Leica's position amoung old cameras

cuthbert · Aug 24, 2015

ongakublue said:
Hi

I was looking at the website of my local camera store where they sell used vintage cameras. What stands out is the fact that Leicas are so much more expensive than most other rangefinders and slrs. But the price difference is... ridiculous. The M2 that they have is 700 euro and with no lens. There is a sumicron 50mm and it is I think the same amount of money as the body so in the end almost 1400 for this set up. Now you can buy a rangefinder or slr and prime lens, perfectly decent, for 70 euro. Surely there is something of status or branding causing this? Is the better performance really 20 times more valuable? I am reminded of Apple products

Thanks

That's an unfair comparison, as IMO Apple is 99% marketing elevated to a sort of religion status (the Cult of Steve Jobs).

As a Leica owner, I can say the M cameras are "diifferent" from any other rangefinders I tried, the finish is of course high standard, but with the M3 Leica reinvented the definition of this kind of cameras, the M4 is an improved M3 and the M5 was the last attempt of the brand to make a "professional" RF in condition to compete against the big professional SLRs of the era.

The price of these cameras is up because Leica never switched system (like for instance Canon) so you can use the old glass on newer Leicas (and new Leica glass is ridiculously priced), non M Leicas are nice cameras but to be fair a Soviet RF like a Zorki or a Fed is easier to use than a Leica II or III, so my suggestion is that if you don't want to invest a lot of money is a Leica M to see other options.

Jim Jones · Aug 24, 2015

My Leica M4 body cost a little over $200 overseas in 1970. That comes to less than $5 a year to use a camera that has been absolutely reliable and a delight to handle. Some of my lenses are older, and still do what they did when new. For long term hard use, Leicas are economical. For someone who insists on always displaying the newest gear, they are absurd.

ongakublue · Aug 24, 2015

Interesting reading the replies. Some people got defensive about it and some just saying they like the feel of Leicas more. I am one who likes to question people who own something for the brand name and it is very prevalent in photography, I believe. The point is many people new to photography really do want Leica because they think it will make them look better or even be better. I don't think this myself and most people here certainly don't. But I see it is an endless battle on film and also digital photography forums to try to get the message across to some people, that the gear is secondary to the person using it. I also think magazines sell very much on the principle that people will get sucked into the need to keep wishing for 'the best' and trying to upgrade so they can be 'better photographers'. With painting, writing and most other art forms this is not the case or almost not. But we are tied to the machine and so to technology and so this issue.

Alan Johnson · Aug 24, 2015

It was the first 35mm camera to be mass produced, I have one from the first large batch (1932).
http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/leica-ii-model-d/
For quite a long time there was "The Leica" and there was everything else, it was pretty revolutionary.
IMO (and this is just one point of view) the 1932 model was reasonably competitive up till the introduction of zooms and later autowind and later still autofocus. The bayonet series still has certain advantages but not to me but it is interesting to hear of them.

cuthbert · Aug 24, 2015

ongakublue said:
Interesting reading the replies. Some people got defensive about it and some just saying they like the feel of Leicas more. I am one who likes to question people who own something for the brand name and it is very prevalent in photography, I believe. The point is many people new to photography really do want Leica because they think it will make them look better or even be better. I don't think this myself and most people here certainly don't. But I see it is an endless battle on film and also digital photography forums to try to get the message across to some people, that the gear is secondary to the person using it. I also think magazines sell very much on the principle that people will get sucked into the need to keep wishing for 'the best' and trying to upgrade so they can be 'better photographers'. With painting, writing and most other art forms this is not the case or almost not. But we are tied to the machine and so to technology and so this issue.

I am not defensive, a Leica M simply has more features than a normal screwmounted rangefinder.

Today you can also buy new M rangefinders that are not Leicas, like the Zeiss Ikon and the Voigtlaender Bessa, but they are as expensive as an old Leica M.

ColColt · Aug 24, 2015

There are many that are brand loyal regardless the possible shortcomings of some of the models or features. In my Luddite mind, I don't think Nikon ever built a better camera than the F2 be it the various models such as F2A, F2AS, F2SB, etc. As for SLR's I still remain brand loyal to them if for no other reason than all the lens I've bought from the 70's onward will still work in my FTN Photomic to the D7000.

Leica is legendary-make no mistake. The decades have proven it over and over in photojournalism and combat photography to the many essays in various part of the world by HCB and Eisenstadt, two known proponents of the Leica system. I've had two M2's over the years, still have one, and haven't had a more dependable camera and that includes Nikon, nor have I experienced better glass than Leitz. Some are close-real close but what they may have gained in optics they lacked in the general build quality.

Leica missed the boat when they started making SLR's as they didn't compare to their rangefinder and never will.Sometimes you just have to look facts in the eye.

railwayman3 · Aug 24, 2015

In my early days of serious interest in photography in the early 1980's, I lusted after a Leica for all the perceived reasons...legendary name, quality, reliability, lenses and accessories, and, hopefully, retained value.

A local "old-fashioned" camera shop (sadly now long-closed) kindly loaned me a s/h M3 to try over a week's holiday. And I was disappointed with it ! I never identified exactly why, whether it was the handling, just didn't feel as though it was "me". Maybe I would feel the same if I tried to drive a Bentley or a Porsche, it's not "me", perhaps that's why I'm a VW-car and Pentax-cameras guy!

Maybe one day I'll see if I can have another Leica to assess, and see if I still feel the same.

ColColt · Aug 24, 2015

Rangefinders are not for everyone. I think most will agree with that. The feel of an M3 will not emulate the feel of an SLR regardless the brand. The focus system is entirely different as well. But, I got use to it just like I got use to the transition from vacuum windshield wipers to electric.

4season · Aug 24, 2015

Repairability: This is subject to availability of parts, and the last time I checked, Leica could not supply replacements for M2 or M3 finders (can replace with modern finders though), M8 LCDs or finger loops for the M9 Titan, among other things.

Cost: An M4 @ $200 in 1970 dollars was not an insignificant sum of money! If invested at 6% compound interest for those 45 years, that money could now pay for a couple of M6es. That's why I usually sell off gear that's been sitting idle for awhile: I figure it's likely to be cheaper to repurchase things as needed in the future. I sold off my rather battered M4 maybe 15+ years ago for a figure I would not be able to match today.

Leica II: That's pretty cool. Sometimes I think about going one step further by picking up one of those 0-series cameras they reissued a number of years ago, but then I remember how self-capping shutters were not a given in those days, or how shutter controls might be calibrated in slit widths rather than units of time--and quickly realize that a bit of modernity is a good thing.

But were I were a deep-pocketed enthusiast in the 1930s, and had a hankering for a very deluxe 35mm outfit, I wonder if I would have gone with the Zeiss Contax instead!

ColColt · Aug 24, 2015

When I was restoring an old 1950 Plymouth back in the mid 80's there were parts I needed, like a new carburetor and voltage regulator. Even though Chrysler was no longer making or had parts for that vintage car, somewhere, someone had a stock pile of NOS parts for it. I found a NOS carburetor and that voltage regulator at a junk yard where they had stored parts for decades.

Even though Leica(Nikon, etc) may not make the parts anymore for a given camera, be assured there are repairmen in the country that still have those needed parts. You just have to know where to look just like I did. Super repair persons like Sover Young still has many parts for the Nikon F2 you won't find by quizzing Nikon themselves.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 24, 2015

Everyone must think again , you buy leica for art. It paints better. You forgot the notion of photography , painting was taking too much time and someone invented photography and said here is your 40'x30' painting in 15 minutes. If you come from that route , you follow the old mens art techniques. Some is good , some is best , some cameras are from arts tradition and some nikons... I dont know what ? Piece of warhol art.

Without seeing lots of paintings , architecture, sculptures ,music , dance,science , you cant tell the balance between all of them. Leica does sculpture relief as its ought to be , colors , contrast , sharpness , softness, some crazy colors, some crazy reliefs at night like old timers.

This seems basic words but you must spend a life time.

No , photography books does not teach you this. You must study all arts , sense the balance or not and than go from there.

Than you will understand why you are started to distinguish Leica pictures .

ColColt · Aug 24, 2015

I use to do a fair amount of portraiture. I studied some of the masters, like Rembrandt, and was taken by his style and emulated his lighting technique in some of my portraits. His famous triangle of light under the eye was prevalent in many of his paintings. With the aid of one light and a soft white reflector I was able to be satisfied by this portrait.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Francis 007aa by David Fincher, on Flickr

This lady was most photogenic. Light is everything.

Francis and Kami004a by David Fincher, on Flickr

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 24, 2015

I am collecting rembrandt catalogs for last 30 years but my biggest ones were pirate printed , low resolution , low ink quality , low paper quality and too much water in the ink offset prints.

I discovered few years ago , his wilder side , his dark room , candle light , heavy ink use , very thick relief ones.
Above dresses are may be dutch but lets make short cut , post your impression painting and lets go from there.
I think that lens might be zeiss , the baby cheeks are extremelly clean , rounded and perfect.
But I think with Leica , womans face would be more plastic , more reliefed , her skin errors more forgiven , her bones more visible and under skin blood vessels would be more visible , her skin surface more visible and everything will be like meat not wall paint.

May be I am wrong.

ColColt · Aug 24, 2015

That lens was a Pentax Takumar 90 f2.8LS lens for the 6x7 format. The first photo was their 165 f2.8 LS lens. film was the now defunct Kodak Portra 400 that gave wonderful results for intended purposes in medium format negatives. Those scans don't do justice to the actual enlarger made prints.

Some of my favorite paintings of Rembrandt were one of his earlier self portraits at age circa 32 years old. I have a large canvas painting of that on my living room wall along with his painting on canvas of "Belshazzar's Feast", another favorite.

Colonel Blimp · Aug 24, 2015

ongakublue said:
Interesting reading the replies. Some people got defensive about it and some just saying they like the feel of Leicas more. I am one who likes to question people who own something for the brand name and it is very prevalent in photography, I believe. The point is many people new to photography really do want Leica because they think it will make them look better or even be better. I don't think this myself and most people here certainly don't. But I see it is an endless battle on film and also digital photography forums to try to get the message across to some people, that the gear is secondary to the person using it. I also think magazines sell very much on the principle that people will get sucked into the need to keep wishing for 'the best' and trying to upgrade so they can be 'better photographers'. With painting, writing and most other art forms this is not the case or almost not. But we are tied to the machine and so to technology and so this issue.

Considering their quality, durability and minimum depreciation over the years, Leicas are among the best value for money you can find in the camera market. You can buy a Leica+lens, use them for a period of time and then sell them for the same money you paid. After that, you will have a more clear idea of what value you give to them. If you decide to keep the camera, $1,500 for a tool that you will use for decades don't seem too much money.

The cult of Leica is nothing compared to the cult of musical instruments, both classical and modern. $90,000 for an average Bösendorfer piano, $25,000 for a José Ramírez´s Centenario guitar, over $5,000 for a Craviotto drum kit, $8,000 dollars for a Yanagisawa tenor saxofon, etc.

Are a $120 Diana Kolinsky brush or a $1,600 Unison Soft Pastels set are worth the price? Some painters think they are. Artist papers can also have very high price tags. Painting can be incredibly expensive or quite cheap. It's up to you.

Do you know how much people are willing to pay for second hand audiophile equipment?

Perhaps it is not longer the case, but before the computer era, many writers were attached to a specific model of typewritter. Some of them were cheap, some of them very expensive. All of them had the same purpose but each writer had his/her own preference (even obsession). For many other writers, the machine was irrelevant.

So no, the small world photography is not so exceptional compared with other arts (or hobbies). In fact, it is quite reasonable.

pdeeh · Aug 24, 2015

What's different about photography and photography websites is that people will bang on absolutely bloody endlessly about the superiority of their chosen camera.

E N D L E S S L Y

When I talk to artists, the only things they talk about are art, and quite a lot about money. I've never had a conversation with an artist about the brushes they use

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 24, 2015

I bought my first 4 leica , working 9Am to 1AM, coming home at 2.30 am after hitchhiking under snow, 7 days a week for 3 years for 85 dollars monthly salary. There was no internet but lots of old photography annals, magazines. I did not talk with anyone , I did not get opinion but I found leica was the best. I collected money and bought a non coated summitar on iiif because it was the best. After spending 10 years at that forum , I found first idea is the best idea.

Xmas · Aug 24, 2015

ColColt said:
Rangefinders are not for everyone. I think most will agree with that. The feel of an M3 will not emulate the feel of an SLR regardless the brand. The focus system is entirely different as well. But, I got use to it just like I got use to the transition from vacuum windshield wipers to electric.

HiDavid

The vacuum ones we had did not work in heavy rain in traffic with a crash gear box.

Noel

Xmas · Aug 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
What's different about photography and photography websites is that people will bang on absolutely bloody endlessly about the superiority of their chosen camera.

E N D L E S S L Y

When I talk to artists, the only things they talk about are art, and quite a lot about money. I've never had a conversation with an artist about the brushes they use

You have spelt it wrong twice 'Camera' is not spelt 'photography'
And 'money' is not spelt 'art' either.

cliveh · Aug 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
What's different about photography and photography websites is that people will bang on absolutely bloody endlessly about the superiority of their chosen camera.

E N D L E S S L Y

When I talk to artists, the only things they talk about are art, and quite a lot about money. I've never had a conversation with an artist about the brushes they use

In the late 1940s and early '50s the drawings of Matisse become bolder, the contour lines thicker, the forms even more simplified and devoid of detail. The latest large drawings of acrobats (195152), executed with a thick brush placed at the end of a long stick, are made up of contour only. They are contemporaneous with a cutout series of Blue Nudes, and the two mediums seem to represent two different approaches to form and space. The relationship between figure-ground becomes ambiguous and space complements the intended form. The form appears almost sculptural.

pdeeh · Aug 24, 2015

Xmas said:
You have spelt it wrong twice 'Camera' is not spelt 'photography'
And 'money' is not spelt 'art' either.

Again, I'm finding it almost impossible to understand what you're trying to say, or what it has to do with what what you're quoting .

And not just in this thread, or in relation only to my own posts.

250swb · Aug 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
When I talk to artists, the only things they talk about are art, and quite a lot about money. I've never had a conversation with an artist about the brushes they use

But they talk about brushes on an 'art' website perhaps?

I mean, you've got to be the bore of the century to talk about cameras to people who ask about photography. 'What sort of pictures do you like to make?' 'Oh those made with my Leica, it has a 50mm lens and is cool'. No wonder painters don't talk about brushes, they are more easily embarrassed than photographers are about camera's. For a painter, like a knowledgeable photographer, it isn't the brush itself that creates the painting, it's the nuances a particular brush can provide that make the job easier, easier to create the image, easier to get across an idea.

Steve

pdeeh · Aug 24, 2015

cliveh said:
In the late 1940s and early '50s the drawings of Matisse become bolder, the contour lines thicker, the forms even more simplified and devoid of detail. The latest large drawings of acrobats (195152), executed with a thick brush placed at the end of a long stick, are made up of contour only. They are contemporaneous with a cutout series of Blue Nudes, and the two mediums seem to represent two different approaches to form and space. The relationship between figure-ground becomes ambiguous and space complements the intended form. The form appears almost sculptural.

I presume, Clive, that you are attempting to point out to me that tools matter to the artist, as if I have been suggesting they do not.

However, let me invite you to attend to what I have said, and not to what you think I have said.

cliveh · Aug 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
I presume, Clive, that you are attempting to point out to me that tools matter to the artist, as if I have been suggesting they do not.

However, let me invite you to attend to what I have said, and not to what you think I have said.

So please clarify, as I am ready to stand corrected.

pdeeh · Aug 24, 2015

I don't really know how I can be more clear. I've said exactly what I meant to say. I'm not going to spend all night writing posts about what I don't mean

Leica's position amoung old cameras

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency