[LRflex] Re: more DMR...
- From: rvbayexplorer@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:02:17 +0000
I don?t usually put my 2 cents in but there?s been so much discussion that I
can?t resist so here?s my view.
I?ll start with: I have an R3 and other non digital cameras as well as
digitals, and among many other lenses several Leica lenses. All of the Leica
lenses are very, very good. In fact arguably the R lenses may be the best of
the bunch under the right circumstances (when AF is not absolutely essential
recognizing that it too fails on occasion)??? although I?ve also got some fine
Canon L glass and some MF Nikon lenses as well as a 50mm Contax MF all of which
are also great. In fact (I can hear the snickers now) even a Vivitar that I use
a lot. In any event I really don?t use the film camera anymore. Too much
trouble??refrigerated film?. time lag from take to view??processing expense ?.
and for me likely because of my lack of skill?.uncertainty as to the final
product because someone blinked, moved or I otherwise screwed up. I now pretty
much rely on a Canon 1Ds Mk II. But I can still MF the old glass with it and
when I get some Focus Confirmation adapters so much the better.
I guess I?m lucky that I?m somewhat anonymous when I make the statement that
seems patently obvious to me that the film business is really dead as Kelsey?s
**** and that computer/electronic technology has become and will become to an
even greater extent it?s successor. Film only survives for very specialized
purposes (not the least of which involves archiving that no electronic media
will ever supplant) or for geezers who can?t get over it.
When I read the Leica arguments particularly those propounding the VERY Long
Term reliability of a Leica camera body (as opposed to the glass) and the
resultant high cost of the cameras, an opposing view comes to mind. I?ve been a
Mac user since 1985 and since that time I?ve had many Macs?maybe 15 or more of
them. Long ago I realized that upgrading wasn?t economical and although it
seemed crazy, I?d dump a perfectly operational computer that maybe could last
for a decade more and buy the new model. Because the new stuff was just better!
Faster, more capable, better software, better OS and regardless of their
durability the old models in many cases simply couldn?t use either the new OS
or software. Well like it or not digital cameras are computers and C/F and all
the P&S makers have it right. They build computers that will become obsolete in
a relatively short time. These little machines don?t have a built in
obsolescence they simply become obsolete as technology improves. My
experi
ence with Canon at least is that the old cameras don?t readily break (like my
EOS 620) they just become outclassed. My old Canon EOS D60 that cost me $2,700
now can be had for about 90% less! What?s the point of a fabulous, bullet proof
Nikon F (which I also have) or a Leica R6.2 that may last forever when it?s
only purpose may be a lovely paperweight? I think the idea of building the DMR
was just wrong and I really don?t understand the idea of Leica?s trying to
maintain film capability with their camera rather than just putting their money
and effort into building a new one from scratch. Kodak hung on to film ?till
they practically ran the company into the toilet before figuring out that they
could no longer rely on an outdated technology and their reputation.
I think Leica?s got real trouble trying to play catch-up with the Japanese when
they?ve been following an outdated business model for years, relying on a
reputation, their glass and a ?Leica Faithful? to stay in business. Who knows
what the formula for success is but except for the point and shoot business
there really are only two 35mm companies left?.and Nikon?s running like hell to
keep up.
Should Leica's business be exclusively building lenses for other bodies and for
those who really really want to pay for the best glass?
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Steve Barbour <kididdoc@xxxxxxx>
>
> On May 13, 2007, at 5:41 AM, Doug Herr wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 2007, at 4:45 AM, KEITH LONGMORE wrote:
> >
> >> The DMR is an excellent example. Expensive, supposedly the best,
> >> Leica
> >> name (but arguably not Leica 'made') ...... and faulty.
> >
> > Faulty in what way?
> >
> >> The DMR has
> >> clearly tarnished Leica in many eyes (David, for example...? ;-)
> >
> > The DMR isn't the problem. Leica's customer service is the problem
> > in this case.
> >>
> >> If it performed to customer expectations in every way, it would
> >> have a band of
> >> ecstatic owners, wouldn't it?
> >
> > There is a band of ecstatic owners. There are only 3000 of us so
> > we're not much of a voice on the internet compared to the hundreds of
> > thousands for whom other cameras are good enough.
> >
> >>
> >> Quoting Doug [Sharp] again:
> >>
> >> 'But then again , do customers really want an AF Leica? Isn't it a
> >> definitive characteristic of Leica SLR users that they prefer to
> >> have complete control of the process of photography - focusing, DOF
> >> etc? Maybe just give us reliable focus confirmation. Dyed in the
> >> wool Leica R owners don't "trust" AF anyway , as a rule.'
> >
> > IMHO AF is required for effective marketing. On another list in the
> > last few days several observed that not only is manual focus on the
> > R8/DMR more accurate than AF on the Canon 5D, but also that many of
> > the most experienced photographers using top-of-the-line cameras turn
> > AF off for better results even with action photos.
> >
> > AF's appeal to the inexperienced photographer is obvious, but once
> > the photographer develops some skills and a discerning eye (s)he
> > finds that it's not the panacea it's hyped to be - meanwhile the
> > camera's viewfinder and ease of manual focus is crippled. Even Canon
> > recommends using manual focus where DOF won't cover AF focussing
> > errors, i.e., with large apertures (where Leica lenses excel) and
> > high magnification, such as near minimum focus distance.
> >
> >> How old is the typical R user, Doug? 55? 60? A classic example
> >> of a
> >> shrinking customer base.
> >
> > I don't know what the average R-user's age is, but I'm willing to bet
> > there are more 50- to 60-year-olds now than there were 20 years ago.
>
> your photos and those of David and others show how incredibly fine
> the photos from the DMR can be...
>
> however the important questions remain... price, support, repair,
> firmware, future ?...
>
> don't you ever feel that you are riding a thoroughbred horse who
> can't eat or drink,
>
> and the veterinarians are all dog specialists...
>
> Steve
>
>
> >
> > Doug Herr
> > Birdman of Sacramento
> > http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> >
> >
> > ------
> > Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> > http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
> > Archives are at:
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
