DPReview TV: Leica - the good and the bad

The tired trope lives on… Thanks for your contribution.

I’m not a dentist and have an M7. None of the Leica owners I know are dentists, doctors, etc, just a sad old stereotype from people who are upset others can afford nice things.

@ saxo2: I know what you mean from my experience with such cameras. Then try a medium format camera with rangefinder ... film was more forgiving, and expectations were in general lower, though.

Tight portraits with handheld camera, using manual focus medium telephoto lenses at bright apertures, is still a challenge. You focus, and then both you and the subject moves slightly before the shutter is released. :-)

Just to add I do have my lenses serviced every three years as they do drift out of alignment.

You are absolutely right. I have owned and sold both my 90mm and 75mm Leica lenses precisely because of the difficulty of focusing those lenses on my Leica rangefinder. Same problem at the other end, where my 21mm Leica glass forces me to use either the live view or external EVF for adequate framing and focusing, as there are no framing lines for anything below 28mm. Just want all the Leica glass to be usable in a pure rangefinder setup, but even Leica, the absolute ruler of the rangefinder world, will not allow you to do that adequately without dishing out a lot of extra cash for the EVF contraption which in my opinion, does away with the rangefinder experience.

@eric
Its a problem with range finder cameras, not leica. The wider you go in the viewfinder the smaller the focus brackets for the different focal lengths. If you could see the whole view for a 21mm you might not be able to use a 90mm properly because the box is so small

Your justification on spending $8k on glass is you can sell it for the same price? Why not just not spend the money? Arent there better reasons to buying cameras then reselling them?

3pgrey See, this is the problem with social media nowadays, I say one, just one example of justifying the purchase of a Leica lens and you assume that literally this is the only reason I purchase them, completely ignoring the fact that I might be using them with my M rangefinder to take pictures and also completely missing the message that other Leica users may find helpful in justifying an expensive purchase to his/her partner……’hey why give cash to our kids when we expire if we can have fun with it first!’. 😁

@King Penguin Many people on social media seem to have a short attention span and/or poor reading comprehension. . . You are swimming against the tide when you offer an explanation that requires some thought on the part of the reader.

There are almost no consumer items that do not depreciate a lot much less appreciate in value. Leica M cameras and lenses cost more up front for good reasons. It is well made gear that is a pleasure to use and that will hold up for many years.

I wonder about the sensor issue with Leicas (will they be available when they inevitably need replacing?) but the film cameras and glass are the closest thing to an investment when it comes to photography equipment.

Even in the pre digital days there was a slogan - you buy camera bodies, you invest in lenses.

Buying lenses for the oldest currently in production lens mound seems to make more financial sense to me than buying the latest lenses for whatever the current lens mount du jour happens to be.

Especially when there are no internal electronics / mechanisms that would further destroy forward compatibility - you can even see this in Leica lens values. The lenses that for whatever reason don't mount easily on current bodies (e.g. goggles, dual range, etc.) don't sell for as much as other lenses that are easily mountable on modern Leicas.

@3pgrey I never place a value on a consumer product based on its price. And unlike some folks here, I do not think that Leica M cameras and lenses fit Veblen's definition of "conspicuous consumption."

@User123...:
I own both a Q2 and an A7R4
-Arguably, my Q2 does take better pictures than my Sony
-It's plenty fast enough for what it's intended for
-I don't shoot video. Ever. And I suspect there are very few Leica owners that consider video to be a 'make or break' feature.

Being proud of having product of any brand is something so silly.

There is no pride of ownership with a Sony camera. When I use my M it feels special, people stop and ask about it. There is nothing silly about having pride in something you have worked hard to afford.

@janis correct. I had Sony cameras in the past and never felt any kind of inspiration to go out and shoot with them nor pride of ownership. (And has nothing to do with the amount we spend on things).

User 123..etc etc
No kids eh??

What a great comment - can't agree more. The joy to receive something for which we have waited a while and which we really appreciate to get is so much higher than quick purchases. Also using things longer is certainly more sustainable.

creating jobs locally and maintaining a German industrial tradition. most of its workforce comes from the old Soviet Block of Eastern Europe

But it doesn't have lasting value - Leica's sensors and electronics become obsolete like anyone else's.

So we're going to pretend that the infamous issues with some their sensors malfunctioning over time aren't real? Ok, sounds fun.

And while my A7Rii is technically obsolete, it still takes amazing pictures - so I don't see how Leica has an edge there either.

Great justification for a classic marketing bluff: artificial scarcity. Both by ridiculous pricing and ridiculous delivery times Leica may be the prime textbook example of this tactic.

I agree overall with your full statement except for 1 part.

How do you define „lasting value“ for a digital camera body? Those bodies are the electronic junk of the future. Not because the mechanic breaks but because the electronic breaks. M9 anybody?

This is not to confuse with the mechanical analog Leica bodies, which can be used for a lifetime. Using a digital camera for a lifetime will be the huge exception, if possible at all.

Leicas don't last longer or retain relative functionality better than say Canon or Nikon's professional flagships; sunk cost just convinces people that they contain magic dust and should be used past obsolescence.

Digital cameras don't become obsolete. The M8 still sells for $1,500 to 2,500 used. That's 30-50% of its new price 16 years ago. My Nikon D2Xs, which is more or less the same age, still works flawlessly and I use it regularly. It can be had for less than 10% of its new price though.

Then there's repairs. Leica keeps spare parts for old models in stock much longer than other brands. With the Nikon D2Xs, that was a problem already 10 years ago. If it breaks now, it's a goner. And that's a high quality camera for professional use. With cheaper cameras it's much worse. I have several cameras that couldn't be repaired even 4-5 years after launch.

Dead electronics didn't start with digital cameras. I have several film cameras that died after a few years due to electronics. Olympus OM-2S, Contax RX, Rollei 35T... dead, dead, dead, no spare parts.

Then there's the lenses. Any Leica M-mount lens, regardless of age, will most probably work unless it's been used for tennis practice.

Digital cameras do become obsolete as sensor tech, AF tech, et cetera improve.

Paying 2x, 4x, or more for the initial purchase price just for the privilege of paying even more for repairs later doesn't make any sense compared to...buying multiple newer cameras spread out with the same budget. It's just a self-justification for massive price tags. And with a healthy used market, used gear helps proliferate the hobby without creating e-waste.

@BrentSchumer "Obsolete" is just a word in your brain. Any old 12MP camera can be used to take photos that are good enough for nearly any use. With those files, I print images up to A2 size. I, like most people, don't have wall space for anything larger. Most high-end DSLR cameras have excellent AF. The only reason for me to buy anything newer is because my work requires me to deliver high quality video. So I have a bunch of Panasonic cameras for that.

But please, keep buying new cameras as your old ones become obsolete. Thanks to people like you, I am able to buy high-end equipment for a fraction of the new price, and they deliver exactly the same fantastic image quality as they did when they were new.

Unfortunately, I can't buy a used Leica on my budget. They hold their value far too well, the lenses in particular.

Digital Leica cameras are a true liability. The electronics last much less time than the mechanics and become unfixable after a decade or so if there are no spares.

"putting a microphone with a fake sound instead to accommodate IBIS was hilarious.."

Some cars (looking at you BMW) have replaced exhaust note with simulated sound coming through the sound system speakers. Really pathetic. Leica--stick to your purity, don't listen to armchair experts.*

*I'm not a Leica guy, but I respect purity of design.

Most cars have synthetic sounds pumped through the internal speakers. Some also externally.

I was shooting an event with an Hasselblad 555, when someone asked if I could please turn the shutter sound off.

I didn't know about the BMW fake engine sound! Yes, that's pathetic LOL

The thing is Chris and Jordan are NOT Leica M users. What they want is basically a Q with interchangeable lenses because it might be closer to what they actually use. Same thing with "The Fro" when he reviewed one M body, he simply didn't get it and decided it was a piece of trash because his Sonys have far better specs.

It's not BMW, it's almost all the manufacturers and it's been a thing since the late 90's.

And yes, most allow you to turn it off, some require you to fiddle with the OBD port.

Good to see you entoman. More pics to share. I owe you an email. Hope you’re well.

Which one is Chris? Is he the podgy one or the one that has just got back from a funeral?

Chris - haha! I love your videos, and I love the design and engineering of many Leica products, but you haven't convinced me that they are the right product for me. I'll stick to Japanese cameras - and I'm sure your Japanese speaking would give us great entertainment!

Although a Leica is out of reach for most people, they manufacture their cameras in Germany, creating jobs for Germans, so that more Germans can afford the cost of living.

@anwiko: Leica is in no way responsible for any poverty problems in Germany. As noted, in fact they make available plenty of good paying jobs for Germans. No Leica employee is going hungry and that's a win for society.

What is needed isn't to somehow single out Leica, but a renaissance of humanity and compassion among the society at large. That's a harder ask but in reality until you elevate the thinking and compassion of society at large, then these deeper problems will not be solved.

@TRU: Maybe I was unprecise or you read too fast. I was not talking about Leica as a company but made an agrument from a consumer/photographer perspective.

You keep enjoying your Canon 7D LOL.

Yes I know.
1/8000th is better than 1/4000th no matter how you slice it up or adapt or whatever :).

Waiting for a Leica or Nikon Z9 or Audi is a very first world problem. There is nothing wrong with waiting for a luxury good.

Travelling 35 miles to work and needing to change my car because it will have 120000 miles on it is not the first world problem you’re making it out to be. The fact it is an Audi is irrelevant, it’s a car the same as any other and shouldn’t take a year to arrive from date of purchase.

@Stuart VC: I am not seeking to trivialize your car transit needs...

But...first, traveling 35 miles to work is a lot but by all means not the longest of a commute either. I know people who have longer daily commutes.

Second, 120,000 miles is not that much for most modern vehicles...an Audi should be able to handle that mileage easily if it's been taken care of.

Third, if all you care about is transportation, then it's possible to find some make and model of car that is available. I respect the fact that you prefer Audi, but then you are making it into a first world problem and a luxury choice.

I'm not trying to demean you, but just add some perspective. The fact that you have a job, a perfectly fine current vehicle, and want a newer one by a luxury brand but has to wait, is not really much of a problem.

We are not used to waiting a year to get the exact vehicle we want, but it's really not a big deal.

I can afford a Leica. Am I allowed to stay?

...Or is the pseudo-economic-prowess criteria just an excuse to censor any rational discussion about what can be rationally discussed?

Those who can afford Leicas are cross-financing the best and affordable printed photo-magazine in the world. Leica does a lot to keep photography alive and don't do much marketing BS, at least not in that fantastic magazine. So I can't afford one and stay.