LEICA: still sought after?

[Ai Print]

You were the one that took us into the twilight zone by repeatedly holding up Magnum members as examples of great Leica photographers. Turns out Magnum photographers use all different type of equipment, so it is clearly not the camera that make the difference.

It's just a pointer into why one might choose to use a Leica over another type or brand of camera that might not have to do with the all too well known reason of brand vanity.

This can be a circular argument all the live long day but the fact remains that Leica built its reputation on the quality of the workmanship and optical designs that surround their brand.

With the help of talented photographers over the years choosing to make their mark with this equipment, that only served to solidify their deeply etched niche in the history of photography.

Trying to circumnavigate the fact that a lot of brilliant image makers chose Leica is just silly. Sure...they could have done and do make fine images with other brands and types of camers. But the simple fact remains, they chose Leica for very specific reasons.

 

[faberryman]

Trying to circumnavigate the fact that a lot of brilliant image makers chose Leica is just silly. Sure...they could have done and do make fine images with other brands and types of camers. But the simple fact remains, they chose Leica for very specific reasons.

And the same can be said of photographers who chose a different camera. "But the simple fact remains, they chose [Nikon, Contax, Canon, Rolleiflex, etc.] for very specific reasons." It's an argument for apologists, and really doesn't carry much weight.

 

[blockend]

Trying to circumnavigate the fact that a lot of brilliant image makers chose Leica is just silly. Sure...they could have done and do make fine images with other brands and types of camers. But the simple fact remains, they chose Leica for very specific reasons.

Until the advent of the professional single lens reflex camera around 1960, there wasn't much choice in high quality interchangeable lens compact cameras. WW2 had seen off most of Leica's competition, shipped off to Ukraine or dead in the rubble. The Japanese had a brief window to take Leica on and did very well at it, considering they had to develop the technology, the lenses and compete with three decades of PR, but SLRs put the Japanese rangefinder on the back burner with the exception of fixed lens point and shoots. Many of the best shots since then were taken on SLRs and TLRs especially in photojournalism, reportage and the commercial sector.

So the 35mm rangefinder's brilliant image makers were mostly working pre-war and during the war years with Leica and Contax, and in the immediate post war years with Leica because there wasn't a lot of choice. Some very good photographers have worked with Leica since then, especially in the street photography idiom where size matters, but there was more choice and photographers exercised it by buying other brands. Leica is by no means synonymous with fine photography, not even fine film photography, and contemporary names are likely to be found using all kinds of digital and larger format film cameras. A look at Leica forums will confirm kitten and flower photography is at least as well represented as any other brand.

There are a number of reasons for buying a new film or digital Leica camera: because you want a modern antique, because you already have a set of lenses that fit the cameras, because money is no object and you want to try one, because you want bragging rights at the pub. The appearance of the photographs it produces is not one of them.

 

[faberryman]

Until the advent of the professional single lens reflex camera around 1960, there wasn't much choice in high quality interchangeable lens compact cameras. WW2 had seen off most of Leica's competition, shipped off to Ukraine or dead in the rubble. The Japanese had a brief window to take Leica on and did very well at it, considering they had to develop the technology, the lenses and compete with three decades of PR, but SLRs put the Japanese rangefinder on the back burner with the exception of fixed lens point and shoots. Many of the best shots since then were taken on SLRs and TLRs especially in photojournalism, reportage and the commercial sector.

So the 35mm rangefinder's brilliant image makers were mostly working pre-war and during the war years with Leica and Contax, and in the immediate post war years with Leica because there wasn't a lot of choice. Some very good photographers have worked with Leica since then, especially in the street photography idiom where size matters, but there was more choice and photographers exercised it by buying other brands. Leica is by no means synonymous with fine photography, not even fine film photography, and contemporary names are likely to be found using all kinds of digital and larger format film cameras. A look at Leica forums will confirm kitten and flower photography is at least as well represented as any other brand.

There are a number of reasons for buying a new film or digital Leica camera: because you want a modern antique, because you already have a set of lenses that fit the cameras, because money is no object and you want to try one, because you want bragging rights at the pub. The appearance of the photographs it produces is not one of them.

Very well stated. I'd think companies like Nikon built reputations and Leica built a mystique. It's a different approach to marketing.

 

[Harry Stevens]

My Zenit EM I bought new in 1979 and still works as well as the day it came out the box,is that Leica build quality or what?

 

[Ai Print]

And the same can be said of photographers who chose a different camera. "But the simple fact remains, they chose [Nikon, Contax, Canon, Rolleiflex, etc.] for very specific reasons." It's an argument for apologists, and really doesn't carry much weight.

Yep, apparently you missed the part about they use other cameras too but when they choose Leica for a certain task, there are distinct reasons for that.

The primary systems I use in my professional work are Leica, Nikon and Hasselblad. Each system has a feature set, operation in the field and visual outcome that makes it the right choice for the tasks I assign to it.

So I will try once more: Many pros have chosen and do choose Leica over other brands and types of cameras because the approach to it's operation and the outstanding optics. It's not just about vanity and it is not just about a red dot, we find a discernible difference in the resulting photographs due to the aforementioned.

 

[BMbikerider]

My Zenit EM I bought new in 1979 and still works as well as the day it came out the box,is that Leica build quality or what?

It all depends on how many films you have had through. I bet a Leica V a Zenith bought new had a throughput of say 5000 rolls of 35mm 36 exp the Zenith will show a lot more obvious wear than a Leica if in fact it managed to last that long.

 

[Ai Print]

There are a number of reasons for buying a new film or digital Leica camera: because you want a modern antique, because you already have a set of lenses that fit the cameras, because money is no object and you want to try one, because you want bragging rights at the pub. The appearance of the photographs it produces is not one of them.

This is false, whether it is on film or digital, there is a noticable difference in the resulting photographs. Many National Geographic photographers used the Leica M6 and a 35mm 1.4 aspheric well into the 2000's because that combination was simply unmatched for a lot of styles or reportage even as Nikon and Canon improved their optical designs.

There is so much visual narrative out there that bears this out and if you wrote any number of the photographers who used and still use this equipment, you would find they will give these exact reasons.

When I got my Leica 35mm 1.4 FLE and M240 for my work with a specific client, I got rid of my Nikon 35mm 1.4G which although very nice in image quality, was missing the extra gusto the Leica lens had and was far too large for the work I was doing.

What you say is a slap in the face for a lot of us who shoot tens of thousands of images a year and SEE a fair to big bit of difference in the photos.

 

[faberryman]

What you say is a slap in the face for a lot of us who shoot tens of thousands of images a year and SEE a fair to big bit of difference in the photos.

I suspect most photographers are not nearly as sensitive and defensive about which camera they use.

 

[Ai Print]

I suspect most photographers are not nearly as sensitive and defensive about which camera they use.

I'm not sensitive to what camera I use, I just don't like to see opinions stated as blanket facts when there is evidence to the contrary. Nothing anyone says or does on here changes my experience and my path going forward.

It's just disappointing to see this recurring theme of Leica bashing based on nothing but hyperbole.

 

[NB23]

Tell that to STX-1 owners.

No. I'm telling that to you.

You simply have no real clue.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You were the one that took us into the twilight zone by repeatedly holding up Magnum members as examples of great Leica photographers. Turns out Magnum photographers use all different type of equipment, so it is clearly not the camera that make the difference.

I think camera does make a difference. Example, when you do a work you are comfortable and like, you usually do it better, more productive. Same with cameras. If you use the camera that you like, that you feel comfortable with, you usually create better photography. I would guess that, technical wise, lens and camera specs wont be that different than other cameras, but if photographer feel comfortable and like a particular camera, then it do make a difference.

If camera didn't make a difference, wont we all be using box camera's or the same camera design? Camera's performance goes beyond technical specs. Film resurgence would prove that.

Very sad this thread became just another "Leica bashing" thread.

Regards.

 

[faberryman]

It's just disappointing to see this recurring theme of Leica bashing based on nothing but hyperbole.

There is plenty of hyperbole on both sides of the discussion.

 

[blockend]

No. I'm telling that to you.

You simply have no real clue.

Having read your contributions to this and other threads, I take that as a compliment.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have actually owned 2 Leica rangefinder models. One was a 3F and the other was a M3. Both with F2 lenses and both did what I asked them to do I have also owned 2 Lieca SLR's, one was a Leicaflex 4 and the other a Leicaflex 5. Again they did what I wanted and there was nothing at all wrong with them (except the price of the lenses).

Whatever camera I use I own it for a purpose and that is to use and take pictures. That applies to any model, make, or type, However I have stuck with Nikon for so long now that changing to a different marque would seem odd to me. Each to their own whatever make they choose.

 

[blockend]

This is false, whether it is on film or digital, there is a noticable difference in the resulting photographs...
What you say is a slap in the face for a lot of us who shoot tens of thousands of images a year and SEE a fair to big bit of difference in the photos.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes me contribute to Leica threads. I'd challenge anyone to a blind print test of a Leica lens against three others of my choosing from a range of budgets. Peoples' choice of camera is their business, but when they make objective claims for the empirical quality of one brand of lens over another, it's clear they don't know what they're talking about. You can differentiate between types of lens construction and have preferences, but not brands. What next, Leica glow?

 

[faberryman]

What next, Leica glow?

I believe the term he used was "gusto".

 

[blockend]

I believe the term he used was "gusto".

You can tell which end the gust is blowing from.

 

[ciniframe]

Well, this HAS been stimulating! See what you started David! Forty lashes with a wet film leader.

 

[blockend]

Well, this HAS been stimulating! See what you started David! Forty lashes with a wet film leader.

Six pages and no one has answered the question posed in David's first sentence.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Six pages and no one has answered the question posed in David's first sentence.

If Leica was not economically viable, the cameras would not continue to be made.

 

[blockend]

If Leica was not economically viable, the cameras would not continue to be made.

The OPs question was are film Leicas economically viable ("analogue", "MP"). In other words if there was no Leica digital camera in M-mount, would the film versions survive independently on their own merits?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If Leica was not economically viable, the cameras would not continue to be made.

The OPs question was are film Leicas economically viable ("analogue", "MP"). In other words if there was no Leica digital camera in M-mount, would the film versions survive independently on their own merits?

My statement still stands. Just insert the words "film" and "cameras".


If Leica film cameras were not economically viable, the film cameras would not continue to be made.

Really do I have to explain every thing to you?

 

[blockend]

If Leica film cameras were not economically viable, the film cameras would not continue to be made.

I have my doubts. First, when film had no competition Leica shot itself in the foot by bringing out a Leica CL compact in competition with its own M5. Then it farmed production out to Canada. Then production methods became economically motivated. This ultimately resulted in the necessity for a takeover of the company. Secondly, the planet is awash in old high quality M-mount cameras at a fraction of new price, and no shortage of independent specialists to keep them running. Given that reality, the desire for new Leica M-series film bodies with future proof maintenance probably isn't motivated by pragmatism, which I think was David's original point. This is underlined by the quirky, often bonkers things the company do to rejuvenate a camera line up that was once a byword for austere and uncompromising quality.

As a spin off to Leica's digital rangefinders (of which I've already spoken), there may be life in the old film dogs. As freestanding and autonomous products, I don't believe Leica's 50's tech stalwarts would survive longer than Nikon's F6. It is IMNSHO, a boutique product with all that that infers.

 

[faberryman]

You can tell which end the gust is blowing from.

Yeah, it's just that kind of comment that perpetuates the whole dentist meme.