you pay10% of the price for the camera.the rest is for the red dot!
you pay10% of the price for the camera.the rest is for the red dot!Maybe this question is naive or presumptuous (within the confines of analog photography) but I wonder if LEICA products are still economically viable. At USD 5,000 for only the MP body and another USD 2,500 for a normal lens, people who buy these products (especially in the light of the magnificent quality which comes out of Japan) have to be buying something other than a sharp image.
Those who traditionally refute such banter usually counter by speaking of an ethereal quality (or, with similar parlance) to declaim such hesitation on my part and refuse to believe that there is anything which should hinder the sane accumulation of such costly, but 'well worth it' merchandise; thus, their necessity for positing other qualities which serve to justify the, really, unbelievable cost to acquire such a well-made, but decidedly rather mundane and, technically by now, with all the R&D recouped, piece of capture ability. Do I err here? - David Lyga
This whole question/discussion has been done to death many times. Although Leica is often purchased as 'Veblen goods' and I personally have no desire to own them (a moot point since I also, like many here, have not the means to buy them), I'm still happy for sentimental reasons that they are still in business. And, they have the guts, and three cheers and a tiger for them, to make a all mechanical, no built in meter, 35mm RF camera......in 2017! Gotta respect that...........for people who want to be seen with a Leica with the pretty red dot. There are a lot of people world-wide who wouldn't hesitate to spend $7500 for that privilege.........
A Leica M10 is £5850. A Fuji X-Pro2 is £1300. The Fuji will sell a box full for every Leica sold.
Leica built me a brand new M-A a couple of years ago and I love using it. I am not the only one. It is an absolutely wonderful camera and certainly operates like it was built by someone who cared. And you are more than welcome to see my photographs if you want.
Kind of like my K1000. Everyone seems to consider that an overpriced piece of equipment as well.
They provide much different experiences but they both take really good photographs when I do my part.
Leica is making money, unlike a lot of other camera manufacturers.
EDIT - Interestingly, I just cannot find any red dots on my M-A or my K1000.
Beautiful piece of machinery. I sold my M2,and M6ttl. Too pretty to put at risk. I would like to get my hands on a Leica digital camera with a real rangefinder. I wouldn't buy one unless I was rich. Leica is like a Porsche, really cool and not something you take out in bad weather.Maybe this question is naive or presumptuous (within the confines of analog photography) but I wonder if LEICA products are still economically viable. At USD 5,000 for only the MP body and another USD 2,500 for a normal lens, people who buy these products (especially in the light of the magnificent quality which comes out of Japan) have to be buying something other than a sharp image.
Those who traditionally refute such banter usually counter by speaking of an ethereal quality (or, with similar parlance) to declaim such hesitation on my part and refuse to believe that there is anything which should hinder the sane accumulation of such costly, but 'well worth it' merchandise; thus, their necessity for positing other qualities which serve to justify the, really, unbelievable cost to acquire such a well-made, but decidedly rather mundane and, technically by now, with all the R&D recouped, piece of capture ability. Do I err here? - David Lyga
Successful branding can get you a long way.
Their target audience for current digital sales are for people who want to be seen with a Leica with the pretty red dot. There are a lot of people world-wide who wouldn't hesitate to spend $7500 for that privilege.
Ferrari stills sells cars even though a Fiat will get you to the same destination.
Still desired by collectors and by some users. I like the feel of the rangefinder cameras, but I would not buy one since long ago I realized that SLRs are almost always superior to rangefinders.
I owned several Minolta SLRs and Rokkor lenses. Why would I want a Minolta camera with 'R' on the name plate and a red dot?
I own an M5 and M4. Gave away an M3. There is nothing special about them. They are tools that do nothing better than any other camera I have owned. The only thing going for them is that they are RF and if your into that, then it's the camera. It seems their digital offerings are at least a generation behind everyone else for IQ.
... My question (and I am very serious) is if there will be any non mechanical cameras, made today, still working 60 years from now, no matter who makes them. ...
AFAIK, Leica makes the only digital full frame true rangefinder camera, so I think yeah, it has it appeal for some niche market, as it always been the case for Leica.
...
Regards
Marcelo
You can replace the red dot with a black one from DAG. I did that to my M7.Is there anywhere other than the internet that anyone actually attributes any status or pretentiousness to features like the red dot?
In decades of using a wide variety of cameras every single week or month, only once during all this time did someone ever notice what I was using (a few years ago, someone noticed I was using an F3/T and he mentioned he used to own one).
Frankly, I wish Leica had never conceived that stupid dot. I prefer cameras where it is not immediately visible what the camera is, such as a Leica M3 or Retina IIa.
My last post was somewhat inaccurate. I actually do own a Leica body, a M4-2, but since I don't own any Leica lenses it hardly counts to a real Leica fan. My lenses are a CV 35 f2.5 PII, a FSU 52mm f2.8 something and a 28mm f11, 2 element plastic lens hacked from a one of those cheap plastic 35mm cameras and set at (about) infinity. This is a quite pedestrian set up, about as cheap a you can go with a M body and lenses. The FSU lens was $12 and that included shipping, except for a slightly skippy focusing feeling it's well worth the $12.
...
Leica catches a very surprising amount of flak on this site for some reason which kind of baffles me because they are legendary cameras and lenses for a reason. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but a fair amount of my mentors who are incredible photographers swear by Leica equipment for good reason.
...
Fuji are a huge corporation and consistently bring out innovative cameras, I assume they have a long term plan. The company have gone from nowhere as a camera producer - how many people bought Fuji SLRs? - to an aspirational brand. Their cinematography lenses are state of the art and Fuji's photographic lenses are the equal of anyone.Difference being Leica makes a profit selling cameras, while Fuji takes a loss. Their other divisions - and the Instax series - keeps their digital camera segment afloat.
the argument 'the world's greatest photos were shot with a Leica' is made a lot by Leica fans but they forget that this is only true because they were in the hands of the world's best photographers! It's not the cameras but the 12 inches behind it that count.Do Leica have magic dust? Of course not, but for certain people and certain style of photography, there is nothing like it. Literally everything else, MF 6x6? Sure, Hasselblad is nice, but certainly other would claim a Rollei is better. SLR? Canon vs. Nikon vs.... to the death. RF? Sure some may claim the Nikon SP is great etc. etc. but the FACT is that some of the greatest PHOTOGRAPHS, were and are taken by Leicas. Red dot problem? Just tape over it. Expensive gear? Buy used. Don't like digital? the M7 is $1700 and a 35/2 is $1000. Go cheap and buy a Voigtlander 35/1.7
Don't like Leica or rangefinder? Fine. Don't use one. Go out and photograph.
I agree entirely Ralph, owning a Leica wouldn't make me a better photographer only a financially poorer one, my wife over the years has offered to buy me a Leica several times but I'm very happy with my Canon F1's and they were paid for long ago.the argument 'the world's greatest photos were shot with a Leica' is made a lot by Leica fans but they forget that this is only true because they were in the hands of the world's best photographers! It's not the cameras but the 12 inches behind it that count.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?