LEICA: still sought after?

[GarageBoy]

What's that CONTAX G viewfinder doing amongst the holy Leica relics?

That 21 G finder is a real good finder

The cameras are nothing too special (though the rangefinder is good as it gets, and probably the priciest part of the camera) - The Leicas are made very well, but the design is antiquated (horizontal cloth shutter, old style slow governor for slow speeds that resets only when the shutter is cocked, lens mount that's not part of the chassis, etc)

The real reason to use Leica is the lenses - once you discover life after just sharpness

 

[David Lyga]

I never expected that this thread would take off as it did. There are passionate feelings out there and they are NOT ALL pro-Leica. Many are enthralled with this historical (hysterical?) camera; and the body's build quality and its lenses are second to none. However, there are multitudes of knowledgeable pragmatists out there who rightfully dare to place the cards squarely upon the table by deferring such (perhaps really unwarranted) positive feelings in favor of naked common sense.

Of course, I would like to own a Leica RF. But I am not willing to spend such money, even for a used one. which will end up creating better pictures only until the 'thrill for the kill' attenuates after the first scratch appears on the body. Mentally, I would be compelled to produce, but that production would be cut short after I stopped getting aroused by its 'sexuality'.

This discussion is informative, educational (especially for the new ones to analog) forcing all of us to face the realities of luxury, both good and bad. Thank you all for your output. - David Lyga

 

[Ai Print]

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.

Yes, but many chose these cameras for one or more reasons, just like they choose any camera.

There have been very few cameras I have not been happy with, I do my research and then give them a fair shake and arrive at an internal concensus.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That 21 G finder is a real good finder

The cameras are nothing too special (though the rangefinder is good as it gets, and probably the priciest part of the camera) - The Leicas are made very well, but the design is antiquated (horizontal cloth shutter, old style slow governor for slow speeds that resets only when the shutter is cocked, lens mount that's not part of the chassis, etc)

The real reason to use Leica is the lenses - once you discover life after just sharpness

That's pretty funny that people believe this. The RF on a prewar Contax - or for that matter a postwar Kiev - is more accurate. If you don't believe me compare the two.

 

[Saganich]

Just back from 2 weeks in Norway, 1 week in Frienze with an MP, 50Lux and 10 rolls of TriX. Never missed a shot. What I notice the most about such a set-up is that everyone is surprised when they see the images because they rarely recall me actually taking pictures or even having a camera. I have no concerns about failure, batteries, location, etc. I take it everywhere and anywhere and it preforms under all conditions. For those who want to travel light with no worries its the right rig. That's Leica film...do the digital M's live up to all that also? I'm not sure but the feedback from those who extensively travel with digital M's has been positive.

 

[David Lyga]

Saganich:

What I find very alluring about the picture of the young girl is that, instead of burning in the sides, you have lightened them. That is supposed to be 'wrong', but I like it a lot. - David Lyga

 

[Harry Stevens]

My Zorki 4k and Jupiter 8 take care of my RF Leica dreams,and then there's the RF Yashica's and retinas.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

Agree about Fuji's being innovative. But yeah, Fuji digital camera's division is taking a loss on company. On the other side, if you check Leica's numbers, they are actually making money.

Also, it seems there is a bit of confusion. Leica is not looking for a partner. Simply put, one of their investor (not the majority holder), Blackstone, is selling it shares because it will bring a profit to them, mostly because Leica is, at the moment, a solid and stable company.

Majority holder (Kaufmann) is still keeping its share.


Best regards

Marcelo

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

Curious enough, yeah, Leica's currently made (MA or MP not sure which one is still being made) mechanical cameras may most likely keep working 60 years from now. Leica is still actively making pieces for them and workmanship is really good. On the other hand, Leica's electronic offerings may go the same route as the other electronic cameras offering on the market.

Marcelo

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Yes, but many chose these cameras for one or more reasons, just like they choose any camera.

There have been very few cameras I have not been happy with, I do my research and then give them a fair shake and arrive at an internal concensus.

Agree. I choose Leica not because of its IQ or some other obscure trait, but for the mere fact that I enjoy them.

I also enjoy my SLR' like Olympus OM4,OM1 and also other completely different camera, the Agfa Solinette. They bring fun to the shooting experience.

Best regards.

Marcelo

 

[GarageBoy]

That's pretty funny that people believe this. The RF on a prewar Contax - or for that matter a postwar Kiev - is more accurate. If you don't believe me compare the two.

I grew up in a Zeiss family, I know, the prewar prism rangefinder is amazing in design and craftsmanship, but it's also darker and doesn't have as many "features" as the Leica one

 

[blockend]

But yeah, Fuji digital camera's division is taking a loss on company.

I don't know if every Fuji camera sold makes a loss or a profit, at an original list price close to 2k (but tumbling fast) Fuji's pro range aren't cheap, so the cash is going back to the company somewhere. Like many big corporations, they may be prepared to lose the battle to win the war, and consider R&D costs in the early years to be worth soaking up for long term gain.

Without a real and perceptible improvement in image quality all digital camera manufacturers are going to struggle. If there was ever a clue that technology does not make a photograph, this person's portfolio shot on an "ancient" CCD Nikon and tiny sensor point and shoot, is it: Dead Link Removed

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

That's pretty funny that people believe this. The RF on a prewar Contax - or for that matter a postwar Kiev - is more accurate. If you don't believe me compare the two.

Agree. Pre war Contax rangefinder if more accurate that Leica's. They got a longer rangefinder base length so more accurate. While those cameras are great, I prefer the Leicas ergonomics. OTOH, Zeiss lenses are as good (or maybe better on some cases) that Leitz/Leica's. YMMV.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[NB23]

Sure it is still sought after.

It gives that extra psychological security to the photographer because Henri-Cartier Bresson's soul resides inside the film chamber of each and every Leica M camera (yes, HCB Boycots other Leicas).

This is the Edge we strive for. That added psychological crutch. That added sunshine-o-rino.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I don't know if every Fuji camera sold makes a loss or a profit, at an original list price close to 2k (but tumbling fast) Fuji's pro range aren't cheap, so the cash is going back to the company somewhere. Like many big corporations, they may be prepared to lose the battle to win the war, and consider R&D costs in the early years to be worth soaking up for long term gain.

Without a real and perceptible improvement in image quality all digital camera manufacturers are going to struggle. If there was ever a clue that technology does not make a photograph, this person's portfolio shot on an "ancient" CCD Nikon and tiny sensor point and shoot, is it: Dead Link Removed

Yeah, 2k seems like a lot of cash, but problem is that, as unlikely as it may seem, its expensive to make those cameras, so they don't really end with that much profit. I think its like when you buy an inkjet printer. Company take a loss on the printer,but it makes a profit on ink (camera = printer, lens = inkjet). Something like that I guess.

Like you said, Fuji is an humongous company, and its ready to take the loss on this cameras. What it get is presence on the segment and profit for other areas (Instax would be a good example).

Yeah, technology doesn't do the picture, nicely put . Only appeal a FF for me would be that I can use my legacy lens though adapters with them, without losing part of the focal length the way I do with APS or other similar size sensor does. I do use Zuiko and QBM Zeiss lenses on a Cano 6d with good results.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[blockend]

What it get is presence on the segment and profit for other areas (Instax would be a good example).

Interestingly Fuji now offer a handheld printer to turn your X-Series camera files into instant prints, via WiFi. As Fuji are (almost) the last man standing in instant photography, they could clean up the digital-to-print market.

 

[RattyMouse]

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

A Fuji X Pro 2 is not a rangefinder camera.

A Fuji X Pro 2 is not a full frame camera.

A Fuji X Pro 2 has a hilarious gimmicky CFA producing all kinds of demonstrably poor images in specific situations.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

Fujifilm cameras lose value as fast as any camera around. The XT-1, just a few years ago a $1500 camera, today sells for $799 or less. No Leica camera loses 50% of its value that fast. Not even close.

 

[RattyMouse]

Agree about Fuji's being innovative. But yeah, Fuji digital camera's division is taking a loss on company. On the other side, if you check Leica's numbers, they are actually making money.

Also, it seems there is a bit of confusion.

Fujifilm's "innovation" in digital cameras is drastically overrated. Going back to camera design of the 1970's is hardly innovative.

 

[blockend]

Fujifilm's "innovation" in digital cameras is drastically overrated. Going back to camera design of the 1970's is hardly innovative.

I'm not here to defend Fujifilm, or digital photography, I'm saying the company have come from nowhere as a camera producer to giving Canon and Nikon night sweats. As someone interested in photography as a whole, that trajectory interests me.

It's not difficult to tell the X-Pro isn't a rangefinder camera, but it does have an optical and digital viewfinder which puts it into "classic" territory, and manufacturers are beginning to make manual lenses in Fuji mount, so there's an old school appeal. Someone who wants a rangefinder focusing system in a digital camera doesn't have any choice, but there are others who like looking through an OVF and pushing the back focus button. The viewfinder frames the scene according to focal length, like a Leica. Fuji have an ongoing firmware plan, including their old cameras. I'm not sure how you make focus buttons, joysticks and EVF "going back to camera design of the 1970's" - it isn't a Nikon Df.
If I had the best part of six grand to spend on a digital camera I'd probably buy Fuji's medium format offering over the Leica 10 on IQ alone.

X-T1 values plummeted because it was superseded by the X-T2 some time ago. I don't know what the price of an M8 was, but I'll bet it's now a fraction of its original market value. Anyone hoping for a camera with strong residuals shouldn't be looking at digital.

 

[Dali]

My Zorki 4k and Jupiter 8 take care of my RF Leica dreams,and then there's the RF Yashica's and retinas.

I agree as long as your camera was CLAed (they rarely are due for cost reason) and you stick with 50mm lenses. WA lenses are not that common with screw mount (who has a 28mm lens?) and I always found the additional finders ugly.

 

[Dali]

Agree. Pre war Contax rangefinder if more accurate that Leica's. They got a longer rangefinder base length so more accurate. While those cameras are great, I prefer the Leicas ergonomics. OTOH, Zeiss lenses are as good (or maybe better on some cases) that Leitz/Leica's. YMMV.

Best regards

Marcelo

Finding a repairman for a Leica SM or M is easy. For Contax RF, well... With old cameras, it is a point to keep in mind.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

I agree but why pay Leica prices when I can get the same thing for a whole lot less. See what Calvin has to say about that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I agree. Nothing feels like a Leica in 35mm.

 

[Huss]

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.

You wrote a lot of stuff that doesn't address that Fuji takes a loss selling digital cameras. While the claim that there aren't enough people 'prepared to pay $10K..' is negated by the fact that Leica has a 6 month waiting list for that very same rig..

Who has the better business model? Someone losing money, or someone making money? Leica has actually been very smart looking forward because the only digital cameras that will survive the dominance of smartphones are the super high end ones. Pro models and/or luxury items. They have had that covered for years now. And, outside the Nikon F6 (a super high end camera) they are the only ones making pro level film cameras. Pretty sweet really. Those who have attempted to make cheap versions - Cosina with the Ikon and Bessa - failed.
The reason Leica survives and turns a profit is because they are expensive, beautiful pieces to use and have cachet.

And of course you don't have to buy new. Lots of Ms can be had for under $1K. I picked up a fantastic Summaron 35 for $300 and it shoots as nicely as my Summicron Asph 35 which cost a whole lot more.