?Leica? looms over cameras much like Rolex does watches. It?s a name with both meaning and stigma. On one hand, it speaks to quality, provenance, tradition, and a culture of dedicated enthusiasts. Conversely, it speaks to snobbery, wealth, style over substance, and exclusivity. Being who I am, I?m always suspicious of overly adored things, especially when they are expensive, as I can?t help but keep value in mind.
Over the years, I?ve avoided the red dot despite countless recommendations. They just felt like too much of a thing I didn?t want to be a part of. A brand name for people who wanted to appear to be photographers, regardless of whether or not they had any skill or even a desire to shoot. Or maybe they didn?t even care if they appeared as photographers; the camera just served as an accessory to a lifestyle. Part of a kit that said, ?Yeah, I do alright,? and looked great with a vintage Sub. *Side note: I wrote this intro before Griffin Bartsch covered the new SL3, and thus, I still thought myself clever for the Rolex comparison. As I now know it?s quite banal, I feel a tinge embarrassed, and yet, it holds a true statement, so it remains.
As a former art major, I?ve always felt that cameras were tools, much like my paintbrushes. They could be used to create art or to document life. They weren?t lifestyle objects; they were a medium. I only got into photography in the first place to shoot my work in grad school. And then, I had to learn more when I started (trying) to ...