Leica SLRs - why no love?

[Horatio]

What I have noticed w/re to lenses, is that every Leica lens is superb. But while Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc makes/made superb lenses, they also have some junk thrown in the mix.
And I don't think I've taken a pic with any of my Japanese cameras, looked at the results, and wished I had used one of my Leicas instead.

For those who worship technical details, resolution charts etc - the slightest missfocus/subject movement/camera shake renders all that moot.

Excellent point, Huss.

 

[AgX]

I think Leica R is better seen for what it is now, a manual focus SLR wasn't commercially competitive in the 90's, but nowadays you might pick one just for the sheer joy of use.

The Leicaflexes and the R's were more competive in the 60's up to mid 80's. But to my understanding never were successful with, and likely never even aimed at, professional photographers.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It masks it because it changes the trigger point to a far higher position in the shutter release stroke. You no longer feel like you need to push the shutter button deep into the body!
Try one, you can get them dirt cheap. $5 or less.
I hated the shutter release feel on my R-Es and R7 until I added them. Interestingly Nikon offers one (I think it is called the AR-1?) for the F series (I use them on the F and F2) and it similarly improves the feel.

Thanks, I'll try it for sure.

 

[Craig]

When they were new, the many of the higher end Nikon and Canons were sold to working professionals, either for newspaper work or commercial photographers. A paramount concern is they need reliability, and if something does fail it needs to be fixed quickly. In nearly any major city you could either get same day repairs for a Canon/Nikon, or a loaner camera from their Professional Services department until your camera was fixed.

You couldn't get that from Leica, which makes it a major liability of you can't work while the camera is sent overseas for repairs. The cost of a Leica vs Canon/Nikon means that it's simply cost prohibitive to keep spare bodies around "just in case" compared the cost of a Japanese body.

For almost any commercial print work the optical differences between Leica and Canon/Nikon lenses can't be seen, especially on Tri-X pushed 2 stops or the lovely Ektapress 1600 C41 film. Why buy Leica when it's ownership becomes a liability in terms of acquisition cost, servicing and more limited lens and accessory range compared to Canon/Nikon?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When they were new, the many of the higher end Nikon and Canons were sold to working professionals, either for newspaper work or commercial photographers. A paramount concern is they need reliability, and if something does fail it needs to be fixed quickly. In nearly any major city you could either get same day repairs for a Canon/Nikon, or a loaner camera from their Professional Services department until your camera was fixed.

You couldn't get that from Leica, which makes it a major liability of you can't work while the camera is sent overseas for repairs. The cost of a Leica vs Canon/Nikon means that it's simply cost prohibitive to keep spare bodies around "just in case" compared the cost of a Japanese body.

For almost any commercial print work the optical differences between Leica and Canon/Nikon lenses can't be seen, especially on Tri-X pushed 2 stops or the lovely Ektapress 1600 C41 film. Why buy Leica when it's ownership becomes a liability in terms of acquisition cost, servicing and more limited lens and accessory range compared to Canon/Nikon?

All true, which does not change the fact that most Leica SLRs had something to offer to a photographer that others either did not or felt different. I'm not a sudden Leica supporter, but since I've acquired the SL/SL2/R5/R7 I've grown to appreciate the differences. Handling, or shell I say HOLDING, experience of a Leica R4-R7 body differs from anything else. Something to do predominantly with its body shape, it just feels different, in my hands more right in every place I can think of. While handling will differ for each individual, I'm not alone liking it so much, and in the end it does matter, like wanting to walk your favorite pet more often than that grumpy one who appears to change mind as soon as making it up.

While my sole Nikon line ownership is in Nikkormat, which I like, but probably due to weirdness of its shutter setting lens ring, I like most of Minolta MF bodies (up through X), and really admire Canon F-1 and F-1n. Still, Leica is different and as someone had already stated, these days you can have one for similar money as top old Canon or Nikon, just in case "gear" is called for to expand on more photographic opportunities (or need new kick in the butt to do it). None of it has to do with optical or mechanical purported superiority as gear is not making a photograph anyways.

 

[Craig]

Still, Leica is different and as someone had already stated, these days you can have one for similar money as top old Canon or Nikon,

Leica is a niche market, and probably always will be. As an analogy, I love Jaguar cars and they have massive depreciation from new. I had a choice once of a top of the line Jaguar, one owner with 80,000 km on it and looked and smelled like new, but 10 years old. The asking price was the same as stripped econobox Dodge with no options, but new. Obviously I chose the Jaguar, but many people wouldn't. Given the choice between a 3 year old Jaguar or a new Toyota, the vast majority would choose the new Toyota. It's the same with Leica, most photographers wouldn't make that choice over Canon/Nikon.

As one of the micro brewerys here advertises about their beer: "Those who like it, like it a lot "

 

[Steve York]

The Japanese cameras beat Leica to the starting gates; less expensive and perfectly adequate for the job. Better distribution too, they were everywhere, and Leica's were more limited to boutique shops. Remember, this was the days before the internet. Plus, the newspapers largely adopted Nikon, for many reasons, some of which had nothing to do with quality (e.g., price, availability lenses, ect). The Nikon F was such a reliable tour de force; why change unless something was demonstrably better. Leica R lenses are better (to my mind), especially at the wider apertures, but that doesn't mean, for example, Nikkors are bad. In fact, they were and are good lenses, and perfectly adequate at getting the job done and less expense. Nikons were expensive back then too, and Leica's were even more so.

Having said all that, my favorite mechanical SLR is the Leicaflex SL. A big, bold, beautiful viewfinder where the subject just pops into focus in a dramatic way. And what incredible damping with a special breaking system. I can shoot a Leicaflex one or two stops slower then a Nikon! In my experience, however, of five to seven years of sole use, not as reliable as Nikons (eg., F, F2, F3), with heavy repair costs, because a lot of dismantling needs to take place. Nikon F has a strong reputation of reliability and ease of repair. Still, a Leicaflex SL with a 90mm is just one of those things that need to be experienced.

Then the R line came along, and they were pretty much comparable to Japanese cameras. Not worse, not better, just pretty much the same as Minolta, Canon, Nikon ect. The R8/R9 -- great ergonomics and viewfinder -- just arrived too late.

Good pics can be taken with any gear. Leica SLR's (the R line) are generally just a good as their Japanese counterparts but not better. The real question should be why is Leica M stuff so damn expensive ?????? You can get that rangefinder experience with a Canon or Zeiss Contax at just a fraction (maybe 10%) of the cost. Still, as we all know, ha, ha, serious photographers use, I mean, NEED, a Leica M!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

In my experience, however, of five to seven years of sole use, not as reliable as Nikons (eg., F, F2, F3), with heavy repair costs, because a lot of dismantling needs to take place.

Interesting summary. What problems did you have with your SL that needed repair? Are you still using it?

 

[Steve York]

Interesting summary. What problems did you have with your SL that needed repair? Are you still using it?

Some of it may be just aging of materials. I shot several SL a lot from about 2008 to 2015 (about 700 rolls). Ha, ha, talk about being late to the party!! Although already 35-40 years old when I got them, all of them were minty, and each received an initial, expensive CLA. I'm doing this just from memory -- the plastic of a viewfinder failed and the entire viewfinder fell out of one after about 200 rolls, in another I got shutter bounce after 50 rolls, a third I had a meter failure after a couple years, and then a fourth had a catastrophic shutter failure after only 15 rolls of film!!!! A few were sold after 15-20 rolls, and I don't know how they're doing. Ha, ha, they used to multiply like rabbits in my house! Except for the shutter failure, all of them got repairs, with spare parts still available.

Who knows, maybe old Canons/Nikons would have similar problems if subjected to the same amount os use. Every Nikon F I've had in the house has needed repairs (a sample size of only 4-5) but they do have a reputation for reliability.

 

[flavio81]

What I have noticed w/re to lenses, is that every Leica lens is superb. But while Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc makes/made superb lenses, they also have some junk thrown in the mix.
And I don't think I've taken a pic with any of my Japanese cameras, looked at the results, and wished I had used one of my Leicas instead.

For those who worship technical details, resolution charts etc - the slightest missfocus/subject movement/camera shake renders all that moot.

This is a great post.

 

[Paul Howell]

What I have noticed w/re to lenses, is that every Leica lens is superb. But while Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc makes/made superb lenses, they also have some junk thrown in the mix.
And I don't think I've taken a pic with any of my Japanese cameras, looked at the results, and wished I had used one of my Leicas instead.

For those who worship technical details, resolution charts etc - the slightest missfocus/subject movement/camera shake renders all that moot.

This is spot on, along with Leica, Contax, Swiss Alpa, every lens was well designed, excellent resolution, minimum distortion wide open to F16, but in day to day use, and a lens only needs to as sharp as film will allow, unless shooting micro film Tmax 100 2100 LPMM. And when comparing lens, Leica only made pro level glass, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax evolved to produce Pro and Consumer grade lens. Canon L and Pentax Limited Edition will test as sharp with minimum distortion as Lecia.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have an SL I bought about 5 years ago. I love it. Never had an issue with it.

 

[Steve York]

What I have noticed w/re to lenses, is that every Leica lens is superb. But while Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc makes/made superb lenses, they also have some junk thrown in the mix.
And I don't think I've taken a pic with any of my Japanese cameras, looked at the results, and wished I had used one of my Leicas instead.

For those who worship technical details, resolution charts etc - the slightest missfocus/subject movement/camera shake renders all that moot.

The R line had a few duds apparently, the first generation 35 elmarit and the 180/4 come to mind, but yeah, generally, Leica optics are bulletproof. With Nikkors I'm always fiddling with the development times or concentrations, trying to make them look like something they're not. Makes me sometimes wonder whether Nikkors were optimized for the richness of Fuji color film?
\

 

[George Mann]

The older Nikkors are known for their neutral color rendition.

 

[GarageBoy]

You put up with r bodies so you can shoot your 80/1.4, 90/2, macro elmarits etc - if I had unlimited money, I'd grab a set of exotic r lenses and have them leitaxed

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Unless you "put up" with Canon, Nikon, Pentax and many others, you don't put up with Leica R bodes, they are all excellent cameras and also different enough to warrant a solid try, if one is at that point of gear search that is.

Those who shoot only "exotic" lenses have no idea what they are missing.

 

[PFGS]

I've got an SL, I don't even remember how and I've never had a lens for it so I've never shot it. It's a nice-feeling chunk of metal, and shows no signs of gross abuse, but the meter is unresponsive, all the speeds (even the slowest) sound the same, and the vaunted viewfinder is grubby and a bit yellowed. Everyone says repairs on these are super-pricy, care to give a ballpark? Four figures?

 

[vickersdc]

I'll stick with my 1937 Leica IID, Visoflex I

and Telyt 200mm... I don't really need anything quicker for landscape shots and I was out shooting with it today. Actually, I really like the ground glass focusing on the Visoflex

 

[Horatio]

I'll stick with my 1937 Leica IID, Visoflex I View attachment 267217 and Telyt 200mm... I don't really need anything quicker for landscape shots and I was out shooting with it today. Actually, I really like the ground glass focusing on the Visoflex

Cool.

 

[Craig]

I have one of those as well, fits on a IIIc., but it's still a bit clumsy to use compared to a true SLR.

 

[vickersdc]

I have one of those as well, fits on a IIIc., but it's still a bit clumsy to use compared to a true SLR.

I agree completely... compared to a true, dedicated SLR it is lacking a certain 'refinenment'. But st least this way, I get to keep my superb rangefinder camera and then, when I want, I can convert it into an SLR. Yes, it's slow, but for landscape photography that's generally not a concern.