Having a hard time understanding the Leica Mystique - aka Astronomical Prices

perkeleellinen · Dec 28, 2010

When I first got mine I was impressed by the fully radiused sides as opposed to the angular or flat ones on other cameras I've handled. I remember reading once online where a Leica enthusiast claimed that the body is made of brass and this particular choice of metal radiated heat to the hands increasing the handling pleasure. I wasn't so sure about that but I was keen to try out the film advance lever which online Leica enthusiasts had variously described as being silky smooth or like a hot knife going through butter. Mine seemed a little less smooth than that but I was keen to try out the legendary quiet shutter which I'd heard so much about online; silent, like a whisper, unobtrusive, Wim Wenders even called it a 'kiss'. I tried it: 'clunk', hmm not that quiet. So I tried it against my FM2: 'clack'. Hmm, 'clunk', 'clack'. I decided I should try a real world test and a few months later I was out with my wife in the grounds of a stately home. The sun was out and she was on a bench soaking up the rays with her eyes closed. I walked around a bit and thought a nice photo may be possible from behind her with this grand house in the background. I took the photo 'clunk'; immediately my wife swung round 'did you just take a photo?'. So much for the kiss!

chriscrawfordphoto · Dec 28, 2010

perkeleellinen said:
When I first got mine I was impressed by the fully radiused sides as opposed to the angular or flat ones on other cameras I've handled. I remember reading once online where a Leica enthusiast claimed that the body is made of brass and this particular choice of metal radiated heat to the hands increasing the handling pleasure. I wasn't so sure about that but I was keen to try out the film advance lever which online Leica enthusiasts had variously described as being silky smooth or like a hot knife going through butter. Mine seemed a little less smooth than that but I was keen to try out the legendary quiet shutter which I'd heard so much about online; silent, like a whisper, unobtrusive, Wim Wenders even called it a 'kiss'. I tried it: 'clunk', hmm not that quiet. So I tried it against my FM2: 'clack'. Hmm, 'clunk', 'clack'. I decided I should try a real world test and a few months later I was out with my wife in the grounds of a stately home. The sun was out and she was on a bench soaking up the rays with her eyes closed. I walked around a bit and thought a nice photo may be possible from behind her with this grand house in the background. I took the photo 'clunk'; immediately my wife swung round 'did you just take a photo?'. So much for the kiss!

The older models, the M3 and M2 had brass top plates but the later ones were zinc. The interior frame is Aluminum. Brass would weigh a ton, and Leicas are already heavy!

lilmsmaggie · Dec 28, 2010

CGW said:
This might help, re: the Leica mystique:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane

Wonderfully written article. Quite seductive I might add. Thanks for sharing.

budrichard · Dec 28, 2010

lilmsmaggie said:
I recently came across a M4-P 70th Anniversary 1913-1918, body only. No box, no instruction manual. I have to admit, a very nice camera. But the price!! :eek: Clearly, the price tag had collectors in mind. The same week, I came across an eBay listing for a plain-jane M4. Nice camera, except the leather on the back near the film indicator had worn through. Price: $1800 for a 40-year old camera!

IMHO, collectors are making a mess of the used camera market. Especially when it comes to Leica's. I guess I just don't understand. Wouldn't a Zeiss Ikon ZI fit the bill just as much as a M3 or M4? Does it have to be a Leica, and do you have to give up an arm and a leg, mortgage the farm and relinquish your 1st born to pay for it?

First, i am not a collector and both cameras and asking prices are in the collector area which is different than users.
Leica M's gained thier fame from three main attributes, lens quality, quiet operation and build quality. If a professional in some environments, there was and still is no better small format camera. The fact that the form factor has survived this long from M3 to M9 is a testamant to that. Along the way the Leica M became an 'ikon' that many amatures aspire to for many reasons, not all evident to many but valid just the same to the users.
I have them from M3 to M6 and two M7's. The M3 and M6 do not see much use but the M7's are heavily used with the latest Leica ASPH lenses for superb quality of image, form factor and minimal sound even with motor M's that are usually on my M7's.
I would suggest you go to a dealer and shoot some film with an M7 and whatever lens you like and evaluate or an M9! Then make an objective decision and leave the collector market to the collectors.-Dick

eddym · Dec 28, 2010

phaedrus said:
Like Chris Crawford and Eddy McDonald said: Do you want a Leica to use or to collect? In the second case, you'd appreciate these astronomical prices as they show a market holding and increasing in valuation.

Yeah... I'm holding off on buying a Holga until they introduce the Anniversary Olympics Leap Year Mayan Solstice Gold Inlaid Ostrich Skin Limited Edition version. I wanna get in on the ground floor of that "investment."

:munch:

elekm · Dec 28, 2010

Vilk said:
which reminds me--hasn't cosina's whole business idea consist of peddling the same old copal click-clack for decades? i googled it briefly, but didn't find anything conclusive. if so, we'd have way more than 5 years of track record by now

I see numerous Cosina-made cameras on the used market today. Everything from th Konica C35 to the Vivitar SLRs to Olympus and Nikons. Most of them are low-end cameras, and most still work today.

Cosina's Voigtlander cameras have been around for nearly a decade, and people continue to buy and use them -- new and used.

I don't understand your point.

Aron · Dec 28, 2010

When one develops an affection for very high quality engineering, there is no turning back. I'm not talking solely about Leicas, but also about top-quality Swiss and German mechanical watches, finely made laboratory instruments or excellent musical instruments and the list could go on.

Spending time with a finely crafted piece—whatever it may be—, even for only a shorter period of time can help one develop a love for finely executed tiny details. No matter how we look at it, it adds to the person, changes his attitude. There is a difference between visiting a museum for a full day vs. spending there only an hour.

On the other hand I tend to disagree with those who say that Leica negatives are instantly recognisable and photos taken with Leicas are in a different league compared to those taken with other cameras. They can be very sharp or contrasty but these qualities have little to do with our photographic vision that I believe most of us could develop to the same level with a Zorki as with a Leica. However, it can help boost creativity knowing for whatever reason the photos don't look the way one wishes to: It is not the camera to blame.

perkeleellinen · Dec 28, 2010

elekm said:
I don't understand your point.

I think he's saying that Cosina-made cameras have been around for ages and because of this we've got a longer history to judge reliability than if we just focused upon the Bessa RF models.

chrismoret · Dec 28, 2010

Try this link

http://cgi.ebay.nl/Nikon-SP-black-p...462490708?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item5641490054

Chris Lange · Dec 28, 2010

perkeleellinen said:
When I first got mine I was impressed by the fully radiused sides as opposed to the angular or flat ones on other cameras I've handled. I remember reading once online where a Leica enthusiast claimed that the body is made of brass and this particular choice of metal radiated heat to the hands increasing the handling pleasure. I wasn't so sure about that but I was keen to try out the film advance lever which online Leica enthusiasts had variously described as being silky smooth or like a hot knife going through butter. Mine seemed a little less smooth than that but I was keen to try out the legendary quiet shutter which I'd heard so much about online; silent, like a whisper, unobtrusive, Wim Wenders even called it a 'kiss'. I tried it: 'clunk', hmm not that quiet. So I tried it against my FM2: 'clack'. Hmm, 'clunk', 'clack'. I decided I should try a real world test and a few months later I was out with my wife in the grounds of a stately home. The sun was out and she was on a bench soaking up the rays with her eyes closed. I walked around a bit and thought a nice photo may be possible from behind her with this grand house in the background. I took the photo 'clunk'; immediately my wife swung round 'did you just take a photo?'. So much for the kiss!

Best description of the Leica experience I have read in a long, long time. They are nice bits of engineering to be sure, but so is a Nikon F series or a Rolleiflex.

dfoo · Dec 28, 2010

Its not a good description at all. Anyone who thinks the shutter of a Leica sounds anything like the shutter of an FM2 needs new ears. I have both. The FM2 sounds like a gunshot. The Leica like a snick.

Vilk · Dec 28, 2010

perkeleellinen said:
I think he's saying...

Yup, more or less what he was saying...

perkeleellinen · Dec 28, 2010

dfoo said:
Its not a good description at all. Anyone who thinks the shutter of a Leica sounds anything like the shutter of an FM2 needs new ears.

Anyone who doesn't read my post carefully needs new eyes?

I wrote about my personal experience with the Leica and tried to compare it to many online comments I've read in the past. The OP suggests the Leica reputation is a "mystique", and then considers "reverence" as a better word. I'd suggest "hyperbole".

I think the online comments often work by attrition on the more rational part of the brain and slowly the idea of a shutter which is 'silent' or like a 'kiss' becomes compelling. The Leica reality was decidedly underwhelming for me.

BetterSense · Dec 28, 2010

I agree; my OM2 shutter is not significantly louder than a Leica shutter. Also, the leaf shutter in my Canonet is quieter than both.

Jim Jones · Dec 28, 2010

I am neither professional photographer nor serious collector, but have used Leicas for 57 years. The latest body, an M4, cost about $200 overseas in 1970. That means using an elegant, reliable, and user friendly camera body for $5 a year. The lenses are bargains, too. The outfit is certainly not obsolete. My first digital camera, now 5 old, is hopelessly outdated. Of course the Leica outperformed it. The digital was more convenient in some ways. I'd rather people appreciate Leica quality images than be impressed by how easy an inferior shot was to capture.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 28, 2010

It's all a matter of perspective:
I consider plastic-auto-everything-wonders-with-all-the-bells-and-whistles (which when new, probably equalled Leica prices and their digital offstring still do) to be the real mystique and wate-of-money objects.

A leica is simply a very nice tool which lasts a lifetime and which isn't even so expensive when bought used.
Of course those who are convinced that price should be only correlated to "functions" and gadgets won't get it.

lilmsmaggie · Dec 28, 2010

budrichard said:
I would suggest you go to a dealer and shoot some film with an M7 and whatever lens you like and evaluate or an M9! Then make an objective decision and leave the collector market to the collectors.-Dick

Sorry, an M7 thru M9 is Waaaaaaaay too rich for my blood and my wallet!

Jim Jones said:
I am neither professional photographer nor serious collector, but have used Leicas for 57 years. The latest body, an M4, cost about $200 overseas in 1970. That means using an elegant, reliable, and user friendly camera body for $5 a year. The lenses are bargains, too. The outfit is certainly not obsolete. My first digital camera, now 5 old, is hopelessly outdated. Of course the Leica outperformed it. The digital was more convenient in some ways. I'd rather people appreciate Leica quality images than be impressed by how easy an inferior shot was to capture.

M4 prices now run the gamut anywhere from $900 to $3-4K.

I've seen some local examples recently of an M3 and a M4-P. Clearly needing some work; clearly overpriced and targeting collectors or as they say in the marketplace:

Offered at whatever the market will bear ...

So unless you're a collector, or prepared to drop an additional $600 to who knows how much to get the camera into good operating condition, it just might be a crap shoot.

Too bad collectors have driven up the market. I'd love to be able to buy a M4 at that price. Now for $200, you'd wind-up with something fitting the junk pile, or more likely the user manual, or box sans the camera body.

elekm · Dec 28, 2010

When you compete with collectors for cameras (or anything else), you're really in a no-win situation.

You almost always end up overpaying, because collectors are buying for one reason and you're buying for another reason.

Drives me crazy.

jglass · Dec 28, 2010

Here's how I look at the M4 I bought last year -- for $1400 including a 50mm Summicron: in 2 years if I tire of the lovely images it produces (neither better nor worse than the images produced by my Nikons, just different) I can sell it for . . . $1400, as long as it's in similar condition. That means it's essentially free to use.

If I never tire of it, in 20 years my son or daughter will get it or my nephew or whoever, and they'll be able to use it for another 20 or 30 years (if they can find film). This camera has lasted around 50 years by now and it shows very few signs of use and it has another 50 years in it easy, if not abused.

This can be said for other cameras, of course, and good on them. But it cannot be said of most cameras and the bottom line is that a high quality, precision tool that produces consistent, high quality results AND lasts 100 years or more is cheap at that price.

The collector pricing and the talk about mystique is bullship of course, but it is tethered to very real qualities that are worth the user prices most of us pay.

michaelbsc · Dec 28, 2010

For someone with my level of talent a FED-2 and a handful of FSU glass is just as good.

I don't delude myself that a camera will give me better vision. For some others around here, better gear does give better results. But for me, I still need to get out of the gate.

dfoo · Dec 28, 2010

I sold my M4-p in decent condition for $600. A Leica doesn't have to be all that expensive, and retains its value quite well. I very much prefer the ergonomics of Leica's & lenses to my Nikon SLRs.

rmolson · Dec 28, 2010

lecia

check out the latest Ebay Lecia M owned by famous photographer(?) wold fit the ugly category only $104,000....!!!!
Never owed a Lecia , couldn't afford one and now I never will .

elekm · Dec 28, 2010

Here's a prime example of the Leica name pushing up the price on a piece of junk.

eBay auction here

lilmsmaggie · Dec 28, 2010

elekm said:
Here's a prime example of the Leica name pushing up the price on a piece of junk.

eBay auction here

I also so this over on RFF.

They're just as befuddled and amused as we are

7 bids $100! Please

IloveTLRs · Dec 28, 2010

Zathras said:
That sounds like the average gasbag dweeb on RFF to me!!!

+10 So true, so true

Having a hard time understanding the Leica Mystique - aka Astronomical Prices

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency