Why Buy a Leica?

fotch · Aug 22, 2010

takef586 said:
And lastly, it might be fun to read this article to find out the answer:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html

Nice read, thanks for posting.

fotch · Aug 22, 2010

benjiboy said:
I wouldn't give a lot of money for any 35mm camera any more when even a medium priced medium format camera gives much better image quality, especially when you consider how cheap they are second hand even Hasselblads.

By that logic, skip the little Hasselblad and get a view camera, they are ever better bargins and give a far better image quality than 6x6.

The 35mm RF is a tool and larger cameras are not usually a good substitute.

MaximusM3 · Aug 22, 2010

benjiboy said:
I wouldn't give a lot of money for any 35mm camera any more when even a medium priced medium format camera gives much better image quality, especially when you consider how cheap they are second hand even Hasselblads.

Maybe, but that's not quite the point. Different animals for different uses. The nice thing about Leica and its lenses, is that one can still turn out beautiful landscape/portrait images and be nimble enough to use in street situations. The reverse is not true. I shoot Rolleiflex and a Contax 645 as well but it goes without saying that those just won't do it on the street when you need to be stealth, quick, light, and with enough DOF to catch that moment.

benjiboy · Aug 22, 2010

fotch said:
By that logic, skip the little Hasselblad and get a view camera, they are ever better bargins and give a far better image quality than 6x6.

The 35mm RF is a tool and larger cameras are not usually a good substitute.

View cameras need tripods, little M/F cameras are as quick and easy to operate as a 35mm range finder camera.

fotch · Aug 22, 2010

benjiboy said:
View cameras need tripods, little M/F cameras are as quick and easy to operate as a 35mm range finder camera.

OK, Press Camera.

Anyway, when you slip you Hassy in your pocket, is it noticeable?

blockend · Aug 22, 2010

benjiboy said:
View cameras need tripods, little M/F cameras are as quick and easy to operate as a 35mm range finder camera.

There's a guy shoots street portraits on a hand-held 10 x 8" Deardorff. Got biceps like Arnie too I bet.

Robert Budding · Aug 22, 2010

I've always dreamed of owning a Hermes edition in Ostrich leather. A perfect match with my Ostrich cowboy boots and belt!

MaximusM3 · Aug 22, 2010

benjiboy said:
View cameras need tripods, little M/F cameras are as quick and easy to operate as a 35mm range finder camera.

Please define "LITTLE" M/F cameras and one that is as easy and quick to operate as a Leica M.

davela · Aug 23, 2010

All Leica's are exceptionally well made cameras that just "feel good" in the hands of the user. The early M models are unmatched as rangefinders in my view. The M2, M3, and M4 are all amazing cameras that grow on you. The M3 DS is the finest rangefinder I've ever touched. These are not that expensive compared with newer cameras of the same caliber.

benjiboy · Aug 23, 2010

fotch said:
OK, Press Camera.

Anyway, when you slip you Hassy in your pocket, is it noticeable?

I don't have a Hassy, It's a Mamiya, and It's noticeable but only when I'm pleased to see Ya.

perkeleellinen · Aug 23, 2010

I traded my Leica a few weeks ago and I don't miss it very much.

Having read so much great stuff about Leicas online for years and in magazines before that, my experience has been one of being underwhelmed most of the time. I tried hard to love the Leica but when I shot with the thing there was little practical difference between it and any of my other cameras - except they have simpler film loading designs and built in meters. One good thing was that they seem to hold their value, in fact I may have made a slight profit. So farewell Leica, it wasn't for me.

My advice to anyone thinking of buying one would be to try and borrow or rent one if you can as the hype can be seductive and the camera may not live up to the heightened expectations.

Steve Roberts · Aug 24, 2010

My thoughts are largely as per the last comment. I have a 1935 Leica III. With an engineering background, I appreciate the workmanship that went into manufacturing it and no doubt it was a radical and convenient design in its day compared to the opposing manufacturers' offerings and formats. I view mine much as I view an Austin Ruby compared to a Ford Mondeo - the Ruby might be fun to take out from time to time for a drive over the moors when the mood takes me and I'm not in a rush, but if I was headed up the motorway, I'd go for the Mondeo.

I bought my Leica when I was feeling a bit flush and stumped up for a full service, which included re-coating a couple of the Summitar's elements. It's nice to have what is undoubtedly a photographic icon, but by no means essential and IMHO there are a lot of much more modern cameras out there that can produce equally good results much more conveniently in packages not much bigger and at far less cost.

Steve (as well)

nolanr66 · Sep 9, 2010

I used to stop into Camera West in Monterey and I always enjoyed looking at the vast Leica collection at the store. They moved out around Palm Springs so I will most likely not see many Leica camera's from now on. I shoot Nikons myself and see no reason to start up another lengthy spending spree.

lensworker · Sep 11, 2010

Tom Duffy said:
The Leica rangefinder is the extremely rare confluence of the mechanical, optical, ergonometric and aesthetic. The Leica rangefinder is the only camera with a soul. If you don't understand that, then don't buy one.

Take care,
Tom

P.S. Unlike the Bessa, they are also made by little elves in the Black Forest.

What he said.

With some careful shopping, you can get a nice clean used M6 classic (no TTL, please) or an M4P (no M4, please) and a 50mm or 35mm Summicron for somewhere between the cost of a Nikon D300s and a D700.

You will have also avoided all the digital hoopla. There will be no two hours per image of slaving away at your computer (there's that legendary "digital speed and convenience," LOL) trying to produce an image that one frame of Velvia or Tri-X and a Leica will produce in 1/125th of a second.

In the end, you will end up with prints at 11x14 or even larger that will blow away inkjet prints. Of course, a Nikon D3x with a 24.5mp full frame sensor will produce tack sharp barn sized prints - but so what?? For $7400US, it should.

Then again, how many barn sized prints does a person need? How many can they sell?

Do yourself a favor - take five minutes to read this essay on the Leica M cameras - it will give you a new perspective on why people are so dedicated to these cameras and lenses:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...grapher/2009/05/why-it-has-to-be-a-leica.html

An excerpt -

...A used M6 goes for between $1000 to $1200, give or take, and won't depreciate much (if at all) in a year. How much interest would your bank give you right now for keeping that grand parked in a savings account for that period of time? I don't know if you've checked interest rates recently, but the answer is "not very much." At the end of the year you'll lose maybe $100, counting shipping and Ebay fees and lost bank interest, maybe $200 if you're unlucky and/or impatient. Dave Terrell recounts, in the comments to the previous post, how he used some Leica gear for four years and came out $140 ahead.

The same has been true for me. I've owned three Leicas at various times over the years, and I made money on two of them. Not much, but the upshot was that the three together ended up not costing me a dime to own and shoot with for a while. Not a dime. (Wish I could say the same for my digital cameras, which have collectively depreciated more than enough to cover a nice Leica and a good lens.)

Why Buy a Leica?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency