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

blockend · Jan 11, 2011

Xmas said:
But most cameras will have been neglected, and subject to kitchen knife maintenance.

Noel

That's undoubtedly true, however my uncle went on holiday behind the iron curtain in the early 70s and brought back a few Zorkis and Feds with an idea to sell them on back home. He gave me them unopened for my 'expert' opinion and they were astonishingly rough out of the box. Whether that was because they were intended for domestic consumption in the eastern bloc rather than export models who can say but the ones I used felt beyond bad.

I'd happily use one that had been breathed on by an enthusiast and the designs are perfectly sound but my impression was the quality control must have been non-existent.

Rol_Lei Nut · Jan 11, 2011

FSU equipment

blockend said:
I'd happily use one that had been breathed on by an enthusiast and the designs are perfectly sound but my impression was the quality control must have been non-existent.

Quality control *was* largely inexistant.

But a decent FSU camera, especially if from good years (say, pre-1970) and properly CLA'd, can be a very nice, smooth and even reliable creature.
More or less comparable to a Leica which is about to need a CLA...

The main reason I rarely use the FSU cameras I have isn't their intrinsic quality or even their lenses, just that my Leica M6 has:
1) a built in light meter (yes, some snobs only use external ones, but the M6 one is quite good)
2) framelines for various focal lengths
3) a bayonet mount.

But every time I pick up a Zorki 3, I wonder why I don't use it more often....

If one only uses a 50mm and doesn't want a built-in light meter, then the argument for using a good FSU camera can be quite compelling.

jglass · Jan 11, 2011

Thanks T42 ...

. . . you saved me a lot of work and said it all better than I would have. Spot on with every point regarding 2f/2f's comments.

Interesting how the Leica produces more heat than light in comments from detractors as much as from the blind followers of the mystique.

Your point about zero cost of ownership is particularly well-taken.

stevebrot · Jan 11, 2011

jglass said:
. . . you saved me a lot of work and said it all better than I would have. Spot on with every point regarding 2f/2f's comments.

Interesting how the Leica produces more heat than light in comments from detractors as much as from the blind followers of the mystique.

Your point about zero cost of ownership is particularly well-taken.

It might be interesting to point out that the OP for this thread is now a proud owner of an M5. Not the most treasured Leica, but still a nice piece of kit. So apparently the price/value plot must have met his sweet point.

As for me, I don't know that I have ever touched a Leica. As a result, I am quite thrilled with my Canon P and have fun with my Zorki 4K, FED-2, and Kiev 4A. (Yes, I have all three...it is a long story...) The FSU cams are great in their own way and I have no complaints about the optics (Helios 103, Jupiter-8, and Jupiter-12 with all but the Helios in both mounts) except for a lemon Industar 61 that was attached to the FED.

I agree that the prices on the FSU stuff is getting way out of control, though. Better to get a Japanese fixed lens rangefinder if you want value.

Steve

lilmsmaggie · Jan 11, 2011

stevebrot said:
It might be interesting to point out that the OP for this thread is now a proud owner of an M5. Not the most treasured Leica, but still a nice piece of kit. So apparently the price/value plot must have met his sweet point.

Absolutely, positively! -- less than $1700 I'd say that was SWEET indeed

T42 · Jan 12, 2011

Hello, jglass. Thank you.

jglass said:
. . . you saved me a lot of work and said it all better than I would have. Spot on with every point regarding 2f/2f's comments.

Glad to help. I'm pleased to know how that my thinking is not alone and in a vacuum on that issue. Thanks for the support and the comments.

Interesting how the Leica produces more heat than light in comments from detractors as much as from the blind followers of the mystique.

I wonder why it is. I have seen it before. Most people I know who have used an M long enough for it to become second nature really love using it.

Your point about zero cost of ownership is particularly well-taken.

People who think Leica is absurdly priced should pay more attention to that point, IMO. So many folks confuse initial purchase price with total cost of ownership. Totally different things when something holds its value like a Leica.

Very pleased to meet you.

blockend · Jan 12, 2011

stevebrot said:
I agree that the prices on the FSU stuff is getting way out of control, though. Better to get a Japanese fixed lens rangefinder if you want value.

Steve

That's the conclusion I reached. I'd quite like a commiecam and the Kiev in particular is a lovely looking piece of optical machinery, but my Yashica ticks most of the retro rangefinder boxes and gives my Nikon primes a run for their money without sounding like a film sprocket shredding device or that it might be about to explode if you wind on another frame.

Maybe that's why some people buy Leica bodies and put Russian lenses on - all the smoothness with none of the expensive glassware.

michaelbsc · Jan 12, 2011

blockend said:
stevebrot said:

I agree that the prices on the FSU stuff is getting way out of control, though. Better to get a Japanese fixed lens rangefinder if you want value.

Steve

Click to expand...

That\'s the conclusion I reached. I\'d quite like a commiecam and the Kiev in particular is a lovely looking piece of optical machinery, but my Yashica ticks most of the retro rangefinder boxes and gives my Nikon primes a run for their money without sounding like a film sprocket shredding device or that it might be about to explode if you wind on another frame.

Maybe that\'s why some people buy Leica bodies and put Russian lenses on - all the smoothness with none of the expensive glassware.

Who does a good job of correcting the problems with the difference in the focus helix pitch between the FSU and Leica lenses?

chriscrawfordphoto · Jan 12, 2011

michaelbsc said:
Who does a good job of correcting the problems with the difference in the focus helix pitch between the FSU and Leica lenses?

No one does. There is no fix. The lenses are simply incompatible, and those who claim to like FSU lenses are either too blind to see out of focus images for what they are or willing to accept low quality images to save money. I've tried several FSU lenses and tried to like them but the fact is that they don't focus accurately at all distances. You can have them adjusted for close up accuracy, but at further distances they front focus. There are plenty of lenses made with the correct focus pitch that are cheap, like old canon rangefinder lenses and new Voigtlanders. They are much better choices.

michaelbsc · Jan 12, 2011

chriscrawfordphoto said:
No one does. There is no fix. The lenses are simply incompatible, and those who claim to like FSU lenses are either too blind to see out of focus images for what they are or willing to accept low quality images to save money. I've tried several FSU lenses and tried to like them but the fact is that they don't focus accurately at all distances. You can have them adjusted for close up accuracy, but at further distances they front focus. There are plenty of lenses made with the correct focus pitch that are cheap, like old canon rangefinder lenses and new Voigtlanders. They are much better choices.

Too bad. The glass is actually pretty decent on an FSU body. And I can see how it could be done looking at one, but man would it be a lot of work to get it right.

I may discount a lot of my labor time for a hobby, but not that much. Especially if a new Voigtlander is affordable.

Rol_Lei Nut · Jan 12, 2011

chriscrawfordphoto said:
No one does. There is no fix. The lenses are simply incompatible, and those who claim to like FSU lenses are either too blind to see out of focus images for what they are or willing to accept low quality images to save money. I've tried several FSU lenses and tried to like them but the fact is that they don't focus accurately at all distances.

Leica M6 + M39 adapter.

Lenses: several samples of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Jupiters + the 50mm 1.5 as well.

Tested close up (at 1.5 metres - 2.5 for the 135) and at infinity, at various apertures including fully open.

Result: Some sample variation, but at least one sample of each lens was sharp wide-open, both at infinity and close up.
Including the 85mm f/2.0 and the 50mm f/1.5!!!
(And, yes, I do know what "sharp" is and am not blind yet...)

I'd take extremely peremptory and dogmatic statements about incompatibility with several large grains of salt...

lilmsmaggie · Jan 12, 2011

T42 said:
Glad to help. I'm pleased to know how that my thinking is not alone and in a vacuum on that issue. Thanks for the support and the comments.

I wonder why it is. I have seen it before. Most people I know who have used an M long enough for it to become second nature really love using it.

People who think Leica is absurdly priced should pay more attention to that point, IMO. So many folks confuse initial purchase price with total cost of ownership. Totally different things when something holds its value like a Leica.

Very pleased to meet you.

I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht

mhcfires · Jan 12, 2011

lilmsmaggie said:
I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht

I am probably better off with my 1967 M2 than he with his 400k+ MP2. At least I can use mine. His will be a shelf queen.

T42 · Jan 12, 2011

lilmsmaggie said:
I would say the initial coast and total cost of ownership for this individual just may have claimed a record: http://www.shutterbug.com/news/010511westlicht

Ah, yes. For some seller(s) along the way that shall have been a very good return indeed. But who could say if the wealthy Asian collector will ever recover his investment or not?

Of course, I should have been more specific. The low cost of ownership I was thinking of is for cameras subjected to actual use, having no numismatic value. As was stated above by mhcfires, the collector certainly will not be inclined to use it.

Too bad for him. I'd bet that the '58 MP2 would work about as well as my user '59 M3.

ziggy7 · Aug 11, 2011

Quality & prestige

A new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder costs $1600, so a similar amount for a nice M2, M3, or M4 seems reasonable considering the build quality. There is also the pride in owning the best.
I collect watches. Rolex is not IMHO a bit better built than many of the fine old American watches like Hamilton, Elgin, and Waltham were. But they were smart enough to position their brand as a prestige luxury item and raised their prices to match. Part of the fun of owning one is that the average Joe can't afford one. I don't have a Rolex, and I'm also quite happy with my $200 Canon P rangefinder. If I won the lottery I would likely buy a Rolex and a Leica.

Micky · Aug 11, 2011

ziggy7 said:
A new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder costs $1600, so a similar amount for a nice M2, M3, or M4 seems reasonable considering the build quality. There is also the pride in owning the best.
I collect watches. Rolex is not IMHO a bit better built than many of the fine old American watches like Hamilton, Elgin, and Waltham were. But they were smart enough to position their brand as a prestige luxury item and raised their prices to match. Part of the fun of owning one is that the average Joe can't afford one. I don't have a Rolex, and I'm also quite happy with my $200 Canon P rangefinder. If I won the lottery I would likely buy a Rolex and a Leica.

A Rolex is a like a Canon L series zoom lens; the average joe thinks they are the bees knees, but really they're just a good quality work horse, or mutton dressed up as lamb as they say. Now Leica is more like a Jaeger-leCoultre

Gerald C Koch · Aug 11, 2011

A Leica shouldn't be collected only to sit in a display cabinet. It should be used and used regularly. Actually it's bad on the camera not to use it. People who just collect things and never use them are pathetic anal retentives. What is the point in owning the finest camera ever made and not using it. If you don't use it then it is merely a chunk of metal and glass.

c.d.ewen · Aug 12, 2011

Well, I finally got around to reading this thread. I guess I'm not surprised at the wide variety of opinions expressed. Here's my story.

You never forget your first Leica. It was the first camera I ever bought for myself, 50+ years ago. I can't remember what model; it was just referred to as "pre-war". I sold it because I considered bottom-loading to be dumb.

Somehow, having once owned a Leica, I always knew I had to get another. The problem was that I haven't shot 35mm in many years (shooting 828 - unsprocketed 35mm - in a Bantam Special doesn't count). I didn't want a Leica just to have it sit on the shelf.

So I recently bought a pocket-sized D-Lux5 and love it.

Sorry to bring up digi here; I'm just confessing to having Leica sentiments. And, I suppose, explaining why I married a blond.

Oh, and Zig: You wear a Hamilton so it doesn't fray your Turnbull & Asser cuffs. You wear a Rolex to sail. Win the lottery and you'll understand

Charley

thegman · Aug 12, 2011

I've had a Leica M6 and Zeiss Ikon, and now on an M3. Whilst the Leicas are heavier than the Ikon, I'm not throughly convinced they are better built. The M6 had a sort of creak in the back, and the wind on was no smoother. Many will say "the Leica is 30 years old!" and that's true, but everyone compares the price of a new Ikon to a second user Leica, so I may as well. The Ikon is available second hand too of course, and I paid less for mine than the M6, and only a little more than my M3.

Of all the cameras I've owned the M3 and Zeiss Ikon have been my favourite, the M3 is such a classic and looks beautiful, and the Ikon just works so well, and in terms of viewfinder clarity, ease of use, convenience of loading, and features such as a meter, it's the much better camera.

Leicas are put about as "the best" with very little back up. They are outstanding, to be sure, but no better than the Zeiss. For those who say "you never forget your first Leica", mine was an M6, and I sold it after a couple of rolls of film, I found it unremarkable compared to the Ikon.

The M3 on the other hand, is a pleasure.

georg16nik · Aug 12, 2011

thegman said:
I've had a Leica M6 and Zeiss Ikon, and now on an M3. Whilst the Leicas are heavier than the Ikon, I'm not throughly convinced they are better built. The M6 had a sort of creak in the back, and the wind on was no smoother. Many will say "the Leica is 30 years old!" and that's true, but everyone compares the price of a new Ikon to a second user Leica, so I may as well. The Ikon is available second hand too of course, and I paid less for mine than the M6, and only a little more than my M3.

Of all the cameras I've owned the M3 and Zeiss Ikon have been my favourite, the M3 is such a classic and looks beautiful, and the Ikon just works so well, and in terms of viewfinder clarity, ease of use, convenience of loading, and features such as a meter, it's the much better camera.

Leicas are put about as "the best" with very little back up. They are outstanding, to be sure, but no better than the Zeiss. For those who say "you never forget your first Leica", mine was an M6, and I sold it after a couple of rolls of film, I found it unremarkable compared to the Ikon.

The M3 on the other hand, is a pleasure.

The saying - "you never forget your first Leica" was about the classic Leica I (A)
Non of the M series comes close. Also, most of the M6 are not even using brass for top cover etc etc..

Jeff Kubach · Aug 12, 2011

I pick up one time and reside how great it was and some of the pictures it took.

Jeff

d_c · Nov 25, 2011

One thing that I think a number of people have overlooked is how relatively low Leica's production totals still are, with waiting lists at many dealers for the more popular new lenses. Also, now that the M-mount is no longer protected by patent, there are other manufacturers producing less expensive M-mount bodies and lenses - both film and digital, which have expanded dramatically the number of users with an investment in rangefinders. These factors have both driven up the prices of good condition equipment, particularly for secondhand equipment.

buzzardkid · Nov 26, 2011

Hm, dunno. Mine are a black 1932 Leica II (recently serviced, said the previous owner), a black 1955 Leica M3 DS and a chrome 1963 Leica M2 that has been the workhorse for a German press photographer since day one. Looks like it was dragged by the bus.

All of them can still be serviced and all of them work smoothly and trustworthy. Three bodies together were under EUR 1250.

And yes I have invested quite some money in lenses for them, spent in the last six years. But I'm guessing that modern DLSR shooters likely have invested just as much money over a period of six years, and what have they got to show for it?

lensworker · Nov 26, 2011

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?

Owning a Leica camera doesn't require spending $10,000 or more.

If you really want a Leica, there are many camera bodies that can be bought in the $1000 to $1500 range. As for lenses, I have seen 50mm Leica M lenses for sale in the $500 to $1000 range and 28mm lenses around $900. Yes, we are talking used equipment -but not trashed used equipment. You just have to know where to look, that's all.

Many people would not give a second thought to spending $1500-2000 for a digital camera and lens. You can get a starter Leica M rangefinder and lens for that same amount.

Yes, the original MP sells for godawful prices. I know where there's one for sale at $28,000. There were less than 400 of the original MP built, making it an item for the mega rich collector or a museum piece - not a camera to hit the streets with (although you could).

Learn the used market. Get a nice used Leica M with a 50mm and maybe a 35mm or a 28mm. This is all you truly need.

The digital "revolution" has absolutely killed the value of used cameras - in every format. Leica cameras and lenses have retained their value and have been pretty much unaffected by the digital tsunami. Leicas are about the only cameras and lenses you can buy with the knowledge that down the road, you will be able to sell them and break even rather than lose money - even if you buy new.

Does this make investing in Leica cameras and lenses a fool's errand? I think not.

Just the opposite, in fact. YMMV.

frank · Nov 26, 2011

I don't understand people who say they can't understand why people buy Leicas when Canonets take almost as technically good pictures. To them I ask: why do people buy cars more expensive than the cheapest brand and model available, when it too will get them from point A to B? Same thing with any consumer goods: why buy anything but the cheapest, if it does the job?

The sentiment in the original post is an example of reverse snobbery.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency