Previous news story    Next news story

This just in: Camera enthusiasts are 'intense' (who knew?)

By dpreview staff on Aug 12, 2013 at 18:23 GMT

After posting a short Tool Kit article titled 'Leica Cameras Have Eye-Popping Prices, With Photos To Match,' New York Times writer Nick Bilton was surprised by the aggressive influx of 'vehement messages from all kinds of photographers and camera fans' that filled his email inbox. Not only did Canon and Nikon fans attack him for not writing a similar piece about their favorite brands, but many Leica fans were also quite critical of his very positive article, as well as his selection of 'experts' quoted in the piece, including Christopher Michel and Ken Rockwell. 

In his story, Bilton declared his appreciation for the manual-focus lenses on Leica cameras, saying, 'The control I have with a manual Leica makes me realize that today's abundance of buttons and features on most cameras often makes people take poorer pictures.'

This was about the extent of the article's content that could be considered controversial. The story reads more like a brief overview of Leica's history and what it's like to own a Leica camera. Bilton acknowledges that Leica gear is expensive, but he likes his enough that he won't part with it. That last comment is a familiar refrain of Leica fans.

'Fog breaking through trees at midnight in San Francisco's Holly Park.' One of Bilton's sample photos taken with the Leica M Monochrom and 50mm Noctilux F1 lens.

Here at DPReview we, of course, were not surprised by the revelation that camera enthusiasts can be quite direct and passionate about their favorite brands. Because we experience that passion with nearly everything we post, we've had some time to think about it.

One theory is that camera fans come to love their cameras as members of the family, conferring upon them the status of a beloved child. Anyone criticizing a favored camera brand is therefore attacked with the same primal fervor normally reserved for defending the most vulnerable of family members. Since cameras assist us in capturing some of the best moments of our lives, usually spent with our real families and friends, the attachment isn't all that surprising.

Or perhaps it's the simple fact that camera owners have invested a great deal of money in their system, and want their purchases justified. They'll react negatively not just to reviews, but also to any criticism from other users.

But we're quite sure our readers have an opinion on the matter. Do you think camera fans are more passionate about their favorite brands? If so, why?

Source: New York Times
31
I own it
62
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums
30
I own it
49
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.

Comments

Total comments: 168
12
cgarrard
By cgarrard (7 months ago)

I see brand loyalty in many different segments of humanity. I think its common (notice I didn't say human nature, as in normal, and out of "our" control).

People side with a brand, then side with one another. You're on my team cuz you like "X". Those kind of people don't understand those that are "agnostic" of sorts, or say, independent minded. Even that statement might upset brand loyalists too. Don't you dare call me dependent! Cuz, that's not true!

:)

0 upvotes
Dudy Braun
By Dudy Braun (7 months ago)

I haven't read the article, merely it's title. The comment I will make is this. Biltons sample picture taken with the Leica Monochrome and Leica noctilux lens is terrific. The huge gamut of tones is envious. if the camera is responsive as SLR to capture candid moments with this variety of tones is a matter that I am wondering about. If it is, price aside, is a powerful piece of kit that I am willing to work hard to be able to obtain one.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

I ike this words in the article on NY Times.

"Now imagine buying a fully manual Leica digital camera that, with a body and lens, can cost as much as $20,000."

Imagine, was that not Leica, euhhh, sorry, Lennon in the seventies?
There is much on other, much cheaper cameras, that a Leica can't do. But, on many cheaper cameras, there is everything a Leica can do. Once a NEX with a FF will appear, Leica has to find some ideas, maybe making some with golden tops and rose wood grips, who knows. Kitsch sells good in those days, and it doesn't matter what is inside.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

Leica...mmmmh, reminds me the movie, "once upon a time in the west". I can just no say why. Wait, red dot, reminds me the east, cut it in pieces with a sickle and hit with a hammer on it, socialism sucks anyway. God dam, wrong, it has anti social prices, must be something else then. Wait? I know, my wallet is empty, bingo. I knew there was something anyway..... Honi soit qui mal y pense.

0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (8 months ago)

At the risk of criticising the efforts of my countrymen, just checked the camera sensor ratings on DXOMark, top rated sensor is the Nikon D800 at 96, Leica M Typ 240 is at 84, identical to the lower-end consumer Nikon D5200 at 1/20th of the price. Vanity knows no price. At the price Leica charges, they should be at the top of the list.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Quoting DxO scores is the quickest way to get yourself laughed at among those who know anything about cameras....well, that and quoting Ken Rockwell. LOL

0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (8 months ago)

You specifically mention DXO. Care to mention any other sensor rating websites?

0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (8 months ago)

Please explain why you think DXO sensor scores are not useful. I may agree with you on the lens scores (one of my posts elsewhere "The DXO lens scores are inaccurate because eg they have one score for sharpness over all focal lengths and all apertures, which is nonsense, rather use sites like photozone and lenstip which have a full breakdown of this metric. In addition, for "best at", they just put the widest aperture"). In addition, your sarcastic tone is unnecessary. You could have said "No, in my opinion the DXO scores are useless, but am willing to explain why, and to debate"

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (8 months ago)

@HowardRoark: This comment from the website "Lensrentals" by physician-turned-lens renter Roger Cicala, who rents, maintains and tests an inventory of 50 000 lenses: " DxoMark has nice graphs for each lens that show distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and resolution at various focal lengths and apertures for each lens they test". To whose opinion do I give more weight: your sarcastic one-liner, or Roger's?

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

I said "scores" and I meant exactly that. Their scores are meaningless. I too have said that DxO does great tests and I believe their test results are very useful when comparing lenses and sensors. However, their scores are based on so many variables and so questionably derived that I don't think they are useful in any way. Notice how Roger didn't praise their scores, he praised their tests because they are thorough and well designed, and the representations of the results are easily interpreted.

0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (8 months ago)

I have done a lot of research on the objective performance of lenses (eg Photozone) in my quest to put together a nice set, and my observation is that there is about 90% hype and 10% objective assessment about "premier" brands like Zeiss and Leica. Many of these lenses for instance have fantastic centre sharpness, but poor edge sharpness and poor bokeh, and are often put in the shade by "consumer" lenses like Nikon, Canon and Sigma (eg Leica Summicron-M 35mm f2 (very poor edge resolution, which may be just a technical nit, but should be unacceptable in a stratospherically-priced lens) comppared to Sigma 35mm F1.4, which is superior by almost every measurable indicator). It also astonishes me that Leica and Zeiss can often charge these prices for manual focus, non-VR lenses which in Nikon terms are AI technology from the 80's.

0 upvotes
CypherOz
By CypherOz (8 months ago)

Ken Rockwell? A negative from KR is really a positive :)

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (8 months ago)

Hasselblad Lunar, that's the camera for me.

0 upvotes
MarshallG
By MarshallG (8 months ago)

The photographic consultants the NY Times should consult are their own staff of exceptional photographers. I wrote to David Pogue and told him the same thing.

0 upvotes
Anthony Wooe
By Anthony Wooe (8 months ago)

I am neither passionate or direct about the brand I own (Nikon). In fact I am always envious of the other brand/s. I always see some feature on another brand that I would like to have on mine. It is not like the hate I have for IPhones, being an Android user. As far as anyone being critical of my work, I welcome it....good or bad. There is always room for improvement.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (8 months ago)

Could be worse.
Imagine if people had the where-with-all to assemble their own cameras (not systems) from parts.
"No, no, no. You need the Canon mirror with the Nikon sensor, Leica objective, Samsung shutter, Olympus IBIS, Sony AF and Panasonic mount! But I agree on the Pentax processing pipeline".

2 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (8 months ago)

I visited the Focus on Imaging exhibition at the NEC last year, and had a couple of Nikon owners, from my place of work, with me. Some of their friends also visited on the same day. Things I learned:

- Nikon and Canon users actually get on quite well (much banter)
- A Nikon user shall never visit the Canon stand
- A Canon user shall never visit the Nikon stand.

Clearly, some users are tribal.... Me? As on Olympus/Panasonic user, I visited all stands, was a bit annoyed that Leica weren't in evidence, thought the D800 looked awesome, that the Canon stand was a bit bleh, and concluded that if I ever win the lottery, I'd quite like to give medium format a try. Oh, and there was a lovely pair of models at the Olympus stand.

0 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

DPReview people, why don't you make some user profiles from cross-sections of comments on your site? There surely must be some metrics out there to do that.

Also, are women photographers as aggressive with their equipment as men?

How does aggressiveness correlate with lens sizes?

0 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (8 months ago)

In my experience, women photographers couldn't care less about their equipment, but care a great deal about their photos. I'm surprised relatively few achieve fame, compared to the blokes.

3 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

more or less what I expected... if there is a sizeable sample available to DPR the speculation about children and prices could go down the drain...

0 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

Why so much rant about KR? Everyone does his job the best way they can and make a living. You don't like him you don't read his stuff! I sometimes visit his page when I am bored to have some fun, he is so USish exotic to me! And I love the way he tries to exalt the most casual snapshot to a work of art.

I have to agree though, that quoting KR for anything else than blabber is kind of indicative of your understanding of the current field of photography...

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

One of the more appalling qualities of his site frankly is his overt nationalism. It's a bit creepy actually. Luckily the general population is not, in my limited experience at least, as aggressively ethno- (or even ego-) centric.

A few years back when I visited the site, his sabre-rattling was rivaled only by his self-promotion.

3 upvotes
mark power
By mark power (8 months ago)

The author failed to make his point: that using expensive Leica cameras will make you a better photographer. When the Leica came out in the thirties it was an innovation; a small camera, exquisitely made wtih superior optics and very quickly many great artists adopted the camera: Cartier-Bresson, Cornell Capa, Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank - the list goes on. The point is these brilliant artists made iconic photographs with Leica cameras. Since the advent of digital photography Leica has become a bloated parody of its former excellence. Expense and engineering alone do not make for great cameras. Sample Leica images only prove is that Leicas are capable of making technically excellent pictures, a claim even cell phone cameras can make. I ask where are the artists using digital Leica equipment? Instead of showing me the money, show me the work. I suppose research could turn up one or two noted photo-artists using digital Leica equipment but I don't know of any.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

We are not being honest with ourselves. Everyone wants to think their photo's are the best ever composed. We are taught that using abode products makes us a real pro. Same with the price of your camera. Oh we all know, the good IQ, comes only, with the big bucks. It's not that more, shouldn't cost more. Just not that much more! It's not that the over sized, ludicrous cams, don't do some things, and far better. It's we are letting the makers cripple affordable cameras!

...and my stuff is awesome, and all you guys pictures, stink! ;) My poo don't stink either!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (8 months ago)

It's very simple. Ren Kockwell (no google indexing for this post) is an outright idiot, a buffoon, and a snob. His language and attitude have become progressively more arrogant and condescending over the years. Any knowledge of value he once offered is now mired in the sickly sweet treacle of fake virtuosity and blind narcissism.

4 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (8 months ago)

Versus everyone else's humble, unprepossessed, and cordial consideration of other people's views.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

chill, yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I think it must be an intentional attempt at getting more attention because discussions like this do drive traffic to his site. I won't go back because every time I do I am reminded of why I can't tolerate such egocentric arguments that are based on his own brand of reductio ad absurdum.

1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (8 months ago)

I forgot to ad, he redefines the word Hypocrite.

1 upvote
chillgreg
By chillgreg (8 months ago)

@jkoch2: Discussion forums are not claiming to be representative of the real world. But Kockwell purports to be...

He has many believers no doubt... as do Amway et al lol...

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Is it out of the realm of possibility that he's actually developmentally disabled? Just curious.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

No, I think he's simply forgotten what it's like to start learning about a new art form, especially one that involves technology. You could much more easily compartmentalize film photography because each element was very easily interchangeable or so prohibitively expensive as to make it irrelevant to your process. Now the film, camera, and much of the post-processing happens in the camera itself. If one chooses to post process on a PC you can do everything that was possible in a darkroom times ten for much lower cost. Then you can print on your own or at a professional printing house. There are so many possibilities presented up front that it's much easier to reduce photography to one tiny element at a time, and since so many people skip the composition and artistic development step and concentrate on gadgets then why not present the artistic skill part as 99% of the problem and gear as...oh, I forgot that it's 0%. So, 99.9% and 0.1% just to be generous? Idiotic and oversimplified.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Either that or he's only interested in keeping artists from realizing their full potential in order to minimize competition. More likely he's just an idiot with access to the internet, which is the cheapest way to spread stupidity (or knowledge and wisdom in some cases) to all of mankind for very, very little money...no money at all besides the bus fare to a local library if you absolutely have to.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
chillgreg
By chillgreg (8 months ago)

Howard I'd be more inclined to look at the psychology that drives him. Perhaps a thread in the open talk area might be more deserving of that disturbing dalliance... ;)

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

We've already given him enough free advertising. Let's just agree he's not worth talking too much about.

2 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (8 months ago)

I'm merely interested: can anyone tell me why Ken Rockwell is a punching bag? I was basing some purchases on Nikkor AIS glass on his reviews, but if he's untrustworthy, please let me know why. I mean, his photos are terrible, but that's a given for photo "experts" (e.g. getting paid for knowledge not for skill). I don't expect to go to the true artists for technical advice: they're too interested making art to do that primary research. Still, I do want someone technical to tell me how sharp a lens is, etc.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

I don't think you want anyone to tell you how sharp a lens is, because what matters is your own opinion. Go somewhere that shows actual test images from lenses and compare. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ or DxO, not to mention DPR, have actual test results (pay no attention to DxO scoring of cameras or sensors because it's total nonsense, but they do very comprehensive lens tests). Ken has made a name for himself by saying things that make some people happy and cause controversy with everyone else. He's an egocentric reductionist whose opinions are the worst kind of condescending oversimplified tripe.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

Well, his basic message is sound, i.e. that composition and color are more important than any of the technical stuff that people here get passionate about.
He's also right that all cameras today are capable of taking amazing pictures. He raves about every new lens that comes out which is OK too because it's hard to buy a bad lens nowadays.
As for his advice about AIS lenses, I have no idea. But you can always cross check his thoughts with Bjorn Rorselett at Nikongear dot com who uses Nikon gear under the most harsh conditions imaginable.
What bugs people about Ken Rockwell is that, as he himself admits, he sometimes stretches the truth to make a joke. The other problem is that he has become seemingly somewhat successful, he has a house in a beautiful part of the US, his kids are cute, and he doesn't seem to worry about what other people think of him.
I think a lot of people hate him because he has achieved a life of which many of us can only dream.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

His message may be comforting but it isn't sound. This isn't an argument discussing absolutes like "1000 degrees is hotter than 100 degrees." What I mean to say is, how do you quantify the importance of an object that is required for an art form to exist? How can you justify the word "more" about something that is an integral part of the art? What's more important: the photographer, the camera, or the subject? None is more important than the other because they are all required. Now whether or not someone is spending more time on one aspect to the detriment of other aspects is a different argument. Still, if enjoying the technological side of an art is required for someone to participate then so be it. They simply aren't going to be great artists, but they can still enjoy the attempt while not necessarily concentrating on refining their skills because that isn't the part they truly enjoy. Argue that they aren't making art, only taking snapshots, all you want.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Cameras of today are much more capable than they used to be. They can even sometimes mask someone's lack of artistic vision or technical ability. As for lenses, it is very easy to buy a bad lens, and that's one thing that, again, is a relative argument presented by him as an absolute. The 75-300 IS I owned years ago was argued by some to be a good lens, but it was so slow and created such blurred images (not strictly at a pixel peeping level) as compared to a lens not much more expensive that it made photography a chore. Even the 17-85 blurred too much detail.
I have no idea what his financial situation is and I certainly don't hate him. I feel sorry for him and those who believe what he says. Congrats to him for being successful, but that doesn't make every opinion he has above reproach. Many successful people say things that make absolutely zero sense and there are plenty of crazy millionaires to prove it. The willingness to take risk often pays off, but opinions are like....

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

There is just as much danger in exaggerating the importance of equipment as there is in exaggerating its lack of importance. There are some aspects of a camera that can make a certain individual less likely to enjoy it or use it. Megapixel war aside, if the sensor is very noisy, the lens isn't fast enough to be useful (in terms of DoF or just getting a proper exposure in low light), the AF system is too slow for the subject, or the final print lacking too much detail then a photographer can quickly become discouraged. Ergonomics, size, lens, sensor, accessories, and even the menus and controls can make someone love using their camera or dread it. The camera certainly is very important.

0 upvotes
Pritzl
By Pritzl (8 months ago)

Acknowledging that some other brand/model is better is akin to acknowledging that you made a mistake and bought the wrong camera. What most fail to realize though is that, for the most part, any differences (in IQ in particular) between similarly positioned systems are usually quite trivial.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

The saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" sums up the fact that everything is relative, especially the term "better." Better how? Better for who? Better why? Better than what?

0 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (8 months ago)

I have to say, having gone back and read the article, I can see why there was a backlash. To present Leica's offerings completely out of context feels like a whitewash. Maybe this is how all NYTimes articles must read to someone who has some expertise in an area, but this fails to acknowledge severe problems with the Leica system, starting with their reliance on ancient technology and inability to improve on a camera they perfected decades ago.

Surely it's the best mechanical photographic tool ever made, but we live in a digital age, and Leica is remotely in last place on this count. While they were busy staying true to their heritage, exchanging film with a sensor (which exponentially degrades in value) and adding an extra 'zero' for the trouble, other brands were innovating with the exciting possibilities digital technology affords. To mention Leica's high ISO performance while failing to mention it is literally in last place among all digital cameras in this area is crazy.

3 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (8 months ago)

The cold, hard truth is that for every hardcore devotee who loves the "Leica experience" there are ten guys with way too much money looking for a status symbol, or just ask for the most expensive, without asking whether it's best for them. They would be much better served by a piece of high tech autofocusing, low light performing mastery of the consumer brands for their artless vacation photos.

3 upvotes
nologo
By nologo (8 months ago)

Leica is hardly in last place in high iso. The Leica M typ 240 is quite competitive here, certainly more than the m9 was.

1 upvote
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (8 months ago)

Who is worse?

0 upvotes
Nerval
By Nerval (8 months ago)

I really don't care for this article... But seriously, the guy is journalist at the NY Times, so maybe he's good at what he's doin, maybe he's got talent, but an article with a few basic technicalities about the system, and then assertions without arguments to back it up, just to tell that "it's right to buy it if you really have skills" (a bit of self enjoyment there...), "that it produces pictures with IQ like nothing else" (I'm almost positive, yet I do acknowledge the benefits of Leica's M RFs made some photographs happen, that using SLR, MF, or some fixed combo would not get you any less quality), and then this "best setup", yeah... No, summilux is probably not always the best choice, it is the most expensive, sure.

AND: Ken Rockwell, as an expert? The guy that confuses WB and screen adjustment settings... God sometimes (frequently?) he's completely off...
I would not bother the guy but I get why some people reacted to the way this piece is written, and it's not so unjustified...

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (8 months ago)

No surprise here, whatever the hobby it might be, any type of hobby, which require years of engaging in the arts and crafts , not to mention the time and effort invested to understand and utilize the technology and techniques. Whatever one, would enlist string feelings. When someone come along, just prop up a very limited time into the affair and basically proclaim they know the better ( and mostly wrong too ) , its inevitable that he/she be rebuked so.

SO he thing Leica is great .. sorry, but from this very old Leica Owner / User here, I must say he's wrong. Leica had a great name, yes, had great lens too, some good camera but not always great ( their last great one being almost 60 years old now ). No I would be the first one to say Leica today is utterly over priced for what it delivers. I can say that with my Leica Standard in my hand and be head high with it.

But Leica is not the holy grail as he puts it. And he deserve the critic placed.

3 upvotes
GeminiH
By GeminiH (8 months ago)

I think that people that use this site are, by the nature of what they do, critical.

People judge their own, and other people's, work according to their own set of filters, or rules. But ultimately no-one has got it right or wrong....thats down to the choices made.

Except for the tone of posted comment, that can be very wrong!

And as it is mostly subjective, disagreements in view crop up. So the voice gets louder, as it were.

Also, are the fellow users here just critics, or would they encourage each other? The competetive streak professionally or not, could play a part.

0 upvotes
TORN
By TORN (8 months ago)

To many people photography is their dearest hobby and they invest time, thought and money accordingly to get the equipment which suits them best.

Now comes Mr. Knowsitall having his very personal and limited view and tells you that there is something essentially wrong with your choice. Should anybody really feel surprised about a heated reaction?

Personally I feel very limited by the Leica approach to photography but who am I to tell Leica owners that they are generally hindered to take the best pictures by not enough features of their tools?

I believe in Socrates filters:

Is it true?
Is it good?
Is it necessary?

Mr. Biltons essay did not pass this test.

PS: Anyhow there is a cheap alternative to a Leica with not too many buttons and features. It even looks a bit like one. It is called Fuji. ;-)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

"Anyhow there is a cheap alternative to a Leica with not too many buttons and features. It even looks a bit like one. It is called Fuji. ;-)"

Don't make that mistake. As a current Leica owner and as of yesterday a former X-Pro1 owner I can tell you the Fuji doesn't even come close to replicating the Leica experience. It may look like a duck and quack like a duck, but it ain't a duck.

0 upvotes
odpisan
By odpisan (8 months ago)

"Every beggar praises his own bag!" always said my grandpa almost a 100 years ago & that is the same situation with new "bag". :o)

2 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (8 months ago)

Quoting Ken Rockwell as an expert probably caused a lot of the harsh feedback as he is very controversial on how he does his reviews (sometimes of products he hasn't event touched) and the way he SEO optimizes his "reviews" ...

7 upvotes
Gorpgourmet
By Gorpgourmet (8 months ago)

Having purchased Leicas, Nikons and Canons for 60 years, and used them professionally for as long, I know my grandfather is laughing in his grave about similar discussions people are having about hammers and chisels. Or cello players. It's a bleeping job, guys, and yes, it's nice to heft and use a fine tool. But much beyond that you're fodder for blogs and giving your therapist more goodies for HIS Porsche 911. My two Leica M2R's cost $179 a bod. My friend's Martin cost $630. They're both selling for absurd amounts of money today. Yet I went on to make a lucrative income using the lowly OM-1 and Kodachrome. Beauty is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder but so is practicality. Hand me that Mamiya C2 over there, will you?

2 upvotes
IvanM
By IvanM (8 months ago)

I asked the question a while ago on the Leica forum. This was the only answer that made sense!

'Journal of Consumer Psychology Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2012.

We argue that consumers with high self-brand connections (SBC) respond to negative brand information as they do to personal failure — they experience a threat to their positive self-view. After viewing negative brand information, high (vs. low) SBC consumers reported lower state self-esteem. Consumers with high SBC also maintained favorable brand evaluations despite negative brand information. However, when they completed an unrelated self-affirmation task, they lowered their brand evaluations the same as low SBC consumers. This finding suggests that high SBC consumers' reluctance to lower brand evaluation might be driven by a motivation to protect the self rather than the brand.'

Here is the link to my question and the response...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/267551-why.html

2 upvotes
edbowman
By edbowman (8 months ago)

Photography is really about seeing and imagination. The Leica and its myriad hugely expensive lenses becomes what Freud called a fetish, a turning away from the real activity which the photographer may not be able to do and instead turning away from making images and in its place into investing it in his beautiful mint camera and buying lots expensive lenses and gadgets and playing with it all instead of concentrating on making images.. There are s many good cameras that will do the job at a fraction of the price of a Leica.

1 upvote
Stanchung
By Stanchung (8 months ago)

That's the thing- you don't do the job with a Leica. It's not a work horse.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

@edbowman: Why do you think that everyone who uses a Leica is some rich guy that is collecting gear? I own a Leica and 4 lenses and my camera is far from beautiful and mint. The Leica allows me to concentrate MORE and making images. There's no blaming the lens or the AF when you miss a shot. No gear crutch.

@Stanchung: How do you figure "you don't do the job with a Leica. It's not a work horse."
I recently covered the Bonnaroo Music and Art Festival for Veri.Live Magazine and shot more than 30 bands in 3 days. My Leica was covered in dust, dirt and sweat when I was done.
I was recently hired by the AT&T Center to photograph a championship boxing match for the venue. Have you ever shot a boxing match manually focusing using an f/1.4 lens? It takes more skill than spray and pray shooting. I walked out of the venue with blood and sweat on my front lens element.

This isn't about brand loyalty. It's just truth. Leica CAN be a workhorse. It's up to the photographer not the camera.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

You can see some of the photos here:
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjHwj4UW

and here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.620005688031380.1073741828.185800121451941&type=1

0 upvotes
timo
By timo (8 months ago)

Leaving aside any factual inaccuracies, the article was uncritical and unconvincing. Whatever arguments there may be for spending money on a Leica, they weren't clearly stated here. Anybody could have written it after a couple of hours of research, gathering second-hand guff off the internet.

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

I don't think accuracy matters to NYT any more than to DPR. Views matter; eyeballs that are quantifiable for advertising purposes. What the article says only matters to the extent that it can generate views. Controversy, be it due to inaccuracies or otherwise, only helps generate more views.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Oh look fantastic, there are links below the "article" so we can buy photo gear mentioned in the text. That's great. Let me guess: nobody at DPR actually cares about the responses as long as hits are generated, right?

0 upvotes
vFunct
By vFunct (8 months ago)

I didn't know this site was supposed to be a non-profit?

Guess we learn something new every day.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

It doesn't sound like you understand what a non-profit is.

Please do click through to the sales pages though, cheers.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Some people believe that the only source of journalistic integrity is altruism. If that's the measure then you can't believe a word you read. I think there's a saying about believing what you read. Oddly enough, the only non-profit journalists are Facebookers and bloggers, and we know how useful their posts are.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
tex
By tex (8 months ago)

I've come to the conclusion that a high (higher than the general populace) percentage of "photo enthusiasts" are on the autism spectrum, probably Asperger's, and this accounts in large part for the intensity. I'm not being facetious.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

One of the people mentioned by the Times has posted enough pictures of himself to reveal what I suspect is an unusual phenotype. It'd be interesting -- but only mildly -- to get some sort of assessment of the number of loci across which he is homozygous.

I stopped reading his drivel because I could not tell if they were products of prescriptions or results of missed doses.

2 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (8 months ago)

tex, you may be quite right. I have Asperger's and at a quite a high level. That may explain a thing or two. I am absolutely intense about photography. I like making pictures too. I can't explain it. It's quite easy when the photographic media are obviously obsessed with sharpness, resolution, digital, oh! and all those tech specs. In my case its the Coxtax RTS system, Carl Zeiss lenses, Hasselblad and the hordes of other film and digital cameras that I have had over the years.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

No comment. ;)

0 upvotes
Funduro
By Funduro (8 months ago)

I'm a Nikon fanboi, you Leica camera owners, well you're alright. Happy shooting.

5 upvotes
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (8 months ago)

The article itself was entirely off the point...first of all, Mr. Bilton's choice of a photo is completely not what a Leica is designed to do. Rangefinders are designed to be fast, light, for the streets and documentary-style shooting, not fancy night exposures around train tracks.
Then he proceeded to list the single most expensive Leica m setup possible...I can get a 40mm summicron and an m4p for $1200, and it's as nice as a setup can be. You don't need a Noctilux or Summilux to be a Leica user.
Of course there is also Ken Rockwell. The absolute worst option to go to, of all people who shoot with Leica bodies today.
He also made several technical mistakes, which would not have happened should he took several minutes to read a few Wiki articles.

3 upvotes
ChristophBarthold
By ChristophBarthold (8 months ago)

-quote
Mr. Bilton's choice of a photo is completely not what a Leica is designed to do...
-unquote

And yet he succeeds. I guess that's what happens when a good photographer grabs a good camera. Get over it.

1 upvote
pavi1
By pavi1 (8 months ago)

Beautiful cameras, great lenses. When I win power ball I will buy one of each. But lets be real, a Leica is a lot like buying a 200 hp Ferrari.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

If I win the Powerball I'll not take another picture in my life.

If one of those silly German lenses gets ultra-rare, I might buy it and recycle it for its weight in metal, provided I get to see the look on the faces if the poseurs and wannabes that typically collect that stuff.

What's a little money if one doesn't have fun? Life's too short.

1 upvote
meland
By meland (8 months ago)

A Ferrari with only 200hp would probably be in dire need of workshop attention.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

No.

The Ferrari 208 used a 2,0l 8 cyl motor with a similar output.

Was it a good car? No more so than Leica us a good camera.

With Leica, it's not just the subject posing; it's also the photographer posing.

1 upvote
BrianFL
By BrianFL (8 months ago)

Passionate, or shills with an agenda promoting a brand or their website? It's everywhere, like an infomercial. Happened to me last week on this site by either a shill or just plain mental case, and I didn't even say anything controversial. I was accused of everything in the book and I'm thinking huh, what the H are you talking about? Photography has no entry barrier so it's like the guy who thinks he's an athlete because he can holler louder while watching sports at a bar. I guess it's easier to claim greatness vs being great. Those who are so passionate about a product and receive nothing in compensation, foolish, companies don't care about you that much. I hate when any company emblazons their product with their name boldly to be be seen by others. I didn't pay to promote your product, I guess some think they are impressing with their brand stamped in big letters. They should add PRO in big letters on the neck strap and they'd sell even more to those impressed by such images.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

Maybe people in the US are so passionate about cameras because they look around and realize they have nothing else...The see a government run by moral cowards whose only goal is to destroy the other party regardless of the devastation it inflicts on the actual public; their banks are run by thieves who reap fortunes by selling worthless paper and never face a minute in jail; their clergy, when not excoriating the poor and downtrodden or preying on altar boys, preach a message whose main point is "hate thy neighbor unless he is exactly like thyself"; and finally, they work for Dickensian plutocrats who take glee in squeezing every drop of life and joy from their employees while paying them less and less each year in inflation adjusted terms.

Mr. Bilton is lucky he escaped with just a scolding, it could have been so much worse...

7 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Somebody needs a hug.

13 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

Darn right, all Americans need a hug because we've put up with this baloney too darn long. It's all been downhill since the Johnson administration.

8 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

LOL Have you ever been out of this country? Thank your lucky stars you don't live somewhere else because most other places on this planet suck worse than America. Sounds like you're retired and have nothing better to do now than watch Fox News and be angry about the world not being like it was when you were 13.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

So, if some is being abused, much worse than us, then our suffering is OK, is it? Logic check. Abuse is, as abuse does.

5 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

I don't think Americans have turned to photography for solace -- though that's not to say they're not sufficiently self-absorbed.

I believe they are instead eating themselves to death.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Irony of ironies. The human body is designed to work in an environment of feast and famine, always craving calorie dense foods high in fats and sugars during times of plenty so the stores of fat created can be burned off when there's nothing to eat. So when a society becomes sufficiently advanced and rich they create an environment of constant feast, which the body has no adaptations for causing premature death. That means those with adaptations that keep them from excessive intake or excessive body fat accumulations should eventually win out....and as soon as there is a famine they will all die.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

All this talk of food is making me hungry...

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

And these pretzels are making me thirsty.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (8 months ago)

I wonder if anybody read the NYT article. It sounds more like an infomercial to me. I would be equally suspicious if it were about Canon or Nikon. Ironically, the most informative part are the KR quotes.

9 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

Journalism is becoming a little too blog-like these days. This article was probably just a filler piece, and it got more attention than it had any right to get. Win for the paper.

3 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

IMHO, the only people who hate Leica-M system, either those who never tried it, or those who can't afford it.

I've tried it a while ago and immediately regretted I did, because once you try it you hooked. And I'm not saying that its better than D800 or 5DIII or others, its just like nice swiss watch that also takes amazing pictures, easy to handle, pleasure to focus and stylish as well.

Leica-M is the system that actually can improve your photos, not because it has best sensor, or low ISO, but because you want to take it out and try to improve your skills.
(Ricoh GR, and Oly m4/3 has similar effect on me)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

This is absolutely true.

I hardly ever use my DSLRs since I got my Leica. The experience is much more gratifying than using a DSLR.

And honestly, you don't need to be rich to afford one. You can get a used M8 and a fast Voigtländer lens for less than the cost of a D800. Sure it's not full-frame, and it's not great at high ISOs, but if you know how to use it you can still make killer images.

3 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (8 months ago)

I've tried it. Bought an M9, a 50mm and 35mm Summiluxes. Lenses were simply breathtaking, camera - not so much. Once Sony releases the long rumored full frame NEX, I might buy the 35mm 'Lux again. Until then, they can keep their gear to themselves, and I'll keep using my D800E and NEX 7. They are both _from the future_ compared to M9.

3 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (8 months ago)

If you feel that way you owe it to yourself to shoot an RX1. I can't put mine down.

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

@DFPanno,
I know its excellent camera, I tried RX-1 in store once, well who am I kidding, more than once. I love it, but I will never buy it, because it has fixed lens. I have way too many lenses that can be used on Leica-M or Mirrorless bodies, so I can't justify this camera. (I'd also rather prefer either 28/2.8 for light street camera)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (8 months ago)

> I've tried it a while ago and immediately regretted I did, because once you try it you hooked.

Not if you have an astigmatism. Their focusing indicators will drive you crazy. I love simple manual focus cameras, but rangefinders I can't focus.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

@DFPanno: I'm not a fan of the RX-1 either. The fixed lens is an issue for me too which is why I never got an X100/s. That and I can't abide shooting using the monitor as a viewfinder unless I'm in the studio. EVF add-ons are also out of the question for me personally. I hate them.

0 upvotes
Navmark77
By Navmark77 (8 months ago)

The battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low.

2 upvotes
liquid stereo
By liquid stereo (8 months ago)

camera enthusiasts... never before has so many people argued so strongly about so little.

as alan said, they're r'tards.

1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (8 months ago)

Less is sometimes more. I agree with him about that. And he takes good pics.. even in BW. :)

0 upvotes
Nathaniel George Weir
By Nathaniel George Weir (8 months ago)

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and if you don't agree with me, then check out SLRGear.com and the Digital Picture's "ISO crops" and then compare Canon and Nikon glass. You shall see that Canon lenses are consistently sharper and have less CA.

1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (8 months ago)

Leica and Zeiss make better lens than anyone else. :D

2 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (8 months ago)

Sharpness and CA are boring. They are only fixated on as the most important aspects of lens design because they are so easily measured, and the techie population which makes up the core audience of online photo sites gravitates to "serious" and "scientific" reviews based around measurable numbers — never mind that aspects which are not so easily measured are often more interesting and more important.

5 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (8 months ago)

Let us call them "engineering" reviews. Real scientists do not do such reviews.

0 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (8 months ago)

Nathaniel, erm, is it because Canon sharpens their pictures a lot more?
Before digital Leica and Zeiss were legendary but suddenly Canon is up there?

Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare cameras and you'll see why Canon looks sharper. It's in camera sharpening BS.

5D3 vs D600. Halo's anyone? Isn't that like unsharp mask in PS?
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5533/9451777073_cbb58233e7_o.jpg

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vetteran
By Vetteran (8 months ago)

I read the article..so what? What's the big deal?

1 upvote
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (8 months ago)

Exactly. It was no big deal, yet he got an outraged response from all manner of fans.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (8 months ago)

Camera nuts are ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that this piece was written for "regular folks".

I read this, laughed at the little inconsistencies, and moved on. I sure would like to see some of the responses he got.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (8 months ago)

DPR should know all about outraged responses from from fans.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (8 months ago)

He may not have deserved outrage, but he kind of deserved complete dismissal. It was a poorly thought out article using really poor sources of information. He should have simply been ignored.

0 upvotes
Dtoomy
By Dtoomy (8 months ago)

Passionate is not the word you are looking for here, more like lunatics...

4 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (8 months ago)

But, do they have new Lunar?

0 upvotes
chiumeister
By chiumeister (8 months ago)

Make fun of his wife, but steer clear of his cameras.

2 upvotes
nnowak
By nnowak (8 months ago)

It's quite simple really... Canon makes the best cameras. Approximately one third of the population understand this, but are infuriated with the masses who haven't yet realized this fact. The remaining two thirds of the population are bitter and angry for wasting money on alternate, inferior brands.

2 upvotes
Stealthy Ninja
By Stealthy Ninja (8 months ago)

Trololol

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (8 months ago)

I like my Nikon gear but would be just as happy with Canon I'm sure. Am positive I would love a Leica as I grew up with MF and manual exposure, simplicity is a good way to take photo's and I dig image quality which is why I had a Contax, which I keep on my desk as a paperweight.

Quite why some people get so aggressively nerdy is beyond me, an unconscious fear for having made the wrong buying decision maybe? We could blame the media for this as the amount of ways of measuring aspects of camera performance gives people so much more to worry about instead of common sense things like - does it have a good supporting system of lenses, flashguns etc?

And manufacturers are always muddying the waters with CSC's or "bridge" cameras. LOL a bridge between a compact and an SLR! Can't believe anyone fell for that!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BobYIL
By BobYIL (8 months ago)

Go to Photozone site and see how much the Summicron 35/2 Asph. is better than the lowly Sigma 35/1.4.. ;-)

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (8 months ago)

You have done that?

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (8 months ago)

I saw entirely average results.

0 upvotes
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (8 months ago)

Slightly better in terms of IQ, worlds better in terms of size, weight and handling.

You don't make an all-metal 35mm prime with a 39mm filter thread and only 200 grams in weight and sell it cheap. The very fact that Leica is the only people who can consistently design fast primes in compact packages (39mm,46mm,55mm threads)shows their skill.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 168
12