One fact for context: this camera costs ~$4,300.
Though not a rangefinder, the fixed lens Fujifilm cameras x100 series, are a cheaper alternative with similar fanaticism.
The Sony rx1 is a cheaper full frame alternative, with a great Zeiss lens.
IMO, Leica is extremely over rated, especially for such ridiculous prices.
You definitely pay for the name, though it used to be the case (not sure if it still is) that you also got extreme reliability and a well designed kit. But for the cost, you could simply use redundancy as your reliability story instead.
The bokeh looks terrible. Oops, sorry did I say that out loud? No matter, this is not a photography forum.
It does look awful. Hopefully this isn’t a place where that would start an argument.
Aw, man! Now I can’t unsee it…
I actually thought it was a post effect favored by the photographer. Then I decided these were how the actual photos look like.
I’m quite ambivalent about these stealth advertisements for gear. It’s come to research - genomics is awash with it - practitioners are encouraged to tout the companies and tools they use and it has a more sleazy feel to it compared to private conversations amongst people where you say “Well, I really like tool X because of this and this and this”.
What makes you say this was a stealth advertisement? Do you think he’s lying about purchasing the camera on his own?
I’m not thinking in terms of a paid advertisement, but, you will note, there are as many pictures of the camera as there are taken by it.
It could be all innocent - this may be a person prone to falling in love with gear and a natural fan of a brand, but I find it hard to distinguish the innocent kind of brand loyalty with the sponsored or supported kind because companies have gotten so good at this “viral marketing” thing.
In either case, neither type of writeup is to be trusted too much because of their lack of objectivity.
I’m with you. This reads exactly like a promotional essay and not like a genuine story. So yes, I think this is an ad indeed.
This is almost certainly not a stealth advertisement. He’s changed many cameras and written about them in similar fashion.
I like it. It has character. All those shiny L lens don’t. It’s what made me go back to analog in the first place.
On the other hand, $4,000 is a bit more than my 15+ film cameras (ranging from cheap point and shoots like the L35AF to MFs like the RZ67). And I have absolutely no intention of buying a digital Leica.
Could that be at all attributed to the filter he is using? Near the end of the article he talks about using a particular filter and how he never put on the lens cap/cover, I assume because the filter was cheap and easily replaceable, and instead just wrapped the camera in a rag or towel or something when he wasn’t using it.