You know.. I've been trying to figure out WHY there is such a "mystique" around a camera based in 1950's technology. I've shot an M6 with a 50mm Summicron f2 - results in low light were nice - images were sharp but it wasn't a religious experience by any means.
Comparing the images to my Contax G2 with the 45mm Zeiss Planar f2.0 (and now to the Pentax K1000 and 50mm SMC-M f1.4) - the images are about the same between the Contax and the Leica and those from the Pentax are only a fraction less "razor sharp" (as some Leica-philes would say). So I'm still behooved to understand the mystique. I think a lot of it has to do with the psychology of the buyer. To explain, let me digress with this anecdote: About 6 to 7 years ago; I started my own part time business consulting/designing/programming/writing web sites. "Pretty basic" I thought; after reading through a number of books and magazine on the wonders of the then "new" HTML. Knowing a bit of photoshop etc. helped as well. I deemed the skills I had no more than those of an educated chimp because it all seemed so simple to me. Yet, when I did my negotiations with a local ISP for one business they asked me "Who's designing the site ?" When I responded that I was they asked "How much are you charging ?". I told them my fees were going to be a meager $25-30/hour, which, I felt, was still too much for the general scripting that was to be done. I was caught off guard when the ISP said "You CAN'T charge that !! You have to charge at LEAST $65/hour because we charge $100/hour to design/layout in HTML". I couldn't comprehend it but they explained that it had to do with the fact that the public was willing to pay that much and as such deemed the work to be worthy of that amount even if it was simple and uncomplex. The public in turn, paying the agredious fee, would think they got top notch quality work which there's no way in he11 they could have done on their own. I think it's the same thing, in a way, with Leica cameras and their owners. They feel that they MUST have something that only the best professional photographers own because they paid so much for their equipment. Does this make them better photographers ? not necessarily. Does this make them more experienced photographers ? not necessarily (and sometimes even less so because many may fear to USE the camera due to the potential for damaging a collectors piece). The Leica M series (I can't speak to the R's or p&s ones as I've had no experience with them) are definitely good solid cameras. The TTL metering of the M6 (and M7 now) seems to be an interesting and almost perfect way of attaining just the right exposure in low light. The lenses are sharp, no two ways about it. Does this mean that everyone else is using toy cameras if they're not using Leica's ? Hardly; but it usually does mean that those who don't own Leica equipment can usually afford to own a complete camera without taking out a second mortgage :) My 2 cents FWIW Cheers, Dave Original Message: ----------------- From: Nitin Garg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:54:44 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Are We Merely Mortal? On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Comment found on the Leica list: > > > But the Hasselblad, like the Leica, > > uses its glass to give a transcendent glow, > > a luminous quality that is not to be > > found in other cameras meant for mere mortals. > > Is The Brotherhood comprised of mortals? Try arranging a shooting contest and see who are mortals :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
