What is special about a Leica?

[tony field]

On the whole there's nothing special about a Leica unless you are in love with a mystical toy. In my case the purchase of a Leica M9 which was the Leica Representatives demo camera. It was an economically good move. It cost me about $3,000. Over the years, I have had Leica M2 M3 M4 and M5 cameras which are now being sold to collectors .

I started shooting Leica in the late 1960s when I was in university. I more than covered the cost of the Leica by shooting University Theatre and dance Productions. This was a far better choice for shooting the Performing Arts compared to the then available Nikon F1.

Over the years I have accumulated many Leica lenses from 24 to 200 mm which have been written off and have a book value of zero. Since I continued my hobby of àshooting the Performing Arts after University I made enough money to pay for the additional lenses and cameras. I now have a complete camera system that as far as I'm concerned that cost me $3,000.

The Leica is a superb Walkabout camera with old lenses that are even today pretty fine. On a regular basis I still get some excellent photographs with this manual full frame rangefinder camera. It is relatively small lightweight and convenient.

I normally shoot with a pretty large Canon DSLR system for Sports theater dance Studio and other forms of photography.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[Sranang Boi]

Do you think that Leica owners are so bored that they hang around photographic forums? They are far too busy enjoying themselves. Leica owners tend not to be of the type that want to show off how much better the pictures from their cameras are. A lot of the Canon and Nikon stuff you see has been rinsed through Lightroom etc before a sanitized version is posted online for comments of admiration. Leica owners do far less, or zero image enhancements outside the ability of their camera.

 

[Midwest]

The same reason people by Rolex watches over Seiko/Citizen

Don

There have to be intangibles that justify the expense...

Rolex watches are beautiful. I prefer a Casio Waveceptor analog with solar power. It stays within a second at all times and by the time the rechargeable battery wears out in ten or 15 years I'll be sick of the watch anyhow and buy a new one for $150. In the meantime someone with a Rolex might have spent several hundred dollars on recommended maintenance (i.e. cleaning, lubrication, adjustment) for a watch that is nowhere near as accurate as my Casio. But there's a feeling to a Rolex that you won't get from a much less expensive watch, at least as long as you make sure you haven't bought a fake.

I own a Harley Davidson motorcycle. It's not as powerful or smooth as a lot of bikes that cost less and go faster... but it's the experience of riding it, and the look of it, that justifies it to me. Another way to think of it is, I'd rather cruise around town on Saturday night in a 55 Caddy convertible than in a Honda Accord that's much faster.

You can't put a price on lots of things.

 

[e268]

+1

 

[vyoufinder]

Guy Parsons wrote:
...

Even though I could afford a Mercedes or whatever like that I will never bother, my 18 years old Subaru wagon still gets me places reliably and is now sporting a small dent in the back (not my fault) - that seems to keep people away from me more. It would cost more than the car it worth to fix the dent so I'll keep it that way until forced to replace the whole thing.
...

Yepp. Unfortunately this is a photo of one I had to sell recently... I'm looking for a little newer one. Nobody ever crowded me when I parked this baby. Never tried to overcharge me thinking I was was richer than smart. Thieves pretty much overlooked my camera gear which often sat unattended inside. All mechanical knobs and switches.. Old cars, like old lenses can have their benefits.



1985 Subaru Wagon in desert camo. 27mpg due to 2wd/4wd hi/4wd low via mechanical switch and adjustable lift from factory. 371,000 miles at sale and still plugging along.

 

[griddi]

Hi Guy, I read your post after I posted mine , so you said much as I tried to explain in my post :-D.....

It seems that the Leica versions of the Panasonics had slightly differently tweaked firmware to make the jpegs a bit different/better/maybe.

Hope you are well, and the deck is finished now ?

It's a huge job on all on my own but getting close now, finishing the large pieces that make the top cap handrails of the next section of decking, and then there's some steps to build between the levels. When Google Earth catches up it will clearly be visible from space, maybe even from the moon on a clear day.

All the best..... Guy

Guy, as I already said several times : I just love your humor, so you put a smile on my face again re Google Earth etc....:-D

There are sayings " good things take a while " or " Rome was not build in one day " .......

Thanks for being you .......

Griddi.......

 

[wklee]

Lets try to keep this civil

Considering the cost and the way that people gush over Leica and its lens I was expecting camera perfection...

But when I look at the pictures posted I'm like MEH???

Looking at the specs, they aren't impressive as other cameras seem to provide more features for much less cost and then reading reviews the reviewer tends to highlight several shortcomings and then comes to the conclusion that it's the best camera they've ever used.

So not owning one, what is so special about the Leica brand that makes people go gaga over them?

Coming from astronomy, I hear this all the time with handmade Apochromatic refractors but looking through them I don't see the cost/benefit ratio.

I'm not trying to bash Leica, but when one can get a Sony/Canon or Nikon for much less and that people post MUCH better photos, why buy a Leica?

How many aperture blades in a lens? Some people find the bokeh (12 blades?) in a Leica lens pleasing but not the hexagonal bokeh in a Canon or Nikon?

--
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi

 

[MoreorLess]

You base your assumption on the photos posted by camera owners? That's a strange way to come to a conclusion.

What’s strange about that? Looking at the sample galleries posted I expected to be blown away by the quality of Leica, mostly I got was badly composed pictures of guys with beards and black and white homeless people.

If I pay that kind of premium for a camera pr lens I'm expecting dragons and/or Scarlett Johansson to appeal to be photographed every time I use it.

 

[Guy Parsons]

Yepp. Unfortunately this is a photo of one I had to sell recently... I'm looking for a little newer one. Nobody ever crowded me when I parked this baby. Never tried to overcharge me thinking I was was richer than smart. Thieves pretty much overlooked my camera gear which often sat unattended inside. All mechanical knobs and switches.. Old cars, like old lenses can have their benefits.



1985 Subaru Wagon in desert camo. 27mpg due to 2wd/4wd hi/4wd low via mechanical switch and adjustable lift from factory. 371,000 miles at sale and still plugging along.

Yup, had the 1988 version of that same model for 12 years until some idiot ran into it and wrote it off. Replaced it with the 2000 year model which is chugging on nicely still, in that 12 years break so many things were changed for the better in the newer model. From then on it seems to be just adding gadgets and not really improving much on that 2000 era model.

Once when buying rocker cover gaskets for the 2000 year model the Subaru service dept guy said "oh that one has the reliable engine". Make of that what you will.

Regards..... Guy

 

[griddi]

You base your assumption on the photos posted by camera owners? That's a strange way to come to a conclusion.

What’s strange about that? Looking at the sample galleries posted I expected to be blown away by the quality of Leica, mostly I got was badly composed pictures of guys with beards and black and white homeless people.

If I pay that kind of premium for a camera pr lens I'm expecting dragons and/or Scarlett Johansson to appeal to be photographed every time I use it.

But don't forget: " it is the person BEHIND the camera, who makes the photo "

Griddi.......

 

[Guy Parsons]

If I pay that kind of premium for a camera pr lens I'm expecting dragons and/or Scarlett Johansson to appeal to be photographed every time I use it.

But don't forget: " it is the person BEHIND the camera, who makes the photo "

Griddi.......

But, in that case it is the person in front of the camera that makes the photo.

 

[JDC1958]

Do you think that Leica owners are so bored that they hang around photographic forums? They are far too busy enjoying themselves. Leica owners tend not to be of the type that want to show off how much better the pictures from their cameras are. A lot of the Canon and Nikon stuff you see has been rinsed through Lightroom etc before a sanitized version is posted online for comments of admiration. Leica owners do far less, or zero image enhancements outside the ability of their camera.

I think you will find quite a few bored and proud Leica users posting on all things Leica, including software processing and film processing, if you go to the RangeFinder Forum. So many post they created a subset "Forum2".

Link:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=226

Over 200,00 post on software processing, darkroom techniques, computer considerations, and printing. I think quite a few like to rinse their results just a little as well ;-).

 

[griddi]

If I pay that kind of premium for a camera pr lens I'm expecting dragons and/or Scarlett Johansson to appeal to be photographed every time I use it.

But don't forget: " it is the person BEHIND the camera, who makes the photo "

Griddi.......

But, in that case it is the person in front of the camera that makes the photo.

Ha-ha as I said your humor .....gold :-D:-D......

Griddi.......

 

[OpticsEngineer]

I will never forget my father, on his deathbed, with only a few days of life left, turning to mom and saying "you know, we never bought that Leica"

i think it had some relationship to his being a world war II veteran and his admiration of german engineering and precision machining

 

[Burnt to a Crisp]

I had a nice username here. hung leica horse.

It really was quite special!

DPR thought so, too!

 

[FilmORbitz]

Following an evening of bar-hopping to excess, I traded my Leica for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Thought it tasted twice as good as usual, until I realized the mistake and threw up. True story. Yup.

 

[jon404]

Perhaps the way it feels to use it. In the same way that using my Pentax K-5 IIs gives me pleasure... the ergonomics of it, the joy of using a well-made device. I'll bet the Leica delivers that same tactile experience, perhaps at a much greater level.

There's also tradition, and nostalgia. To think that you are using something very much the same as did Cartier-Bresson. Digital these days, but still. This would be like enjoying a restored 1931 Rolls-Royce with a modern Mercedes motor.

You'd also get the status seekers, but I don't think they are what's keeping Leica afloat. More likely folks with more money than most, who love photography and just want the best camera out there, and Leica delivers that sense of 'best' better than anyone else... regardless of specifications or performance comparisons.

 

[Bob Janes]

Lets try to keep this civil

Considering the cost and the way that people gush over Leica and its lens I was expecting camera perfection...

But when I look at the pictures posted I'm like MEH???

The quality of pictures posted on the internet is unlikely to tell you much about the capabilities of the camera they were taken with - this will be more influenced by the skills of the photographer, the resolution the picture is viewed at and the post processing used.

Looking at the specs, they aren't impressive as other cameras seem to provide more features for much less cost and then reading reviews the reviewer tends to highlight several shortcomings and then comes to the conclusion that it's the best camera they've ever used.

So not owning one, what is so special about the Leica brand that makes people go gaga over them?

I've only ever handled a film Leica, but the build is impressive; and then there is the viewfinder, which is the biggest rangefinder viewfinder I've ever seen. They are nice bits of kit that will make an instrument maker drool.

Coming from astronomy, I hear this all the time with handmade Apochromatic refractors but looking through them I don't see the cost/benefit ratio.

A rangefinder is probably not going to be first choice for astro-photography and I don't think anyone buys a Leica thinking about the cost-benefit ratio: seriously nice kit though...

I'm not trying to bash Leica, but when one can get a Sony/Canon or Nikon for much less and that people post MUCH better photos, why buy a Leica?

You could ask why people buy an Aston Martin or [substitute own dream-car here], when a VW Golf would be a cheaper and more practical alternative...

 

[AndreasBraun]

If I were to buy one (which I can't, even secondhand) it would be because it seems to be the only digital camera truly designed to work transparently with manual focus lenses in a traditional way. In other words, it would be all about the shooting experience.

I would be all over a digital Bessa or other more modestly priced true digital rangefinder, or the Epson if I could find it at an affordable price. Or a DSLR with traditional controls and a split image focusing screen, for that matter.

Manual focus??? what's that? Even my telescopes are auto focus

May I ask what telescope you are using with auto focus?

My apochromatic refractor TEC140 with its Starlight focuser is of course only useful with carful manual focusing. And using it with the Leica (there we are LEICA :-D ) 8.9-17.8mm ASPH zoom the result in contrast transfer and resolution is simply stunning. Your statement in you starting post (Coming from astronomy, I hear this all the time with handmade Apochromatic refractors but looking through them I don't see the cost/benefit ratio) is not comprehensible for me.

Andreas

 

[Malikknows]

Let’s compare a real stone jewelry to a costume jewelry. They may both look good, but a real stone is not a fake, thereby has its value. A Rolex is a jewel, and a Seiko is a costume jewel. Rolex does not become obsolete, in fact my $2000 dollar rolex which I wear everyday is now costing over $6000 (an estimated value by Rolex). Cannot say the same about Leica. When it comes to Leica, the comparison does not hold since electronics become obsolete over time. But one can look at it as a real jewel, although it value may not hold through time.

That’s not what you can sell it far though. I have an Omega that cost me $2000, they are now selling new for $4500. I can’t get $4500 if I sell it. Honestly it wasn’t worth it at $2000, it’s less worth it t $4500

No, chances are he could sell that watch for that money. Many Rolexes do appreciate. Omegas do much less well, overall. If that watch was a Submariner, it is over 8,000 new, which is why he can get 6,000 used.