Two Weeks ago Leica donated a Leica M
Monochrome to a Japanese teenager whose family was displaced by the Fukushima
disaster. She had just graduated from
high school where she was a member of the photography club. She had planned to go to university, but her
family’s problems prevented her from doing so.
Instead she took a manufacturing job to save up enough money to enable
her to attend university after all and to continue with her chosen profession.
Leica chairman Andreas Kaufmann heard
of her problems and decided to present her with a Leica M Monochrome camera to enable
her to continue with photography. At a
press conference they presented the camera to the happy new owner.
Immediately afterwards the internet
was full of criticism about Leica’s donation of the camera to her. Complaints went from criticism of the price
of the camera, the fact that it is a black and white only camera and that Leica
instead should have made a general donation to charity. Leica made a philanthropic effort, besides
all of the other donations they have made, to help a student to continue with
her chosen profession, not Nikon, not Canon, not Fuji, not Sony, nobody but
Leica. Instead of heaping criticism onto
Leica, criticism should have been directed to the other major camera manufacturers
who chose to remain silent.
Had this been the only philanthropic
donation that Leica made recently, the criticism would have been
justified. But the fact is that Leica
has made substantial donations to a variety of causes. So once again we have Leica being criticized for
the sake of criticism, but ultimately without any justifiable cause.
What do you think?
Leica can't win. Had they donated a camera of a lesser value, the criticism would have been that they donated a cheap camera and that they should have given her one of their top models. Now that they did, of course they are being chastised for giving away an expensive cameras. I wonder of the same would have been said if Nikon had donated one of their almost $7,000 D4s cameras? As you said in the article, Leica came through and helped. Nobody else did.
ReplyDeleteHas anything been said why Leica chose the M Monochrom instead of an M or M9? Maybe the student chose the M Monochrome.
DeleteGood point. I haven't seen or heard anything about that, but it would make perfect sense.
DeleteI don't understand the critics, this donation is a valuable and kind gesture of compassion toward a poor Japanese student. A Leica M will be a tool for her professionnal life and passion.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that in most cases this constant, unwarranted criticism of Leica is envy, envy of the camera and its lenses, but also envy of its history and impact on photography in general. Obviously not everyone can afford a Leica. Rather than admitting that fact, these people have to disparage the camera to make themselves feel better about themselves and the camera purchases they have made. In the past I have referred to this as the photographic equivalent of penis envy.
ReplyDeletePhotographic equivalent of penis envy, that's a great analogy. :-)
Delete