The Cult of Leica

[gr82bart]

I wonder if anyone posting in this thread even read the article....

 

[BradS]

I wonder if anyone posting in this thread even read the article....

I read it and frankly, it is just the usual Leica fanboy garbage.
The article is so nauseating that it is actually difficult to read all the way through.

The cameras and lenses are good - no question but the usual and customary, way-over-the-top gushing...
the underlying self congratulatory, reassurance is palpable...
pathetic and just plain nauseating.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It all comes down to quality of construction. Leica is willing to take the extra step. External screw holes are all thread the same so that the screw slots all point in the same direction.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have a mint CLA'd M5, but if I'm getting PAID for results, I'd use my Spotmatic.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

so apparently, a $80 Olympus XA is at least as capable as a $1600 Leica. The plastic fantastic Olympus is smaller, lighter too....

It is not so plastic. I have one for parts which I took apart to get VF.
Mine lasted three years and crapped out. Too tiny and too old electronics.
Lens is good on it, but I prefer Minox 35 lens. Unfortunately, cameras are crappy ones.
This is why I prefer no batteries Leica, Zorki and fresh Bessa R2M.
Lenses.... I have different ones, not only Leica made.
For bw film and prints where are many to choose from. One Leica M3 user was futures on Leica blog. He prefers Jupiter-3 lens to Summilux. And he is above average shoter with prints sold and exhibit.

 

[blockend]

He prefers Jupiter-3 lens to Summilux

There are two kinds of people. People who want the best because everyone tells them it's the best, and people who want to decide what's best for themselves. Sounds like yer'man is of the second persuasion. Good for him.

 

[summicron1]

IIRC the XA series are retro-focusing designs, meaning the camera fits into a pocket. Were there any collapsible Leica lenses apart from 50mm? Clearly the Zuiko is the superior design if you want a pocket camera.

Actually, given that the original post referred to HCB, this comment is a lot closer to reality than you may realize.

Go back in time to 1929 or thereabouts when HCB was discovering the Leica for the first time. What else was available? What was he using? For the most part, serious photographers were using 120-film size cameras, or plate cameras, or some such -- bulky, slow.

Then some asthmatic German who likes to hike decides he wants something that will fit in his pocket. A decade later his company produces the camera and Bresson picks one up.

It is small! It is precise! It is fast! It allows him to capture, for the first time, those fleeting images he was seeing but not catching!

Yes, the Leica I was slow, by 21st Century measure. It was crude, it was clunky. But not to HCB. To him, it was a freeing revelation and he ran with it.

And an Olympus XA is just that. If someone, in 1930, had handed HCB one of those he'd have thought he died and went to heaven. I dunno if its lens matches a Summicron on a test bench, but I'd put my 8 by 10s and even 11 by 14s from it against prints from a Leica any day. And, yes, I print from both in my own darkroom.

 

[bimmey]

Over the past 50 years I've owned and used many different camera systems.Cannon, Contax, Fed, Hannamex, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax in 35mm. Now at the tender age of 65 I am settling down with the systems I enjoy working with the most. Fed and Leica rangefinders, and Olympus OM for slr.

Both Olympus and Leica have "cult" status. I can certainly see why. But then, I'm a machinist by trade and have an appreciation for finely made products.

 

[blockend]

I dunno if its lens matches a Summicron on a test bench, but I'd put my 8 by 10s and even 11 by 14s from it against prints from a Leica any day.

I bought some hand made colour prints taken by an American photographer who shoots with an XA. They are 16 x 20" and hang framed on my stairs.

 

[BradS]

I wonder if anyone posting in this thread even read the article....

I did read a few of the author's other posts too...and quite enjoyed some of them. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The problem is some rather vociferous Leicaphiliacs tend to think the value of their photography is tied to their camera. The people who think that way gravitate towards "the best" based off of history. The problem is "history" is not accurate at all. A few cases in point-

Winogrand is always brought up in Leica discussions, but the lens he used the most was a Canon. Kind of puts a kink in the mythology of Leica. So when you look at his images, you are seeing Canon.

Cartier-Bresson is the golden child of Leica. Oh no! Not HCB! He used a Zeiss lens on his Leica. Liked it more. Lol. Back when he made photographs, Zeiss lenses were better. Oops. Leica didn't make Zeiss quality glass until the 60s. Oops again.

The infamous photojournalist Robert Capa who gets associated with Leica because people assume since he used rangefinders that they were Leica in fact didn't use Leica at all. He used Contax which is what he used when he made his famous "I am getting the F out of here and lie about it later" D-Day photos. So much for Leica, and so much for "you aren't close enough" b.s. He also later used, drum roll, Nikon RFs.

So judging from that, two of the three loved Zeiss lenses and the other was a Canon guy. Leicaphiliacs tend to appropriate history rewriting it in the process.

I can think of many more examples too. DDD used a Canon lens to shoot Picasso. Lots of photographers from the Korean war era switched to Nikon lenses since they were better than Leica at the time. Oops.

Just for info purposes, I do own a Leica. Most of the pictures I take are with a rangefinder too, but they are taken with a Konica RF. The camera that Leica should have made according to the Head Bartender at RFF. I don't currently own any Leica lenses because over the years I've compared lenses and Leica glass wasn't worth the premium, in fact the less expensive lenses were ofter much better. Case in point, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm. Smokes Leica 35s except for the Aspherical, but the Aspherical isn't any better and cost a multitude more.

Personally I don't care what you use. Kind of like asking a painter what brush he uses. Show me the pictures.

By the way, if you want a spontaneous camera, you can't do any better than a good point and shoot. Fits in your pocket and takes a picture instantly. The better ones have Zeiss quality glass, even the Leica ones. Lol.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I read it and frankly, it is just the usual Leica fanboy garbage.
The article is so nauseating that it is actually difficult to read all the way through.

The cameras and lenses are good - no question but the usual and customary, way-over-the-top gushing...
the underlying self congratulatory, reassurance is palpable...
pathetic and just plain nauseating.

Plus one.
There are four basic families of Leica. First, the original Barnacks; built up chassis. Then the diecast chassis, but still Barnacks. Then the M series. Then the pre R3 SLRS.
All are superb, but different. The IIIc(k) introduced tha ball bearing shutter drum (take a good look at the innards of the shutter in, say, a Nikon F2). The lenses? I prefer the Summitar to the Summicron, which I use on a $60 Canon IIb.
As for RF 35s in general, I prefer the prewar Contax. The rangefinder is second to none; the rest of the camera has advantages over any Barnack, and maybe a few better features than the Ms. Particularly the Contax shutter is an elegant design.

 

[blockend]

He also later used, drum roll, Nikon RFs.

Grrr.. Now you've made me want one again.
I think it was Brian Duffy who was asked to shoot an impresario who demanded to be photographed on a Leica. He borrowed one for the occasion because he used a Canon RF.

 

[blockend]

As for RF 35s in general, I prefer the prewar Contax. The rangefinder is second to none; the rest of the camera has advantages over any Barnack, and maybe a few better features than the Ms. Particularly the Contax shutter is an elegant design.

One of the few cameras that would justify a modern iteration, like the Nikon SP. It would cost an arm and both legs of course.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One of the few cameras that would justify a modern iteration, like the Nikon SP. It would cost an arm and both legs of course.

I have the original bill of sale for my '36 Contax II and all accessories, dated 3 July 1937. It was half the price of a new v8 Ford coupe.

 

[blockend]

I have the original bill of sale for my '36 Contax II and all accessories, dated 3 July 1937. It was half the price of a new v8 Ford coupe.

I looked up the price of my M5 and it was the same as a new small car. However a Contax with a set of three lenses and viewfinder in fancy presentation case may be beyond my self restraint.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I looked up the price of my M5 and it was the same as a new small car. However a Contax with a set of three lenses and viewfinder in fancy presentation case may be beyond my self restraint.

I had some M3 Leicas, also a pristine IIIG with Summarit in the 1980s. The most I paid was USD 250; I traded an Exacta for the IIIG. One of the Ms came with a Canon 50 f:1.2, the other a Summarit.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Grrr.. Now you've made me want one again.

Sorry about that! lol. I know how you feel though. I wish I never sold the Contax II I had long ago. Now I am fighting the itch to get on ebay just thinking about it!

 

[blockend]

I had some M3 Leicas, also a pristine IIIG with Summarit in the 1980s. The most I paid was USD 250; I traded an Exacta for the IIIG. One of the Ms came with a Canon 50 f:1.2, the other a Summarit.

Yes, I reckon Leica became bitcoin around 1990. Before then they sold for 25-30% more than the equivalent F2 on the used market, and people swapped M3 bodies and Leitz lenses for fun. Suddenly everyone was hanging on to their Summicrons and shiny bodies were being hived away. Lens prices went through the roof and full and part time traders had to get a proper job because supply dried up.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, I reckon Leica became bitcoin around 1990. Before then they sold for 25-30% more than the equivalent F2 on the used market, and people swapped M3 bodies and Leitz lenses for fun. Suddenly everyone was hanging on to their Summicrons and shiny bodies were being hived away. Lens prices went through the roof and full and part time traders had to get a proper job because supply dried up.

In those days, Leicas were considered (within their application) as the best. They were not worshipped, although they were already becoming a boutique object, at least in the U. S..

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Sorry about that! lol. I know how you feel though. I wish I never sold the Contax II I had long ago. Now I am fighting the itch to get on ebay just thinking about it!

Good luck finding a useable Contax II on 'bay. I spent a year almost to the day finding one worth overhauling.

 

[Jim Jones]

I have the original bill of sale for my '36 Contax II and all accessories, dated 3 July 1937. It was half the price of a new v8 Ford coupe.

My Leica M4 body cost $200 new in 1970. The Vulcanite is chipping off and the chrome is worn, but the last time I used it, It was working perfectly with no repairs or maintenance of any kind in all these years. I'm too cheap to buy anything that costs more than that to use over the years.

 

[cliveh]

I'd really like to try a Leica but it just does not make any sense at all from a **rational** cost / benefit point of view and all of the usual and customary Leica fanboy foaming at the mouth and blathering on about how it is the finest, best, most superlative mechanical device ever made is a major turn off.

So, its not that I am "anti-Leica"...I'd say that I am really turned off by the hype.

Try one and you may change your opinion. Some Leicas (not all) are the most tactile beautiful machines you will ever handle and built to a precision that other camera manufacturers can only dream about.

 

[nosmok]

I went to Yosemite last spring with 4x5 and an Oly XA. The XA gives a really good account of itself against a format 12 times or so larger. I like my Leica stuff but for no-hassle carry-around-get-the-shot-I-see-right-now, the XA wins.

 

[BradS]

Try one and you may change your opinion. Some Leicas (not all) are the most tactile beautiful machines you will ever handle and built to a precision that other camera manufacturers can only dream about.

That may very well be true but....it still seems like there is no rational justification for the extraordinary cost of a Leica.

for example, in 2003 (the last time I paid much attention to, or cared about the prices of new 35mm cameras)* a new chrome Nikon FM3a body cost roughly, $570 and a new Leica M6ttl body cost about $2500. As far as I can remember, they are functionally similar. However, the Leica cost more than 4 times as much as the Nikon! I just cannot see how it is possible that the Leica M6 is more than 4 times "better" than the Nikon FM3a. For the cost of the M6 body alone, one could have instead bought four Nikon FM3a bodies and still had enough left over to buy a brand new Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. I do appreciate a beautiful and elegant design...but at a reasonable premium...not, 4x and the Leica is not 4x more beautiful and elegant that the leading Nikon manual focus body of the period. So again, I'm stuck feeling like there is no rational justification for the extraordinary cost of a Leica.

Just for fun, consider that in that same year, the very capable, exceedingly pocket-able, fast handling, intuitive and easy to use, auto focus, auto exposure, point and shoot Olympus Stylus epic, a camera that is still respected and sought after, cost what....$80 ? One could have bought 30 of them for what the Leica M6 body alone cost...yeah, yeah, I can hear all of the Leica and Nikon aficionados howling...I'm just having some fun with this one....but I did have an Olympus point and shoot and it was very capable and I made a bunch of great (to me) photos with it and I never worried about taking it with me in a jacket pocket.

I also remember that, in the not too distant past, a new Wisner 4x5 Technical Field cost about $2500 as did the Canham wood field. A similarly spec'd Ebony SV45Ti cost a little more (I remember around $3200). Yeah, there was a small premium for the Ebony but not 4x. ! Incidentally, I've owned all thee of these cameras. The Wiser and Ebony were beautiful, precise and each was a joy to work with...I really did not get on well with the Canham but it is an engineering marvel and has a beauty and feel of precision all its own. So, I get the tactile beauty thing...but the premium to be paid should be reasonable.


*note: I picked the FM3a and M6 for this example just out of the blue and really, only because I remember the numbers...The Olympus number is admittedly, a wild-ass-guess that I believe is in the ball park.