring and stuffy...with all due respect.

Dear Stuart,

 

Not wishing to be pedantic, but I specifically said EQUIPMENT. Even so I take your point about MF. For that matter I could have chosen LF. But I wanted to post it somewhere and as Huw said, why not the best?

 

Cheers,

 

Roger