Steve Huff v3 first impression/review

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Kevin Omura
Senior MemberPosts: 1,625Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon must love folks like you....
In reply to dougjgreen1, 3 months ago

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Kevin Omura wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Kevin Omura wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Kevin Omura wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Bill Dewey wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

Nikon must really enjoy having customers who announce in advance that they will pay any price for their future camera, sight unseen, even if it's absolute garbage.

WCguy wrote:

Personally Bill , I think if the V3 was at $500-$700 without the options included ,many of these same folks would still be bitching about the price or something else. Many folks just come in here to harp and complain just for the sake of being heard.How simple is it, if the camera isn't for you, or is too expensive, don't buy it, move on, why waste time trying to convince others to feel the same way, go get that other great deal of a camera system you constantly compare the V3 to. As far as Huff's tirant for 3 sec. on the V3, who cares. I have no problem paying the $1200 for the V3 package, couldn't care less what others think, I don't buy for them. Months from now while everyone is still ranting on about the same nonsense I will be enjoying my almost new V3. When the new V4 comes out, I will buy that one too.

Well, I just wonder what Leica thinks of THEIR customers, or what you think of them.

I am not going to try to put words in WCguy's mouth, but what I get from his post is that if Nikon gave you 2 V3's for the price of one people would still complain. Heck, I know folks who have a 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, 600mm f4 and the 800mm f5.6, all the latest versions because they wanted them. Heck, that makes the V3 even less than a drop in the bucket, and I can actually carry the V3 wherever I go! Try that will all the "long glass", and you have to factor in the cost of a Sherpa or two.

-- hide signature --

Bill Dewey
www.thefocusedeye.com

What I think of most Leica customers nowadays is not all that much. They are buying camera jewelry to wear. I find it amusing that a Nikon owner would strive to be like Leica customers.

You sure you want to go down that same narrow minded path as huff?

Yup, there are Leica customers who are probably non photographers but there are plenty who do use the equipment myself included.Perhaps because I have always viewed the camera as a tool, just as a carpenter views his hammer as a tool or a musician his guitar. That is esentially all these things are, no more and no less.

I said MOST Leica customers. I did not say ALL of them. But I do mean to include the folks who buy $5000+ commemorative edition bodies, and anything that's Leica-Branded Panasonic product that is available for far less under the Panasonic brand. The fact is, Leica DOES make great lenses, which, BTW can easily be adapted to Sony mirrorless bodies, Micro-4/3 bodies, Fujifilm bodies, Ricoh bodies, etc.

I feel comfortable saying that the percentage of current/recent Leica buyers who actually know about and knowledgeably use the specific things that Leica products provide photographically relative to the competition is a small minority of the overall customer base. I used to be one of them, back in the film days - but I bailed when it became apparent that the tax to own a modern Leica digital body would exceed that of a recent model used car.

And you would be incorrect. And you would again be incorrect in assuming that the cost of a digital M body is higher than the value of a recent used car. Perhaps if you swapped recent for decent I might reconsider those statements.

Sorry, but you can certainly buy a recent model used car for under $6-7K, which is what a Leica M-Type digital body sells for presently. I also think you would be very hard pressed to prove that the MAJORITY of current Leica buyers are taking superior photos with their ~$7000 bodies than the average professional photographer can routinely take with much more pedestrian Nikon or Canon DSLRs. But feel free to show me whatever proof you can muster to that effect. My statement was an opinion based upon the majority of Leica shooters I've met in recent years. You claiming it's incorrect - well, feel free to back that up with some factual basis.

BTW, a cursory check of the AutoTrader online shows that within the area near where I live - Southern California, which is an expensive market for cars, any number of used cars can be found from 2008 or newer with asking prices under $6000. And that's ASKING price, not selling price.

http://www.getauto.com/search-results/fromYear=2005&toYear=2012&toPrice=6500&radius=100&zip=92129&orderBy=yearDesc

The only part of any of that I agree with is that you can attach Leica M lenses through mount adaptors to a lot of various bodies such as my Nikon 1's and M4/3 gear among others.

And I live in Canada where the used car market is substantially different and where many of us travel to California to buy vintage automobiles because the market there is considerably cheaper. Hence my comment.

But mainly my point of contention is that you hardly seem qualified to make such an all encompassing statement about the Leica market having supposedly previously owned some film gear. I hardly think I'd be qualifed to make a statement about the collector car market just because I happen to watch Barrett Jackson.

At least I have had retail experience at the management level at Canada's largest Leica dealer who became the Leica distributor for Canada....

My comment was based upon much more general information - the majority of customers of EVERY camera system are not using those cameras capabilities to the fullest - Leica is no different in that regard - but unlike other camera brands, Leica also happens to cost $6-7000 for a digital M body, AND there are lots of Leica buyers who buy the brand for the status it supposedly conveys rather than it's unique and legitimate attributes as a photographic instrument. In any case, I see you have not bothered to refute my prior comment with contrary factual data. I'll assume that until you do, you can't.

And as I said, my prior comment was an opinion, and EVERYONE is qualified to give their opinions - and until you are able to refute mine with factual data to the contrary, it stands as a perfectly valid one.

Absolutely I salute you for taking a stand, however it is incorrect and needs to be addressed so that others do not fall into the same trap.

And any working photographer you talk to about Leica does not go all goggly eyed over the brand because it is a status symbol but because it is an outstanding photographic tool. Many of the photographers I know put black tape over the name as a matter of fact.

In terms of refuting your fantasy, well you actually have ZERO proof to substantiate your ridiculous assertions.

However here is one of MANY articles outlining Leica strategy and providing insight into who they are marketing their cameras too. Oh and this is not some no name hack blogger... But a respected financial magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2012/11/26/how-leica-camera-is-generating-momentum-for-a-passion-brand/

Part 2 is also equally enlightening. And should you require even more proof that your position is factually incorrect you could also try googling "leica sales figures".

Leica is not a high volume low cost brand, there is a lot of human labor involved and that always drives up cost and when that labor is not off shore it adds to the cost of a product.

I hope you can see past your prejudicial stance and understand that it is factually inaccurate.

 Kevin Omura's gear list:Kevin Omura's gear list
Canon EOS D60 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot S5 IS Canon PowerShot G2 Canon PowerShot G6 +46 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow