Jeff

Lives in United States IN, United States
Joined on Nov 11, 2000

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Never have been fooled by the Leica brand, it has to me always been overrated as a camera, demonstrated here. Brand names fail to impress, especially when they rip off customers with extortionate prices for below par performance. Leica, Hasselblad still living off their brand names but being caught out by arguably better value / quality flexible systems!

AlanG -- thanks for the story. That was about my memory too. By the late '60's SLR's were taking over the industry. TTL metering was a big deal, especially using long or ultrawide lenses.

The Leica viewfinders had etched lines that would highlight framing for 50, 90, and 135mm lenses (that was the M3, I think the M4 may have gone as wide as 35mm). But the long end wasn't easy to focus, and the frame was pretty small. And of course, the viewfinder was pretty useless with zoom, or with either extremely long or extremely short focal lengths.

Leica was late to the party with SLR's and paid the price.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Never have been fooled by the Leica brand, it has to me always been overrated as a camera, demonstrated here. Brand names fail to impress, especially when they rip off customers with extortionate prices for below par performance. Leica, Hasselblad still living off their brand names but being caught out by arguably better value / quality flexible systems!

digilt -- just found some info. In 1969 the MSRP for an M4 was $309 body only. Another $150 would buy you a lens. A consumer grade Minolta would be about half that. The same camera is about $3,500 today on the used market. Wonder how many of today's camera will hold value for 50 years?

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff: Having cut my teeth (photographically speaking) on Leica in the 1960's, I have an enormous nostalgic attachment to the red dot. The M3, the M4, Summacron 50/2, the Leica enlarger were sweet, sweet gear, and I still use my 40-year-old Leitz tilt-all regularly. Sadly, they lost their way decades ago and turned into a company for collectors and the Netjet set. Their gear is still undeniably beautiful, but performance ... well, not so much (at least by current standards).

Yake ... in terms of camera electronics, before autofocus there was through-the-lens (TTL) metering that started to appear in the 1960's. Ironically, it came out first on the Nikon SPX rangefinder, but the Pentax Spotmatic SLR came out shortly thereafter. The Japanese manufacturers really jumped on the SLR bandwagon to the long-term demise of many American and European brands. Leica tried with its own SLR, but it was feature poor and their manufacturing costs were too high to keep up. In the 70's they turned to Minolta for some technology (the lovely R3 based on the equally lovely XE-7 (which I owned)) and the R4. A double irony is that Leica basically invented auto-focus, but passed it on to Minolta as part of the deal. But by then Leica was no longer price competitive, and Canon and Nikon gradually came to dominate the market at every level.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff: Having cut my teeth (photographically speaking) on Leica in the 1960's, I have an enormous nostalgic attachment to the red dot. The M3, the M4, Summacron 50/2, the Leica enlarger were sweet, sweet gear, and I still use my 40-year-old Leitz tilt-all regularly. Sadly, they lost their way decades ago and turned into a company for collectors and the Netjet set. Their gear is still undeniably beautiful, but performance ... well, not so much (at least by current standards).

You have to realize that, at one time, Leica was not a niche brand. They were in the mainstream, carried by many camera dealers with prices slightly higher than Canon or Nikon, slightly less than Contax or Exacta. They had a well-earned reputation for reliability and optics. But they lost their way when the electronic era came around, and SLR's came into the ascendency. They lost market share, prices went up, and the rest is history.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: I truly do not understand the appeal of Leica cameras. I can kinda understand why some folks might buy their lenses; you may be paying much more, but they’re consistently among the best available. (Although let’s be real, are they *really* better than the best offerings from other brands?) Their cameras though always seem to be significantly *worse* than what other brands offer, while simultaneously being much pricier. They use older tech, lack major features, have wonky UIs, and yet they’re super expensive. What do people see in that?

Leica seems like more of a very expensive lifestyle brand than an actual camera company, sometimes.

This is an old geezer talking ... you had to have been there. Leica earned it's reputation in the hands of great masters of the 20th century ... Capa, Eisenstadt, Khaldei, Smith, Davidson. Compared to everything else, Leica was sleek, quiet, reliable, discrete. SLR's were noisy tanks.

Maybe some of these images ring a bell (all Leica) ... http://www.photographyoffice.com/blog/2014/12/leica-100

I'm not denying current reality, just trying to explain why Leica has (at least) nostalgic appeal to old geezers like me.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Never have been fooled by the Leica brand, it has to me always been overrated as a camera, demonstrated here. Brand names fail to impress, especially when they rip off customers with extortionate prices for below par performance. Leica, Hasselblad still living off their brand names but being caught out by arguably better value / quality flexible systems!

Carl -- 'always been overrated'? With due respect, Hardly. In 1969 an M4 with Summilux 50/1.4 sold for $547. You could get a Nikon F with 1.4 and prism for a little less, but not much less. The difference was night and day ... Nikon a noisy tank of a camera with the undeniable benefit of through the lens focusing, and the Leica a quiet, discrete camera with superb optics. Leica earned every bit of its reputation.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 16:50 UTC

Having cut my teeth (photographically speaking) on Leica in the 1960's, I have an enormous nostalgic attachment to the red dot. The M3, the M4, Summacron 50/2, the Leica enlarger were sweet, sweet gear, and I still use my 40-year-old Leitz tilt-all regularly. Sadly, they lost their way decades ago and turned into a company for collectors and the Netjet set. Their gear is still undeniably beautiful, but performance ... well, not so much (at least by current standards).

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 140th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

princecody: I don’t want to pay for an Adobe subscription or be in the cloud. Any good alternatives? Adobe took away the single download that frustrates me 🙄
#BringBackSingleDownload

princecody ... sure, there are real tradeoffs and issues that come with a cloud subscription model. There are also significant benefits. Among them, I find it more economical to budget $10/month for LR and PS than the old model of a perpetual license plus upgrades. The math is pretty simple. Also having a catalog in the cloud is amazingly useful. That alone is worth $10/mo, imho.

If you like C1, great. I tried it, too, and liked it very much. I can see why someone may prefer that workflow, particularly for studio work. It's not a either/or decision.

Photography has been part of my life for 50+ years, and will continue to be so until I'm pushing up daisies. I've seen it all, and don't really find "well, two youtuber's say ... " a compelling argument. If that's the best you got ...

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: I don’t want to pay for an Adobe subscription or be in the cloud. Any good alternatives? Adobe took away the single download that frustrates me 🙄
#BringBackSingleDownload

$10/month for LR + Photoshop is too much? Guess you preferred to the good old days of $699 for PS + $149 for LR + regular upgrades.

No software is perfect, but after using CC for a while, I'd hate to go back to the old model.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: When LR CC does Merge to Pano and Merge to HDR, and doesn't require uploading all my photos (4TB) to CC, then I'll consider it. Until then, it's a hobbyist app.

My archive is about 1.2TB that goes back a number of years. The way I'm managing via LR Classic CC is to keep that on an external drive with Time Machine (apple) backup to a second external drive. About 1/3 of the archive -- the more recent portion -- is grouped into collections synced to CC making it available for LR CC on all my devices. Works well for me. The key is to use LR CC and LR Classic CC together, which is presumably why both apps are available.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 15:52 UTC
In reply to:

Mais78: I am a long time user of LR (now called "classic"). Is there a good reason to download also LR CC? What does it do that Classic cannot do?

How about providing remote access to your photo library?

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 23:02 UTC

I must be the only person in the DPR-universe who actually likes CC. Saw this post on DPR -- updated my Mac in about 2 minutes flat, checked my phone and tablet which had already auto-updated.

First few attempts with Sensei on some old photos looked very good. Good upgrade.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12