The top 3% in quality audio and phototography

In many industries there is the top 3% of "quality" that people pay

for. Audiophiles will pay 50-60k for a single stereo setup for the

tip top quality in listening which is very subjective.

 

I know there are many Leicaphiles out there who insist that Leica has

the best 35mm image quality, and we decide to pay steeply for that

quality. Could this be equal to the top 3% analogy in the audio world?

 

Regards,

 

Steve

I would say yes. A leica lens is certainly not 5-10x 'as good' as a Nikkor, but it certainly does cost that much more. Whether its just the top 3% may be a slightly to small number (maybe more like 5-10%) but nonetheless a fair analogy.

As a former audio engineer and music producer (and current quasi-photographer), I don't really see it that way. For me it's all about the feel -- the sound of a certain microphone or compressor would just grab me, spark my imagination in some way, and I would have to have it whether it was a $50 one or a $5000 one. I once did a big-budget album using a $75 microphone on the lead vocal, despite having a locker full of vintage Neumanns -- it just worked best on the singer's voice. On the other hand, I used to lust over an ancient Fairchild compressor that cost $20 grand. Sometimes what you want is expensive, but not always.

 

Cameras are the same way. My Leica operates in a certain way, and gives me pictures that look a certain way, that inspires me. Same goes with tri-x or whatever. When it's an artistic pursuit you just follow your heart about what to use. If I got off on a Holga that's what I'd use.

 

The stereo analogy is all wrong for me. Even though I've spent ridiculous money on an old guitar or microphone, and music is a huge part of my life, I've always had a $400 stereo setup. What I "own" and "use" matters little, what serves my creative needs best matters a lot.

I like the Martin Logan electrostatic speakers. It took me months to save up for a pair, and I have never been happier. Once I heard those MArtin Logans, I was hooked. The clarity is spine tingling. My favorite giutar is Gibson Les Paul Customs or Standards, they have a great sustained tone that I cannot do without. I guess that top 3% is subjective (whatever hits our fancy)

Good analogy. In every consumer durable at the high end there is diminishing return regarding quality, except fashion and computers, etc...that is: Tools (Snap-On vs. Craftsman), cars (Bentley and RR, etc. vs Mercedes, BMW), Audio (take your pick, for me it's Linn/Naim vs. Pioneer, Sony...), bicycles (Nasi, Litespeed, Klein, Campagnolo, Shimano XTR, vs. LX/XT, etc...). A little improvement at the top requires a non-proportional additional investment for the buyer. Some have the ability to take advantage of the difference, some not. Like they say: don't waste the money if one cannot see/feel/hear the difference. For now, I do, so now, I spend the difference. When dealing with a commodity, it doesn't really matter.

What big budget albums did you produce, Beau?

I'd be interested in the top 3% of the prints out there. That would be interesting. The ability to spend money means very little. I've met a lot of those people spending gazillions of dollars on audio gear (a friend was one of the top audiophile speaker makers until he died young) and most of them don't really know the difference between a sonata and Linkin Park.

 

Hmmm, maybe it is a good analogy...

It's what works well for you.

 

Even though my cam is "obsolete" and a toy by some people's

standards, it fits me like a glove and allows me to take the pix I like to take, the way I like

to take them. Low to the ground, left handed, right-handed, above my head, etc, etc. I'm

probably going to buy another especially now that they're real cheap. I tried another cam

recently, not even close for the way I like to shoot - it's for sale. I would love to (and can)

buy an expensive camera, cuz like most people, I like new tech toys. But in the end, if it

doesn't compliment my shooting style it ain't worth squat.

 

These so-called leicaphiles that you reference - are they really making outstanding pix

with their tools, or just yapping about the cachet of owning something expensive? If not

the former, then the quality of the glass and the precision of the mechanics is worth didly.

what do you mean by 'quality'?

<i>"What big budget albums did you produce, Beau?"</i>

<p>I'll email you, Ray. Let's just say that spending money on making the record doesn't mean the record will make money ;)

<p>The only <b>good</b> projects I ever did were not "big budget" at all.

Yes, if not always (or only) measurable quality, there are picky buyers, shooters, users, listeners, etc. out there in various product categories. They will pay to obtain some more or less elusive quality - durability, speed, latency, fidelity or just a subjective feel, look, or sound - somehow not available in the more cost effect market mainstream.

 

Sure, many folks who own nice gear of all types might or might not really "appreciate" how great it is, be able to use it artfully or what not.

 

But that's true of folks who own less expensive gear as well, and therein lies the secret. I happen to think that there are plenty of "picky buyers" at every price point.

 

Very interesting analogy to stereo gear and instruments. In guitars, I have some pricey ones I like (Gibson L4 Archtop, Anderson Cobra) and some less costly ones I like just as much (Ibanez AS180, Hamer Studio Custom). My early 80's Polytone Minibrute wasn't too pricey, but my Boogie Mk III cost a bit. I have a midrange Arcam stereo amplifier that I enjoy, but my old Paradigms from college in the 80's still fill my small living room just fine.

i use this, the holgas of keyboards....

<br>

<img src="http://ez4u123.com/products/full/270.jpg">

Even though I use a Leica, I have to admit the whole "luxury brand identity" thing really doesn't suit me. In fact I hate the whole "gear-queer" mentality. I would never be seen with things like Rolexes or Paul Reed Smiths, which are marketed the same way as Leica is.

 

I guess if you are going for personal preference rather than status, though, you have to face it that once in awhile the "status" product will happen to be what works best for you.

The big difference is that Leica cost more then say a Canon System, but it is still affordable on the used market which makes the system so attractive to many people. The magnitude of the price differences are smaller. I cannot afford a 120,000 dollar Krell Monoblock amp but I can pay a few extra grand for the percieved quality I might obtain from Leica glass.

 

So I guess sometimes the extra 3% is worth going for, and sometimes it is not.

 

Regards

 

Steve

In the top 3%...

 

many golfers buy pro clubs to complement their 25 handicap swing.

 

many people buy 10K stereo equipment to complement their $50 ears!

 

many photographers buy 10k equipment to... etc...

 

But not everybody.

I agree Beau. Does an active Leica shooter care about the status symbol that the Leica creates? I would hope not. Most people are afraid that it will get stolen anyway if someone recognizes the red dot anyway.

 

Btw, Beau PRS guitars do sound very good and I love the wood work they do. I prefer the sound of ESP over PRS and Gibson over them all.

 

I play mostly metal music on my guitar so that may make a difference as well.

 

P.S. I never had much use for a Rolex. They dont seem to tell time 3% better than my Seiko.

The top 3% in photography is about photos. Period.

I would compare a Leica photographer to an engineer who wants the best instruments, tools, and components -- to design and build audio (or any other) equipment. Or, perhaps, an audio engineer who wants the best gear to make perfect recordings. There's a producer-consumer relationship between photographers and magazine readers (or gallery viewers, etc), just like there's one between audio engineers doing recordings and someone listening to a piece at home.

<br><p>

Unlike a home stereo system, a camera doesn't <i>do</i> anything. It needs a human to actively drive it.

Good engineering isn't about using the best components, instruments, tools, etc. Rather,

it is about managing conflicting tradeoffs in the process of developing products/devices

that meet pre-defined requirements at the lowest cost. There is no perfection - it's all

about trades.

 

 

Interestingly, most of the engineers I know would list AA as a photographer whose work

they like...

There's a local owner of a nice guitar shop who calls guitars "mink coats for men." But he's quick to point out that if lots and lots of weekend warriors didn't wontonly go out and buy (relatively) fine instruments, the darn things would be very rare and even more expensive for everyone.

 

I'm not a PRS fan, but PRS did grow its market share large enough to become a sustainable company. That's good for PRS buyers.

 

So let's encourage everyone to buy a Leica or two, and lots and lots of lenses :-)

To quote Flanders & Swan....

 

"Oh we never listen to music much, it's the HiFidelity"

Please can we allow Phil Kneen a temporary passport to come in on threads like this?

<I>Interestingly, most of the engineers I know would list AA as a photographer whose work they like...</I><P>

 

You can now officially tick a mark in the column opposite.

My view on this is that Leica <i>Nerds</i> are certainly in the top 3% of the world's biggest effing bores.

Another analogy for the Leica status wanker would be "With a leica in one hand and your dick in the other, which would you shoot first?"