Another question on price differential: Leica M lenses vs R lenses

[David Lyga]

Between the two, there is an amazing price differential here, from five to ten times. Why? Are the M lenses sharper (I doubt that). Thus, is consumer demand the ONLY reason? I assume that there is no optical advantage over the R type. Again, why?

And, while we are at it: Why are the Leica SLRs so downtrodden in desirability? Is this a case where size matters? The smaller the better? (Now if we could only apply that amazing advantage paradigm to manhood, we would truly accomplish something!) - David Lyga

 

[etn]

I think not only Leica SLR are low in desirability (hence price) but all SLR. Even the well regarded F3 or OM4 are only worth a couple hundred bucks on the used market, much less than an average Leica M. This influences lens prices I guess.

 

[David Lyga]

Then, rangefinder cameras are more desirable than SLRs SOLELY because of their smaller size? I can't think of a different reason other than (maybe) because the wide angle lenses don't have to have their formulas changed because there is no mirror to bump into with the rangefinder cameras. I cannot think of other reasons because there are actual advantages the SLRs have, like lack of parallax. To me, that is a BIG advantage. To me, I could never figure out this obsession with RF cameras. I like them but for precision focus, I trust that mirror more than RF mechanics. The actual lens you focus with is the one that must be in focus. - David Lyga

 

[darkosaric]

I use M cameras, and Nikon SLR, both systems are ok with me. Rangefinder purists are disturbed very much with a moment when you press the SLR shutter, and the mirror blinds you. There is also more than 100% frame what you see in the rangefinder, whole frame is always in focus, and so on. Every system has advantages and disadvantages, it is not that SLR or rangefinder system is superior in every way.

For the price: it is all about the demand, and marketing, optical quality and end result are more less the same. Even more - I don't see much difference between 30$ nikkor and 500$ Leitz, but if the end result is better with camera/lens A (because you connect better with this system) - then you should use camera/lens A, regardless of the price.

 

[film_man]

The cheap R stuff is cheap-ish, for the money you pay you could have a much faster SLR lens from, say, Nikon, however there are still some (eg latest 50/1.4, 80/1.4, 180/2) that cost a lot more than brand new modern equivalent SLR lenses do. So it is all about deisrability, supply and demand.

R bodies are an acquired taste, I like the R8/9 but I don't think £300-500 for one is worth it, especially as the total cost of building a kit with a couple of fast lenses (eg 35 and 50 f/1.4) will cost a lot more than what an EOS system with L AF lenses does. My 1N cost £100 so I can go through 5 of them before I get to one R9 body. What's funny is that I can use R lenses on the 1N.

As for the RF vs SLR, rangefinders are not about precise focus and framing, it is about small and fast shooting. I can focus a lot quicker with a rangefinder and be bang on. If I was going to have just one camera it would be the M4. But I can have more than one so if I am going to shoot close-up portraits I pick up the SLR. If I'm shooting longer than 50, I pick up the SLR. On the other hand, I just don't see why anyone would bother with an SLR when shooting say super wide.

 

[David Lyga]

To me, the SLR has the most advantages but I must say that I find the RF more 'sexy' in that it seems more 'intimate'. There were some SLRs made that seemed to ape the RF advantages, some of which come to mind were the Asahi Hi1a and the Olympus OM-1. - David Lyga

 

[etn]

Then, rangefinder cameras are more desirable than SLRs SOLELY because of their smaller size? I can't think of a different reason other than (maybe) because the wide angle lenses don't have to have their formulas changed because there is no mirror to bump into with the rangefinder cameras. I cannot think of other reasons because there are actual advantages the SLRs have, like lack of parallax. To me, that is a BIG advantage. To me, I could never figure out this obsession with RF cameras. I like them but for precision focus, I trust that mirror more than RF mechanics. The actual lens you focus with is the one that must be in focus. - David Lyga

Smaller size, no mirror, wide angle lenses, all this surely play a role. I think that the following factors have a larger contribution to the high market prices:
1) fashion effect, higher perceived brand value of Leica M (the same certainly is true of Hasselblad V against equally good Bronicas / Mamiyas SLRs)
2) offer and demand market dynamics: rangefinder offerings are limited, whereas the SLR market is flooded with Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Olympuses etc.

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, I think that the 'flooding' aspect plays mightily. Can you begin to imagine if it were the other way around, with a dearth of SLRs and an abundance of RFs? - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

Any analysis of price differentials between versions of used cameras will simply reveal an indication of what the current market prefers - not much about the cameras themselves.
Excluding of course factors like known design defects and non-availability of some batteries.
There were millions of Canon AE-1s made and sold. As a result, they tend to sell used for very small amounts of money now!
There were relatively small numbers of some of the rangefinder cameras made and sold. As a result, some of them tend to sell used for relatively large amounts of money now!
If you ask this question about currently produced, new cameras, then the response is much more likely to be rooted in the nature of the cameras themselves (and the cost of manufacturing them).

 

[Dali]

Price difference has little to do with optical quality but with status. To 90% of users and profanes, Leice means rangefinder, not SLR.

 

[David Lyga]

Sagacious and verifiable words, Dali and Matt King. - David Lyga

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I can't use R lenses. Because I see next to none use of SLRs without AF. Yet, I was able to take pictures with RF since I was kid.
Maybe some have the same issue. More demand, higher price.

Also, from my narrow perspective, M are over-priced just because. Most of them are nothing, but status lenses.
Even at LUF they have many going how bad RF is versus EVF.
While here are same quality lenses in SLR and EVF systems without Leica price for status (not for results).

 

[Paul Howell]

If a lens can resolve 200 LPMM (TMAX100) then it is sharp enough, some claim microcontrast, contrast can be increased or decreased in development or printing. Color retention, hard to say, coating have changed over the years, even the Swiss Alpa Kern Micro 50 1.7 has softer colors than today lens, but still as sharp. Other claim that a wide angle designed for a rangefinder is sharper in the corners than a SLR, retro focus with an without a mirror, may have been true in the past, don't think so with SLR lens past 40 or so years. Leica R vs M, what the market is willing to pay, Leica M have a devote following of collectors, R not so much.

 

[Arklatexian]

Back when Leica just made rangefinders, I worked in a camerastore and we just "couldn't wait" until they came out with an SLR. Well they finally came out with one. It was made in Wetzler and showed the same quality build as the rangefinder cameras. But they had trouble making a profit so they built an SLR factory in Portugal (and maybe other countries). Unlike in Canada where the products were every bit as good as from Wetzler, the Leica SLRs we saw from Portugal were not as desirable as the ones from Wetzlar had been. (different models too) After the SLR came out, it finally dawned on many of us that the rangefinder cameras, with Visoflex, bellows and correct lenses (after removing their removable focusing mounts) could do things that no SLR could do without special lenses, etc. By then, however, everyone only wanted SLRs and "the customer" determines what is saleable and what is not. Was Leitz correct? Probably not, but they had to play "catch-up" from then-on. Lenses, while very important are not all that is important. What that lens can be mounted is very important also........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I can't use R lenses. Because I see next to none use of SLRs without AF. Yet, I was able to take pictures with RF since I was kid.
Maybe some have the same issue. More demand, higher price.

Also, from my narrow perspective, M are over-priced just because. Most of them are nothing, but status lenses.
Even at LUF they have many going how bad RF is versus EVF.
While here are same quality lenses in SLR and EVF systems without Leica price for status (not for results).

If people are buyng RF Leicas and lenses as status symbols instead of because they will probably outlast the photographer. I AM speaking of M1, M2, and M3 models here, already 50+ years old. I would like to remind everyone that 100% mechanical cameras have a lot going for them. Also for those who have never used a RF camera for "hand-held" photography don't knock it until you have learned how to use it. Am I biased? Certainly, but with a "life time" of experience with those Ms on my side.........Regards!

 

[jtk]

If people are buyng RF Leicas as status symbols instead of because they probably will outlast the photographer for the next 50 years, then they should pay for the privilege but I know there is more to it than that. I AM speaking of M1, M2, and M3 models here, already 50+ years old. I would like to remind everyone that 100% mechanical cameras have a lot going for them. Also for those who have never used a RF camera for "hand-held" photography don't knock it until you have learned how to use it..........Regards!

Most photographers are looking for excellent visual results. That's why most shoot digital cameras of various types. For less than $1000 we have selected from several DSLTs and mirrorless that, with kit zoom or better, lead to visual results that easily rival Leica M cameras. :Leica 100% mechanical cameras will cost a phenomenal amount of money while their devotees attempt to maintain them while the few technicians who can do good CLAs. I loved my M4 but my Nikon scanner and my Epson Pro10 printer, combined with several inexpensive digital camers are far more important as image-makers.

 

[Arklatexian]

Most photographers are looking for excellent visual results. That's why most shoot digital cameras of various types. For less than $1000 we have selected from several DSLTs and mirrorless that, with kit zoom or better, lead to visual results that easily rival Leica M cameras. :Leica 100% mechanical cameras will cost a phenomenal amount of money while their devotees attempt to maintain them while the few technicians who can do good CLAs. I loved my M4 but my Nikon scanner and my Epson Pro10 printer, combined with several inexpensive digital camers are far more important as image-makers.

I am happy that you like what you have. I am even happier that you introduced me to Craig Varjabedian's work. I now own one of his books and plan to buy more. I have been to Ghost Ranch's Visitor,s Center several times but, naturally, never saw what he photographed. Friend of mine went there to paint many years ago. About the time the little Catholic Church in the back country was built. By the way, the only color that I have "enjoyed" shooting were transparencies. My work "for me" is all BxW and my only "digital camera" and Epson Photo printer yield color prints. Good ones but still "in color". If I were to buy a "new" something to shoot, I would buy the same cell phone, my daughter uses. It has yielded some beautiful images. Too bad that I am the only one who wants prints from the vast majority of her shots. The rest go back into the "ether" so to speak..............Regards!

 

[otto.f]

Why? Are the M lenses sharper (I doubt that).

Yes M lenses are theoretically, and in reality, sharper. Theoretical because there is a more direct distance to the film or sensor which makes less complicated lens designs possible, as opposed to R lenses where retrofocus constructions are necessary to give way to the mirror to move. In reality because this has been tested and can be seen from MTF graphics.

 

[Arklatexian]

Yes M lenses are theoretically, and in reality, sharper. Theoretical because there is a more direct distance to the film or sensor which makes less complicated lens designs possible, as opposed to R lenses where retrofocus constructions are necessary to give way to the mirror to move. In reality because this has been tested and can be seen from MTF graphics.

You believe this, I believe this, lens manufacturers know this and camera manufacturers know/knew this but many SLR owners will still doubt it or say it doesn't make any difference. They might be correct that it doesn't make any difference but that doesn't make lens and camera manufacturers incorrect.........Regards!

 

[film_man]

Without making this yet another silly Leica bashing thread, one thing that is better objectively with rangefinders is that the size and weight is smaller. Also, as otto.f mentions above, rangefinder wide lenses are better vs SLR ones simply because they sit right in front of the film plane. Tele lenses are not an issue but SLR wide lenses need a lot more work to get good performance. Just look at the size, weight and performance of things like the Leica/Zeiss 21 lenses and compare to the size and distortion the equivalent SLR lenses have.

In any case folks, use what you like. Just because you don't like something else doesn't make it wrong. For every bit of kit you use and swear by there someone who hates it, doesn't make you "wrong" either.

 

[otto.f]

You believe this, I believe this, lens manufacturers know this and camera manufacturers know/knew this but many SLR owners will still doubt it or say it doesn't make any difference. They might be correct that it doesn't make any difference but that doesn't make lens and camera manufacturers incorrect.........Regards!

Oh is this the new philosophy that science is also just an opinion, which underpins and justifies fake news in the end? Or do I read this wrong?
This doesn’t mean that I don’t think that everyone has to pick the brush that he feels best to paint with, that’s something different. The success of the rangefinders did not lie in the sharpness of the lenses but in its inconspicuousness, silent and small.

 

[Paul Howell]

Oh is this the new philosophy that science is also just an opinion, which underpins and justifies fake news in the end? Or do I read this wrong?
This doesn’t mean that I don’t think that everyone has to pick the brush that he feels best to paint with, that’s something different. The success of the rangefinders did not lie in the sharpness of the lenses but in its inconspicuousness, silent and small.

I agree, when working I carried both a Leica or Canon body and a Nikon F, F2 and last a F3, the 39mm thread bodies were small and quite, at times a necessity. But the OP question is about the price difference between R and M lens. M lens are priced way above what their performance warrants. Leica pro level lens, nothing else. Although it might be different for a very dense sensor, in term of film, what more do you need than 200 LPMM?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Whatever keeps Pentax glass low. Keep on buying RF stuff, please. Stay away from my FA Limiteds.

 

[blockend]

People aren't prepared to lug around a big camera nowadays. You can pick up a professional SLR for the same price or cheaper than a point and shoot of the same era. I hadn't noticed Leica R glass as particularly inexpensive, last time I looked it fetched a premium over other brands, especially since mirrorless adapters and video increased their usability. In the last ten years there has been a definite decline in the availability of good quality bodies and lenses, and an increase in tired examples.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If people are buyng RF Leicas and lenses as status symbols instead of because they will probably outlast the photographer. I AM speaking of M1, M2, and M3 models here, already 50+ years old. I would like to remind everyone that 100% mechanical cameras have a lot going for them. Also for those who have never used a RF camera for "hand-held" photography don't knock it until you have learned how to use it. Am I biased? Certainly, but with a "life time" of experience with those Ms on my side.........Regards!

Are you sitting on dozens of M? Or at one roll per year?
Because if M is used as regular camera to take pictures regularly, the user of this cameras knows what they will not last forever. I’m one of them. All like me Leica photographers have to send their M at least for CLA. But none of us has more than two M.
I have one, could barely afford CLA and service due to everyday, everywhere use. Not just bragging on forums how it is build.

Handheld is the highest achievement of yours? Wanna learn about focusing without focusing? This is possible with M, not R. Do you know why?