Leica's position amoung old cameras

[cliveh]

I've never had a conversation with an artist about the brushes they use

But in terms of picture perspective and viewing distance the original brush length is quite important.

 

[OptiKen]

Speaking for myself, I have and use many types of cameras - SLR -Rangefinder - TLR - Folder - Full automatic point and shoot.
Most times I prefer a rangefinder. My favorite cameras are a lowly Zorki 1, Zorki 4, Exa, Exakta VX, Canon IVSB2, Leica IIIf, Minolta Autocord, Yashica 44, Franka Solida II.
NOTHING feels the same as the Leica. Nothing sounds the same as the Leica. The Canon is a gorgeous, excellent camera but I hate the way the shutter sounds and the 'feel' when the shutter is released. Other than that, it is every bit as good as my Leica - maybe better.
But the Leica just feels right. The finish, the balance, the fit, the sound, the weight, the speed at which I can use it.

 

[cliveh]

But the Leica just feels right. The finish, the balance, the fit, the sound, the weight, the speed at which I can use it.

Exactly, perfection personified.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I've never been able to tell which photograph was taken on a Leica camera by looking at a print.

For me it is very easy to tell that a photograph has been made with one of my Leicas.

See, the smoothness of the film wind lever, the softness of the release, the precise clicking into place of the shutter speeds and apertures, all of this combines into making a photograph that has sub-granular characteristics that is unmatched by a lesser kamera. So then, I can easily tell which photograph has been made with one of my Leicas simply by looking at the little sticker I have placed in back of the print, on which will be noted, for example, "Leica M3 SS 50/2 DR".

Simple.

 

[Red Robin]

+Leica products are listed right on top for a reason. Mystique . The old bottom loaders are rugged, there is still a lot of them out there being used everyday. Any film camera is at its most basic just a dark box that holds film. The critical part is the lens and the Germans turned out some fine glass. After the war others picked up the torch. Nikon, Canon, Minolta among others and they started to build quality bodies and sharp glass also. But before that, before the war, the camera to have, the lens to own, well they called it a Leica and it cost. Then as now others made cameras, others make lenses but the old Leica mechanical, is what started the legend. Other, more modern outfits are offered today. Sadly most are beyond my wallets ability to fund, but a Leica, built like a tank, lenses that are as sharp or sharper than the plastic that's sold on today's market, well it just leaves me cold. Built to only last a few years some even tell you how many shots have been taken, as one presumably wants to know when another few thousand dollars may be needed. My Leica iif or my iiif , both RD's produced in the early 1950's are still taking grand pictures. Will the new digitals still be in working condition? Ya think? I know why I buy a used Leica. Reputation pure and simple. It's lonely at the top.

 

[darkosaric]

For me it is very easy to tell that a photograph has been made with one of my Leicas.

See, the smoothness of the film wind lever, the softness of the release, the precise clicking into place of the shutter speeds and apertures, all of this combines into making a photograph that has sub-granular characteristics that is unmatched by a lesser kamera. So then, I can easily tell which photograph has been made with one of my Leicas simply by looking at the little sticker I have placed in back of the print, on which will be noted, for example, "Leica M3 SS 50/2 DR".

Simple.

That is some collection. I have one M3 and M6 and one F3 - but this is wow. How many nikons you have down there ?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

That is some collection. I have one M3 and M6 and one F3 - but this is wow. How many nikons you have down there ?

Among the pro Nikons: one F, three F2's, two F2S's, two F3/T's, and two F4S's.

The others are an FM, an FM3a, and a D700.

Yes, I use all of my cameras. It's impossible to pick a favorite.

 

[esearing]

For me it is very easy to tell that a photograph has been made with one of my Leicas.

See, the smoothness of the film wind lever, the softness of the release, the precise clicking into place of the shutter speeds and apertures, all of this combines into making a photograph that has sub-granular characteristics that is unmatched by a lesser kamera.

Me too! The feeling I get when shooting a leica produced in the same quarter as my birth is above that of other cameras I own... until I screw up in the darkroom .

 

[ColColt]

I wouldn't want a camera produced in the same quarter as my birth. I'm not into daguerreotypes.

 

[cliveh]

With regards to the original post, most companies that make a specific product look for ways of improving their profit margin. They try to do this by making their product lighter, more diluted, using cheaper materials, reducing quality. Leica have always put quality before price and that is why they have always produced such a superb camera and maintained their market position. Other manufacturers should take note.

 

[ColColt]

I'll agree with that up to a point. If I were a manufacturer of cameras I would want to put my product in the hands of as many people as I could. Leica apparently has never cared about that feature.

 

[darkosaric]

I'll agree with that up to a point. If I were a manufacturer of cameras I would want to put my product in the hands of as many people as I could. Leica apparently has never cared about that feature.

Similar is Ferrari: they could produce more and sell more - but they choose not to. Now when Fiat is owner, Fiat tries to change this philosophy. In Ferrari it was never about mass production, even at cost of lower profit or less sale.

 

[cliveh]

Actually, I can draw a good analogy to my last post. Some years ago my wife bought a pair of Hunter wellington boots (well known for their quality). A couple years later I bought a pair of Hunter wellingtons. Within two years mine had split and developed a leak. When I asked at the place I bought them from, why mine had split and the ones my wife had were still OK, I was told that within the last 2 years, hunter had moved their production from Scotland to China. I rest my case.

 

[250swb]

In Ferrari it was never about mass production, even at cost of lower profit or less sale.

LOL, Enzo would be rolling around laughing. His response to a customer who complained that the body was rusting 'we sell you the engine and running gear, the body was free!'. Of course Ferrari has always wanted to make a profit.

It is why Ferrari never carried out their frequent threat to pull out of F1, they needed it for car sales, and F1 needed Ferrari for being 'Ferrari' (all speed, glamour, and controversy).

Steve

 

[cuthbert]

Actually it was the other way around: he sold cars to finance its racing team.

Ferrari made money with the same system a lot of people in Emilia did: with automatic machines for packaging, the cars were never mass produced because he didn't need other money besides for racing that was seriously expensive.

 

[4season]

I think even if price were not an issue, the market for Leica M cameras or Ferrari sports cars would be quite limited. Dunno about Ferrari, but I think Leica (special editions and all) has found a niche that seems to work for them. In other words, the Supply vs Demand curve doesn't necessarily work for specialty/luxury products.

If a person simply wants a camera capable of fabulous results they have lots to choose from. Today, I can get a $150 apochromatic lens incorporating aspherical elements (some of them perhaps having fluorite-like properties). And if it works well, it's not despite being largely made of plastic, but because of it. Yup, while setup costs for such a thing must be very high, produce enough of the things, and incremental costs fall to almost nothing hence today's Sigma and Samyang affordable wonder-optics. Precision-casting techniques (lens elements too!) must be one of the wonders of the 21st century.

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.

Although it's kind of cool to have this alternative, building a modern camera system in a more old-fashioned way results in higher prices, less-consistent quality and lower reliability. And after a half-dozen years or so, not everything can be repaired.

 

[ColColt]

I'll say this. I never thought I'd buy 3rd party lens for any of the Nikons I have(save Zeiss) but recently due to high accolades read about it I did purchase the Sigma 35 f1.4 ART lens and it's been one of if not the sharpest in that focal length I've had to date and the build quality is superb. It is a mite heavy, however. They've come a long way since the 70's and 80's when I wouldn't have touched them.

 

[film_man]

I'll agree with that up to a point. If I were a manufacturer of cameras I would want to put my product in the hands of as many people as I could. Leica apparently has never cared about that feature.

They do want as many people to have their cameras but they want the people that can afford to pay $5k for a camera.

If Leica mass produced these cameras then noone would pay $5k for one even if it was the exact same camera. They may be willing to pay $1k but not 5k. So then you suddenly need to find 5x more people to buy your product. And once you do that you are in competition with everyone else making cameras for $999 and there's plenty of them around to shut you down.

 

[ColColt]

What was the last Leica film camera...the MP? I think so. Look at the price. I'm sure some are less and some are more.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...efinder.html?gclid=CKb8u5CW1scCFVIbgQod-ukLfg

The Leica never was a camera for the average Joe's wallet just like Hassleblad but when cameras cost more than 50% of my cars over the years it's time to rethink your desires/needs and be realistic.

 

[BradleyK]

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.

Well stated, sir. While I have had more than a few moments of hesitation as I have put together my Leica system over the course of the last decade-and-a-bit (28,35,50,90mm Summicrons, a 50mm ASPH Summilux and a pair of M6 bodies), in the back of my mind has always been the realization that this equipment would be with me the rest of my life. And like you, the realization that amortized over 40-plus years, the cost of a Leica system, in my view, wasn't really out of line. But, then, I use my Leicas, I don't set them up in a shelf and admire them...

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Cheap wonder optics makers made good things may be but as well as leica. Dont forhget their f0,95 optics or apo summicron.

One of my friends said leica produces military quality equipment for commercial market.

I cant forget that canon jumped to higher quality standarts for lens gtinding at 2010 or so which was 1950s standart for leica. 60 years of difference and nobody could not close that gap.

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.

Leica is cheap , if you go out buy a 60 dollar hektor and 30 dollar russian body.

I looked ken rockwell site , he had been shot ugly pictures and claim lens is not sharp. What a big idiot. Keep reading people , keep looking and trying. You will understand. Dont worry.

 

[georg16nik]

What was the last Leica film camera...the MP? I think so. Look at the price. I'm sure some are less and some are more.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...efinder.html?gclid=CKb8u5CW1scCFVIbgQod-ukLfg

The Leica never was a camera for the average Joe's wallet just like Hassleblad but when cameras cost more than 50% of my cars over the years it's time to rethink your desires/needs and be realistic.

The most recent Leica is M-A, presented at Photokina 2014.
Current film models are M7, MP, M-A.

 

[RobC]

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.

Then becasue in reality they are very agricultural and used to be able to be abused, they were very popular with photojournalists the world over and gained their reputation for reliability in any condition. That is another reason why prices are high.

Then there are some very famous photographers who used them and if they were good enough for them then they must be worth a lot of money, Yes? That is another reason why they are expensive.

Then there really hasn't been very much competition in the 35mm rangefinder market place so its easy to claim to be the best. That's another reason they are expensive.

Then the lenses by all accounts are pretty good (more to do with type of design rangefinders use than being Leica being specially good IMO) which is another reason why they are expensive.

Combine all of those and the myths, hype and the luxury product targetted marketing and what do you get? You get a vastly over priced product which camera snobs and the gullible are attracted to.

 

[georg16nik]

Leica positions itself at the luury end of the camera market and has marketing BS to support that [..].

Impeccable marketing and camera that works.
BS marketing is speciality of just about every other (135 format) camera manufacturer...

 

[gzinsel]

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.