intruder61
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,064
- Reaction score
- 488
lol... but your wrong, my son is 23 and loves his 8.2 and two zeiss lenses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What age group buy Leica cameras?
- Thread starter plasnu
- Start date
I have seen 25 year olds in New York with film Leicas. In China, it is not unusual to see young women with their Leicas and I wouldn't dismiss them as owning a Leica for fashion. A lot of them are quite passionate about photography.
BEST answer!
Bought my first leica in my early 30s. Loved the camera but got tired of developing/scanning film and picked up an m9 a few years later. I'm dumping it for a Monochrom now, but that's a different matter.
Anyway, I use Nikon and fuji for work (yes, fuji), and rarely the leica. I'm often shooting in areas where replacement cost is a factor and risking the leica is just not worth it. I have used it for documentary shooting OP, and it's fine there, but less fine than the d700.
My circle of photog friends and colleagues includes several leica shooters, but no dentists, retired engineers, mustachioed pencil jean wearers or socks and sandals types.
If you can't afford at this time to go head first in to the M system, than don't. There's a camera system out there for every budget. Honestly, the camera is the least important aspect of making a great photo. Never has a great photo been criticized as having been shot by an inferior camera.
Anyway, I use Nikon and fuji for work (yes, fuji), and rarely the leica. I'm often shooting in areas where replacement cost is a factor and risking the leica is just not worth it. I have used it for documentary shooting OP, and it's fine there, but less fine than the d700.
My circle of photog friends and colleagues includes several leica shooters, but no dentists, retired engineers, mustachioed pencil jean wearers or socks and sandals types.
If you can't afford at this time to go head first in to the M system, than don't. There's a camera system out there for every budget. Honestly, the camera is the least important aspect of making a great photo. Never has a great photo been criticized as having been shot by an inferior camera.
Thank you for the words of wisdom! Your response actually answers a lot of threads including ones complaining about the high prices of the newest Leica offerings.
26 years old.
Already tired of this crazy Life: faster and faster and faster, buy more and buy more and by more, more pixels, more isos, more more more everything, more sharpness, more FPS, for features, ...
I take my M, set my aperture slowly, set my speed dial slowly, frame slowly, focus slowly, clic...what a breeze...
PS: I don't have a TV, I don't have a car, I'm setting up my own business now...what a breeze again.
Already tired of this crazy Life: faster and faster and faster, buy more and buy more and by more, more pixels, more isos, more more more everything, more sharpness, more FPS, for features, ...
I take my M, set my aperture slowly, set my speed dial slowly, frame slowly, focus slowly, clic...what a breeze...
PS: I don't have a TV, I don't have a car, I'm setting up my own business now...what a breeze again.
I bought my first Leica, actually a "Leitz-Minolta CL" at 24 after learning on a Kodak Retina IIIC. The 40 Rokkor and 90 Elmar delivered excellent results on Kodachrome 25 and 64. This gear was stolen in 1982 and two years I subsequently purchased a IIIF RDST with 50 Summarit. This was and is a great camerabut like others have noted I grew concerned about replacement if something were to happen. Two years ago at 55 I purchased an M5 which I love.
Anachronistic / "obsolete" technology doesn't bother me. I have, use and treasure mechanical wristwatches, vacuum tube audio equipment, 19th century pendulum clocks, and Porsches with their engines in, ahem, the "wrong" places!
Maybe when the development curve of high quality digital cameras, Leica or otherwise, flattens out a bit, I'll make an investment.
Anachronistic / "obsolete" technology doesn't bother me. I have, use and treasure mechanical wristwatches, vacuum tube audio equipment, 19th century pendulum clocks, and Porsches with their engines in, ahem, the "wrong" places!
Maybe when the development curve of high quality digital cameras, Leica or otherwise, flattens out a bit, I'll make an investment.
lol, c'mon and you're not a fanatic with your crusade....and again, learn at least to spell the brand names....
ayewing
Leading Member
I bought my first Leica when I was in my thirties. It was a second hand M2 and quite expensive as I had a wife and four children to support. I used it for over thirty years without any need to upgrade as the newer Leicas did not take any better pictures though they were perhaps easier to use. I did of course use other cameras as well mainly a Praktica film SLR.
With the advent of the digital age I sold my M2 and Leica lenses with some regret in favour of Pentax DSLRs. I still use a Pentax K-5. However last year nostalgia got the better of me and I bought a M9, my first new Leica and it is good to use a rangefinder again. It is satisfying to use a camera that depends on the users knowledge and skill to produce an accurately exposed and well focused image rather than leaving it all to the machine. The greatest benefit is to be able to accurately focus on the object you want rather than the random choice of the AF electronics.
I still use my Pentax K-5 when it is more appropriate, e.g. with longer telephoto or macro work or when really high ISO is necessary.
It is true that for most of us it is only financially possible to buy a new Leica and lenses when one is well advanced professionally and probably when domestic commitments have eased in middle age or older.
With the advent of the digital age I sold my M2 and Leica lenses with some regret in favour of Pentax DSLRs. I still use a Pentax K-5. However last year nostalgia got the better of me and I bought a M9, my first new Leica and it is good to use a rangefinder again. It is satisfying to use a camera that depends on the users knowledge and skill to produce an accurately exposed and well focused image rather than leaving it all to the machine. The greatest benefit is to be able to accurately focus on the object you want rather than the random choice of the AF electronics.
I still use my Pentax K-5 when it is more appropriate, e.g. with longer telephoto or macro work or when really high ISO is necessary.
It is true that for most of us it is only financially possible to buy a new Leica and lenses when one is well advanced professionally and probably when domestic commitments have eased in middle age or older.
I got my M9P when I could afford it, a year ago at age 57. I started as 10 years old with a post-WWII 120mm Kodak box, then a Kodak 35mm, Nikkormat, Nikon F - all B/W and dark room of course; then a range of compact film until a Fuiji digital in 1999, back to compacts for a number of years Minolta being favored, then Nikon D300, D3, D3s. The D3s a wonderful instrument but and intimidation so great here in Asia that useless. People run away. After close to being beaten up by beach punks in Los Angeles I was to give it all up an only rely my iPhone. I had no thought for rangefinders.
A comment by a friend about Leica made me study this strange old-fashioned animal. 12 months of contemplating the madness and it was done when the M9P was announced. Rich? Not at all, but old enough to be debt free and disciplined to save up so eventually could afford. A photographer daughter drools for it but she can only afford the Fuiji x100 and is happy with that, my industrial designer son drools over it and he can only afford a compact Cannon and is happy with that - for now.
What is my point? To group people into stereotypes is not only very silly but extremely dangerous. Leica users are as different as everybody else. That said, money comes into play of course thus a demographic profile as 'older and wiser' could come into play. But stereotyping and "Them vs. Us" is as unintelligent as in when used in politics. We are all individuals with ever so different desires and motives as far as photography and equipment goes. Respect that and lets focus on that as we have No Agenda other than that
A comment by a friend about Leica made me study this strange old-fashioned animal. 12 months of contemplating the madness and it was done when the M9P was announced. Rich? Not at all, but old enough to be debt free and disciplined to save up so eventually could afford. A photographer daughter drools for it but she can only afford the Fuiji x100 and is happy with that, my industrial designer son drools over it and he can only afford a compact Cannon and is happy with that - for now.
What is my point? To group people into stereotypes is not only very silly but extremely dangerous. Leica users are as different as everybody else. That said, money comes into play of course thus a demographic profile as 'older and wiser' could come into play. But stereotyping and "Them vs. Us" is as unintelligent as in when used in politics. We are all individuals with ever so different desires and motives as far as photography and equipment goes. Respect that and lets focus on that as we have No Agenda other than that
Eric Boe
Leading Member
I started with an M3, another M3, then both sold to fund a new M6, all at age 22. I picked up a 50, a 90, a 135, and another 50, all used. All great tools, but I was caught up by the autofocus age and traded the M6 and lenses for an F4E and a quiver of lenses around 3 years later.
Flash forward to age 35. I picked up an M6 and a 50/2, used, then a 50/1 new to have the best low-light kit. A new M7 followed the year thereafter, and a bunch more lenses and bodies since then. Hopefully life will let me keep an M from now on, but I realize now that it is optional when compared with things that truly matter.
Oh, and never underestimate the results to be had by a $79 Olympus Stylus Epic in the hands of the right photographer. Rangefinder street photography is 99% attitude, 1% capability of the gear.
Flash forward to age 35. I picked up an M6 and a 50/2, used, then a 50/1 new to have the best low-light kit. A new M7 followed the year thereafter, and a bunch more lenses and bodies since then. Hopefully life will let me keep an M from now on, but I realize now that it is optional when compared with things that truly matter.
Oh, and never underestimate the results to be had by a $79 Olympus Stylus Epic in the hands of the right photographer. Rangefinder street photography is 99% attitude, 1% capability of the gear.
jedinstvo
Senior Member
I got a used M3 with 50 Summicron in 1964. A Nikon F would have cost more. I already had a Canon FX, which in retrospect was a great camera. I still use the M3, but I've updated the 50 to an Anniversary model. Leicas used to be cameras for working photographers, but I don't personally know a single pro who uses one as his main camera. Tony Suau still shoots a lot with Leicas. But he uses Canon mostly. I once got seriously booed off the Leica forum for saying a Leica is what you wear around your neck when you accept an award for photos you shot with your EOS. Mostly Leicas these days are for rich guys who like gadgets.
Bokeh Bill
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Stanley Kubrick owned several Leicas. The master of lighting for film knew a bit about what works best.
boarderphreak
Senior Member
I know plenty of people that use Leica professionally. Weddings, street, product, landscape, etc.
I am guessing older with more discretional income but I am often wrong and I know several twenties something with Leicas. I got my first Leica when I was sixteen a three g with the fifty mm bright line finder in its shoe and a summitar screwed into the breach. my next was a 3f red dial selftimer with a fifty cron which got in trade from my brother for my Nikon sp. The rest as they say is history
JDLaing
Veteran Member
And me for documentation and forensics. Weddings ain't the only business In town.
Michael Everett
Senior Member
I wonder how many people got hooked on Leica in the film days, and continue now because of that experience. IMO that was Leica at its peak, the best that was out there. With the digital revolution Leica has all sorts of competition, and I'm not sure Leica has kept up with what other brands offer. I know the smaller-than-DSLR-FF rangefinder is unique, but now are there other choices that will offer equal IQ and comparable although different ergonomics. To me the real question is what is the future of Leica? Not economically, because the company is doing fine, but are they going to be passed by?
Michael
Michael
Yep, the rich age group!
dale thorn
Senior Member
For all practical purposes Leica was passed by 60 years ago by Nikon's success in SLR's. Leica suffered another roadblock to success with their expensive rangefinders in the early years of digital, since it would not have been reasonable to sell expensive rangefinders to a customer base who expect the camera to have lasting value, when in that early period the sensors weren't the lasting-value type. That Leica created the M8 at the right time and then introduced 3 class leading cameras at once on 9/9/09 is a testament to both the customers' confidence in Leica as well as Leica's ability to deliver a very serious product to that customer base at the right time.
I can't prophesy what Leica will do ultimately, but the more credible leaks and rumors suggest a very exciting time ahead for their customers, old and new.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum