Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

agfarapid · Oct 22, 2014

I bought my first Leica (IIIc) when I was 19 and my second (M3) when I was 22. I'm now 65 and still have both, they each have been repaired once or twice and they are fun to use and deliver great results. I have a bunch of other brands as well but none that I enjoy as much. It's not so much the upfront cost but the long term value.

darkosaric · Oct 22, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
the other cameras are more for prosumersnot for elitists.

I would say that Hasselblad, Plaubel, Rolleiflex and Sinar are minimum on same non prosumer level as Leica, but they don't get so much emotional response from people who are not owning them.

Jim Jones · Oct 22, 2014

benjiboy said:
I have probably been able to afford a new Leica for the last 20 years but have never had any desire for one, the cameras I already own are better cameras than I'm a photographer, and I learned to distinguish the difference between want and need in the days that I had very little, and I don't subscribe to the use of expensive cameras as jewellery.

Yes, indeed! If individuals (and governments!) lived by the same policy, civilization might finally become civilized. I desired and bought my first Leica 61 years ago, and have used them and other good cameras most of the time since then. An inexpensive DSLR does as well for most of my photography. A true master photographer with an Argus C3 can still do better than I can on some subjects. Artists improve by studying masterpieces of art more than by quibbling over brushes. Why can't we stop nattering about photographic tools, and concentrate on photography?

frank · Oct 22, 2014

There is as much Leica bashing/anti-Leica snobbery, as there is elitist Leica snobbery. The universe balances out.

IMO, it is a small-minded person who gets upset and criticizes what camera that another person chooses to use.

benjiboy · Oct 22, 2014

Jim Jones said:
Yes, indeed! If individuals (and governments!) lived by the same policy, civilization might finally become civilized. I desired and bought my first Leica 61 years ago, and have used them and other good cameras most of the time since then. An inexpensive DSLR does as well for most of my photography. A true master photographer with an Argus C3 can still do better than I can on some subjects. Artists improve by studying masterpieces of art more than by quibbling over brushes. Why can't we stop nattering about photographic tools, and concentrate on photography?

Agreed Jim, I have nothing against Leicas or their users they just aren't for me, I've been a photographer for 61 years but as time has gone on I have realized that more important than what camera you use is what the pictures you take with it say, if anything and that a good photographer can make excellent pictures with inexpensive equipment, however having said that I do admit I have good quality equipment accumulated over many years, but nothing as costly as Leica cameras and lenses.

OldBodyOldSoul · Oct 22, 2014

darkosaric said:
I would say that Hasselblad, Plaubel, Rolleiflex and Sinar are minimum on same non prosumer level as Leica, but they don't get so much emotional response from people who are not owning them.

Leica is 35mm so it can be recognized as a status simbol by a much wider audience and therefore generate much more friction between those who own one and those who don't. Most people shooting the "lower brands" will not feel threatened by medium or large format cameras, regardless of brand.
Maybe not the best analogy, but tell a tech junkie person using a medium level cell phone that their camera phone is garbage compared to an iPhone or some other high-level cell phone, and also tell them the same but instead of iPhone mention any DSLR model you want. I am sure we will agree which of the two would generate more discussion.

removed account4 · Oct 22, 2014

frank said:
There is as much Leica bashing/anti-Leica snobbery, as there is elitist Leica snobbery. The universe balances out.

IMO, it is a small-minded person who gets upset and criticizes what camera that another person chooses to use.

i agree frank

Slixtiesix · Oct 22, 2014

Please do not forget Linhof! A Linhof Master Technika 2000 or 3000 costs around 7k if I remember right. And what else can it do that a much simpler and cheaper view camera won´t do?
The answer is: When collapsed it is much smaller, fits into a small bag, yet can provide an immense degree of movement for a camera like this. Also, the metal housing makes it pretty sturdy.
Most view cameras are either more bulky than a Linhof Technika, and in case they aren´t, they usually do not have that much options for movements. Many are also made from wood and won´t stand that much abuse that a Linhof can take.
Now this is where I come to the Leica question: Leica M was for decades one of the smallest and most discreet 35mm cameras around. Even today they advertise the Leica M as the smallest full frame system camera you can buy. Remember that there was also the Leica R, but it never became an icon like the Leica M, because it was just a normal SLR (and quite bulky in its last incarnations).
Furthermore, Leicas are high precision instruments built to the tightest tolerances. And don´t forget that they are assembled by hand, made in Germany, where wages are high and people have social insurances. This is adding to the price considerably. Regarding the picture quality, I must say that I feel that Leica lenses have some kind of distinguished signature, especially when you look at the out of focus areas. Resolution wise however, one must admit that every decent medium format camera with a standard lens will outcompete it.

But all in all, I think that buying any manual camera is a sensible way to spent your money. When I bought my first new computer in 2003, it did cost around 1k. 5 years later it was practically worthless. The first iPhone did cost 1k in 2007, today nobody will be impressed by it. Buy a brand new car and it will lose 50% of its worth in the first 3 or 4 years of use. But prices of used camera gear have stayed quite stable for the last 7 years...

BradleyK · Oct 22, 2014

frank said:
There is as much Leica bashing/anti-Leica snobbery, as there is elitist Leica snobbery. The universe balances out.

IMO, it is a small-minded person who gets upset and criticizes what camera that another person chooses to use.

+1. Well said.

frank · Oct 22, 2014

Thanks. I just realized that to balance the equation, I should also say that it is a small-minded person who would use the camera that they own in order to feel superior to others.

Xmas · Oct 22, 2014

baachitraka said:
Film was Orwo UN54 developed in DK-76b(1+1). I was just wondering about those minute details and for the rest I do not have worry much.

I do not get the comparison part, do you meant to compare number of lens elements?

Sorry no compare the performance of the 28, 35 and 50 mm, on the small print you cannot always resolve/read so use

tripod (or pillar)
slow film like 100 ISO tabular or your UN54

The 5 cm should be detectable better than the wides allowing for the larger size of the text, if you have a tripod move closer for the wides. If it is not better you are shaking the camera too much, and a Leica would be the same.

The later 5cm have better performance than the earlier but are multi coated and difficult to disassemble for cleaning internally. The refractive index controls performance as well as the number of elements, later lenses have fewer elements or groups but higher refractive index glass, the perform as well or better.

Noel

Dan Fromm · Oct 22, 2014

I come late to this discussion.

I'm more or less neutral about Leicas. Like all cameras they're tools and they're not bad ones. When I was trying to decide what my first 35 mm SLR should be one of my friends, a leicanut, tried to convince me that the Leicaflex SL was the only 35 mm SLR worth having. I consulted my budget, bought a Nikkormat and have stuck with Nikon. Not to say that the SL was a worse tool than my Nik'mat, just a lot more expensive. The lenses, too.

That said, I don't like being told that equipment I can't afford, e.g., Leica cameras and lenses, Alpa 12s, ..., is needed to take good pictures or that my less expensive gear isn't worth using. The behavior that annoys me isn't inherent in the high-priced cameras, it comes from the narrow and empty minds of people who extol their equipment and denigrate mine.

I give the well-meaning idiots a little back, though. After I pointed out to Andre Oldani of Alpa that my humble Century Graphic can do all an Alpa 12 can do, and more, he certified me as an ignorant barbarian. I've been called worse. Since my native language isn't Greek I am indeed a birthright barbarian. Proud of it, too.

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 22, 2014

While I'm certain many options other than the priciest Leica equipment are just as good... if you want a $10,000 or $40,000 or $100,000 Leica system and can easily afford it then acquire it. Why not? I'm just not a big Leica fan and certainly would not spend a fortune on a 135 format system of any brand. Again though... this is my opinion which has nothing to do with others' opinions.

frank · Oct 22, 2014

The only Leica gear I own was acquired used. I can not afford new but don't begrudge those who can.

I have more Nikkormats than Leicas.

Your buddy telling you that Leica is the only gear worth buying, is a form of Leica snobbery, IMO.

BradleyK · Oct 22, 2014

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
Leica is Berlin Philarmony with Furtwangler and Nikon is Boston Pops orchestra.

Play these two orchestras in a row and ask which is which to Nikon users , Nikon user will say he she prefers Madonna and hate classical music.

I would beg to differ here, Sir. Owning and using both systems (and enjoying both immensely), I would suggest that, at best, only a modicum of difference distinguishes the two. To wit, based on some three decades' experience, I detect no noticeable difference between images shot on HP5+/Tri-X with either my M6s or any of my F series Nikons (perhaps I should buy a more expensive Leica model? An MA, perhaps?). Images shot on color slide film, however, are an entirely different kettle of fish; these I can tell were shot with different systems: those I remember shooting with the Leica have a color rendition that, to my eye, seems deeper and richer - more vibrant? - than images shot with thee Nikons.

I have and use both systems, because each has a different purpose. The Leicas were not purchased for "snob appeal" or anything else; enjoyment of my hobby was the first and foremost consideration. And while the Leicas are a beautiful piece of engineering, at the end of the day they are still just cameras.

BTW: I love jazz (Miles Davis, Coltrane, Marsalis et al), classical (Mozart is as close as human beings will ever come to perfection) and rock (Stones, Beatles, Sex Pistols, Arctic monkeys, etc). lol

darinwc · Oct 22, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
I think itmay have to do withe attitude that comes with owning a Leica.some owners treat the red dot as an entry ticket to an elite cluband that rubs others the wrong way.the other cameras are more for prosumersnot for elitists.

Perhaps there is a double standard perception issue.
When someone gets excited about their Argus c3 and shares bland photos as results, I think 'how cool' and 'have fun with that'. It's a very positive response. When some one displays the same excitement about a leica, I have a very different response. 'You fanboy spent all that money and thinks he's a real photographer now'.

I am not saying anyone else has this reaction, but this discussion has made me very reflective.

fotch · Oct 22, 2014

jealousy, envy, applies to many things people acquire.

Xmas · Oct 22, 2014

Some of the high end pro DSLRs are more expensive but we don't have a comparable thread about them?

pdeeh · Oct 22, 2014

That might possibly be treated as off-topic for APUG ... :confused:

darkosaric · Oct 22, 2014

OldBodyOldSoul said:
Leica is 35mm so it can be recognized as a status simbol by a much wider audience and therefore generate much more friction between those who own one and those who don't. Most people shooting the "lower brands" will not feel threatened by medium or large format cameras, regardless of brand.
Maybe not the best analogy, but tell a tech junkie person using a medium level cell phone that their camera phone is garbage compared to an iPhone or some other high-level cell phone, and also tell them the same but instead of iPhone mention any DSLR model you want. I am sure we will agree which of the two would generate more discussion.

Yes, I agree, when I think of it - it makes sense.

darinwc · Oct 22, 2014

In regards to leica prices in particular.. I don't think the prices are out of line with the cost of producing the cameras. In fact I would say that the most mass produced cameras are more a product of corporate greed and stupid consumerism than leica or Ferrari.

Mass-produced consumer products:
Built in poor countries.
Quantity over quality.
Planned obsolescence.
High markup.
Look-alike copies.

-if those are not qualities of corporate greed and general assholeism , I don't know what is. -and it is not just coming from the usa. This is world wide now and many other countries are hotbeds for this behavior.

miha · Oct 22, 2014

There are none.

Pioneer · Oct 22, 2014

I enjoy working with Leica cameras, they are very well engineered and solidly built as a rule. I own and regularly use a Leica II Model D that is over 80 years old and still work wonderfully. I also have a Pentax K1000 that has almost continually by my side since 1984. It is also very well engineered and solidly built. With the occasional attention of a qualified technician I suspect that they will both continue to work, and work well, until I don't need them any longer. That is why I own these cameras. Because they have been doing their job for a long time and will continue to do it well for a long time to come. It has very little to do with the name plate or engraving on the camera.

Later in life I was fortunate to have a career that paid very well and I have been able to pick up a few digital cameras. I like them as well. Some of them are now getting old, in digital years. I don't expect that they will last as long as the two cameras listed above. But they might. The technology does not include as many moving, mechanica,l pieces as my older cameras contain, so they could theoretically run for a long time without needing service. Of course, when something does fail and require service then that is where the problem arises. Modules are replaced as long as parts are available and as long as technicians understand how to work with them.

I think this is the part where I prefer Leica. There are still people out there working on these 80 year old cameras. It is probably a little early to predict how this will turn out for their digital equipment but they still appear to be trying to make it work. I certainly hope so because I paid a lot of money for my M9. It needs to continue working for a very, very long time.

darkosaric · Oct 22, 2014

frank said:
Thanks. I just realized that to balance the equation, I should also say that it is a small-minded person who would use the camera that they own in order to feel superior to others.

. Well put Frank!

Xmas · Oct 22, 2014

snapguy said:
This entry is extremely racist and offensive. The Turks need to step up to the plate and admit the mass murder of millions of Armenians. At least Germany admits the terrible sins of Hitler et al.

off topic & I'll advised

Matthew 7:3

eg The US military dropped 11 million USG of long term toxin on a third world country in contravention to Geneva convention of '49 which they had signed before they deployed the material

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Herbicides

At least the NAZI's enumerated their victims

Cameras that are more expensive than a Leica

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency