LEICA: still sought after?

[RalphLambrecht]

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

you pay10% of the price for the camera.the rest is for the red dot!

 

[removed account4]

leicas are worth every penny asked for them
their bodies are weighty
loading requires a photographer to actually think
there is a legacy of leica users
and their lenses
well ...
they are a head and shoulders above any other
schlock anyone considers a lens, i've heard
they can make sunshine or something like that.
i have an m3 and a few lenses i use from time to time
its a great camera/system, and full of memories.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

 

[ciniframe]

..........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.........

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.

As far as the red dot, find it on the web, copy, paste, resize, and print out on peel and stick paper. then all of those who desire can cut it out and stick it on any camera they want, even an old Box Brownie.

 

[Huss]

A Leica M10 is £5850. A Fuji X-Pro2 is £1300. The Fuji will sell a box full for every Leica sold.

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.

 

[Pioneer]

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.

 

[chip j]

Now, for a modest fee, Leica will put a Red Dot chip into your shooting hand, visible when in the presence of another status-seeker.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

Now the K1000 was not overpriced when it was sold new. It is overpriced now on the used market and it's not worth the asking money.

 

[mshchem]

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

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.
The Damn film is too small and too long. I shoot 6x9 Fujis.

 

[mshchem]

I just pulled out my mint Fujica V2. It's a beautiful camera, fully functional without a battery, if I want to have shutter priority auto I put in a zinc air cell and it still works. Fabulous Fujinon glass, takes 52mm filters, 4.5cm f1.8. I paid 10 bucks for it at a junk shop, sent it to United Camera Repair in Rock Island Illinois for miraculous resurrection . Cost me about 125 bucks plus shipping. They made it literally like new.
Maybe that's the real story is keeping these miracle repair guys going.
When a camera becomes a very expensive necklace, I'm out.
Mike

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

My depression era 75 cent baby Brownie took acceptable B&W photographs. My 60 year old M Leicas take acceptable, only better B&W photographs. It remains to be seen if the current Leicas will still be usable 60 years from now. If the past means anything at all they will be. I will not be around 60 years from now but you young members of APUG might be. 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. Also my in my experience the only reason I was able to afford used Leicas that many years ago was because people, who had the money, DID buy them, got tired of them and sold them to those of us who were happy to get them at the "used" price..........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

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?

Sirius, I don't like disagreeing with you but my M range finder Leicas, with the proper reflex attachment and bellows (which combination allows 1:1 to infinity focusing) will do anything my Olympus OM2n SLR will do except turn the shutter off when enough light has passed through to the film. (I like that feature).....Regards!

 

[btaylor]

When I was in high school, many decades ago, I took a photography class. The instructor had somehow talked the school into buying a Leica M2 with a 50mm Summicron for use in the class. I checked it out and used it for a project. Wow. I loved using it, what a machine. Never forgot it. For decades after that I used my trusty OM1 and Rolleicord and took lots of photos, using a Leica would have made no difference in the work. A year ago an M2 came up for sale on APUG, and I thought what the hell, I've never had one, and it actually costs less than a middling higher end digicam. For me it's still as fun to use as it was so many years ago. I'm a machine guy, and it was one of the the best that could be made in its day. It doesn't really make better pictures, but I sure enjoy using it!
Funny also, it doesn't have the red dot and no one knows what it is anymore-- it's just an old camera to people.

 

[ciniframe]

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.

 

[Ai Print]

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.

Not sure I agree on the image quality thing. The sensor in my M240 is probably the most behind according to the tech heads in comparison to my three other digital bodies and yet, it is spectacular right out of camera, no post required, just beautiful photographs.


As for them being nothing special, I just can't agree with that and I use my M240, M3 and M6 a ton for paid work. I just finished up photographing an amazing and very historical job for a long time client and used all three cameras and not only was it a blast, the workflow on site was not to be matched by anything else in my gear closet as being low profile and quiet was key.


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.

Still sought after...? Yeah, you could say that, I put my M10 order in back in early February and I am still waiting.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... 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. ...

If by "non-mechanical" you mean electronically controlled (such as winding, rewinding, autofocus, or aperture / shutter operation), then I highly doubt such cameras will be functional 60 or even 30 years from now. The reason is that they have so many electronic subsystems and all it takes is for just one to fail, whereupon the camera becomes non-functional. The first cameras of this type, such as the Maxxum 7000, appeared 30 years ago. What percentage of all-electronic cameras from 1987 are functioning? Hmm... both of my F4s's are, so I hope my 30-year prediction is pessimistic!

I don't consider a mechanical camera with just a meter (e.g. Pentax Spotmatic) as being electronically controlled.

All-mechanical cameras such as the Exakta, Leica M3, or Nikon F will function 60 years from now but will definitely - definitely need a CLA.

 

[Helinophoto]

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

That part really surprise me a lot, I was looking for something smaller than my DSLR earlier this summer and was pretty bummed out by that fact....as long as there is zero competition for a FF RF, no wonder they can sell their D Leica's worth their own weight in gold.

The closest you can get is the Fuji X-pro2(?) or something like that, but it's not a FF sensor on it.
- I have a IIIf, M3 and a M6, but, unfortunately, I am not going to lug around analog gear + a boatload of film when I am on a month long holiday in Asia.

Ridiculous

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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.

 

[chip j]

+1

 

[Huss]

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.

You can replace the red dot with a black one from DAG. I did that to my M7.

 

[Huss]

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.

To be the real pedestrian, replace that CV 35 with a Jupiter 12 35mm lens. You can get one for about $20. (I have both and, umm, don't actually recommend this!)

 

[Richard Man]

...
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.
...

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

In a market where digital camera depreciation tumbles like a stone, the values of longevity on which Leica built a reputation don't hold up. There just aren't enough people prepared to pay £10k for a rig to fund the innovation necessary to compete with the market leaders. That's why Leica are looking for a partner.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

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.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

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.