Leica's position amoung old cameras

[blockend]

well, I do have to hand it Leica, they do make a great camera, However "the aura" that surrounds them (Leica's) leaves much to be desired.Or is it the people around the Leica??? either way. Leica's (Leitz)will go down in history as a Great Manufacturing company, regardless of who uses them or what images are made with/by them.

Leica used to be a quality camera brand. At some point around 1990 they became a cross between an investment and a fashion accessory, and appealed to collectors more than the photographers who previously bought them, a situation that gets worse with each passing year. Old Leica M lenses in particular, bear no resemblance to their price tags in terms of performance compared to modern lenses. I've heard every story about the Leica look, which seems to mean anything from low contrast images showing pronounced astigmatism and chromatic aberration not unlike my Industar, to contrasty, corner sharp photos that look like they came off a Canon L lens.

The mystique is partly born out by master printers who create gallery photographs from the negatives of photography's big names, leading every Joe with an M3 to think they're Salgado. I'd rather have a Zorki and a Jupiter and have Koudelka's printer Voja Mitrovic than any Leica camera or lens in existence.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/voya-mitrovic-part-i.html

 

[Dali]

blockend, I agree. From the final result (i.e. the print) standpoint., the most important is the photographer, then the printer, then the equipment.

As it is impossible to "sell" the photographer nor the printer, the only thing marketable is the equipment. Hence this marketing lie to consider that having a particular piece of equipment is the sure way to make you a great photographer.

 

[flavio81]

You don't think that Leica is grinding aspherical lens elements the old-fashioned way, do you? They're probably getting them made to spec from the likes of Sigma.

Yes, i do. Let me explain:

Canon (and probably most top lens makers) has at least four ways of making aspherical lenses:

1. Plastic (resin) molded

2. Hybrid (a spherical, grounded glass piece with a resin-molded insert, thus creating an aspherical surface)

3. Glass molded

4. Glass, grounded "the old fashioned way" with digitally-controlled machines. Canon was a pioneer in this way back in about 1973.

Some of the L-series lenses use aspherical lenses done by method (4). I can bet that Leica/Leitz also uses ground aspherical lenses, at least in their more pricy lenses.

There is some truth in Mustafa Umut Sarac comments:

One of my friends said leica produces military quality equipment for commercial market. (...)
I dont care what body produces shutter sound or how smooth is to wind , optics are wonderful and set the world standard for end result.

The quality is (or used to be) in the lenses. Perhaps the price is still too high even despite the quality, though. But that is not only because of "the brand", but also because of low production volumes.

 

[Dali]

The quality is (or used to be) in the lenses. Perhaps the price is still too high even despite the quality, though. But that is not only because of "the brand", but also because of low production volumes.

Yes but this is the producer concern, not the buyer one, hence the hype to get the buyer to swallow an insane (from a consumer standpoint) price tag. If you can't justify the price difference from a quality standpoint, then create the myth. As it is totally irrational, it can't be refuted. Clever move!

 

[ColColt]

People have always bought in to the glory of the name brand-makes no difference what it is. Price a Colt 45 Peacemaker or 1911 with most any other manufacturer. It's the name and history behind it. Marantz made a wonderful dependable receiver and had a sound of it's own(Yep, I have one) compared to the competition it also had a higher price tag-same for the Nakamichi Dragon tape deck.. The same could be said for Ferrari and Lamborghini .

Its all where your mind is, how much you read about the hype and how fat the wallet.

 

[gzinsel]

Good point Blockend, I stand corrected. you made very good points. But i still think, that their M line up to m6, and excluding the m1, were really well made. better than most SLR's at the time. just my opinion

 

[Ian Grant]

Leica positions itself at the luxury end of the camera market and has marketing BS to support that. There is a different culture in Germany than say the UK about owning luxury brands as status symbols. So that is one reason why Leicas are priced the way they are.

Leica only gained their luxury status by hard work and producing well made and extremely reliable cameras with excellent lenses that are great to use. It's no coincidence that the screw thread Leica cameras were the most copied of any camera design.

M series Leica cameras were quite common tools for professional photographers and the price was less important than their performance and reliability, with the shrinkage of the film market prices rose. There aren't many cameras like my M3 which are as reliable now as the day it was made and have a traceable service history, that's what you pay for.

It's ironic that the Zenit C was an SLR based on a Leica copy with a mirror box & prism added, and the Cosina RF cameras sold as Epson, Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander etc are based on a Cosina SLR with the mirror box & prism removed.

Leica are definite way ahead at the top of the 35mm market vintage, old or new cameras,

Ian

 

[cuthbert]

It's ironic that the Zenit C was an SLR

The problem is that the Zenit C was meant to be the camera Leica was supposed to make but they never got that, instead of a small and lightweight camera they made monsters like the Leicaflex and the SL2.

 

[Dali]

Leica only gained their luxury status by hard work and producing well made and extremely reliable cameras with excellent lenses that are great to use. It's no coincidence that the screw thread Leica cameras were the most copied of any camera design.

Ian

The problem is that after the Barnack Leica, they gave birth to the M serie, some mildly successful SLR and that's it. Compared to many of other manufacturers, Leica was VERY conservative (more than the Soviets and their Zenit, cuthbert mentionned it) and they are now stuck with a legacy (the myth I talked about earlier) but not real innovative products since decades now.

 

[OptiKen]

Different people have different needs, wants, desires, and goals.
To many, the camera is merely a tool to take photographs with - a necessary tool to reach their goal.
To some, the camera is much more than a tool - it is a natural appendage to their body....a part of them...a necessary element to know intimately and to collaborate with and not just to use.
While a 1967 Dodge Dart is fine to get you to work or the store or to pick up the kids with, a fine luxury vehicle will make you feel more comfortable and secure and make the journey far more pleasant.
For myself, I cannot (or don't want to) separate the goal from the journey.
For myself, it is all one.
I like my Leica IIIf

 

[Dali]

I don't know what a camera can be apart from a tool to take pictures??? Fetishism is not my cup of tea...

 

[cuthbert]

The problem is that after the Barnack Leica, they gave birth to the M serie, some mildly successful SLR and that's it. Compared to many of other manufacturers, Leica was VERY conservative (more than the Soviets and their Zenit, cuthbert mentionned it) and they are now stuck with a legacy (the myth I talked about earlier) but not real innovative products since decades now.

I agree, the last "new camera" they developed was the M5, after that the void, they had to rely on Minolta to build a successful SLR, probably history would be different if they had a closer look to the Zenit S, Krystall and Zenit 3m, they are little, simple and smart cameras.

After the M5 Leica has become a novelty for rich customers and they stopped trying to make something innovative to keep the pace of the Japanese makers.

 

[OptiKen]

I don't know what a camera can be apart from a tool to take pictures??? Fetishism is not my cup of tea...

Then you haven't held the right tool

 

[Dali]

Yeah, you are certainly right. I don't use the right camera, I don't drive the right car, I don't ride the right bicycle, I don't live in the right house, etc.... For all these years, I wonder how I could survive. But you know what? I don't care because I don't buy the modern myths (the old ones were way more inspiring).

 

[RobC]

whilst following was supposed to be about zeiss ZM it's really very telling about the way Leica went. Considering Zeiss with a brand new camera can out Leica Leica, that's pretty impressive and doesn't say a lot for Leica with their very many years of developing their own camera. And this was coming from professional photographer with 40 years experience using Leicas. I think he sounds fairly objective about his equipment rather than emotional which some people seem to be.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)