• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What fuel Leica hatred...

Anytime a product instills fervor approaching a religious movement, there’s gonna be blowback. Leica isn’t the only one. It’s true of Hasselblad, Deardorff, and others, too. They’re all fine tools, but people get tired of hearing they’re so far superior to other tools that challenging their acolytes is to be expected ( even if the challenges are also overblown).
 
How good is the Chinese 50mm 1.1 in M mount, anyone?
 
faberryman said:
Does anyone else think hate is too strong a term.
Click to expand...
Me. I don't hate Leica, nor the users, although I find waxing lyrical about equipment (of any brand) and attributing mythical properties to it silly.
 
I have a nice m6 but prefer using my f3 - similarly prefer using rb67 over 'Blad 500cm for MF - the m6 and 500cm are fine cams but there's deffo badge tax to be paid if you decide to get one
 
faberryman said:
Does anyone else think hate is too strong a term.
Click to expand...
Yes. Yet another word becoming meaningless through misuse, just as "awesome" has.

Back on topic, part of what we are talking about is the difference between "I have it because it's the best" and "it's the best because I have it". Shoring up an unhealthy ego.
 
darkosaric said:
I needed to google that - thanks for the new info that I have just learned . For me old Leitz lenses are all I need, I am sure that I will never buy Leitz lens younger than 1970 or so.
Click to expand...
I have a 1946 Summitar, I got a very good deal due to separation in the front element - came with perfect glass and coating, that huge barndoor shade (which renders the separation inconsequential), correct front cap, and maybe an original rear cap. I use it on a Canon IIb, and it's just like using a Leica III with a better viewfinder. The Summitar, in the central zone, is at least as sharp as a Summicron, and on the Canon it makes for a delightful pocketable outfit.
 
jjphoto said:
The extreme irrational hatred shown here is the same as the extreme irrational love shown by the Leica lovers that you seem to hate. You guys are as nuts as each other. Weird.
Click to expand...
Please show me where there is any "extreme irrational hatred" in this thread.
 
Interesting discussion.

On the one hand, I don't like it when brand-x nuts tell me that if I don't use brand-x I will fail. Its the nuts who offend, not brand-x.

On the other, why should I care about how other people spend their money (except, of course the truly ill people who spend their money on ineffective remedies when effective ones are available) or, for that matter, what they think about how I spend my money?
 
Who hates Leica? I never own one but I like them. They are pretty. They have very good look and feel. For me that counts for a lot. Why? Because it meant the people who built them put a lot into them whether or not they work and that do mean a lot to me.
 
chip j said:
How good is the Chinese 50mm 1.1 in M mount, anyone?
Click to expand...

I bought a second one. One for monochrome, the other for color. Put it on the M9 once with the Y2 filter still on it... Whoops. I sold a converted 5cm F1.5 Sonnar to pay for the second one. The mount is still being revised, some slight mechanical tolerances on the mount need to be worked out for the M3DS. The original had issues with the M4, that was corrected. I could "file" a fraction of a millimeter if I want to use the new one with my M3DS- something that I've done before with some lenses not fitting a couple of cameras. I suspect that the newest batches of the lens are corected, the company was made aware of the problem and attained an M3DS, as one was offered to be loaned to them.

In addition to using the lens a lot, I did some tripod mounted comparisons with the C-Sonnar, 50/1.1 Nokton, and Jupiter-3+.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Some quick advice: buy a 55->58 step up ring, use 58mm filters and hoods. I noticed some vignetting at the corners when using a 55mm filter AND hood.

This lens is a Sonnar family lens, is an original design. It is NOT a copy of anything. The closest lens to it is the 1950s Zunow 5cm F1.1. The Zunow goes in the $5,000 range. I brought my lens on the M Monochrom to a camera show last week- let the vendors handle it, they were impressed. To quote one of them when I told them "under $400" and "Like the Zunow", the reply- "Do you know what that lens is worth!".

As far as relevance to this thread- YES, there is a minority of Leica users that have quipped "if you don't use a Leica lens on your Leica camera you are missing the point of using a Leica". To that I usually reply, "you are missing out on using some of the best lenses made over the last 85 years". Sometimes add "the problem with Leica is that they never made a Sonnar. Fortunately, other companies came to the rescue."
 
Last edited:
Dali said:
Look for the new Thambar 2.2/90mm pages on the Leica site... Clearly we don't talk photography anymore. $6,500 a pop to get blurry pictures? Come on...
Click to expand...

Clearly is the only one thing. You are summarising without knowledgeable thinking. And I'm here to help you.

Leica has most fancy and not very expensive Instax cameras. Their Summarit-M lenses are not very expensive, as well. Especially if you know something about quality of the build and handling.
Their Q and M series cameras are not terribly expensive comparing to other high-end cameras.
Especially M-series for only one digital rangefinder camera made in the world, plus made in Germany. Plus, any M digital camera ever made and still made works perfectly with old cheap, non Leica RF lenses. Like 9$ FSU lens.
And it works way better, with older small RF lenses comparing to Sony FF, especially wide ones.

You also have to understand what Leica is the only one camera gear maker who is considered by some wealthy people as brand compatible with their social status. Those people have nothing to do with photography.
They could own Ferrari by same time, but they have nothing to do with ultimate driving. So, Leica is also the sign of the income status. Those owners of Leica cameras and lenses are 99.99% giftless in photography. They are genius on money making. And Leica products is their toy. Nothing wrong with it. They are not buying Leica lenses for photography, but to keep their social status and show it. Buying this Trabant IQ lens, those with money are buying prestige. And here is nothing wrong with Leica to keep customers like this satisfied.
Leica never was charity for low income arts students, it was and always will be bussiness for money. And from this POV, it is genois. Crappy lens for huge price sold for rich people. People are happy, Leica is in profit. Nothing wrong with it.

If you want to learn about Leica and photography visit Leica Blog or check my Flickr
 
chip j said:
How good is the Chinese 50mm 1.1 in M mount, anyone?
Click to expand...

It is soft wide open. And it almost one pound heavy and huge comparing to more regular RF lenses. So, if you like workout while photographing for bokeh and portraits were only one eyelash is in focus, it is your lens.
I have Jupiter-3 instead. But I'm into photography of people portraits in focus, not bokeh
 
7Artisans 50/1.1, wide-open, Leica M Monochrom at ISO 5000.

Wide-Open, Skylight filter by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

At ISO 10,000.

Wide-Open by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

It was dark. I'm pretty good at focusing on eye-lashes.

I also have several Jupiter-3's and a $9 Industar-26m that is quite good, after a full CLA and custom-shimming for the Leica.

At $369, it's a full-stop faster than the J-3. The prices J-3's in clean condition are ~$200, figure the J-3 will need a CLA and will need to be adjusted for the Leica.

Jupiter-3, wide-open,

L1007938-Edit by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

After a LOT of work to reposition the helical into the mount so that it would focus to infinity, clean filings out of it left in at time of manufacture, shim, and lube:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157661572992234/with/33779612050/

If you see a Zunow 5cm F1.1 in Leica mount for $400- grab it. The 7Artisans is better, but the Zunow is worth more.
 
Last edited:
the weird twist to all the frenzied brand worship + hatred
is the people who worship and hate always believe xyz brand
is some sort of silver bullet that will make their imaginations or
skills work on hyperdrive but it never ends up being like that ...
 
Thanks, folks, for the Chinese 1.1 info. My friend is waiting for one + a DS M3.
 
It's strange but although I'm not interested in Leica M RF cameras, much prefer reflex viewing in 35mm, I'm still glad they have survived and are apparently doing well. They are probably the only company that has the guts to still make and sell an all mechanical 35mm camera, meterless no less, and it's 2017. I would be sad if they went out of business like so many other old line camera makers.

Full disclosure;
I have an M4-2, you see I got a really good deal on a CV 35mm f2.5 PII and needed a body to shoot it on. Obvious I'm not a fanboy, my other lens for the camera is a 52mm f2.8 FSU lens that was $12, shipping included from Latvia.
 
Last edited:
Veblen goods... I've seen that phrase from time to time, so yesterday I looked it up to see what it means... a luxury item that people desire more and more as the price rises and rises.

Versace... Lamborghini... Leica...

Leica has become a stylish item! Now it's all about the glamorous and exclusive image that the camera imparts to its owner, rather than the images made by the camera. Who knew? All these years I thought Leicas were fine cameras and lenses that were priced quite a bit higher than most because they took sharper pictures, were made of metal instead of plastic, and were assembled very slowly in small batches by a few high-paid Germans rather than very quickly in high volumes by many low-paid Chinese.

Five decades ago my dad gave me his Contax IIIA, so using a rangefinder has always seemed natural. Over the years I've used many other types of cameras, but in 1998 I took the plunge, got a new M6 with a few second-hand lenses and happily clicked away for another 15 years or so. Then came digital. DSLR's work great but are too bulky for me and pocket digicams have their limits, so I watched the progress of the digital Leicas with interest. Eventually, since I already had the M lenses, I acquired an old Epson R-D1 which has been lots of fun to use but a bit frustrating with only 6mp resolution.

So I finally broke down and went for a second-hand Leica M262. Does that give me a stylish image? To me it's just a fine camera that makes satisfying images. What more does it need to be?

Veblen goods indeed. I wonder what will happen to the Leica M when the generations raised on manual focus finally pass away.
 
Leica used to be the camera of choice for grizzly greybeards, not they're more likely to be owned by a 17 year old from the Far East, who'll have three (an M7, a double stroke M3 and an M10, plus lots of glass). I liked my M5 but couldn't justify the price of a Summicron and getting into a fourth system, especially as I treat my film cameras with a distinct lack of kid gloves. It's a pity Leica has no competition in the optical rangefinder digital camera market, because I reckon it's possible to have all the quality at half the price. End of the day I reckon any photo fetishism should go into the finished print, not the box that made it.
 
Anon Ymous said:
Me. I don't hate Leica, nor the users, although I find waxing lyrical about equipment (of any brand) and attributing mythical properties to it silly.
Click to expand...

I do not hate Leicas, I like the feel and operation, but I have more of the features I want in SLRs and Leica never made a great SLR. Minolta did.

I find waxing lyrical and eloquent about Hasselblads wonderful because I do not have to claim anything mythical about them since the Hasselblad system is so innately great.
 
I’d gladly give someone driving a chrome Lamborghini the bird. It’s the whole 1% thing for me. Does it make me ‘inadequate’, maybe.

I have two Leicas, maybe someone else will give me the bird! But then mine arent gilded with gold or a ‘statement’, just little cameras that are slightly too heavy.

I don’t hate any brand/company, but i do hate super consumerism and the massive and ever escalating inequality all around us. We’re slaves to billionaires whilst our resources are consumed at lightning pace.

Sometimes Leica as a brand is just another trophy like chrome Lamborghinis, so i can understand why it might induce the ire of some.

There’s a reason so many obsess about covering the red dot and imo its a kind of shame at owning a little piece of that whole picture.
 
c41 said:
There’s a reason so many obsess about covering the red dot and imo its a kind of shame at owning a little piece of that whole picture.
Click to expand...
If not shame, then embarrassment. DAG has made a fair amount of money selling black dots. Something or another about discretion.
 
My purpose is not to denigrate anyone who owns a Leica. Owning one myself (no “education”needed, thanks), I am badly placed to do it ... After all, everyone uses his money as he wants. In fact, I do not aim at users here but at a brand that uses his photographic aura to promote articles that have no connection with photography anymore but more with the cult of the brand and the promotion of bad taste chic. I mentioned the Thambar, others invoked the 5.6 / 28mm Summaron lens ($ 2,500, a gift in comparison!) But I could also refer to the limited serie "Lenny Kravitz" and other nonsense.

Anyone who really loves Leica should be stunned by a brand that clearly maintains the ambiguity between real dedication to photography and unqualified flattery for a nouveau riche clientele. Sad.
 
Leica depends equally upon the money of the status seekers and the validation of the serious photographers to keep themselves in business. A strange fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register