What is it about Leica?

LeicaEye · Jun 21, 2023

Tom Joad said:
I began shooting film professionally in 1973 and have used all sorts of film and digital cameras since. I'm now just an amateur.

I love using Leica for the tactile feel, the minimalist approach, the history, the difference. Especially when I was a working pro, when you are taking hundreds of SLR/DSLR images every week photography can become routine. Changing to markedly different formats such as Leica M or Hasselblad or view cameras has always provided a welcome refresh and re-intro to photography.

My problem has always been, as much as I enjoy using Leica M, it can be hard to justify the cost. So I've been on the lookout for decades for solid empirical evidence that Leica M produces better images. If I can find this proof, I can justify the cost to buy/use more Leica gear.

I have not found such evidence before reading this thread, and after reading it still have not found it. And I did have a very nice pro darkroom, now a high res monitor, and have studied photography.

For me the strength of Lecia M is the different shooting experience and the other attributes listed above. I must say as I approach 70 years old, I don't search quite so hard now for evidence that there is an intrinsic image quality advantage with Leica - I rather have accepted that for me at least, it's the shooting experience.

Phrased differently, these days I look at my high end non-Leica gear and think wow, it is so nice to have such capability for my next shoot. I look at my Leica M and think I'd like to use it right now. When I'm headed somewhere with the Leica I wonder, will I at last find the perfect combination of subject, light etc. to produce the most satisfying photo I've yet taken. That to me is the "magic" of Leica. It seems to ask to be used and to be used as well as I can do it. That has at least as much value to me as if Leica had some mystical image superiority vs. other high-end cameras.

It’s a long road in photography and I applaud your commitment, the Leica mystical image that you search for requires the drinking of the “Leica CuleAde” hard to find as over the years it has been very sparingly distributed

.. As a pro over the years I too used Leica together with other marques, now at 81 & long retired I still cherish the Leica ‘Look’ - thankfully I have a small but still very potent stock of the rare CuleAde in my wine cellar

.. Like a Ferrari on a race track, other marques might equal or even beat the Ferrari, but the Ferrari/Leica experience is and will always remain unique.

The Lamentable Lens · Jun 21, 2023

Tom Joad said:
I began shooting film professionally in 1973 and have used all sorts of film and digital cameras since. I'm now just an amateur.

I love using Leica for the tactile feel, the minimalist approach, the history, the difference. Especially when I was a working pro, when you are taking hundreds of SLR/DSLR images every week photography can become routine. Changing to markedly different formats such as Leica M or Hasselblad or view cameras has always provided a welcome refresh and re-intro to photography.

My problem has always been, as much as I enjoy using Leica M, it can be hard to justify the cost. So I've been on the lookout for decades for solid empirical evidence that Leica M produces better images. If I can find this proof, I can justify the cost to buy/use more Leica gear.

I have not found such evidence before reading this thread, and after reading it still have not found it. And I did have a very nice pro darkroom, now a high res monitor, and have studied photography.

For me the strength of Lecia M is the different shooting experience and the other attributes listed above. I must say as I approach 70 years old, I don't search quite so hard now for evidence that there is an intrinsic image quality advantage with Leica - I rather have accepted that for me at least, it's the shooting experience.

Phrased differently, these days I look at my high end non-Leica gear and think wow, it is so nice to have such capability for my next shoot. I look at my Leica M and think I'd like to use it right now. When I'm headed somewhere with the Leica I wonder, will I at last find the perfect combination of subject, light etc. to produce the most satisfying photo I've yet taken. That to me is the "magic" of Leica. It seems to ask to be used and to be used as well as I can do it. That has at least as much value to me as if Leica had some mystical image superiority vs. other high-end cameras.

A valuable perspective, and well-written to boot. Thanks for sharing it.

Greg7579 · Jun 21, 2023

Tom Joad said:
I began shooting film professionally in 1973 and have used all sorts of film and digital cameras since. I'm now just an amateur.

I love using Leica for the tactile feel, the minimalist approach, the history, the difference. Especially when I was a working pro, when you are taking hundreds of SLR/DSLR images every week photography can become routine. Changing to markedly different formats such as Leica M or Hasselblad or view cameras has always provided a welcome refresh and re-intro to photography.

My problem has always been, as much as I enjoy using Leica M, it can be hard to justify the cost. So I've been on the lookout for decades for solid empirical evidence that Leica M produces better images. If I can find this proof, I can justify the cost to buy/use more Leica gear.

I have not found such evidence before reading this thread, and after reading it still have not found it. And I did have a very nice pro darkroom, now a high res monitor, and have studied photography.

For me the strength of Lecia M is the different shooting experience and the other attributes listed above. I must say as I approach 70 years old, I don't search quite so hard now for evidence that there is an intrinsic image quality advantage with Leica - I rather have accepted that for me at least, it's the shooting experience.

Phrased differently, these days I look at my high end non-Leica gear and think wow, it is so nice to have such capability for my next shoot. I look at my Leica M and think I'd like to use it right now. When I'm headed somewhere with the Leica I wonder, will I at last find the perfect combination of subject, light etc. to produce the most satisfying photo I've yet taken. That to me is the "magic" of Leica. It seems to ask to be used and to be used as well as I can do it. That has at least as much value to me as if Leica had some mystical image superiority vs. other high-end cameras.

Tom, that is a beautiful post. My Dad was a great photographer and used Leica when I was kid, and I'm 66. I could never afford Leica from the 70s through to about ten years ago. Now I can. That is the result of many decades of hard work and disciplined saving and investing.

It doesn't matter if you can prove it. No one can. All that matters is how you like the images and the camera makes you feel. My only Leica experience besides shooting my Dad's rangefinders back in the 70s, is the wonderful Q2. I'm on the list at B&H for the Q3. I don't know about the special look Leica claim, I just know I like the images very much and they hold up very nicely to the larger sensors that I mostly use. And like I said, nothing makes me feel like how I feel when I'm shooting that Q2.

LeicaEye · Jun 21, 2023

Greg7579 said:
Tom Joad said:

I began shooting film professionally in 1973 and have used all sorts of film and digital cameras since. I'm now just an amateur.

I love using Leica for the tactile feel, the minimalist approach, the history, the difference. Especially when I was a working pro, when you are taking hundreds of SLR/DSLR images every week photography can become routine. Changing to markedly different formats such as Leica M or Hasselblad or view cameras has always provided a welcome refresh and re-intro to photography.

My problem has always been, as much as I enjoy using Leica M, it can be hard to justify the cost. So I've been on the lookout for decades for solid empirical evidence that Leica M produces better images. If I can find this proof, I can justify the cost to buy/use more Leica gear.

I have not found such evidence before reading this thread, and after reading it still have not found it. And I did have a very nice pro darkroom, now a high res monitor, and have studied photography.

For me the strength of Lecia M is the different shooting experience and the other attributes listed above. I must say as I approach 70 years old, I don't search quite so hard now for evidence that there is an intrinsic image quality advantage with Leica - I rather have accepted that for me at least, it's the shooting experience.

Phrased differently, these days I look at my high end non-Leica gear and think wow, it is so nice to have such capability for my next shoot. I look at my Leica M and think I'd like to use it right now. When I'm headed somewhere with the Leica I wonder, will I at last find the perfect combination of subject, light etc. to produce the most satisfying photo I've yet taken. That to me is the "magic" of Leica. It seems to ask to be used and to be used as well as I can do it. That has at least as much value to me as if Leica had some mystical image superiority vs. other high-end cameras.

Click to expand...

Tom, that is a beautiful post. My Dad was a great photographer and used Leica when I was kid, and I'm 66. I could never afford Leica from the 70s through to about ten years ago. Now I can. That is the result of many decades of hard work and disciplined saving and investing.

It doesn't matter if you can prove it. No one can. All that matters is how you like the images and the camera makes you feel. My only Leica experience besides shooting my Dad's rangefinders back in the 70s, is the wonderful Q2. I'm on the list at B&H for the Q3. I don't know about the special look Leica claim, I just know I like the images very much and they hold up very nicely to the larger sensors that I mostly use. And like I said, nothing makes me feel like how I feel when I'm shooting that Q2.

cutterpup · Jun 21, 2023

I have been following this, and a few other Leica threads, purely for my own enjoyment. I have no plans of ever buying a Leica but I enjoy reading the perceptions and experiences of Leica owners. Kind of like reading first hand accounts of solo trans Atlantic sailors, I can admire them without wanting to experience it first hand.

On to my question, what percentage of the images produced can be attributed to the lenses? Does the use of older Leica lenses show a difference compared to newer ones? Assuming they are being used by the same photographer so there is no variation in individual technique. Do non-Leica adapted lenses work well, or are they a hindrance to producing a classic Leica image.

Although I did not mark down the particular post I can appreciate the user who stated, paraphrasing here, the camera does what he wants with minimal fuss and has ability to deliver consistent quality while feeling like an extension of his hand.

Cutter

LeicaEye · Jun 21, 2023

cutterpup said:
I have been following this, and a few other Leica threads, purely for my own enjoyment. I have no plans of ever buying a Leica but I enjoy reading the perceptions and experiences of Leica owners. Kind of like reading first hand accounts of solo trans Atlantic sailors, I can admire them without wanting to experience it first hand.

On to my question, what percentage of the images produced can be attributed to the lenses? Does the use of older Leica lenses show a difference compared to newer ones? Assuming they are being used by the same photographer so there is no variation in individual technique. Do non-Leica adapted lenses work well, or are they a hindrance to producing a classic Leica image.

Although I did not mark down the particular post I can appreciate the user who stated, paraphrasing here, the camera does what he wants with minimal fuss and has ability to deliver consistent quality while feeling like an extension of his hand.

Cutter

Imho, Leica cameras and lenses make the concept, third party lenses can work and no doubt produce acceptable images for those that use same. Leica lenses on other makes of camera are in the same category as above. Leica lenses do render differently depending on the lens choice, lenses are now tuned for digital, though older Leica lenses will still produce very nice and acceptable images. The photographer must choose a lens to suit his/her requirements. Rent a Q2 for a weekend and see how You feel about the Leica experience..

Tom Joad · Jun 22, 2023

I recall a story about Leica's amazing capabilities which hopefully I can recreate from memory as I don't recall where I read it. If someone has a more accurate version by all means post it, I would love to be corrected.

Photography legend and Leica user Alfred Eisenstaedt anonomously visited an exhibition of his work at a New York City camera store. As he browsed he came upon a father and son admiring a Leica camera in the store's inventory.

The son asked, "is that the same camera Mr. Eisenstaedt uses?"

The father replied, "yes it is. If we buy one, you can take photos just like Mr. Eisenstaedt's". ;-)

Here's a more technical commentary on the "Leica Look". It includes a quiz where you may self-test your ability to spot the elusive creature.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2022/08/understanding-the-leica-look/

Rexgig0 · Jun 22, 2023

There is nothing all that “magic” about the sensors used in current Leica digital cameras. The look, character, or “magic” seen in Leica images much more due to lens design choices. One lens, the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, lured me to add the Leica M system, because no SLR could do anything like that. The character of the background blur is unique. The ways in which a skilled user can introduce flare, artistically, while shooting, is wonderful. (An unskilled user can have some rather interesting learning experiences! One must learn to deal with the direction of light, when using some lenses.)

There are definable optical imperfections, that Leitz/Leica optical design teams have opted to leave uncorrected*. Walter Mandler lenses have character that some Leica lens users still favor. The Summicron-M 50mm, in production since 1979, is a Mandler design, and remains a best-seller.

When I want to create “perfect” images, with an M camera, I am likely use a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM lens. Flare is controlled. Distortion is controlled. Micro contrast is very evident. (Many Leica shooters dislike lenses with much contrast.)

I intensely dislike sitting at a computer, so, would rather not try to fake a look/character, in post-processing. (I was using computers, at work, as early as 1984, at age 22.)

*All lens designers have to make these choices, regardelss of brand. Truly perfect lenses would be quite large and heavy; Zeiss Otus, for example.

--
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Since 2018, Leica-M has been my “mirror-less” system. I am, certainly, not an expert.

Shabang · Jun 22, 2023

Tom Joad said:
Tom Joad wrote:

I recall a story about Leica's amazing capabilities which hopefully I can recreate from memory as I don't recall where I read it. If someone has a more accurate version by all means post it, I would love to be corrected.

Photography legend and Leica user Alfred Eisenstaedt anonomously visited an exhibition of his work at a New York City camera store. As he browsed he came upon a father and son admiring a Leica camera in the store's inventory.

The son asked, "is that the same camera Mr. Eisenstaedt uses?"

The father replied, "yes it is. If we buy one, you can take photos just like Mr. Eisenstaedt's". ;-)

Here's a more technical commentary on the "Leica Look". It includes a quiz where you may self-test your ability to spot the elusive creature.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2022/08/understanding-the-leica-look/

Jeff · Jun 23, 2023

Thanks for this post. It captures so perfectly what I most enjoy about photography, and a good reminder that it's about so much more than pixels and photons.

yogi4fitness · Jun 23, 2023

Jeff said:
Shabang said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

[SNIP]

Jeff said:

I tell you what.... Let's have a party at my place and gather around my new 6K Dell pro 32 inch 6K monitor that is perfectly color calibrated and will knock your eyeballs out. Let's look at highly detailed, perfectly exposed shots at full 100% resolution from the newest iPhone or Pixel, an MFT camera, a Fuji APSC camara, a Q2 (or any top-end FF camera) and then a 100 MP GFX file.

Then you guys all decide if there is any difference. Trust me. There is.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this, but I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about sensor size, and I fully agree that sensor size can make a difference. A Leica M camera will have a larger shooting envelope than an MFT camera, the same way a Fuji GFX camera will have a larger shooting envelope than a Leica M.

My original point was directed at the comparison the OP was making, which asked about flagship gear (presumably FF) from other manufacturers, and whether there is a special "look" to Leica photos than cannot be obtained with those other cameras. And my point is that in that context -- i.e., between two comparable kits -- the quality of the final photo comes from subject, composition, story, exposure, color/tone, editing, etc., not gear.

As I noted earlier, the shooting experience may be vastly different between two systems, and those differences can certainly matter. But there is no magic to the output.

Click to expand...

I just suggest that people study photography before jumping to conclusions Our SL2 produces vastly superior images, especially with vintage lenses We just shot our first wedding outdoors and at least half the 200 pictures have wow colors. No noise in any pictures either. Our Canon backup WITH an autofocus lens did not look as good.

Click to expand...

Ever hear the phrase "show, don't tell"?

Most people that claim to see a certain “look” wont be able to tell a FF Leica image from another FF camera image (CaNikonSony) taken under same lighting conditions/exposures/white balance etc. in a double blind test.

When someone buys an expensive piece of something the perceived benefits are magnified. Thats the nature of human bias. Many studies have shown this for other things besides cameras.

Shoot with whatever floats your boat or wallet. You only live once.

Jeff said:
--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

Greg7579 · Jun 23, 2023

yogi4fitness said:
Jeff said:

Shabang said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

[SNIP]

yogi4fitness said:

I tell you what.... Let's have a party at my place and gather around my new 6K Dell pro 32 inch 6K monitor that is perfectly color calibrated and will knock your eyeballs out. Let's look at highly detailed, perfectly exposed shots at full 100% resolution from the newest iPhone or Pixel, an MFT camera, a Fuji APSC camara, a Q2 (or any top-end FF camera) and then a 100 MP GFX file.

Then you guys all decide if there is any difference. Trust me. There is.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this, but I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about sensor size, and I fully agree that sensor size can make a difference. A Leica M camera will have a larger shooting envelope than an MFT camera, the same way a Fuji GFX camera will have a larger shooting envelope than a Leica M.

My original point was directed at the comparison the OP was making, which asked about flagship gear (presumably FF) from other manufacturers, and whether there is a special "look" to Leica photos than cannot be obtained with those other cameras. And my point is that in that context -- i.e., between two comparable kits -- the quality of the final photo comes from subject, composition, story, exposure, color/tone, editing, etc., not gear.

As I noted earlier, the shooting experience may be vastly different between two systems, and those differences can certainly matter. But there is no magic to the output.

Click to expand...

I just suggest that people study photography before jumping to conclusions Our SL2 produces vastly superior images, especially with vintage lenses We just shot our first wedding outdoors and at least half the 200 pictures have wow colors. No noise in any pictures either. Our Canon backup WITH an autofocus lens did not look as good.

Click to expand...

Ever hear the phrase "show, don't tell"?

Click to expand...

Most people that claim to see a certain “look” wont be able to tell a FF Leica image from another FF camera image (CaNikonSony) taken under same lighting conditions/exposures/white balance etc. in a double blind test.

When someone buys an expensive piece of something the perceived benefits are magnified. Thats the nature of human bias. Many studies have shown this for other things besides cameras.

Shoot with whatever floats your boat or wallet. You only live once.

Disagree. Did you see my post about inviting everyone to my house to look at these "blind test" images on my 6K pro monitor? I bet you any amount of money I can pick out the GFX vs the high-res FF vs APSC vs MFT vs 1 inch vs phone.

Put every one of the systems on the same tripod at the same highly detailed scene and on my monitor, I will pick the GFX 100 shot (very easy to do because it is the one that kills everything else), the GFX 50 shot, the high-res FF shot, the APSC shot, the MFT shot, the 1-inch sensor shot and the phone shot.

But you are right in that most people look at images on their phone. So why spend what I spend on GFX and Leica? Well, I don't know, just because I like it better.

The Lamentable Lens · Jun 23, 2023

[snip]

Greg7579 said:
Greg7579 said:

Most people that claim to see a certain “look” wont be able to tell a FF Leica image from another FF camera image (CaNikonSony) taken under same lighting conditions/exposures/white balance etc. in a double blind test.

When someone buys an expensive piece of something the perceived benefits are magnified. Thats the nature of human bias. Many studies have shown this for other things besides cameras.

Shoot with whatever floats your boat or wallet. You only live once.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Did you see my post about inviting everyone to my house to look at these "blind test" images on my 6K pro monitor? I bet you any amount of money I can pick out the GFX vs the high-res FF vs APSC vs MFT vs 1 inch vs phone.

Put every one of the systems on the same tripod at the same highly detailed scene and on my monitor, I will pick the GFX 100 shot (very easy to do because it is the one that kills everything else), the GFX 50 shot, the high-res FF shot, the APSC shot, the MFT shot, the 1-inch sensor shot and the phone shot.

But you are right in that most people look at images on their phone. So why spend what I spend on GFX and Leica? Well, I don't know, just because I like it better.

See my earlier response to your earlier post -- you're making a different point. We're not talking about differences in sensor size. Instead, OP's original question is about comparing comparable cameras (e.g., two FF cameras with good glass), and whether there is a unique and special "look" if one of those kits is made by Leica.

LeicaEye · Jun 23, 2023

yogi4fitness said:
Jeff said:

Shabang said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

[SNIP]

yogi4fitness said:

I tell you what.... Let's have a party at my place and gather around my new 6K Dell pro 32 inch 6K monitor that is perfectly color calibrated and will knock your eyeballs out. Let's look at highly detailed, perfectly exposed shots at full 100% resolution from the newest iPhone or Pixel, an MFT camera, a Fuji APSC camara, a Q2 (or any top-end FF camera) and then a 100 MP GFX file.

Then you guys all decide if there is any difference. Trust me. There is.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this, but I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about sensor size, and I fully agree that sensor size can make a difference. A Leica M camera will have a larger shooting envelope than an MFT camera, the same way a Fuji GFX camera will have a larger shooting envelope than a Leica M.

My original point was directed at the comparison the OP was making, which asked about flagship gear (presumably FF) from other manufacturers, and whether there is a special "look" to Leica photos than cannot be obtained with those other cameras. And my point is that in that context -- i.e., between two comparable kits -- the quality of the final photo comes from subject, composition, story, exposure, color/tone, editing, etc., not gear.

As I noted earlier, the shooting experience may be vastly different between two systems, and those differences can certainly matter. But there is no magic to the output.

Click to expand...

I just suggest that people study photography before jumping to conclusions Our SL2 produces vastly superior images, especially with vintage lenses We just shot our first wedding outdoors and at least half the 200 pictures have wow colors. No noise in any pictures either. Our Canon backup WITH an autofocus lens did not look as good.

Click to expand...

Ever hear the phrase "show, don't tell"?

Click to expand...

Most people that claim to see a certain “look” wont be able to tell a FF Leica image from another FF camera image (CaNikonSony) taken under same lighting conditions/exposures/white balance etc. in a double blind test.

When someone buys an expensive piece of something the perceived benefits are magnified. Thats the nature of human bias. Many studies have shown this for other things besides cameras.

Shoot with whatever floats your boat or wallet. You only live once.

Greg7579 · Jun 23, 2023

The Lamentable Lens said:
[snip]

The Lamentable Lens said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

Most people that claim to see a certain “look” wont be able to tell a FF Leica image from another FF camera image (CaNikonSony) taken under same lighting conditions/exposures/white balance etc. in a double blind test.

When someone buys an expensive piece of something the perceived benefits are magnified. Thats the nature of human bias. Many studies have shown this for other things besides cameras.

Shoot with whatever floats your boat or wallet. You only live once.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Did you see my post about inviting everyone to my house to look at these "blind test" images on my 6K pro monitor? I bet you any amount of money I can pick out the GFX vs the high-res FF vs APSC vs MFT vs 1 inch vs phone.

Put every one of the systems on the same tripod at the same highly detailed scene and on my monitor, I will pick the GFX 100 shot (very easy to do because it is the one that kills everything else), the GFX 50 shot, the high-res FF shot, the APSC shot, the MFT shot, the 1-inch sensor shot and the phone shot.

But you are right in that most people look at images on their phone. So why spend what I spend on GFX and Leica? Well, I don't know, just because I like it better.

Click to expand...

See my earlier response to your earlier post -- you're making a different point. We're not talking about differences in sensor size. Instead, OP's original question is about comparing comparable cameras (e.g., two FF cameras with good glass), and whether there is a unique and special "look" if one of those kits is made by Leica.

OK. I can go along with that. I too prefer the Leica over other high res FF output for all the reasons we have been talking about here.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

Ben YC · Jun 24, 2023

It's probably not the Leica gears that make the photo wonderful, especially in this day and age when one can get lots of help from photoshop and lightroom and when most gears have reached the point of "good enough".

Yet, using a non-auto-everything-zoom setup like Leica may matter much. Without all the tech help, one tends to be more careful in composing and without the zoom, one needs to spend more time to walk around to get used to lens of different perspectives. All this can help one become a more thoughtful shooter.

Instead of jumping on to the Leica wagon, one thing quite fun to do is to get a few vintage prime manual lenses and use them on current digital cameras. This experiment can slow one down and push one to be more careful. Actually, many older MF lens are very good and amazingly affordable as long as one steer away from Leica.

Back to the question again, I think it is the shooter that counts.

yogi4fitness · Jun 24, 2023

Greg7579 said:
If you want to start a war on DPR, just say there is a Leica Look or a Medium Format Look.

I'm not sure about that anymore (I used to say it and see it), but one thing is for sure.... The Q2 has amazing image fidelity, probably because of that amazing 28 mm Summicron.

There is nothing special about the Leica sensors. They are of course very good. But so are the sensors in the top-end lines from Canon, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, etc...

I think it is sensor size and glass.

But yes, Leica image fidelity is great (or the Q2 anyway because I don't have the other gear).

The leicas IMO produce images that are super saturated and super contrasty. Maybe thats what people consider as the “leica look”. The reds almost look unreal with the leicas.

Greg7579 said:
But if you want your eyes and brain to really pop, go peep at a GFX file of a detailed city-scape on a big pro 4, 5 or 6K monitor.

The GFX plays in an entirely different league.

Greg7579 said:
--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

yogi4fitness · Jun 24, 2023

Ben YC said:
It's probably not the Leica gears that make the photo wonderful, especially in this day and age when one can get lots of help from photoshop and lightroom and when most gears have reached the point of "good enough".

Yup most top end gear is pretty good these days.

Ben YC said:
Yet, using a non-auto-everything-zoom setup like Leica may matter much. Without all the tech help, one tends to be more careful in composing and without the zoom, one needs to spend more time to walk around to get used to lens of different perspectives. All this can help one become a more thoughtful shooter.

Instead of jumping on to the Leica wagon, one thing quite fun to do is to get a few vintage prime manual lenses and use them on current digital cameras. This experiment can slow one down and push one to be more careful. Actually, many older MF lens are very good and amazingly affordable as long as one steer away from Leica.

Thats exactly what I did with my Minolta vintage lenses on my sony and fuji. Made me a slower more deliberate photographer.

Ben YC said:
Back to the question again, I think it is the shooter that counts.

Yes 100% its the shooter. Sounds like a cliché but the camera is just a tool and the magic is in the shooter.

Francis E · Jun 24, 2023

Ben YC said:
Back to the question again, I think it is the shooter that counts.

I also think that what a photograph is of is more important than what it looks like. I did a Ph.D thesis on Australian Pictorialists, and came to that conclusion.

Daneland · Jun 24, 2023

I was in Leica store to check my place waiting list for Q3, no solid answers. I was kind of ready to wait and I witnessed something surreal for me. And I realised, I am not a Leica customer. At least Leica's target audience.

A lady ordered and paid for 2 cameras (one of them M11 I am not so sure what the other one, lots of batteries and accessories and she already had a SL2. The way she holds the camera was telling that she has no real experience with photography. I am sure she can take much better photos with her iPhone as iPhone will take care of many things she has to deal with especially M series camera (I guess she can use SL2 in P mode). I am sure they were just an accessory for her, like her hat, bag. And I understood Leica is a fashion, prestige icon more than I camera. That's how it survived and stayed profitable. Yes, very good, unique cameras, sublime lenses but it is a fashion icon primarily. I am sure any camera manufacturer can make a range finder style camera and sublime, small manual lenses or a FF camera with a wide angle fixed lens. But no one will pay even half of Leica's price to these gadgets because they will not be a Leica. It is like an ultra expensive wrist watch, it shows the time no different than a plastic Casio but it is not about time, it's about status. Yes, there are so many photographers, especially here buy a Leica or want to buy a Leica purely because of its optical quality, craftsmanship, experience (to be honest I dont get this bit very well but ..), heritage etc...

After I bought all about these, I realised that I am not a Leica material. I dont know. It was a surreal experience (at least for me)

What is it about Leica?

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts