Why Buy a Leica?

lens_hacker · Jan 6, 2008

> or perhaps I am simply trying to regain my youth

There's a lot to be said about that. Or maybe it's just wanting to know that something from "your era", as "old as you are", can produce fine results. For me, it's a Nikon SP for RF's (as old as I am) and a Nikon F2AS (my era) for an SLR.

And a Leica III and IIIf for something even older than me, M3 and M2 for as "old as I am", and a CL just for fun. Never could get used to the Leicaflex.

IloveTLRs · Jan 6, 2008

DanielOB said:
...
Also consider that Leica is no more what used to be. To get somethig now made is very bad. They turning to mass market, adapting digital media as "photography" for survival reason, and many complains on latest MP and M7. ...

I'm going off slightly on a tangent, but what's wrong with the MP? I know someone who's very interested in buying one.

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

the following is based on my personal experience so i will be more opinionated than usual:

it's not that the Leicas are too expensive, it's that they are not really better than their $30 SLR competition, like the 1970/80s manual focus cameras by Nikon, Minolta, or Olympus. For example, my Nikon FG was only $30 and has lasted almost 30 years and still perfect, with zero maintenance. with SLRs, you can focus so much easier, and you actually know what you're going to get, you can focus much closer and use a wider assortment of lenses. the film is actually easy to load. and the lenses cheap. leica does make better prime lenses now than Nikon since Nikon sort of abandoned fast primes, but now Zeiss is in the game making really nice prime lenses for Nikon SLR system. there's a reason why professionals in the 1960s started going from rangefinders to SLRs en masse, even though the SLRs were bigger and heavier. my FG is just as small as a Leica though, as are the Olympus SLRs.

why so much money for outdated technology? they should at least build a better viewfinder and film loader. more modern ergonomics, matrix metering for slide film, a wireless flash system like Nikon's CLS, the list goes on. they can keep the M7 for the fans, but most people just wants to take pictures without the camera getting in the way, so why should a typical photographer even consider going Leica? It's like buying an expensive mechanical watch when a $10 quartz watch does the job better in every technical way.

leicas are popular with street photographers but often such people get mobbed taking pictures in the cities and get their leicas stolen. besides, the US Government recently banned taking pictures of public places anyway.

for what reasons are Leicas technically better than say a Bessa, or the Zeiss Ikon, or the even cheaper SLR competition? To me Leicas are like toy cameras to play with, but I would pick an SLR for serious work. I would pay maybe $30 for the M7. SLRs are much more fun to shoot with their big what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinders, and make a nice clang! sound when you snap a picture.

Ian Grant · Mar 7, 2008

Well you obviously haven't used one.

Unless you do you won't realise why, I have numerous SLR's but my M3 is very different.

Rather than say why I'll just say I shot some images at a friends wedding about 18 years ago, when the friend saw the images he asked what's that amazing new camera you used, when I said a 1957 Leica he didn't believe me.

A year or so later at another wedding the official photographer screwed up and her images were useless, so my cousin had my Leica snaps instead.

Leica's aren't outdated technology . . . . . . .

Ian

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Ian Grant said:
Rather than say why I'll just say I shot some images at a friends wedding about 18 years ago, when the friend saw the images he asked what's that amazing new camera you used, when I said a 1957 Leica he didn't believe me.

A year or so later at another wedding the official photographer screwed up and her images were useless, so my cousin had my Leica snaps instead.

Leica's aren't outdated technology . . . . . . .

Ian

seems like the person misfocused rather than the fault of the camera. i find SLR viewfinders much easier to focus rather than looking for a tiny patch to align. i sure missed a lot of good shots that way. actually i don't even consider rangefinder viewfinders to be real viewfinders, as it doesn't tell you what you'll actually end up getting. the ONLY technical reason I see for getting a rangefinder is the lack of mirror blackout, which helps in panning, but with practice an SLR can do it well also.

so i wait for somebody to enlighten me what is it they like so much about Leicas, and prefer it over more practical cameras.

the leica lenses seem to have quite a bit of field curvature as well, making these cameras bad for landscapes. the new zeiss 35/2 distagon on a Nikon would be far better optically.

leicas are being displaced as low light cameras as well... by the D3.

Ian Grant · Mar 7, 2008

Are you sure your on the right forum

I use my M3 Leica along side my Canon & Pentax SLR's, a 645 Mamiya, and 5x4 and 10x8 cameras.

Of all my cameras my Leicas are the only Range finder cameras I use but the view finders are accurate, and habve never been a problem in 20+ years. There is definitely no field curvature.

I was a sceptic, and thought the Leica myth was a load of rubbish, then saw some images by a photographer I respected and decided to try for myself.

Yes I can shoot virtually indistinguishable images with my Spotmatics or K mount Pentax's but not at low shutter speeds. You eally do have to try one.

Ian

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Ian Grant said:
Of all my cameras my Leicas are the only Range finder cameras I use but the view finders are accurate, and habve never been a problem in 20+ years. There is definitely no field curvature.

fair enough, i guess it depends on the particular lens that is used.

Yes I can shoot virtually indistinguishable images with my Spotmatics or K mount Pentax's but not at low shutter speeds.

But but... With Vibration Reduction on my SLR, I can get sharp handheld shots at 1s shutter speed on my 28mm lens. =)

I would like to play with the M7, but it seems to have limitations that would prevent it from replacing my SLRs as my main camera. Am I justified in called Leicas toy cameras?

Ian Grant · Mar 7, 2008

30 years ago, I might have said, get real . . .

But it has to be said again, there's no comparison. While you pontificate we'll keep making images.l

I'm not a Leica-phile but I have to say my M3 is far getter than I ever expected it to be. The lenses are about the best I've used for 35mm work.

Ian

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

but the M3 has no meter. having to dial in the meter would make me miss a lot of candid moments. i was at a restaurant using a vintage folder with no meter, and i had to calculate what dial to set it to. i was reasonably fast at it, but then I had to dial it in, wind the film advance, set the aperture, focus the annoyingly tiny rangefinder patch, and by then the waitress was no longer there to take a picture of. anything without a meter is unusable to me!

i need chop chop!

eddym · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
so i wait for somebody to enlighten me what is it they like so much about Leicas, and prefer it over more practical cameras.

Keep on waiting. Nobody owes you enlightenment.

If you tried a Leica and didn't like it, fine, nobody will force you to use one. But plenty of other people have tried Leicas and like them. I think the world is big enough for both groups.

Lee L · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
i need chop chop!

Leicas are mostly designed for photographers who have their own chops or are willing to develop them. For many people, the Leicas are the least amount of camera between them and the shot.

If you want the camera to supply all the chops, use an AF/AE SLR of your choosing.

You shouldn't judge a Leica RF from your experience using a vintage folder.
Sounds to me like you should stick with the D3. If you find the Leicas impractical, slow to use, and don't like the lenses, don't get one.

Lee

Uhner · Mar 7, 2008

I have stayed away from this thread until now, and against better judgement I have decided to make a post.

On the question: Why buy a Leica? The simple answer is: Why not?

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

David H. Bebbington said:
Are you an experienced photographer? Anyone who had used 28, 24 or 20 mm lenses with both RF and SLR cameras would, I think, readily acknowledge that RF focusing is vastly more positive and quicker, whereas it is almost impossible with an SLR to avoid going back and forth over the ideal focusing setting. Depth of field with wide-angle lenses is considerable but not infinite!

i've tried wide 20mm lenses on SLR and it is quite easy to get accurate focus. what you say may be true if you're manual focusing through a dinky DSLR viewfinder, but the manual focus SLRs have big bright finders and plenty of DoF, so you can nail very precise focus with or without the split-image. i find SLR focusing to be much quicker. at certain angles that rangefinder patch isn't even visible. i just have trouble understanding what is so appealing about Leicas.

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Uhner said:
I have stayed away from this thread until now, and against better judgement I have decided to make a post.

On the question: Why buy a Leica? The simple answer is: Why not?

Because they cost a lot of money. There needs to be some kind of justification over a $30 SLR one would think.

Uhner · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
Because they cost a lot of money. There needs to be some kind of justification over a $30 SLR one would think.

Yes, that is a valid opinion. For you…

No offence, but do you think that your opinion is valid for everyone?

Peter Black · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
Because they cost a lot of money. There needs to be some kind of justification over a $30 SLR one would think.

That isn't really a valid argument though, because you could equally say that you don't see the justification for the fully manual (and scarily priced) Olympus OM3 over your $30 SLR. Rangefinders are different and you either like them or you don't, so it's very difficult to tell an SLR user that they may be missing something. Hell, it'd be a boring world if we all liked exactly the same things!

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Peter Black said:
That isn't really a valid argument though, because you could equally say that you don't see the justification for the fully manual (and scarily priced) Olympus OM3 over your $30 SLR. Rangefinders are different and you either like them or you don't, so it's very difficult to tell an SLR user that they may be missing something. Hell, it'd be a boring world if we all liked exactly the same things!

fine, if you want to compare apples, one can ask why one should buy the Leica over the cheaper Zeiss Ikon.

Lee L · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
Because they cost a lot of money. There needs to be some kind of justification over a $30 SLR one would think.

The Nikon D3 you're touting is US$5000 body only, and will be obsolete in a couple of years, and will most certainly die before my 30 year old Leicas. That strikes me as expensive, but I'm not going to demand that you justify it to my satisfaction. It's your choice.

Lee

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Lee L said:
The Nikon D3 you're touting is US$5000 body only, and will be obsolete in a couple of years, and will most certainly die before my 30 year old Leicas. That strikes me as expensive, but I'm not going to demand that you justify it to my satisfaction. It's your choice.

Lee

I shoot B&W film on Nikon manual focus bodies and print in a darkroom, where I eat and sleep, why would I go for a D3? My point was that at least D3 filled a niche in the photographic world, whereas Leica rangefinders don't seem to do anything any better than a Nikon FM or FE. From reading this forum topic (all 25 pages), I get the sense that Leica users love their cameras because they assign deep mystical personal meaning to them, even though a cheap $30 Nikon SLR beats them in every technical aspect and is every bit as durable. Professional photographers in the 60s and 70s seem to agree when they switched from rangefinders to SLRs. Please tell me that I'm missing something here.

Are Leicas great for purely psychological reasons or is there actually a technical reason for using them?

Lee Shively · Mar 7, 2008

cotd--I wrote a lengthy reply to your original post but deleted it because I thought it was rude and your comments were inconsequential anyway, so why bother.

But you obviously have failed to comprehend is the depth to which real-life photographers like--hell, they friggin' love--cameras. And when some jerk starts spouting off, saying their cameras are not worth what they paid for them, it's the equivalent of telling them they married an ugly woman with bad skin and a miserable disposition. They'll jump in your shit in a New York second.

So, if you don't like my camera (or my wife), you should be advised to keep it to yerself, dude.

On an objective basis, you've already proven you have no experience with using Leicas, so what's the value of your opinion on the subject anyway. Hope you enjoyed the trolling.

cotdt · Mar 7, 2008

Lee, your post was reported to the moderators. I have made strong opinions against the Leica M system, but have not personally attacked anyone. I asked for a technical reason why people should buy such a camera. In 25 pages, none was given. So now I am saying that it seems to me there are zero technical reasons to buy a Leica at all, then. Instead of anyone contributing arguments against what I've said, all I get are personal attacks. Are all Leica users this type of people these days? Back then Leicas were used as a professional tool in the 50's, people were much more coolheaded and actually had reasons to use them over the alternatives (due to size and speed advantage). I just don't see that anymore. It seems to be an entirely different group of people now who use Leicas.

I understand that some people do love their cameras, but the OP asked for actual arguments for buying a Leica. Can any Leica user objectively just see their camera as a tool? And objectively evaluate their camera?

I see some posts that say "I've used x, y, and z cameras, but the Leica was my favorite" but then don't say why. I'd like to know the reason.

Lee Shively · Mar 7, 2008

Since you missed it in the 25 previous pages, here goes:

They are small, quiet, lightweight, have tiny lenses that are very sharp, they are quick to use, simple to operate, last forever with minimum care and occasional maintenance, the ergonomics are excellent, the workmanship is old-world craft-like, they don't even require foam light traps due to tolerances being so close and you can buy one today that's 30 years old for less money than a current digital thingy and the Leica will still be working 30 years from now even if you used it hard every day for those 30 years. Enough technical reasons for you?

waynecrider · Mar 7, 2008

I asked for a technical reason why people should buy such a camera. In 25 pages, none was given. So now I am saying that it seems to me there are zero technical reasons to buy a Leica at all,

Late last year I got a Leica camera. I have owned quite a few others in multiple formats but wanted to get a Leica because it is silent; No mirror clack and barely a whisper of curtain movement. I bought it because I didn't want to be heard taking a picture. I also wanted something small, easily pocket-able with small lenses of supreme build and character and a continuous view of the subject without mirror blackout. I also think it is one of those engineered mechanisms that is exciting to use, not boring like a FE or FM or a $30 SLR. ( I think we all have cameras we prefer over others that seldom get used) Yes they all do the same thing, and you can find brands with lenses with just as good if not better sharpness and bokeh, but even tho Leica isn't the tour de-force it was years ago, it still has it's charms for some of us. Btw, I got an M3 and it wasn't that costly.

firecracker · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
...whereas Leica rangefinders don't seem to do anything any better than a Nikon FM or FE. From reading this forum topic (all 25 pages)...

If you're a working pro and have to work in all kinds of environment, including extremely quiet atmosphere, Leica has an extra advantage with its very quiet shutter noise, but the compact Nikon cameras don't. I use a FM and a M3, but I'm just a hobbist, so I can get away with either one, but if I were working with a camera 24hrs and documenting something I'd prefer something different to use, and digital might be a good choice, too, like you said.

But for a general use, including street photography, the FM with a 50mm pancake lens, which I love as much as I do the M3 and a 50mm Summicron combo, is really good. For a wider lens choice, you can get a decent P&S camera (Contax T3 for 35mm or Rich GR1s for 28mm) and use it as a second camera, which makes your kit so small and lightweight.

RoBBo · Mar 7, 2008

waynecrider said:
I have owned quite a few others in multiple formats but wanted to get a Leica because it is silent; No mirror clack and barely a whisper of curtain movement. I bought it because I didn't want to be heard taking a picture. I also wanted something small, easily pocket-able with small lenses of supreme build and character and a continuous view of the subject without mirror blackout.

As sweet as I think Leicas are...
I don't think Leica users understand the meaning of 'silent'.

Why Buy a Leica?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency