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

[stevebrot]

/*

I take the courage to ask a slightly OT question in hoping that some of the Leicafans here will have an answer:

What can be considered the largest safe aperture for the shutter if I carry the camera all day long in full sun sans lenscap?

*/

To clarify some of the above comments, it is not the brightness of the scene as much as it is the risk of subjecting the shutter to sharply focused direct sun. Sort of like burning ants using a magnifying glass. The rule of thumb is to keep the lens capped when not actively shooting if there is a risk of having the lens point at the sun in general handling. As for the value of filters or a hood


Steve

 

[2F/2F]

Leitz made excellent cameras, and they were always somewhat of a "luxury" item. Not too outrageous, but maybe something like a BMW or Mercedes might be today. They were this ubiquitous force in cameras for a long time – about 30 years – and their name became legendary and synonymous with the high-end 35mm camera.

Then came Nikons, and they took over quickly because they were the first camera system in a long time that was significantly better than or equal to Leicas in almost every way that counted to working photographers. All that was left for Leica was the legendary status, and, less so, the fact that, although outmatched in almost every way, they were still well-made cameras. When your product is not even close to being able to take on the competition (i.e. Nikon in this case), you can no longer rely on the product itself to keep you in business.

The Leica mystique was always perpetuated to some degree by the company, and when the cameras gradually phased out in the wake of Nikons, I think Leitz came to rely on their legendary status to keep themselves in business. The sentimentality of those who had grown up with and made their livings on the legendary Leicas of yore was stoked by the company and passed down from generation to generation.

Now we have exorbitantly priced cameras that are no better than what the company made when Nikon first blew them out of the water. Think about it. How the heck else is a company supposed to stay in business with a product that was handily outmatched fifty years ago? You don't sell the product. You sell something more than the product. The product simply becomes a vehicle for the purchase of status. With the cameras appealing to a much smaller market, prices had to go up both to support the myth, and to simply make enough money for the company to stay afloat. Make no mistake. Leicas are primarily luxury/leisure items, and have been for decades.

The way I see it, the trick to getting around this overpriced idiocy, and to simply get your hands on an excellent rangefinder camera, is to realize that the company has made no significant upgrades for 90% of truly serious shooters since the M2. If you want a quality rangefinder that simply gets the job done in an old-fashioned manner, don't buy anything past the M2, and do not fall for any of the collector garbage. Realize that no matter how good everyone proclaims the optics and mechanics of the cameras to be, they are over all an outdated and inferior tool to SLRs. The slight advantages in optics are more than outweighed by disadvantages in other areas. Leicas are worth owning and shooting because they are a well made example of a convenient, fun, and loose, seat of the pants style of camera of the past. You shoot one for the same reason you drive a '61 Cadillac: because they're fuggin' cool, and fuggin' fun, not because they are the best in the world in a technical sense (though they may have been at the time they were made).

That attitude would keep anyone in their right mind from paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for one. But no. Everyone is so convinced that having a Leica makes them a serious photographer. Everyone is convinced that they are vastly superior in quality to any other camera. Balls to that. The proof in pictures says otherwise. People shoot the same crap with Leicas that they do with any camera, and often it is even crappier because rangefinders are such a pain in the ass to use compared to SLRs. Leicas are cool because they are fun and old fashioned. Embrace that, and don't take them so damned seriously. You'll get out cheap, and have a million times more fun and get a million times better pictures than all the bozos paying big bucks for them so that they can think of themselves as serious photographers. Get an old thread mount camera or an early M and you've got everything that was ever good about using a Leica in the first place. You usually escape for well under a thousand bucks too.

The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it. They've always got to attach some sort of twisted value to it beyond what it actually is: a fuggin' bitchin' old camera that used to rule the world.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Embrace that, don't take them so damned seriously, and you can get out cheap, and have a million times more fun and get a million times better pictures than all the bozos paying big bucks for them so that they can think of themselves as serious photographers. Get an old thread mount camera or an early M and you've got everything that was ever good about using a Leica in the first place. You usually escape for well under a thousand bucks too.

My yardstick for current Leica's prices were examples being offered locally at a brick 'n mortar camera store with a reputation of having high prices to begin with on virtually everything in their store, cameras being offered on EvilBay, and cameras offered for sale on various forum sites. Using these prices as a guide, and for less than what I would have paid for a Canon 7D body only; I purchased both a camera body that is in mint condition, case, instruction manual and an excellent lens with hood at a price that everyone else was asking for just the M5 body alone!

Considering the condition some of the cameras that were being offered for sale were in, I could have easily paid twice as much for less.

 

[Xmas]

Leitz made excellent cameras, and they were always somewhat of a "luxury" item. Not too outrageous, but maybe something like a BMW or Mercedes might be today. They were this ubiquitous force in cameras for a long time – about 30 years – and their name became legendary and synonymous with the high-end 35mm camera.

Then came Nikons, and they took over quickly because they were the first camera system in a long time that was significantly better than or equal to Leicas in almost every way that counted to working photographers. All that was left for Leica was the legendary status, and, less so, the fact that, although outmatched in almost every way, they were still well-made cameras. When your product is not even close to being able to take on the competition (i.e. Nikon in this case), you can no longer rely on the product itself to keep you in business.

The Leica mystique was always perpetuated to some degree by the company, and when the cameras gradually phased out in the wake of Nikons, I think Leitz came to rely on their legendary status to keep themselves in business. The sentimentality of those who had grown up with and made their livings on the legendary Leicas of yore was stoked by the company and passed down from generation to generation.

Now we have exorbitantly priced cameras that are no better than what the company made when Nikon first blew them out of the water. Think about it. How the heck else is a company supposed to stay in business with a product that was handily outmatched fifty years ago? You don't sell the product. You sell something more than the product. The product simply becomes a vehicle for the purchase of status. With the cameras appealing to a much smaller market, prices had to go up both to support the myth, and to simply make enough money for the company to stay afloat. Make no mistake. Leicas are primarily luxury/leisure items, and have been for decades.

The way I see it, the trick to getting around this overpriced idiocy, and to simply get your hands on an excellent rangefinder camera, is to realize that the company has made no significant upgrades for 90% of truly serious shooters since the M2. If you want a quality rangefinder that simply gets the job done in an old-fashioned manner, don't buy anything past the M2, and do not fall for any of the collector garbage. Realize that no matter how good everyone proclaims the optics and mechanics of the cameras to be, they are over all an outdated and inferior tool to SLRs. The slight advantages in optics are more than outweighed by disadvantages in other areas. Leicas are worth owning and shooting because they are a well made example of a convenient, fun, and loose, seat of the pants style of camera of the past. You shoot one for the same reason you drive a '61 Cadillac: because they're fuggin' cool, and fuggin' fun, not because they are the best in the world in a technical sense (though they may have been at the time they were made).

That attitude would keep anyone in their right mind from paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for one. But no. Everyone is so convinced that having a Leica makes them a serious photographer. Everyone is convinced that they are vastly superior in quality to any other camera. Balls to that. The proof in pictures says otherwise. People shoot the same crap with Leicas that they do with any camera, and often it is even crappier because rangefinders are such a pain in the ass to use compared to SLRs. Leicas are cool because they are fun and old fashioned. Embrace that, and don't take them so damned seriously. You'll get out cheap, and have a million times more fun and get a million times better pictures than all the bozos paying big bucks for them so that they can think of themselves as serious photographers. Get an old thread mount camera or an early M and you've got everything that was ever good about using a Leica in the first place. You usually escape for well under a thousand bucks too.

The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it. They've always got to attach some sort of twisted value to it beyond what it actually is: a fuggin' bitchin' old camera that used to rule the world.

Hi
Not my recollection, Leica slugged it out for sales with Canon and Nikon after WWII until Nikon and Canon went to SLRs, they outsold Nikon, and nearly held their own against Canon, although there was a cost premium.
May be good marketing cause I still use Canon Ps.
Their volume has remained static compared with Canon and Nikons. They are now like marcupials in an environment with no competing mammals... Although Cosina are rescently denting their volume a lot.

My yardstick for current Leica's prices were examples being offered locally at a brick 'n mortar camera store with a reputation of having high prices to begin with on virtually everything in their store, cameras being offered on EvilBay, and cameras offered for sale on various forum sites. Using these prices as a guide, and for less than what I would have paid for a Canon 7D body only; I purchased both a camera body that is in mint condition, case, instruction manual and an excellent lens with hood at a price that everyone else was asking for just the M5 body alone!

Considering the condition some of the cameras that were being offered for sale were in, I could have easily paid twice as much for less.

A beaten up M2 and a LTM CV f/2.5 in 35mm or 50mm (plus adapter) is comparable in £ with a new CV system. The results wont be much different from a new MP system. You should be able to get a cheap separate meter for color. An old weston is only a few rolls of film.

Noel

 

[Steve Roberts]

You shoot one for the same reason you drive a '61 Cadillac: .

Though your post was well-constructed and argued, that line pretty much says it all for me, as an owner of an old vehicle and a Leica. Sadly the vehicle isn't a '61 Caddy, but the sentiment's the same!

Steve

 

[Aron]

The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it.

Although I enjoyed reading your mini article, Keith, there are a few points I think about in a different way.

Over all rangefinders can be considered outdated if one primarily uses long lenses, if one prefers to shoot at 3+ fps or take macro shots without a dedicated setup. However, for anything under 90-135 mm, I believe rangefinders are still the better choice: I just love composing using the framelines and prefer focusing the rangefinder way, wether the ongoing action is slow or moderately fast (not too fast as to reach for an auto-everything camera) and I believe I'm not the only in thinking so.

I agree some photographers/collectors are over the top with the (their) Leica mystique, however, mystique can be good and trying to judge everything objectively can be harmful. Strong emotion (and subjective judgement) is needed to fuel imagination when one tries to create wether it's a new aircraft engine or a photograph.

If you take a nice viola from an experienced musician and give him another one of the same make, even if they are almost completely identical, the player will know which one he prefers. As long as we don't photograph in order to have an excuse for having nice cameras, I see no problem in loving our tools to create art.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

All that was left for Leica was the legendary status, and, less so, the fact that, although outmatched in almost every way, they were still well-made cameras.

Nikon won the commercial battle and cornered the professional market, but certainly not because they were "better in almost every way".

Leica was expensive and entered the SLR market late (and, at the very first, poorly), by the time they had an SLR which could knock the socks off a contemporary Nikon (1968), it was too late.

For years I used and loved my Nikon F and F2, but in comparison to their Leica contemporaries (Leicaflex SL & SL2), they are clearly outmatched (the Nikons, that is).

In Leica's case, it isn't (only) just a matter of mystique, but of real technical and ergonomic advantages.
Unless the only advantages you consider important are the number of "features" and automatic functions a camera has.
Of course any "serious" camera today *absolutely needs* 1/16000 and the ability to shoot at 12 fps... (I think Super 8 actually achieved 24 fps)

Now I use my Leicaflexes nearly every day and my former beloved F & F2 are collecting dust..

 

[Xmas]

Nikon won the commercial battle and cornered the professional market, but certainly not because they were "better in almost every way".

Leica was expensive and entered the SLR market late (and, at the very first, poorly), by the time they had an SLR which could knock the socks off a contemporary Nikon (1968), it was too late.

For years I used and loved my Nikon F and F2, but in comparison to their Leica contemporaries (Leicaflex SL & SL2), they are clearly outmatched (the Nikons, that is).

In Leica's case, it isn't (only) just a matter of mystique, but of real technical and ergonomic advantages.
Unless the only advantages you consider important are the number of "features" and automatic functions a camera has.

Well the pros did not think anything of the Leica SLRs, they were buying the best camera for the job, they bought Nikon F, and then F2, and then F3,... in enormous numbers and they hammered them to death. The hobby people ditto, cept for pampering. They are still buying Nikons and Canons, Canon had great trouble competing with Nikon, for the pro market, they did better earlier with rangefinders, Leitz just did not appear to try with SLRs.

The customer is allways correct, if it does not sell it is the wrong product.

My Nikon F '63 was more reliable than my M4 '68, although there was more to go wrong in a F than a M4. I still use an F2 when I need a SLR, it has not gone wrong - yet.

Noel

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Well the pros did not think anything of the Leica SLRs, they were buying the best camera for the job, they bought Nikon F, and then F2, and then F3,...

Short answer before sleep: if we all blindly followed what the "pros" do, we'd all be using D*g*t*l and there would be no Apug....

 

[Galah]

Spot on: my take precisely!

 

[mhcfires]

The Leica mystique is due to the fact that people do not know how to objectively judge something, take it for what it is, and just enjoy it for the hell of it. They've always got to attach some sort of twisted value to it beyond what it actually is: a fuggin' bitchin' old camera that used to rule the world.

I was first exposed to Leica as a student in college in the early '60's. One of my professors had bought a spanking new M3 and three or four lenses, he was so proud of this little camera. I tried it out and really liked the feel, but as a starving student I knew I wouldn't be getting one of these little gems for a long time. Fast forward forty-six years and I found a nice M2 user camera in great condition. It isn't a collector, but I want something I can use, not collect dust. I also have picked up an old IIIa and a IIIf red dial. These cameras are a joy to use, I enjoy them. I have other cameras for macro work and for telephoto shots, these cameras are for the sheer joy of shooting. I agree with 2F, they are bitchin' old cameras, the digi snobs can do their thing, flaunt their fancy stuff, but I really enjoy these old gems which will probably still be shooting long after those fancy multi-megapixel jobs have been pushed aside for still fancier electronic jobs.


m

BTW, I do have a few digitals, a D80 and a D700. They are great for what they do, but for fun, I have my Leicas, my Speeds, and my Graflex SLR's.

 

[blockend]

The game was up for Leica rangefinders when good examples began to be squirrelled away as an investment vehicle for people with spare cash and one eye on the future. Like house price inflation, the thought that your home has just tripled in price is a nice one until you want to trade it for another and find the market paralysed.

There was a moment in the 1980s when clean Leicas were swapped around and I remember one shop that did much of its business part exchanging bodies and lenses and offering good deals to enthusiasts who wanted to try new stuff. Then the clean examples dried up leaving beaten up bodies and sloppy lenses that stayed on the shelf months instead of days and the shop closed its doors.

 

[jacarape]

Collecting Leicas and using them for photography are two different things.

It is rather disingenuous to say they are one of the same, or just plain wrong.

Collectors don't shop at Keh, they don't drive up the prices of used M3s with peeling "Naugahyde" that are still good shooters and old Elmars.

If one was to compare collecting antique silver spoons and a Wally World job and say the spoon made by the Revere shop is just an over valued object that can't have any added value as it's still just a spoon is kinda wrong. Oh yea, spoon collectors are driving up the price of spoons. That doesn't work.

And that's the same with a Leica camera. I like photography and for the moment with an MP and 35/1.4 ASPH and a 75/1.4. The price premium for users is for a mosty handmade camera with some of the finest optics ever produced (I love all things Mandler).

 

[Q.G.]

Collecting Leicas and using them for photography are two different things.

It is rather disingenuous to say they are one of the same, or just plain wrong.

Not necessarily, and (consequently) not always.

Plenty collectors who actually find pleasure in using their 'collection items'. The fun of "which one shall i use today?" The fun of knowing that the thing you are using is not just an anonymous collection of metal and glass, but something that transcends that.

It will not show in the photographs. But it certainly changes, adds to the pleasure people have while creating those photographs.

 

[jacarape]

Not necessarily, and (consequently) not always.

Plenty collectors who actually find pleasure in using their 'collection items'. The fun of "which one shall i use today?" The fun of knowing that the thing you are using is not just an anonymous collection of metal and glass, but something that transcends that.

It will not show in the photographs. But it certainly changes, adds to the pleasure people have while creating those photographs.

I think you have a valid point and I agree 50%. I'm really not sure whether to call Jay Leno a car collector or a very rich enthusiast as he drives his collection.

(He told a funny story where the exhaust of his turbine powered motorcycle melted the bumper of the car behind him at a stop light.)

But the collectors that buy items in unopened boxes and X-Ray them to verify the contents are the ones I refer to. It don't believe it's photography, it's another hobby altogether.

 

[Steve Smith]

But the collectors that buy items in unopened boxes and X-Ray them to verify the contents are the ones I refer to. It don't believe it's photography, it's another hobby altogether.

On a TV programme a couple of years ago, presenter James May went to an auction and won a model locomotive for a Hornby train set still in its original packaging. He shocked the collectors present by passing the box and internal packaging to the girl at the collection desk and asked her to throw it away as he bought it with the intention of using it.


Steve.

 

[blockend]

The problem with hiving away nice cameras is it distorts the market lower down. Any camera, will get marked with use. You'll use a wall as an impromptu tripod for 1/15th exposures and it'll rub on the zip of your jacket as you walk. That's the only way to make a 35mm camera available to take the kind of photographs it does best.

When the price premium between a barely marked example and a cosmetically tatty camera is a factor of 3 or more, the good ones are going to completely disappear from use. That has the effect of making a 'user' Leica a 'beaten up' example by the definition of any other make. The story goes that it'll keep working 'because it's a Leica' and that may be partly true but it's still a physically thrashed camera that has dealers and owners reaching for new metaphors to describe it positively.
My impression is M-series bodies are just about within reach of keen photographers but getting a collection of good lenses to use on them is for marque enthusiasts only. If I was keen on buying a Leica I'd pay the going rate for a mint one and leave it behind glass to accumulate value and use spare cash for a Nikon and some lenses to take photographs with.

 

[michaelbsc]

On a TV programme a couple of years ago, presenter James May went to an auction and won a model locomotive for a Hornby train set still in its original packaging. He shocked the collectors present by passing the box and internal packaging to the girl at the collection desk and asked her to throw it away as he bought it with the intention of using it.

In time more affluent I bought a very nice fountain pen that was usually only considered by "collectors" like these guys.

The usual attitude was that the pens should never see a bottle of ink, but the clerk was shocked as she handed me the charge slip when I opened the box, stuck the pen in the bottle of ink on the counter, and signed the slip with the pen I'd just bought.

She pointed out that I'd just reduced the value of the pen to half what it was worth in the box, and I asked what the hell good was a pen that didn't write.

Granted, a fountain pen is jewelry for writing. A plastic ball point will put ink on paper. For the "collector" dudes, an unopened Leica is jewelry for their shelf.

 

[softshock]

On a TV programme a couple of years ago, presenter James May went to an auction and won a model locomotive for a Hornby train set still in its original packaging. He shocked the collectors present by passing the box and internal packaging to the girl at the collection desk and asked her to throw it away as he bought it with the intention of using it.
Steve.

:eek: But how will he stow it when not in use or in a house move?! I also "play" with model trains but try to always keep the packaging for when track isn't set up.

As for the Leica "mystique", my girlfriend had told me how she wanted a "Leica with a Zeiss" someday, which got me interested in the brand, and I decided to pick up a III & Summar. For me it's just so much more natural to shoot with a rangefinder than an SLR. I love the feel of my III or M3 in my hands. Not to mention they make a good self defense weapon in the field I have yet to get that Zeiss, instead using FSU glass. I must say the Jupiter 8 & 3 please me very much.

 

[Q.G.]

:eek: But how will he stow it when not in use or in a house move?! I also "play" with model trains but try to always keep the packaging for when track isn't set up.

You put it, with the rest of the stuff, in a large cardboard box.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I have yet to get that Zeiss, instead using FSU glass. I must say the Jupiter 8 & 3 please me very much.

Well, be happy: the Jupiters *are* Zeiss lenses, albeit 1930's designs, slightly tweaked to better support lower production tollerances.

They do show how good Zeiss designs were already in the 1930's...

Leica, for many of their lenses, didn't catch up to Zeiss until at least the 1980's (or even, arguably, not yet, depending on what you consider important in lens performance).

 

[Xmas]

Leica, for many of their lenses, didn't catch up to Zeiss until at least the 1980's (or even, arguably, not yet, depending on what you consider important in lens performance).

Well the ZM lenses are cheaper, but the CV lenses are cheaper again.
If you are not going to notice the difference in optical performance...

HCB used a Zeiss lens on his Leica until the type I cron appeared, so he then prefered Leitz over Zeiss for an interval?

Noel

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Well the ZM lenses are cheaper, but the CV lenses are cheaper again.
If you are not going to notice the difference in optical performance...

Noel

While the differences between Leica and Zeiss ZM lenses can certainly be argued on a case by case basis, CV lenses, while generally good and being good value, are clearly behind ZMs and more recent Leica lenses (unless you consider lenses which the others don't have, like the 12mm & 15mm).

I have the CV 15 & 21mm, and after having tried out the ZM 21mm f/4.5, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I can get a reasonably priced one...
In short, the difference in optical performance *is* very noticeable.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

I'm sure there is a difference, but I dont detect it hand held 1/125 with 400 ISO mono at /5.6 or smaller. My mates who borrow my lenses in coffee shops, and pixel peep wide open with M8 and M9 can detect differences, e.g. between my CV 25mm and ZM 25mm.

But the ZM is big and nearly as heavy as two CV in the bag. Dont carry it often.

Noel

 

[Q.G.]

Hi

I'm sure there is a difference, but I dont detect it hand held 1/125 with 400 ISO mono at /5.6 or smaller. My mates who borrow my lenses in coffee shops, and pixel peep wide open with M8 and M9 can detect differences, e.g. between my CV 25mm and ZM 25mm.

That will be due to the pixel producing device.