Is the Leica SL really worth this much?

DavidAMWA said:

Our local newspaper ran an article on the virtues of the Leica SL and quoted the price with lens at just over AU$17,000. The writer extolled the virtues of the camera which I am sure are great, but my question is, and I am sure it has been asked before, is such a camera really worth it? I would love to see a post from someone who was able to illustrate an image, or part of an image, which showed that showed any significant improvement over a camera costing a quarter of that price.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to own a Leica just to say I owned one, but I am very doubtful that would ever happen at those prices. I think my money would be much better spent on buying equipment from the other manufacturers of quality gear.

I look forward to someone proving me wrong it won't be the first time!

Click to expand...

"I would love to own a Leica just to say I owned one"

To say to whom? Who would care?

You will be just one of many people who spend crazy money on things. "Pride of ownership"...here is a hollow phrase.

My bike cost more then many cars. Do I ride faster on it? Of course not. I still have to pedal it.

Cameras have very little to do with photography. Out of ten most famous photographers of all time, only Leibovitz used digital.

M.

Nice camera...now show me your pictures.

I very much enjoyed reading the comments by "Dennis", and I fully appreciate the analogy of the expensive car. (And as he points out there will always be a place for expensive well engineered high end products.) I owned a BMW Z4 and it was a joy to drive. A friend of mine bought a Mazda MX5, a truly beautiful car and great value for money, but compared with the BMW it lacked many of the refinements such as GPS, electric seats, much more powerful engine etc etc. Although the BMW cost three times the MX5 I got a lot more to show for the extra dollars. I am not sure the same can be said for the SL compared with the other quality manufacturers. Sure both cars will get you from A to B in comfort in the same way the cameras will take great photos, but are you getting real value for money? Obviously is must be nice to hold a beautifully engineered product, (although there has been some adverse comment on its ergonomics), but the reason for buying a camera is to take photos and will the SL really produce noticeably better results? I know my Z4 did!

Is this a camera aimed at the professional photographer or the well healed amateur trying to impress?

That is a loaded question because you already point the the conclusion you want to hear.

You might not be aware that some buy stuff like this Leica for the pleasure of owning , using, playing with an item that is out of the ordinary.

Ben has already mentioned the $60,000 Corvette but it could be a watch, a pair of shoes, a pedigree dog or any of the many things that don't make any sense if you look at everything along the lines of value for money but life, for some is not just about value for money.

This turntable sells for $28,000





is it worth that much ?

Not to you (or me) if you have to ask that question but it is to some.

A friend of mine bought a set of German speakers costing in excess of AU$70,000 and he is over 60 years old. (It would be interesting to know what his hearing response was.) The amplifier cost over AU$5000 and goodness knows what the turn table cost. Some people have more money than they know what to do with!

seems to me that they know *exactly* what to do with it that will in some way satisfy them. It just might not meld w/ your ideas.

FrancoD said:

Is this a camera aimed at the professional photographer or the well healed amateur trying to impress?

That is a loaded question because you already point the the conclusion you want to hear.

You might not be aware that some buy stuff like this Leica for the pleasure of owning , using, playing with an item that is out of the ordinary.

Ben has already mentioned the $60,000 Corvette but it could be a watch, a pair of shoes, a pedigree dog or any of the many things that don't make any sense if you look at everything along the lines of value for money but life, for some is not just about value for money.

This turntable sells for $28,000

is it worth that much ?

Not to you (or me) if you have to ask that question but it is to some.

Click to expand...

Want to spend more? Go for an air-bearing turntable with an air-bearing tonearm. Be certain to use a push-pull air supply with nice laminar flow.

For maximum effect: Moving coil cartridge with a suitable mu-follower preamplifier with passive RIAA ...and you need to power electrostatic loudspeakers with a suitable OTL amplifier. All vacuum tubes throughout with only the best vishay resistors and solen polypropylene and polystyrene capacitors in the signal chain and power supply. No need for film caps for the DC for the filaments; but good quality electrolytics are really a must, or the hair-shirt crowd will snub you.

Good luck getting the OTL (output-transformerless) amplifier to be stable into the electrostatics. Nobody said it would be easy.

No, it's not worth it.

Studio Comparison Tool: Leica SL vs D610 vs D750 vs Sony...

DavidAMWA said:

I owned a BMW Z4 and it was a joy to drive.

Click to expand...

Well, there you go ! So you're the car version of a Leica buyer

DavidAMWA said:

Obviously is must be nice to hold a beautifully engineered product, (although there has been some adverse comment on its ergonomics), but the reason for buying a camera is to take photos and will the SL really produce noticeably better results? I know my Z4 did!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're question the value of Leica, in general, or the SL, in particular (it's starting to sound more like the latter) and in that case, I'd have to assume that there's something more to the shooting "experience" like there is with rangefinders. However, I've never seen one in person (where I have at least had an opportunity to briefly try my friends Leica. I'd say I'll reserve judgement, but I'm not in the target market to begin with, so my judgement is irrelevant ! We can find plenty of bloggers who will happily share "why I bought the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus whatever" ... I don't know that we'll see much of it, but it would be interesting to read about who ends up with an SL and why. (And an honest "why" !)

Sometimes I think I'm better off avoiding even trying out luxury things, for fear that I'll develop an affection for them. But so far, so good. I was impressed by the Leica rangefinder build, but not by the rangefinder "experience". (I have a couple old 70's era compact rangefinders that I found more enjoyable). I've ridden in a few vehicles that are a step up from what I drive, but not true luxury vehicles, so I've found the step up vehicles not all they're cracked up to be, but can't comment on luxury models. (BMWs are my favorite cars on the road right now). I've regretted, many times, being frugal and going for "cheap" but am generally perfectly content with "good". No need for best. (No Hammacher Schlemmer for me).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Now that's the the information I was after! From an high ISO point of view, it is definitely inferior to my 5D mK3 and apparently much worse that the Sony. Anyway, it has a famous name and is very well built and I suppose that is worth some sort of premium because you certainly don't seem to get it from the image quality.

Well said. I have no interest in the SL myself, but I'd be lying if I said I'd never thought about a Leica rangefinder and a prime or two. I suppose if I ever won a lottery or inherited a large sum from a relative I am currently unaware of, I would buy one. And I honestly think I would get something out of the experience of using it that I'm not getting from my current cameras, even if it's just a chance to learn to use a real rangefinder. A kit like that would probably suit me pretty well as a walkaround camera.

Shooting experience is a very high priority for me--all my cameras give me good images, but the Fujis are more fun to shoot than the Pentax.

Dennis said:

DavidAMWA said:

I owned a BMW Z4 and it was a joy to drive.

Click to expand...

Well, there you go ! So you're the car version of a Leica buyer

Dennis said:

Obviously is must be nice to hold a beautifully engineered product, (although there has been some adverse comment on its ergonomics), but the reason for buying a camera is to take photos and will the SL really produce noticeably better results? I know my Z4 did!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're question the value of Leica, in general, or the SL, in particular (it's starting to sound more like the latter) and in that case, I'd have to assume that there's something more to the shooting "experience" like there is with rangefinders. However, I've never seen one in person (where I have at least had an opportunity to briefly try my friends Leica. I'd say I'll reserve judgement, but I'm not in the target market to begin with, so my judgement is irrelevant ! We can find plenty of bloggers who will happily share "why I bought the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus whatever" ... I don't know that we'll see much of it, but it would be interesting to read about who ends up with an SL and why. (And an honest "why" !)

Sometimes I think I'm better off avoiding even trying out luxury things, for fear that I'll develop an affection for them. But so far, so good. I was impressed by the Leica rangefinder build, but not by the rangefinder "experience". (I have a couple old 70's era compact rangefinders that I found more enjoyable). I've ridden in a few vehicles that are a step up from what I drive, but not true luxury vehicles, so I've found the step up vehicles not all they're cracked up to be, but can't comment on luxury models. (BMWs are my favorite cars on the road right now). I've regretted, many times, being frugal and going for "cheap" but am generally perfectly content with "good". No need for best. (No Hammacher Schlemmer for me).

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

My friend once noted that people buy cars by the image they want to project on others. Very often it is exactly the opposite to what they really are. Another friend who lived in Manhattan all his life and never liked outdoors always owned a four wheel drive Jeep.

In my youth I somewhat successfully raced cars. A production "sports" car looks fake to me and you will never see me in one of those. I drive rather slow a small SUV now... trying to show off my "common sense" approach to life.

However I believe that life is just too short to ride anything but the best bicycles regardless of cost, ski the best skies and use the best ski poles (Swix Triac $599) no matter how ridiculously expensive they are. And I can easily justify the ownership.

We all relate to different things differently and if a camera is just a tool for me, somebody else may feel quite different about it. I often curious about equipment professionals use whose livelihood depends on it.

I remember seeing a picture of two Nikon D3 bodies with 2.8 lenses and a flash covered beyond recognition in mud after spending 6 hours on the motorcycle with famous cycling photog Graham Watson following Paris-Roubaix bike race in the rain over cobblestones of northern France. There was no Leica on that picture.

--
Nice camera...now show me your pictures.

If it helps you sell your potato photo, it is totally worth it.

Words like 'worth', 'quality' 'good' and 'value' are all subjective terms.

Personally I don't think there is a single camera reviewed on this site that outputs 'quality' images.

Personally I don't think any cameras made in the last 30 years offer 'good' handling.

In addition to that, you can't put a price on things like peace of mind and happiness. If a $100 product does not make you happy but a $1000 variation of it does, is your happiness worth the extra $900? Or would you rather keep the $900 and remain miserable?

So to answer your question, Is the Leica SL worth it? Yes.. and No. But really.. who cares? No one is forcing people to buy it.

--
Shoot life. Shoot film.
Instagram: f_mian

DavidAMWA said:

Now that's the the information I was after! From an high ISO point of view, it is definitely inferior to my 5D mK3 and apparently much worse that the Sony. Anyway, it has a famous name and is very well built and I suppose that is worth some sort of premium because you certainly don't seem to get it from the image quality.

Click to expand...

You really still don't get it do you ?

You base the "worth" on things like ISO and that is fine but others don't care about that simply because if the TECHNICALLY BEST (whatever) camera feels like crap in your hands (one's hands not yours in particular...) you (one) is not going to enjoy taking photos with it , is one ?

Now if I would buy that Leica or not has nothing to do with the fact that I understand other people have different priorities and really it is not up to me or you to tell them that they are enjoying life the wrong way.

While unfortunately I'll never have to bring the SL home and wonder if it's 'really worth it', I'm always amazed at how much Red Mist the Red Dot can conjure.

I've appreciated Leicas from afar, but never owned one. And yes, the prices on their German production (not the badged, Panasonic consumer cameras) do leave me gasping, though I certainly understand why they cost what they do.

But as these arguments always seem to boil down to 'are they crazy' to charge that much vs. 'you just don't understand Leicas', I'm often left in the middle wondering what to think, at times.

I've long been a Kirk Tuck fan, and a regular reader of his THE VISUAL SCIENCE LAB blog. KT is a been-there, done-that working pro in Austin, Texas. Here' his take on the SL, the first one that really places it in context in the market and really explains for me the whats and whys of this new camera:

Pixel Pooper said:

And Leica does not have the future of Sony, when no one remembers who was the second company with a FF mirrorless.

Click to expand...

Leica is profitable, unlike Sony (or any camera makers other than Canon and Nikon), and they were first to FF mirrorless with the M9 (2009), as opposed to Sony's RX1 (2012) or A7 (2013). In fact, if you count the Leica S1 scanning camera from 1996, they were were the first to full-frame, period.

FrancoD said:

Is this a camera aimed at the professional photographer or the well healed amateur trying to impress?

Click to expand...

Pro photographers make $26K a year on average, so no, they can't really afford it. Those who can (typically highly specialized product photographers, or high-end wedding and fashion photographers) are more likely to be shooting digital medium format, or a high-end DSLR. I doubt videographers are going to spring for one, they'd get a RED instead.

So yes, they're aimed at the well-heeled amateur.

DavidAMWA said:

Now that's the the information I was after! From an high ISO point of view, it is definitely inferior to my 5D mK3 and apparently much worse that the Sony. Anyway, it has a famous name and is very well built and I suppose that is worth some sort of premium because you certainly don't seem to get it from the image quality.

Click to expand...

The SL (DXOMark 88) performs a little better than the Q (DXO 84) or the M typ 240 (DXO 83), and both the latter are better than the 5DmkIII (DXO 81). It's not exactly news that Canon sensors have not been competitive for at least 3 years, but it's downright embarrassing when a company with a tiny R&D budget like Leica can best them, or even APS-C sensor cameras.

The Nikon and Sony sensors are way ahead, clearly. That said, the SL has the best AF, EVF and frame rate of any mirrorless camera, and the best video (10-bit 4:2:2 uncompressed HDMI out, better than the A7SII or the Nikon D5).

Whether it is worth it depends on what your needs are, and how wealthy you are, but the SL is not just a Veblen good.

Sir Pics A Lot said:

If it helps you sell your potato photo, it is totally worth it.

Click to expand...

Funny.

Speedex Folder said:

While unfortunately I'll never have to bring the SL home and wonder if it's 'really worth it', I'm always amazed at how much Red Mist the Red Dot can conjure.

I've appreciated Leicas from afar, but never owned one. And yes, the prices on their German production (not the badged, Panasonic consumer cameras) do leave me gasping, though I certainly understand why they cost what they do.

But as these arguments always seem to boil down to 'are they crazy' to charge that much vs. 'you just don't understand Leicas', I'm often left in the middle wondering what to think, at times.

I've long been a Kirk Tuck fan, and a regular reader of his THE VISUAL SCIENCE LAB blog. KT is a been-there, done-that working pro in Austin, Texas. Here' his take on the SL, the first one that really places it in context in the market and really explains for me the whats and whys of this new camera:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-thoughts-on-leica-sl.html

Click to expand...

Ultimately on forums like this Leica becomes a cheap way to score a few points in the endless game of gearheads justifying there purchases to each other.

The #1 rule of the gearhead of course is that any strength a camera/system might have only matters up to the level of your purchase, anything beyond that it clearly a waste for anyone.