File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, rate this 1-10 on the scale of outrageousness
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Truly truly outrageous.

Check this one out. Special edition in honor of the king of Thailand.
>> Anonymous
On a scale of one to wack, shit is wack.
>> Anonymous
>>140162
Is this fake too?
>> Anonymous
It's a camera made for the Luftwaffe, who apparently had as poor aesthetic taste as the rest of the Nazi state.

What's your point? If it's something against Leica, you ought to know the Leitz family and company were involved in significant resistance and humanitarian activities during those years.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>140164
Hell no. It's a legitimate special run of M6s made by Leica. The camera and the summicron are both gold plated.
>> Anonymous
>>140167

They're both real.

Leica has gotten progressively worse at making commemorative editions of their cameras to gouge rich morons. I remember reading about a "royal danish wedding" model at one point...
>> Anonymous
>>140165
The point is, it's a fucking Zorki C.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>140160
I think that's a Zorki. Leica shutter buttons don't have holes, afaik.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>140169
Listen to this man.
http://www.cameraquest.com/fakerusk.htm
>> Anonymous
>>140170
You're right. Also, the rangefinder on the II/III looks totally different, the focal length on a real Elmar is marked in cm, not mm, etc. Not to mention that the combination of snake skin, gold plating and such amount of Nazi insignia is way too outrageous for wartime Leitz. If it had spelling errors to boot, I'd gladly shell out $80 that guy is asking just for the lulz.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
fake leica is fake

this one is real, and crazy like hell:
http://www.cameraquest.com/kriegsma.htm

"#5 It should not be missed that the 50/1.5 Xenon was a very expensive "super" lens at the time. It was much sought after and difficult to obtain, especially in wartime. It would seem the original camera owner had some money and some influence."
>> Anonymous
>>140160

i seriously want that. not a neo nazi... not antisemitic, i would just really want to have that thing.
>> Anonymous
>>140195
I can give you a link, but it requires commiespeak skills.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
     File :-(, x)
PIMP MY PENTAX

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:11:24 11:30:47Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height298
>> Anonymous
http://cgi.ebay.com/LEITZ-LEICA-I-Mod-A-w-Elmax-FAKE_W0QQitemZ220210032429QQihZ012QQcategoryZ30030QQ
ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>Rare Leica fake!

HAHAHA OH WOW, now even the fakes are rare and expensive. GJ, Leica.
>> Anonymous
>>140203
Oh god, this one makes me squint.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i really need to research world war 2 photography. so many interesting contradictions that i really have no idea about. how did american photographers get their hands on german cameras? how did photographers feel about using them?
>> Anonymous
>>140219
>how did american photographers get their hands on german cameras?
Imported them before the war was declared. Cameras weren't becoming obsolete as quickly as they do now, so a camera made in 1935 was perfectly OK in 1945.

>how did photographers feel about using them?
A camera is a tool. Does it matter where it comes from if it does the job? For example, the
Germans never hesitated using thousands of captured PPSh submachine guns and even gave them an official Wehrmacht designation.
>> Anonymous
looks like a piece of jewelry. better call flava flav
>> Anonymous
This is why I hate Leica. Those cunts. Too busy making collector rubbish for people who will lock these things in a vault rather than real cameras for taking photos. Some of the stories I've heard are insane.

What a waste of engineering and design.
>> Anonymous
>>140265
Protip: Leica is only still in business because of these things. After 95% of people went to SLRs, the rangefinder business took a nosedive and Leica goofed up and switched its excellent Leicaflex SLR series for its mediocre-to-poor R SLR series.

If these things weren't produced, the M's would cost much more, too much even for real photographers that buy Leica. Hence no sales, hence no Leica.

It sucks that Leica has to do this, but the fault lies with photographers who just outright abandoned rangefinders, whoever the numbnut in Solms was that scrapped the Leicaflex, and whoever the numbnut in Solms is now that won't scrap the R and release the mindblowingly amazing lenses for it in the F and K mounts. The only one who can change it now is the last guy. Hopefully now that Leica sacked its president (I think that's who it was) for bullshitting about a 36x24mm sensor digital M, the new guy they get will have some sense.
>> Anonymous
>>140230
http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2006/06/from_leitz_subl.html

Nope.

>>140310
They haven't made one in a while. Collectors' editions were the big thing a couple managements back in the 90's, but that's not the case now IIRC.
>> Anonymous
>>140310
Also, that was the CEO. The owner has now become the CEO temporarily.

This owner bought it from LVMH and all the other shareholders a couple years ago. Management under LVMH was the omg special shiny shit bunch.
>> Anonymous
>>140310
>the fault lies with photographers who just outright abandoned rangefinders

Now this is just bullshit. It's not the photographers' fault that the rangefinders ceased to be competitive in most fields of photography.

>scrap the R and release the mindblowingly amazing lenses for it in the F and K mounts.
It's not such a good idea from a marketing perspective. If Leica releases the lenses in other mounts, they will inevitably be compared to similar top-grade lenses from other manufacturers; since the "mindblowing quality" is mostly a myth, Leica will need to drop the prices an order of magnitude to Zeiss/Voigtlaender level for the lenses to sell.
>> Anonymous
>>140594
>ceased to be competitive
What makes a product succeed in a competitive market? People buying it. Who buys cameras? Photographers. Who whinge for hours about how much they want a Leica M and walk home to their SLR?

>the "mindblowing quality" is mostly a myth
Well, it depends on what you mean by "'mindblowing quality.'" The stuff I've heard some people say about their M or R making better huge enlargement than a Hassy? That's not myth, that's absolute bullshit. The stuff people say about Leica lenses having a unique and usually pleasant family signature? That's 100% true. Lots of other lenses have family signatures, too, but in my opinion and most people's, Leica's is the best. It's a subjective aesthetic judgment, but it seems to be a pretty common one.

And sure, they're insanely overpriced, but that's because it's a small company. CV is not. Leica's products have to cost more to cover their overhead because they sell less. And they sell less because of the price, but slashing costs could (in the short term) seriously fuck up a few yearly statements.

And people with options for that glass do buy Leica lenses, at these prices. Leica R lenses are very popular among professionals who shoot the Canon EOS mount, to which R-mount lenses can be adapted. They can't be adapted to the F-mount and IIRC the K-mount, hence the reason for producing lenses in those mounts, too. Hell, get CV to do the production. That'd cut the price and only piss off a few snobs who already are screwing around with the wacky R9 body.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>140654
I think you've got your cause and your effect backwards there.

The mechanism of a rangefinder is much, much simpler than the mechanism of an SLR. Should've been possible for Leica to make a camera price-competitive with SLRs. They did for a while with the CL, but it was cutting into their high-end M business so they axed it.

One could make the argument that Leica's unwilling to sacrifice their quality, but the presence of the Canon Rebel K2 doesn't affect the quality of the EOS 1Ds III. Leica could have started producing low end M-series cameras and the collectors and people who are willing to pay for quality (or just dumbasses who buy the most expensive camera they can find) would keep buying the high-end Ms.

Leica quality has gone downhill because they had to lower costs to stay in business, much less competitive. If they had a revenue stream from cheap low-end Rebel-quality Leicas, they wouldn't be cost-cutting at the high end like they do now.
>> Anonymous
>>140659

Truth.

Leica dropped the ball.
>> Anonymous
>>140654
>Who whinge for hours about how much they want a Leica M and walk home to their SLR?

Nowadays, a Leica M is a collector's item or a toy, and people tend to whine about toys they can't afford. And it's ENTIRELY Leica's fault that in the last 60 years their cameras were relegated from the instruments of most self-respecting professionals and enthusiasts to expensive toys. What, the pros want autofocus now? Sophisticated metering? Zooms and macros? Continious shooting? Who cares about that trendy bullshit when we have the Authentic Leica Feel!
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
leica should just make lenses for other mounts, plain and simple. it worked for voigtlander and zeiss, it would definitely work for leica.
>> Anonymous
>>140654
>And sure, they're insanely overpriced, but that's because it's a small company.

Look at Cosina. They make the same stuff for 4 times less and somehow manage to stay afloat.
And half a century ago, Leica had a very substantial market share. Then, they consciously refused to follow the demands of the mass market and locked themselves into making overpriced boutique cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>140700
To be fair, it didn't work. Both Voigtlaender and Zeiss are no more; the brands are just used by Cosina and Sony to market several old German designs and several new Japanese ones. Sure, Leica is currently in a pretty bad shape, but at least they're not just a trademark owned by Panasonic.
>> Anonymous
>>140696
It's not an expensive toy. Plenty of working photographers still use Ms on a daily basis, and the people who buy them for shits and giggles would buy something else if Leicas didn't exist.

One of the few things Leica has done right is keep all that bullshit out of its cameras. Rangefinders are specialized cameras for photographing people- portrait work, documentary work, etc. Everything you listed is useless for those purposes.
>> Anonymous
>>140703
>And sure, they're insanely overpriced, but that's because it's a small company. CV is not. Leica's products have to cost more to cover their overhead because they sell less. And they sell less because of the price, but slashing costs could (in the short term) seriously fuck up a few yearly statements.

CV = Cosina-Voigtländer.
>> Anonymous
>>140659
I think the problem with that is just what it was with the CL: everyone would buy the cheaper model. The only reason to buy a Leica M, for film at least, over a Zeiss Ikon or any of the other alternatives is because of the ergnomics of the body.

If you're saying "just produce the M body at lower cost," I'm not sure if that's possible. I mean, they could make the body out of plastics or something, but again there would be that issue of "Why not this, still cheaper camera?"

And I'm not so sure about rangefinders being less sophisticated than SLR. SLRs have the mirror, but a perfectly calibrated and coupled rangefinder probably involves a lot of precision work.

The best way to get that revenue stream is buy selling their SLR lenses in other mounts. Become a lens company that makes a line of amazing rangefinders, one film and one digital. (Scrapping production of either the MP or M7 is probably a good idea, to cut down on the overhead of maintaining three different rangefinder production lines.)
>> Anonymous
>>140713
>Rangefinders are specialized cameras
No. Rangefinders were used for almost everything in the 30s-50s. But with every new invention in SLRs, they lost more and more applications until they became only suitable for tranquil portrait shooting.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>140710
>Leica is currently in a pretty bad shape, but at least they're not just a trademark owned by Panasonic.
Though, ironically, Leica doesn't own the Leica trademark anymore...
>> Anonymous
>>140716
The main problem is that rangefinders, in their current state, are obsolete. Even if you'd be magically able to sell the M8 for $500, most pros who didn't buy it for $5000 still won't buy it, and the average Joe would be extremely hard to convince that the Leica quality matters more than convenience.
>> Anonymous
>>140717
Well, yeah, they can be used for everything. But they're best suited for shooting people ("Tranquil" has nothing to do with it.), the same way SLRs are best suited to studio work, work with long lenses, or macro work.

All the things in that list are useless for most photography. Matrix metering is useless for everything, or rather, there's no reason to use it instead of CWA or spot if someone knows what they're doing. Autofocus isn't useful for medium telephoto and shorter lenses. Continuous shooting is only useful for sports or wildlife. Zooms A) are bulky, and thus not desirable when trying to shoot people, B) pointless if a person is skilled at framing, and inhibit the development of that skill, and C), are very difficult if not impossible to couple to a rangefinder.

B) sort of gets at the whole issue with all of these: outside of a few specialized applications, they're crutches for people whose skill sucks, and by holding their hand, might get them a few more decent shots, but holds them back from getting the skills they need to take really good ones.
>> Anonymous
>>140723
>All the things in that list are useless for most photography.

And yet the ignorance of even one of these things brought down big companies. People want convenience, that's how the market works. You can build a house using a single axe if you're extremely skilled, but that doesn't mean all other construction tools are worthless.
>> Anonymous
>>140723
>SLRs are best suited to studio work, work with long lenses, or macro work.
Also, you don't know shit about SLRs.
>> Anonymous
I never saw the point of the M8 when Leica's were good because of their old-fashioned ways and fine mechanical engineering. If I want electronic boxes I can get the best from other companies.
>> Anonymous
>>140729
Three examples. SLR shutters are too loud for photographing people spontaneously. People do it, I know, but that doesn't mean they're suited for it.

As for the previous thing, let consumers use consumer cameras. Photographers should care enough not to take the easy way out.

The market works according to marketing. The companies marketed convenience and ease; if they had marketed simple, pared-down tools that don't get in your way, it would've gone the opposite way. But selling on technology instead of one quality means that two or three years down the line they get to sell you a camera with whatever new widget they've invented in the interim, in addition to the one they sold you now.

The comparison to building a house doesn't work well with features, but it does work well with different types of cameras: you can shoot sports with a rangefinder, you can shoot intimate documentary work with an SLR, you can do street photography with a view camera. But they're usually not the best tool for the job.
>> Anonymous
>>140739
>SLR shutters are too loud for photographing people spontaneously
Protip #1: SLR shutters operate EXACTLY THE SAME as rangefinder shutters, and they're equally noisy. It's the mirror slap that makes the SLRs louder.
Protip #2: Rangefinders with focal plane shutters, like the M series, aren't as quiet as you may be lead to think, they still emit a noticeable click. Digital cameras with electronic shutters beat rangefinders by far at being discreet.

>let consumers use consumer cameras. Photographers should care enough not to take the easy way out.
Protip #3: You can't just separate "Photographers" from "consumers". Everyone who isn't insane is a bit of both.

>if they had marketed simple, pared-down tools that don't get in your way, it would've gone the opposite way
Sorry, that just doesn't work. You can market simplicity only if everyone else markets complexity; if all companies try to keep it simple, how do they compete with each other? Manufacturing quality has an upper limit over which people just can't tell the difference anymore.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>140723
>Autofocus isn't useful for medium telephoto and shorter lenses.
I believe you mean not *necessary*. It's damn useful.
>Zooms A) are bulky, and thus not desirable when trying to shoot people
When I'm shooting people, I love being able to switch from a wide to medium tele angle without having to swap lenses. I'll grant you that I'd be just as happy with something like a 28/50/80 multi-length lens, but if you think focal length's only purpose is framing, you need to lrn2perspective.

>>140739
>As for the previous thing, let consumers use consumer cameras. Photographers should care enough not to take the easy way out.
There's a difference between "Taking the easy way out" and "not doing unnecessary work". I can wind the film and focus myself, but it's quicker to let the camera do it for me and the results are equal (other than the potential for getting a better shot with the better equipment since it can catch scenes that I can't manually focus fast enough to get.)