No it's not simply my opinion. It's fact, borne out by lens tests and stuff, plus the modern ML lenses have AF, VR etc, plus better coatings and that.
But why are you 'triggered' if you're comfortable within your own decision making, choices and judgment?
YOU made the comment 'Now, until you have spent a decent period of time using something like a 50mm asph. Summilux or a 35mm Asph. FLE Summilux, I really think you should stop banging on about how Leica lenses offer nothing special'. Those are your own exact words. So; you've already made the assumption that I don't have experience. Even though I'd already mentioned using Leica equipment. You're basically insinuating you have some sort of greater knowledge, even if you're not saying it directly.
I've already mentioned the bit where Hasselblad tried selling a re-cloaked Sony cam. That turned out to be a bit of a faux pas. But there is only one company that self-mythologises its products way beyond anything reasonable, and that's Leica. Their brand identity is all about luxury; it's essentially a luxe brand for Panasonic, sames as how Bugatti is a luxe brand for Volkswagen. Leicas aren't marketed as tools, they're marketed as extensions of one's ego. The level of pretentiousness on their website etc is staggering. They have boutique little shops, in very affluent places across the globe. In London, they are in Mayfair and Knightsbridge, some of the most expensive real estate on Earth. With Leica, photography is a distant second to the actual brand identity. Fashion accessories rather than creative tools.
I really don't. I know some great photographers who use Leicas, and for them, they are the perfect tools. But I also know great photographers who use all sorts of other brands, but the big difference is, that the only ones who bang on about the brand of choice, are Leica owners. That's not to say that ALL Leica owners are like that, perhaps it's just a few. But it's there. Leica is a great company, that does indeed make some fantastic optical and scientific equipment. And it's capitalised on it's brand mythology, to sell expensive fashion accessories to wealthy people. So be it; that's Capitalism.
And to sell very well made optical gear to people who wish to purchase and use it for creative endeavors. While not relevant, I'm not wealthy, for example. I'm fortunate enough to be in an industry that gives me the opportunity to save for what I want to purchase with hard work. Even Apple gear
. But even if I were rolling in cash, the interesting thing about "fashion accessories" is that for the most part, it's only the wearer that cares . Carrying around a Leica is hardly a "chick magnet". 99.9% of people don't notice it at all. You're bothered more about mythology than I am. It's how humans operate. We are not rational apes. We just think we are. And hey, it's that mythology that helps the Leica resale value, which is great.
No; I'm concerned with elitism in all forms of social discourse and activity. Leica's self-mythologising is part of its marketing strategy. Fine. That's Capitalism. But let's see it for what it is.
This is disingenuous. Many work hard for little reward. It's about luck, mostly. So you are wealthy, relative to others. Regardless of how you see yourself. I am 'wealthy', in that I can afford everything I need, and most of what I want. I think that's a pretty good metric, but of course it's always going to be subjective. But what about people who aren't wealthy? I've experienced the other side of the coin, and elitism is a barrier to creativity, that should not exist. I love how the use of smart/camera 'phones has opened up the world of photography, and 'democratised' the medium far more. I now see far more 'good' photographers because of this; people who would not previously have considered themselves photographers of any merit, because they didn't subscribe to photography as a 'hobby' or otherwise. Digital has opened things up far more. It's wonderful. It's less elitist.
Probably a good thing if you're wanting to photograph a poultry farm.
I've personally never known luck to exist, really. There's the privilege, most certainly, of being a highly educated white male who is in software development, a well paying job sector. I've taken advantage of opportunities, most certainly. Not everyone has had those, absolutely. Is it elitist? Perhaps, but that label is usually applied by others, not by one's self. I also know that people work hard for little reward and don't always have opportunities. I don't know what to do about it. Humans aren't egalitarian by nature, really.
I've personally never known luck to exist, really. There's the privilege, most certainly, of being a highly educated white male who is in software development, a well paying job sector. I've taken advantage of opportunities, most certainly. Not everyone has had those, absolutely. Is it elitist? Perhaps, but that label is usually applied by others, not by one's self. I also know that people work hard for little reward and don't always have opportunities. I don't know what to do about it. Humans aren't egalitarian by nature, really.
Personal anecdote: I've come through really, really dark places in my past that almost killed me and had me on the verge of homelessness and through severe depression. Luck maybe was meeting my best friend and partner. Everything else has been extremely hard work and (for sure) opportunity. Creativity comes from a lot of places and I find there are actually very few barriers to it. That's one "truth" (for me) that I've learned.
Phones have indeed increased the number of good photographers.
Is it possible to get any more off topic?
Totally missing the point. I can't be bothered re-explaining it all. Please go back and read what I've actually written, rather than extrapolating the wrong message.
I never expected it to. I never implied it should. So why would you make such a comment?
So, 'luck', then. So it does exist. You've had the 'luck' to be born white and male, you've had the 'luck' to have been blessed with skills that are well remunerated (this in itself is all tied up with elitism; why are some jobs better paid than others, regardless of their actual value to human society?), and the 'luck' to be able to take advantage of opportunities. And you've had the 'luck' to have avoided all sorts of trauma and catastrophe in your life. Denying the (admittedly abstract) concept of 'luck' is straight out of the neoliberal playbook (whether you're aware of that or not). But the bottom line is; you're not where you are simply because of 'hard work'. Let's just get that straight.
Oh very easily. We're where we are in this thread, because someone took umbrage with a comment I made about pretentiousness and brand snobbery. But I'm happy to steer things back on track:
I think my sixteen-year-old daughter thinks my cabinet of lenses and various bodies is less elitist and more a little sad. She's not wrong: I do firmly believe most gear now is "better" than the majority of people who use it. That is, the focus should always be on results: the timing, the composition, the curiosity, the connection.
you are completely ignoring the fact that people have different value systems and needs. nothing to do with elitism or even “better.” it’s too subjective. people buy what is comfortable to them, because if it isn’t comfortable, it sits unused.
I'd just take my 'phone...
Please explain why. I'd really love to hear it.
Did you actually bother reading all of my post?
Lol! I spose if you've spent that much money, you need to believe it's true...
Perhaps you need to get out a bit more then.
WHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUT.
So a camera co designed with Leica is okay, as long as it doesn't have the badge. 🙄