Where to from here Leica?

[oben_c]

It seems to me that with the demise of Leica as a looming possibility

that it's a sign of a spent force in photography. The lack of

innovation in products by the company is mirrored by the stagnation of

the photographers actually using the gear.

 

I've tried very hard to find new and exciting things amongst Leica

galleries but instead I find a surfeit of hardly astounding black and

white photos that display a type of perpetual homage to the 1950's.

 

Cliched is a word that kept popping up in my head.

 

Am I wrong? Is there anything new being done with Leica cameras?

What's the cutting edge when it comes to Leica? Show me the rationale

for this overpriced, overhyped system with one foot in the grave.

[paul t]

Yes, you're right. Any fool knows that you need a brand-new camera to make

cutting edge photos.

[oben_c]

>"Any fool knows that you need a brand-new camera to make cutting edge photos."

 

Well that cuts to the heart of it really. I mean it's obvious that Leica users have such a disdain for BRAND NEW stuff that they don't buy any new Leica cameras and have led to the demise of the company that did so much for them.

 

If you stay with that attitude you won't be able to buy a new one even if you wanted to.

 

Later.

[mark_punch]

Yes , I'm afraid you are wrong. There is something new everytime someone with some

talent takes a great photo, whether it's with a Leica or a canon digital or whatever.

As for " show me the rationale" ........just use one for a while , and then comment.....yes

it's an overpriced, (not over-hyped) system...but it FEELS GREAT !!!!

[ronald_moravec1]

We wnated a meter. We got the M6 We wanted the nice smooth advance of the M3,2,4. We got the MP. Auto exposure came with the M7. My Pentax ES 2 had auto exposure with a mechanical shutter.

 

What would you like them to do so you would actually buy the cameras? Ah yes, a digi sensor so you can figure out how to store a million pics on your computer. It needs to sell for <$1000 too.

 

These are like Ferraries, Rolls Royces, and BMW. You gota pay to play.

[brambor]

Oben,

 

This is the Leica forum. We like them. Some of us care about new innovations and some of us do not. Some of us shoot like crap and some of us don't.

 

One thing is certain though: A lot of us settled on Leica because it works for us no matter what market forces are out there swaying the masses or those who haven't settled on their choice of camera.

 

I do not know what car you drive but let's just say you drive a Volkswagen Beetle. You chose it. You like it. You would probably hate it if someone kept coming at you every day saying. This is a lousy car, the colors are weird, you can't put a snowmobile into your trunk, you need a sports car, you need a bigger car, all the cool people drive a Hummer. Sooner than later you would say: Buzz off! --- or worse.

 

Give us a break. Shoot what you want with what you want.

[david_dimaria]

I was wondering if anybody cares what kind of cameras Stanley Kubrik, or Goddard, or Clint Eastwod, or Orsen Wells or (insert any famous director), used to make their films. I am not trying to be rude but I am really tired of the 'What does Leica's eminate demise mean for photographers?' I am not saying it is a stupid question, I am just sick of it popping up everyday.

 

Having said that I do believe there is a relationship between man (meaning men and woman, society, whatever you want to call it) technology and images. This relationship has been evolving ever since some guy, or gal, in a loincloth scratched a picture of the mammal they just sacked on the wall of their cave.

 

Innovation in photography (in terms of the value of the images we produce) does come from the photographer not the camera or the camera company. Anyone on this forum has the ability to do something cutting edge whether or not they use a disposable camera, a shoe box, or a Leica. There is nothing wrong or that needs to be justified by using any means to produce an image. Oben would you ask the ame questions about a shoebox? Yes, a shoebox is signifigantly cheaper than a Leica but for some people the costs of their equipment is not an issue.

 

And Oben in all serious respect if expect to see rationale from a photographer then you may be missing something ;)

[lee_shively]

Comes down to "need". Unless you destroy, lose or have stolen a Leica rangefinder, it will probably be around for you to bequeath in your will to the next generation (or two). Considering the alternative 35mm cameras and digital cameras available, durability and function seem pretty cutting edge to me. Same can be said for black and white photography in general and the jazz from the 1950's.

[al_kaplan1]

If you constantly need "The Latest" to make cutting edged photos then there's no sense in making a camera that'll last over a year or two. In the 1960's Leica was going to die off because they were making old fashioned rangefinder cameras when SLR was the buzzword of the day. They even made a series of attempts to make inroads on the SLR market. Meanwhile Contax, Nikon and and Canon quit the rangefinder market leaving Leica pretty much the only player in town. Things might have been different had one of the others hung in there another year or two. The news guys liked Nikons because they took motor drives, but more important, the body size, shape, and placement of controls of the Nikon F and the Nikon SP were as identical as possible. On the other hand, to a Leica M user still trying to adjust from the thread mount bodies, and the layout of their controls, to the new M bodies the clunky styling, control layout, and lack of a full focusing screen in the original Leicaflex was an abomination. So even today it's not unusual to see an SLR equipped photographer, even one shooting digital, to have an M or two handy for those times when the RFDR is the way to go.

 

As for the 1950's, a lot of those photos don't look all that different than what was being shot in the 1920's or the 1970's. What's wrong with that? Newspapers and magazines needed pictures in all three decades, and in between as well. Oben, I think that I can safely speak for most of us here when I invite you to show us a portfolio of your "cutting edge" photographs made with whatever cameras you choose to use, just to prove your point. Convince us!

[mark_punch]

Correct me if I'm wrong , but aren't we all here ( talking about Leica stuff ), because we all

LOVE Leica stuff ? Let's face it , beyond taking the actual photographs, which these

cameras do exceptionally well, we're all IN LOVE with them....and there's NOTHING WRONG

with that ....'cause they're beautiful things to be IN LOVE with !!

I don't understand why people would bother to comment on this forum , if they do

not share the LOVE !

[brambor]

Isn't it funny that we get berated by some for being gearheads. We like cameras that haven't changed much in the last 50 years. We like those cameras for being small, simple and ergonomic bricks that let you focus on the act of photographing (regardless of our results). In fact we like these cameras because they don't make you think about the equipment too much when we're actually out there taking pictures (regardless of how often we go)

 

On the other side there are those who like a different camera, or those who like a different medium , or those who like to buy the latest gizmo or inovation. That's fine with us. I can't comprehend why do they need to come here and thell us what a bunch of morons we are.

[watts]

<i>I was wondering if anybody cares what kind of cameras

Stanley Kubrik, or Goddard, or Clint Eastwod, or Orsen Wells or

(insert any famous director), used to make their films

</i><br><br>Actually, you first example couldn't have been

worse. There are no end of camera enthusiasts who blather on

about the fast lenses Kubrick used to film Barry Lyndon. Also,

perhaps ironically, Kubrick himself was apparently the mother of

all camera geeks. For instance, he was said to be a regular and

enthusiastic subscriber to BJP - a UK photography rag aimed

squarely (though BJP publishers would deny it) at the high street

wedding and social pros.

[bob haight]

Just what are you finding "new and exciting" in other galleries? None of it has anything to do with cameras. Its about people and theirs and your tastes.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Am I wrong? Is there anything new being done with Leica cameras? </I><P>There

is

lots of new "cutting edge" photographic work being done with Leica cameras . But a lot of

people here don't like it. try these names: Nan Goldin, Alex Webb, David Alan Harvey, Lee

Friedlander, David Strick. the Leica rangefinder is essentially a journalistic camera -- Find

a new way to tell your story, your version of things the way you see them - -that iswhere

"cutting edge imagery comes from, having a unique voice and using it loudly. but that has

nothing to do with a Leica or any camera itself. <P><I>I've

tried very hard to find new and exciting things amongst Leica galleries but

instead I find a surfeit of hardly astounding black and white photos that display a type of

perpetual homage to the 1950's.</I><P>The problem you are seeing is with the people

who populate these forums not the cameras

themselves. Hazarding a guess here: most of the people who populate Leica forums are

essentially middle aged, affluent & conservative in their tastes, they aren't looking to push

themselves. And no one

says they have too: let them enjoy the photography they way they enjoy it. <P>But you

brought up the subject of "cutting edge" photography, when was the last time you really

saw any

"cutting edge" photography done with a Canon, Minolta or Nikon SLR? Most of the

"edgiest" commercial and artistic work I have seen in the past twenty years is done with

large format cameras -- Richard Misrach, Sally Amnn, Mary Ellen Mark, Nicholas Nixon,

Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, Dan Winters, Gregory Heisler, Timothy Greenfield-

Sanders, William Wegman, Robert Polidari, Jack Dykinga and Cindy Sherman among others

--and the modern view camera design is what? Roughly 80 years old? A lot of "cutting

edge work"

has nothing at all do with the camera used and

everything to do with lighting, timing, color, composition, some times staging & always

very concise editing.

<P> As for being overpriced? everything that essentially hand assembles will

always be "overpriced" compared to items which are stamped out by machines by the

thousands.

[george_b1]

Lee Shively wrote:

"Comes down to "need". Unless you destroy, lose or have stolen a Leica rangefinder, it will probably be around for you to bequeath in your will to the next generation (or two)."

 

Yup! Our 22-year-old Granddaughter has permanent custody of our 1945 IIIc, and she is using it on a routine basis. She prefers it over her Grandparents' M7.

[clayh]

"The lack of innovation in products by the company is mirrored by the stagnation of the photographers actually using the gear."

 

As opposed to the all the tremendous cutting edge creativity displayed by all gear geeks over in the digital forums nattering on about megapixels and USM techniques and inkjet profiles? Oh come on, ALL gear talk is about as interesting as overhearing a conversation on a subway discussing the pros and cons of various kinds of strap-ons.

 

There is a lot of good work being done nowadays by people - and some are using leicas and some are using oatmeal box pinhole cameras. I don't think a particular camera system has ever been a primary consideration in the merits of a body of work.

[terry_rory]

"This relationship has been evolving ever since some guy, or gal, in a loincloth scratched a picture of the mammal they just sacked on the wall of their cave."

 

At which point some other hominid (called Bob or Tony) came along and scratched out the pictures and chucked the artist out of the cave for doing drawings with the wrong brand of Ochre!

 

All the cave dwellers cheered this and promptly died out because their lack of imagination, talent, art or hunting ability consigned them to oblivion.

[bobatkins]

Oben has a valid point when he says <em>I've tried very hard to find new and exciting things amongst Leica galleries but instead I find a surfeit of hardly astounding black and white photos that display a type of perpetual homage to the 1950's.</em>.

 

<p>

It's not just Leica, the same thing can be said of most pinhole images. There's some sort of impression that anything shot with a pinhole camera (or a Leica) is intrinsically good and interesting, but because of the way it was made. Nothing could be further from the truth.

<p> In the case of pinhole images, just because it's blurred it doesn't' make it good or interesting.

 

<p> Just because an image is a street scene shot on grainy B&W film with a Leica doesn't make it interesting.

<p>

To some people Leica isn't a camera system, it's a religion. The cameras and lenses are not just light tight boxes and hunks of glass, they are endowed with mystical properties. This is fine, and makes true believers happy. However don't be surprised when the whole "Leica thing" is ridiculed by many. Every great religion is ridiculed by some. Just look at Scientology...

<p> It's no surprise that 95% of Leica made images are dull, boring, stagnant, crap. 95% of Canon EOS Digital Rebel images are dull, boring, stagnant crap too. As are 95% of Nikon D70 images. The only real difference is that the Digital Rebel owners don't usually crow about the equipment they are using. Many Leica true believers aren't surprised by this since they know that the D70 don't have the requisite "mystique" to make good images.

<p> Evangelicals in any field tend to annoy people (especially when elected to high office...)

<p>It's a whole "good vs. evil" thing. You can't let the dark forces win. You have to make the masses "see the light". Canon and Nikon evangelicals are just as annoying, but there don't seem to be quite so many of them. Film and Digital evangelicals are no better, in fact they're even worse.

<p>

Wonderful things can be done with Leica equipment. The problem is that they usually aren't. Ditto for Canon and Nikon, Pentax and Minolta. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Sturgeon's law applies in all fields.

[dan flanders]

"O RES RIDICULE! . . .O RES RIDICULE!"

[paul t]

"The cameras and lenses are not just light tight boxes and hunks of glass,

they are endowed with mystical properties. This is fine, and makes true

believers happy...." <p>

Is that really true? the majority of people here bang on about how you can buy

an M3 for $600, that they're basic, portable and dependable (whether true or

not), and in general more people here go for used cameras rather than new,

which perhaps suggest less exposure to marketing spiel. There are more

jokes about Leica 'glow' than serious comments about it. Most people here

seem to use other cameras, too - how often do you see references to D70s,

Nikons, Hexars, cheap Ukrainian cameras etc etc, along with mentions of the

MP?

[matt_chamberlain]

you da man, bob. i'm outta here.

[mark_rutledge]

<p>"The only real difference is that the Digital Rebel owners don't usually crow about

the equipment they are using"

<p>no they're usually crowing about upgrading they're 6 month old camera because

there's a newer model and what zoom to buy and mtf charts and sigma etc. vs.

canon.....pretty much the same stuff you see here. actually there is a lot more canon/

nikon etc. gear talk all over the internet than leica "talk".

<p>cuting edge leica work and photograpic work in general is more often found in

real galleries than in some "leica" web gallery. i 've seen plenty of work done with the

latest whiz bang camera that would bore you to tears and phenomenal stuff from

K1000's(about technologically equivalent to a leica).

[paul_neuthaler]

I thought you guys were smarter. . .Tony Rowlett, HELP!

[bobatkins]

It's not Leica cameras that are a "problem" or that incite strong feelings, it's a small minority of Leica owners (or Evangelists if you will).

 

Without going into any details, on the very few occasions on which photo.net has had to threaten or actually take legal action against people attempting to hack into or otherwise maliciously access or interfere with the operation of the photo.net site, let's just say that in one way or another the word "Leica" often appears to have been involved in one way or another.

[jorge]

Guys, cut it. Lets post some pics...